Intelligence is an Evolutionary Dead End

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Cat Not Included

Outside of humans, what species that appear to be reasonably intelligent (for example, crows) have caused outcomes that have been bad for them as a species?

I think there's a point where intelligence allows the species to far exceed its ability, and that's the kind of intelligence I mean.

If we were still all hunter-gatherers with a ~40-year lifespan I doubt any of the current species-threatening events would be possible.

Originally Posted by Cat Not Included

Lots of species go extinct.

A lot more than are alive right now, for sure.

The ironic thing to me is that humans are a very new species in geological terms, and it looks like we might be one the shortest-lived. A million years is a blink when coelocanths, tuatara and others have been around for over 100 times that.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by theprestige

LOL "overpopulation". We have not even begun to overpopulate.

We are already overpopulated, and are currently in a period of population overshoot. This is nothing to be worried about. The populations of many western countries are already decreasing, and this will occur worldwide as living standards improve. Better living conditions also contribute to higher intelligence - so in the future there will be less of us but we will be smarter, and also wiser due to having more collective knowledge.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If we were still all hunter-gatherers with a ~40-year lifespan I doubt any of the current species-threatening events would be possible.

Which 'species-threatening' events? I can think of a couple:-

Ice age: We nixxed that with global warming (a little too much of it, but still...).

Asteroid impact: Our intelligence is what is will prevent the next one.

If you are talking about things like nuclear war or global warming, we have avoided one and are working on the other. In both cases our intelligence is what is saving us from making fatal mistakes. Sure it's getting us into trouble, but it's also getting us out of it. And we are gaining knowledge all the time. We have the knowledge and intelligence to deal with 'species-threatening' events that less intelligent species wouldn't see coming or figure out how to overcome.

If intelligence was an evolutionary dead end it would have never arisen or died out millions of years ago, when in fact it has constantly increased in multiple evolutionary branches. Now humans have taken it to the next level, using language to share knowledge and combine our individual intelligences at a pace that biological evolution could not hope to achieve.

When we were a few hunter-gathers with little knowledge of what was going on around us and barely enough intelligence to figure out which berries to eat, it wouldn't have taken much to wipe us out. But we are billions, with enough collective knowledge and combined intelligence to weather all but the most extreme extinction level events. 99% of the world's population could be wiped out and still be larger - and smarter - than those hunter-gatherers who only lived for ~40 years.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The ironic thing to me is that humans are a very new species in geological terms, and it looks like we might be one the shortest-lived. A million years is a blink when coelocanths, tuatara and others have been around for over 100 times that.

So what? The Earth has existed 10 times longer than coelocanths. Just because we are 'new' doesn't mean we don't have a long future ahead of us. Every species (even the coelacanth) was there once.

The oldest fossils that can confidently be called tuatara are only about 30,000 years old. Humans have been around longer!

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Cat Not Included

"weaker" is an extremely relative term. More variety gives more genetic diversity. "Strength" is only relative to a specific environment, and overspecialization can be devastating to a species when something changes the environment.

I mean weaker in the sense that the surviving person, and possibly that persons offspring, rely on medical science to survive.

In a sense, it could be argued that a person with a defect, that relies on modern medicine to rectify, is evolving into an environment that suits his evolutionary state.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Darat

Probably happens already, after a brief explosion of high powered analogue broadcasts digital, directed signals will take over which are less powerful in terms of broadcasting.

Probably the thing we couldn’t hide would be the change in our atmosphere caused by industrialisation, but I don’t know what the theoretical limits in terms of distance would be for detecting such a change.

Ah yeah you're right, there's no hiding that.

I suspect it would be,
as fast..
as spectroscopy,

Sorry heh, ignore me.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I think there's a point where intelligence allows the species to far exceed its ability, and that's the kind of intelligence I mean.

If we were still all hunter-gatherers with a ~40-year lifespan I doubt any of the current species-threatening events would be possible.

I've heard you say we already passed peak humanity long ago.

When do you think that was?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Venom

I've heard you say we already passed peak humanity long ago.

When do you think that was?

1980

[Olmstead]

The dinosaurs deserve another shot anyway. They were totally killing it before the universe decided to yank their controller away.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

1980

Why ? Peak of what ? As for people alive we are still increasing. CO2 production as well. We also improve average quality of life, and by a lot. I think the peak will be our last day.

PS: I mean sure, anime is not as good today. But there I would place the peak to 90s

[Pixel42]

I think the jury is still out on whether intelligence is an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. The downsides are mostly unintended consequences of the upsides - doubling average life expectancy and reducing child mortality from 50% to less than 5% inevitably resulted in an increase in population, beyond the number for whom the benefits of civilisation can be sustainably maintained. Intelligence may yet, however, be what finds us solutions to those problems.

One thing that would tip the balance in favour of intelligence being an evolutionary advantage would be if we used it to survive a natural disaster that would otherwise wipe us out, e.g. if we were able to divert an asteroid that would otherwise have hit the earth.

[The Great Zaganza]

For something to be a Dead End, it would have to lead to the extinction of its species.
It's not likely that humans will go extinct in the next 10,000 years.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

What other possibilities are there ?

Haven't read the thread beyond this post --- I will, later when I have time --- but surely the answer is, we neither go gallivanting across space (beyond merely nosing around just a bit, like we're doing now, not colonizing I mean to say), nor do we "destroy ourselves". We learn to live more or less sustainably. So that we live far more comfortably than if we'd not been intelligent, we thrive lots more than we'd have done had we not been intelligent, but yet after a while we die out, go extinct, not on account of our intelligence but due to natural causes --- either because of climate change in spite of our best efforts, climate change not releated to human intelligence and technology, climate change beyond our ability to adapt; or maybe some huge meteor strike that our technology could not prevent; or maybe way way later when our Sun cools off or goes nova or whatever; or any other "natural" extinction scenario, either us humans as a species, or maybe all of earth life.

That's probably the sanest option, if only we can get to it: basically the equivalent of living a full life, an intelligent life, and then, one day, not killing ourselves, not dying because of unhealthy living, but just dying of natural causes, as all life tends to do. In any case, best or not, "sanest" or not, that's your very obvious "other possibility".

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

For something to be a Dead End, it would have to lead to the extinction of its species.
It's not likely that humans will go extinct in the next 10,000 years.

I'd say, the extinction of the trait. Which, I guess means the same thing, since we'd almost certainly consider post-intelligent humans to be a different species from Homo sapiens.

But even then... Is extinction necessary to the definition? There's probably any number of extant mutations that no longer or never did materially contribute to the survival of a particular species (or species line), that are getting carried along by the success of other mutations in the same organism. Evolutionarily, they're dead ends, but they're still around anyway.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

That's probably the sanest option, if only we can get to it: basically the equivalent of living a full life, an intelligent life, and then, one day, not killing ourselves, not dying because of unhealthy living, but just dying of natural causes, as all life tends to do. In any case, best or not, "sanest" or not, that's your very obvious "other possibility".

I don't see that as probable. We will try to colonize .. and sooner or later we will be successful.

[steenkh]

Extinction or total colonisation is what happens to non-intelligent species. Only intelligence is able to stop before either.

Every species we know of will fill its niche to the fullest, which means it will stop when a lack of space or food causes the excess population to die off. Extinction can happen when the species destroys its own niche, or an outside catastrophe happens. Both events can be averted by using intelligence - although there is guarantee.

Whenever extraterrestrial intelligence is discussed, it is always assumed that it will be like terrestrial intelligence, ie it will be as interested in discovering and being discovered as we are, and that it will be as susceptible as we are to empire-building. I can’t see why.

Life on Earth is wildly different between species (see animals vs plants), and there is no reason why intelligence could also be wildly different. It is furthermore not obvious that intelligence equals power to change its environment.

Extraterrestrial intelligence might have achieved equilibrium, and might be uninterested in expansion, and discovery.

On the other hand, extraterrestrial intelligence might also be a sci-fi nightmare, and it wants to keep us in the dark before it strikes …

[Navigator]

The Fermi is basing its assumptions on advanced species racing to populate the galaxy with life, whereas there is no reason to think that is necessarily the case.
Intelligence of that magnitude may understand that there is no reason to rush things.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rjh01

If humans were a slightly more aggressive species then we would have wiped out ourselves using nuclear weapons. If we were less aggressive we would not have evolved so far.

There are plenty of things that spur evolutionary advances besides aggression. Migrating out of Africa comes to mind.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I've long been of the opinion that intelligence is an evolutionary dead end, but for a different reason. Intelligence means that we are modifying our environment to suit ourselves, rather than evolving to suit our environment. Evolution is more or less stable when you don't have to adapt to a changing environment, and it is by technology, rather than by biological adaptation, that humans have occupied all kinds of terrain and climate.

Biological evolution among humans is slow due to our slow reproductive rate. Technology doesn't slow it further. You may not be seeing human evolution but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

For some things we are actually changing people's genomes, say to cure genetic diseases. That person will now pass on the repaired gene, not the defective one. Advances in gene manipulation might speed human evolution up, but not necessarily narrow it.

And take for example, that person who is now dependent upon insulin. Could be that person has a particular genetic variation that will survive the next pandemic. Genetic variation within slowly reproducing lifeforms (like us) is necessary to adapt to future toxin exposures. Quickly reproducing lifeforms can rely on mutations occurring after the toxin enters the environment.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

... My premise was always that intelligence inevitably leads to outcomes that are bad for survival as a species. We extend life expectancy by 30 years and create over-population. We get lazy and create pollution and carbon emissions. We want to grow food by the easiest method and contaminate the tiny layer of soil we rely on. We use pesticides and kill pollinators....

In that scenario it's akin to an arms race. We fix the problems we create eventually. We might lose the race or we might get ahead of the problems we're creating.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

On another tack, it occurs to me that our intelligent application of science, to medicine and surgical intervention, ensures that weaker people survive, thus ensuring the survival of these weaknesses.

This is a tunnel vision POV. All those interventions address single areas of said human weaknesses but they allow more genetic variation to survive within a population. And more recently we are able to correct genetic defects.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I think it's very clear that antibiotic resistance is going to cause major trouble during this century.

Another arms race. We might be losing in the short run but that doesn't mean we won't get ahead in the long run.

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I think the jury is still out on whether intelligence is an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. The downsides are mostly unintended consequences of the upsides - doubling average life expectancy and reducing child mortality from 50% to less than 5% inevitably resulted in an increase in population, beyond the number for whom the benefits of civilisation can be sustainably maintained. Intelligence may yet, however, be what finds us solutions to those problems.

One thing that would tip the balance in favour of intelligence being an evolutionary advantage would be if we used it to survive a natural disaster that would otherwise wipe us out, e.g. if we were able to divert an asteroid that would otherwise have hit the earth.

This ^

[The Great Zaganza]

Intelligence is undoubtedly an evolutionary advantage, as it allows an organism to colonize niches that would be inaccessible to just random chance within the timeframe of a species' existence.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Whenever extraterrestrial intelligence is discussed, it is always assumed that it will be like terrestrial intelligence, ie it will be as interested in discovering and being discovered as we are, and that it will be as susceptible as we are to empire-building. I can’t see why.

Not only that, it will also speak almost perfect American English!

Can you guess why? Because we're lonely.

Quote:

Extraterrestrial intelligence might have achieved equilibrium, and might be uninterested in expansion, and discovery.

On the other hand, extraterrestrial intelligence might also be a sci-fi nightmare, and it wants to keep us in the dark before it strikes …

Intelligent species are usually at the top of the food chain. But really intellegent species don't hunt their prey, they farm them. And the prey think the farmers are looking after them, right up until...

If aliens attack us we will know they aren't too bright. The aliens we really should be worried about are those who seem to be benevolent.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

The aliens we really should be worried about are those who seem to be benevolent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Intelligent species are usually at the top of the food chain. But really intellegent species don't hunt their prey, they farm them. And the prey think the farmers are looking after them, right up until...

I don’t disagree with you, but I will again point out that this assumes that extraterrestrial life, and intelligent extraterrestrial life, has a food chain, i.e. life eats other life, like we know from Earth. But it does not have to be like that. Most plant life on Earth, for instance, does not eat other life.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Intelligence is undoubtedly an evolutionary advantage, as it allows an organism to colonize niches that would be inaccessible to just random chance within the timeframe of a species' existence.

Sure. Question is if it's dead end though.
We are already at stage where we can destroy our civilization in minutes. And we are getting even more powerful, like with AI and genetic engineering.
That requires intelligence. But misusing the technologies does not. The stupidest people will wield the most powerful tools. Disaster is right out inevitable.
Only question remains if it will happen before we colonize other planets, which could allow humanity to survive.

[Wudang]

A problem I've suspected with the Fermi paradox since reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond is that the step from a civilization to a technological civilization may be rated far higher than may be the case. Would we have developed a technological civilization without the reservoirs of fossil fuels and before that suitably domesticable animals to provide power to free up people with leisure time to pursue inventions, improvements etc?

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Wudang

A problem I've suspected with the Fermi paradox since reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond is that the step from a civilization to a technological civilization may be rated far higher than may be the case. Would we have developed a technological civilization without the reservoirs of fossil fuels and before that suitably domesticable animals to provide power to free up people with leisure time to pursue inventions, improvements etc?

The Fermi paradox simply requires updating because it is based upon old ideas and accompanying presumptions.

To the point, since the time it was first tabled, human beings are racing - relatively thoughtlessly - toward some unpredictable future - There appears to have been no "slow down and remain calm" and this is transferred/projected into the notion that a more advanced specie would be responding to the universe in a likewise manner.

More to that point, it is reasonable to think that such a specie would have got to the point of being able to travel the Galaxy, by having worked out how to slow down, and proceed at an orderly pace, aligned with the nature of the universe, also moving in a non-panicky manner...

There is no hurry re the process of supporting the seeding of life and sentience throughout the Galaxy.

[GDon]

The galaxy is about 100,000 light years wide from memory. Assuming that aliens could create probes that travel at 10% of the speed of light, it would take a million years for the probes to be everywhere throughout the galaxy. Or, assuming 1% of the speed of light, 10 million years.

Assume 10 million years of evolution required to develop the necessary intelligence and technology, then that's a total of 20 million years. Given the age of the universe, if they existed, they are here already. Whether they want to be seen is another question. If they didn't want to be seen, they won't be seen.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by GDon

The galaxy is about 100,000 light years wide from memory. Assuming that aliens could create probes that travel at 10% of the speed of light, it would take a million years for the probes to be everywhere throughout the galaxy. Or, assuming 1% of the speed of light, 10 million years.

Assume 10 million years of evolution required to develop the necessary intelligence and technology, then that's a total of 20 million years. Given the age of the universe, if they existed, they are here already. Whether they want to be seen is another question. If they didn't want to be seen, they won't be seen.

If they don't want to be seen, there will be an intelligent reason as to why they would prefer to work in the background.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Intelligence is undoubtedly an evolutionary advantage, as it allows an organism to colonize niches that would be inaccessible to just random chance within the timeframe of a species' existence.

It does allow a species to colonize new niches. But, it is also costly, as an intelligent organism has to consume more calories to maintain a higher brain function. (After all if greater intelligence were always better we would see a lot smarter animals out there )

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

It does allow a species to colonize new niches. But, it is also costly, as an intelligent organism has to consume more calories to maintain a higher brain function. (After all if greater intelligence were always better we would see a lot smarter animals out there )

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

and an intelligent organism can find sources of food a non-intelligent couldn't.

[The Great Zaganza]

There is simply NO RATIONAL REASON for a high-tech civilization to colonize its galaxy, let alone try to do that as fast as possible.
Neither would such a civilization need to visit solar systems to find out anything relevant about them.
The logical thing to do is to stay in your own solar system and use up the resources present until their Star is about to go Nova and then relocate.

The whole Fermi Paradox concept is based on the faulty assumption that Space Exploration would be EXACTLY like the discovery of the Americas by Europeans.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

It does allow a species to colonize new niches. But, it is also costly, as an intelligent organism has to consume more calories to maintain a higher brain function. (After all if greater intelligence were always better we would see a lot smarter animals out there ) ...

I highlighted the problem there. It need not "always" be better to still be better in some species.

And it turns out a number of species are more intelligent than we previously believed.

Then there is the observation that as the most intelligent species on the planet we dominate all the rest.

[The Great Zaganza]

The common argument why Humans are so much more intelligent than any other land-dwelling animal is that they had to compete with other humans, not other species, in their environment. Because this, it is likely that "there can be only one" when it comes to high intelligence in any ecological niche.

[GDon]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

There is simply NO RATIONAL REASON for a high-tech civilization to colonize its galaxy, let alone try to do that as fast as possible.

Intelligence + curiosity = exploration. No need to colonise the galaxy, but simply send out self-reproducing probes, travelling at 1% of the speed of light.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

There is simply NO RATIONAL REASON for a high-tech civilization to colonize its galaxy, let alone try to do that as fast as possible.
Neither would such a civilization need to visit solar systems to find out anything relevant about them.
The logical thing to do is to stay in your own solar system and use up the resources present until their Star is about to go Nova and then relocate.

The whole Fermi Paradox concept is based on the faulty assumption that Space Exploration would be EXACTLY like the discovery of the Americas by Europeans.

There is sense to this understanding.

Why would those who can, invest in setting up on Mars, when they have this incredible planet already under their feet?

In part - the investment into such projects are survival-based and align with the concept of seeding life into the Galaxy.

This requires foresight and forethought which translates into using ones financial resources and brain resources to at least build into the process, safeguards which can at least potentially ensure the survival of said seed, to be planted out at a much later date in the future

So investment is made, in rocket research, luxurious and functional underground 'bunkers' and other strongholds intended to keep the dysfunctional opposition to that agenda, at a safe arms length...

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Navigator

There is sense to this understanding.

Why would those who can, invest in setting up on Mars, when they have this incredible planet already under their feet?

In part - the investment into such projects are survival-based and align with the concept of seeding life into the Galaxy.

This requires foresight and forethought which translates into using ones financial resources and brain resources to at least build into the process, safeguards which can at least potentially ensure the survival of said seed, to be planted out at a much later date in the future

So investment is made, in rocket research, luxurious and functional underground 'bunkers' and other strongholds intended to keep the dysfunctional opposition to that agenda, at a safe arms length...

and, most importantly, the fruits of such efforts will never, ever, benefit the origin system - the costs of transporting resources between solar systems will always exceed the possible gains from doing so;
unless they got Unobtanium.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

and, most importantly, the fruits of such efforts will never, ever, benefit the origin system - the costs of transporting resources between solar systems will always exceed the possible gains from doing so;
unless they got Unobtanium.

This depends mostly on what is meant by "The Original System"

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Navigator

This depends mostly on what is meant by "The Original System"

even just planet is enough: getting stuff out of and back into gravity wells is incredibly inefficient in the absence of Space Elevators - which might or might not be actually possible.

If we start mining the Solar System, we would assemble the materials in space, not send them back groundside.

[dann]

Dolphins, octopuses, parrots and crows seem to be doing fine. Bonobos and chimps not no much, but that's probably because they aren't top primate.
Thumbs seem to be the problem, not intelligence.
Global warming is a sign of too little intelligence. Look at the silly arguments for continuing to abuse fossil fuels, the silly people who come up with those arguments and the silly people who believe them.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by GDon

Intelligence + curiosity = exploration. No need to colonise the galaxy, but simply send out self-reproducing probes, travelling at 1% of the speed of light.

"Self-reproducing" in alien environments might not be possible without intelligence.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by rjh01

There is another possibility. Intelligent life does exist elsewhere. The problem is that going from one star to another in this region is impossible. Radio communication is also impossible as it is not designed to travel several light years and still be heard above background levels.

On long enough time scales the stars come to you.

But if that's how galactic colonization occurs then it's also an answer to the Fermi paradox as it's slow enough that the galaxy wouldn't be full yet.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm not following you. What I'm describing is not any kind of event or filter, just the idea that evolution would stop affecting the human species.

I don't think it works. We are still reproducing, and there are still some selection pressures going on. The fact that the old selection pressures are gone doesn't mean that there are none.