Need some plausible answer on this part of human evolution

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I appreciate anything any of you can give me to look at on this one.

So human beings are unique. We are set apart from any other creature on earth. Every creature has developed unique features in order to survive as we.

However I don't understand why we would evolve into such intelligent creatures that we would learn to actually munipulate our environment and such as almost a means to cause our own demise.

Okay so we advanced in medicine and such which has also has alot of negatives effects which could be construed as nature balancing itself.
For example: We discover antibiotics which doctors now believe are actually causing new illnesses that are resistant. We discover cars and other means to make life much easier and doctors believe it all promotes obesity which is now one of the number killers. Also not to mention the effects it all has on the environment which we live which causes other sicknesses. It seems a constant cycle of nature but.....

Unlike in our history we now have the means to wipe out entire populations also with the single push of a button perhaps.

I'm trying to grasp how our evolution of intelligence would always coincide with survival. Why do we just keep evolving as a matter of survival when it seems our own intelligence works against us? Confused

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,071 • Replies: 12

No top replies

Wait,
Our brain has evolved , intelligence, not so much.

0 Replies

Re: Need some plausible answer on this part of human evoluti

azure wrote:

I'm trying to grasp how our evolution of intelligence would always coincide with survival. Why do we just keep evolving as a matter of survival when it seems our own intelligence works against us?

i think you're assuming that evolution always results in organisms that are fitter. since it's a random process, it merely produces organisms that are different, then it's natural selection that determines which ones survive. in the case of our species, the jury's out as to whether it survives, by producing daughter species for example.

0 Replies

The answer might lie with the specific development of language. One view is that "words" are co-ordinators of "action" including "thinking". This in essence allows neural activity to "map" reality and predict outcomes. Note also that words "persist" and capture the illusion of a "permanent reality" whereas in fact all is in relative flux. Your point about "our own demise" (as for example with global warming) could be a direct result of this selective segmentation process where "reality" constitutes what is relevent to local current needs, rather than to long term macro-considerations.

See writers like Capra (the Web of Life) for more details.

0 Replies

When it comes to intelligence, we are not dramatically above every single species on Earth, just at one edge of the spectrum. The difference is that we crossed a critical threshold that allowed us to start modifying our surroundings. It's like mixing oxygen and hydrogen in a container. Nothing happens. Add a little heat, nothing happens. Add a little more and things happen very rapidly.

0 Replies

Re: Need some plausible answer on this part of human evoluti

azure wrote:

I'm trying to grasp how our evolution of intelligence would always coincide with survival. Why do we just keep evolving as a matter of survival when it seems our own intelligence works against us?

Because our intelligence *doesn't* work against us. Quite the opposite, our ability to coordinate groups (through language/culture), our ability to use tools/weapons, our ability to clothe ourselves (spread to new environments), our ability to anticipate complex situations and behaviors (for hunting and self defense), and our ability to understand how things interact (for farming and food gathering), are very powerful benefits to survival.

Memory and intelligence have about the highest return on investment ratio of just about anything genetically possible.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

When it comes to intelligence, we are not dramatically above every single species on Earth, just at one edge of the spectrum. The difference is that we crossed a critical threshold that allowed us to start modifying our surroundings.

I think we're also at a different level of self awareness.

0 Replies

Yeah, azures argument seems pretty slanted. We have not detroyed our selves yet, (im pretty sure anyway). Evolution and natural selection are not the reason we become smarter and create better technology. That is a feature of our species its self, as human beings stockpile knowledge and understanding generation after generation, so each generation builds upon the knowledge of the previous generations etc (an effect not [to my knowledge] present in other species).
Manipulating our enviroment is a BENEFIT to us as a species.
One thing azure has pointed out is that medicine creates disease. This is true.

0 Replies

Perhaps competition between humans.

Intelligence is a pretty useful thing to have for all sorts of reasons.

0 Replies

One
The vote is still out on the evolutionary success of human beings. IMO cockroaches are successful, so are sharks and crocodiles. Their tenure demonstrated that. Compared to them Human beings are Johnny come lately.

Two
Our ability to adapt nature as a tool using ape has not been shown to be all that beneficial---yet. All it has done is place in our own hands (pun intended) the ability to orchestrate our own demise.

So give the species a few more million years before bragging about success.

Rap

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

One
The vote is still out on the evolutionary success of human beings. IMO cockroaches are successful, so are sharks and crocodiles. Their tenure demonstrated that. Compared to them Human beings are Johnny come lately.

Well then, the vote is still out on long term success. But short term success is abundantly clear.

raprap wrote:

Two
Our ability to adapt nature as a tool using ape has not been shown to be all that beneficial---yet. All it has done is place in our own hands (pun intended) the ability to orchestrate our own demise.

I disagree. It's done a lot more. Our short term success has been dramatic, and if we escape this planet before the next big asteroid or supervolcano, then we will have succeeded where no others have.

I concede that the potential to harm ourselves comes along with the potential to save ourselves, but I don't consider that dualism to be anything unusual in the grand scheme of things. Many species become too specialized to survive the variation in their environment.

0 Replies

I agree, humanities success as a species is dependant upon Diaspora. However, that leads to the question. Will it then, because of new environs, evolve into new species?

Rap

0 Replies

Re: Need some plausible answer on this part of human evoluti

azure wrote:

I'm trying to grasp how our evolution of intelligence would always coincide with survival. Why do we just keep evolving as a matter of survival when it seems our own intelligence works against us?

The evolution of our intelligence doesn't always coincide with survival. But it doesn't have to. Humanity's environment will select for intelligence as long as genes enhancing intelligence increase the reproductive success of their average bearer, compared to the reproductive success of the average individual who does not bear them. That leaves ample of room for some fraction of people getting killed by their own intelligence.

0 Replies

Need some plausible answer on this part of human evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know