Are homo sapiens sapiens the stupidest species ever?

[0rganism]

Poll question: Are homo sapiens sapiens the stupidest species ever?

Homo sapiens is, by our own best estimates, less than 500000 years old. The Y-chromosome as we know it is dated to less than 100000 years. Over the last 12000 years especially, our achievements are legion, spectacular, and disastrous.

I can't think of a single other animal, be it amphibian, reptile, or mammal, that has such a propensity for knowingly fouling its food supply. Unfortunately it's not just regular fecal matter, we're talking mercury emissions, acid rain, nuclear and toxic waste, carbon dioxide in climate-altering quantities, etcetera. Hell, we even pay people to invent the deadliest possible chemicals and microorganisms, for the express purpose of killing other herds of homo sapiens sapiens to take their stuff. No other species has made a priority of building enough nuclear weapons to destroy the biosphere a thousand times over.

We've linked our systems of agriculture to a limited supply of fuel derived from the fossils of other long-extinct species far better adapted than ourselves. We highly value the kind of population and economic growth that, in a cell culture, might be called cancerous. And now, in what might just be the stupidest tribe on the planet, a singularly stupid alpha male has been put in a position to do great harm: in only four years, he's taken all the resistance to stupidity we've built up over a few hundred years and thrown it away. Very stupid.

On the other hand, we did come up with bicycles, digital watches, telescopes and some other pretty neat gizmos. Are we smart enough to think ourselves out of the mess we've made?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

1. Clever monkey plays with fire. Burns to death. End of story.....n/t

[ixion]

2. in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

"... just because we can read and write and do some math, that doesn't make us the Masters of the Universe."

-- from Hocus Pocus

[Redleg]

22. Ah, another Vonnegut reader.

I commented below on Vonnegut's "Galapagos."

[ixion]

28. he's one of my top 5 favorite authors of all time...

He's one you can reread over and over again and still enjoy the books as much as the first time.

Cheers! :toast:

[Redleg]

48. Yes- I re-read his stuff almost every year.

His work just gets better and better.

[getoffmytrain]

3. I...

I ate a doughnut on the shitter today...... maybe we ARE stupid?

[Bucky]

50. mmm. . . donuts. . .

Honestly, that sounds pretty efficient to me. Unless you have a job to go to or something.

[Goldmund]

4. Define "smart".

No, seriously. I think this is an interesting discussion. What is a "smart" species?

Is it one that survives, or has the potential to survive, the longest?

Is it one which can adapt to take advantage of the most resources -- territorial or otherwise?

Is it one that does best on standardized IQ tests?

What's "smart"?

[prodigal_green]

5. by that definition

bacteria and amoembae are the smartest species.

We behave very much like viruses. We overpopulate and overconsume until we destroy our host. Global warming is the earth with a fever trying to fight off the virus.

[Goldmund]

7. By which definition?

The first one, right?

And, I don't know if we will destroy our host. We haven't yet. A whole lot of us -- or, a whole lot of our species, and that number is growing -- is realizing that we'll have to change our lifestyles if we want to avert "destroying our host". We'll see -- but my question still stands. What's a valid definition of a "Smart" species?

[prodigal_green]

29. I guess I mean the first two definitions

seriously though, when we think of species success, to quote Stephen Jay Gould, "it's a bacteria world, we just live in it."

Bacteria and other one-celled organisms outweigh our (humans and other mammals)biomass by several times. They were here before us and will be here after us.

People often make the mistake of confusing complexity with evolutionary "progress."

[Goldmund]

30. Right on.

"People often make the mistake of confusing complexity with evolutionary "progress.""

I don't think it's just "complexity" that they're confusing with progress. There are a lot more differences between the human species and other animals than just "complexity". But then again, don't blame humans -- it's only natural that we equate those properties that have enabled us to survive and that continue to enable us to take more advantage of our environment, which is what every species wants to do, with "progress".

For example, if snakes had sentience, they'd probably equate the strength of their poison with "progress" -- well, okay, that's a pretty lame analogy, but I think you get what I'm saying.

I totally agree with you. Once you apply our own "values" universally it's pure elitism, not deeper insight.

Similarly, there's what I call "bio-elitism" -- constantly asking "is there life on other planets", hoping to find carbon-based organisms and assuming that they are the only venue through which any consciousness could arise. In the vastness of universe, there probably is -- but once we can get beyond looking for something that resembles us so closely, we'll find a lot of cool shit, I'm sure.

[0rganism]

8. Good question

One might think of the standard definition, which usually involves a capacity for abstract reasoning, planning, solving problems, etcetera. Some would say that homo sapiens sapiens is very smart by this measure. But part of that is an implied ability to learn from past mistakes, or perceiving second-order effects of actions, and I'm just not seeing it on a species-wide scale. Same stupid mistakes, over and over and over again.

Is it "smart" to eat from the Tree of Knowledge instead of the Tree of Life? Could we stop and change trees now if we wanted to?

[Goldmund]

13. If that's how we're restricting our definition...

...then -- I _really_ don't mean to be a pain in the ass, I'm sincerely asking this -- you must define "mistake" in a species-wide context. Because the human species still exists and hasn't lost its position in the food chain, which are the two very tangible measurements of a species' success. What else is there? The Universe doesn't care if people are miserable or even if people are dying, only people care (or should care). But the species itself -- well, many species go through periods of "cleansing" and "population control", for example, in order to survive as species. So what species-wide mistakes have we made?

[0rganism]

39. Defining a "mistake"

A "mistake", by my reckoning, is an assumption or undertaking that is intended to further a certain goal, yet does not, or perhaps is even counterproductive. Making mistakes is not in itself a sign of stupidity; inability to learn from those mistakes when presented with clear evidence that it is a mistake, on the other hand, is.

If quantitative existence and place in the food chain (more of a web IMHO) are the goal, then we stand behind protozoans, insects and plants in any measure of success. Long after we've made this planet unsuitable for mammalian life, there will be some enterprising bacterial offspring busting ass to adapt to whatever mess we leave behind.

Really, these measures make my point for me. There were any number of aboriginal human societies that were fully capable of existing and eating long before cattle ranches and depleted uranium shells. Not only did they exist, but there's no reason to think they couldn't have kept right on existing and prospering to this very day just the way they existed fifty thousand years ago. But something strange happened: somehow we got sucked into believing a story in which it is right and just for us to dominate the world without regard for the future. Every indication has been given that this is a horrible mistake, yet we are incapable of recognizing it.

[MsTryska]

6. actually i think the sub-species should be noted here....

namely, americanus corporatus fatus catus

[0rganism]

10. Unfortunately, it still produces fertile offspring with its parent species

Is it wrong to hope that it doesn't survive its own genetic drift?

[MsTryska]

23. but that would be

self-annihilation.


then again it probably is best to scrap the whole thing and start all over again. i really was hoping it wouldn't happen to any of my future generations.

[0rganism]

40. I wouldn't call the demise of americanus corporatus fatus catus...

"self annihilation". I think we could live quite happily without that subspecies. And can you imagine what they'd do to the rest of us if they ever did successfully speciate? *shudder*

[Ladyhawk]

9. We're too smart for our own good.

Our morality hasn't kept pace with our technological discoveries. Aggression is a key part of our psychological makeup. Without it, there would probably be no technological discoveries. Yet our greatest strength is also our greatest weakness. I've become convinced the human race is destined for extinction in the near future.

We may be "smart" but we are not "wise."

[0rganism]

11. Like a three-year-old in the driver's seat of the planet

I don't know if it's even a moral issue. Seems like common sense. But maybe our legs aren't long enough to reach the brakes.

[Lone_Wolf]

12. Actually the subspecies Freepus republicus is what makes us stupid...

In all seriousness, it is our intelligence as a species that probably makes us so dangerous. If we look at all of the life on the planet over the history of the planet, the vast majority of it is stupid. This suggests that nature favors stupid species over intelligence and that we are a fluke.

In other words, it might be an evolutionary advantage for species to be stupid. Consider the advantages stupid species have over us... They don't blow themselves up, destroy their environment, etc.

[0rganism]

19. Maybe that's how the dinosaurs went extinct?

For millions of years, they successfully and stupidly dominate the planet. Then, in a few thousand years, a mutant dinosaur species evolves intelligence, develops a bio-terminator, and blammo! Gone in the blink of an eye.

[Romulus]

14. I just read "Evolution"

a sci-fi novel that traces the evolutionary path of mammals from the end of the dinosaurs to modern man (who screws things all up), and to the future descendents of man.

After modern man blows up the world, and civilization ceases, we end up reverting to our pre-civilization hominid ways.

In a few million years, people are dumb elephant-sized simians that get farmed by giant rats (like how we have cattle ranchers).

[Ladyhawk]

15. Analogy: A certain tribe in Africa drills a hole in an empty...

...coconut shell that is just large enough for a baboon to stick its hand through. The African tribesman puts yummy things for the baboon to eat inside the coconut shell. Unfortunately, the hole is large enough for an unclenched baboon hand, but too small for a baboon fist.

The baboon is clever enough to put his hand into the coconut to get the food, but--incredibly--is too stupid and too greedy to let go. He is trapped by a paradoxical combination of cleverness, stupidity and greed.

Don't Republicans remind you of baboons?

[Goldmund]

16. wow

that's a pretty cool story.

[0rganism]

17. Well, drilling holes in an empty coconut does remind me of bush...

Amazing how he couldn't find any oil in Texas.

But I do see what you're getting at.

[Ladyhawk]

25. :D n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

36. I think Bush stuck his head in an empty coconut...

Oh, waitaminnit--there's no head in there.

[Braunschweiger Bone]

18. Let's check their on-line polls...

Let's check the internet polls of all the other species and see what they think...

[ladjf]

20. Turtles have been around for more than 200,000,000

Humans are at risk of having the shortest tenure in history of any species.

[Redleg]

21. Not dumb, just very shortsighted. As Kurt Vonnegut said...

so nicely in his book "Galapagos," we humans have brains that are too damn big for our own good. Only with a big brain could we create devices to destroy us and our world.

[Xipe Totec]

24. Feeling a bit misanthropic, aren't we?

First, let me say that Homo sapiens is a term that applies to both males and females, so why bring up the y-chromosome? Secondly, the development of the y-chromosome began 320 million years ago:

"The first no-shuffle region appeared as long as 320 million years ago, according to their calculations, shortly after mammals evolved from reptiles. Sex in reptiles is decided not by having different sex chromosomes but, bizarrely enough, by environmental cues. In turtles and crocodiles, for example, the sex of the embryo is determined by the temperature at which it is incubated."

http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib160/news/102999sci-sex-chromosome.html

Third, the fist organism to foul up the environment was algae which synthesized it's own food from sunlight but generated a lethal and corrosive gas as a byproduct which nearly wiped out all life from this planet. Organisms had to evolve mechanisms against this poison in order to survive. That poison gas was oxygen, now a vital life sustaining element for most living creatures, with the exception of a few species of anaerobic bacteria to which it is still a deadly poison. Clostridium botuli, the bacteria that causes botulism, is one of the bacteria to which oxygen is still a poison.

"The atmosphere in those days was quite different from what it is today. The living process developed in an essentially oxygen-free atmosphere. Today the atmosphere contains about 20 percent oxygen, which is a by-product of the chemical reactions of photosynthesis. Early life forms produced so much oxygen that the atmosphere gradually changed from a reducing to an oxidizing one. This oxygen was toxic to living cells, creating the planet's first air-pollution crisis. The situation threatened to kill the living cells that had been so successful up to that point.

Nature developed ascorbic acid to save the living process from extinction. This same procedure occurred many times in subsequent evolutionary crises, so that ascorbic acid became, in a sense, the favorite evolutionary life saver. Nature developed four enzymes to convert the abundant glucose product of photosynthesis into ascorbic acid. These four enzymes were similar or identical to the four-enzymes system being used by present-day plants and animals."

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/cosmic.htm

So let's not be so down on ourselves, or look at ourselves as if we are a force separate from nature. We humans ARE one of the forces of nature. We are just another grand experiment in the history of life and if we do something really really stupid, nature will just wipe us out and start over. No biggie

:hi:

[Redleg]

26. The difference is that we, as big-brained humans, should know better.

And even when we do know better, we still shit in our beds (figuratively speaking).

[Xipe Totec]

27. Jury is still out on whether intelligence aids survival

You give intelligence far too much credit. Its still too soon to tell.

And beeswax is bee shit. So bees make their homes out of it.

:evilgrin:

[Redleg]

47. I disagree with that. I also never made that statement.

I said "big brains" are what made it possible for us to devise clever and deadly ways for killing ourselves.

It is fairly clear that within the human species, intelligence is a strong predictor of a person's ability to cope with his/her environment and to survive many threats. Perhaphs this is not true across species.

[Codeblue]

33. Ah but

the algae creating a deadly toxic gas called oxygen was a natural process.

Creating big factories spewing enormous amounts of SO2 and CO2 into the air is not a natural process.

Nature intended that algae to create oxygen so that bigger and better life forms could exist on this planet. Nature did not intend, I'm sure, for humans to build big noxious factories.

[Xipe Totec]

43. To say that man is not natural is to say that man is supernatural

In other words created by the divine and existing outside the forces of nature.

Nature did not 'intend' for algae to do anything. There is no grand design for nature. Nature is just nature. Our evolution into thinking beings, however unlikely, was a natural process and by extension those factories spewing SO2 CO2 and other noxious pollutants are natural as well. They are not healthy, mind you, but they are most certainly natural. Ultimately we may or may not destroy ourselves but, if we do, we may be the first creatures to do so knowingly and be conscious of it right up to the moment when our consciousness ceases to be.

We have a choice about what to do with our environment. Intelligence gives us that choice. If we chose wisely we may be on this earth for a long time. If we don't it will demonstrate that intelligence was an evolutionary dead end. But make no mistake, nature will not care one way or another. Nature will not mourn our passing. Nature will not even notice that we existed once upon a time.

[0rganism]

34. Feeling a bit pedantic, aren't we?

Gratuitous educational information aside, I was referring to the "Y-Chromosomal Adam", the originator of the homo sapiens sapiens version of the Y chromosome.

http://www.fact-index.com/y/y_/y_chromosomal_adam.html

The algae took millions of years to foul their nest. We've managed to do it in about 10,000.

[Xipe Totec]

42. Ah, but they didn't foul their nest, did they?

Ultimately they evolved and compensated. Evolution is constant adjustment and change. It is not a goal, but a race with no finish line. Those that do not evolve as fast as they can perish.

Why do you imply that the genes for homo sapien-ness are carried in the y-chromosome? Are you implying that females are not intelligent because they have no y-chromosome? Clearly an absurd conclusion. It is not established that we evolved from a single Adam or for that matter, a single Eve. We have a full set of genes for a reason.

Gratuitous Information? Why? Because it runs contrary to your initial premise?

And yes, I am feeling pedantic, thank you, it is a character flaw shared by most people that take science seriously.

[0rganism]

45. Since you take science "seriously" maybe you should try to understand it

> Why do you imply that the genes for homo sapien-ness are carried in the y-chromosome?

I'm not implying it, you're inferring it. Y-chromosomes are passed exclusively from fathers to sons, and isolating the time period in which a clearly homo sapien sapien Y-chromosome was passed is considered interesting by some cell biologists, paleontologists, and anthropologists. The homo sapiens sapiens X-chromosome predates it by at least fifty thousand years.

Apparently, you find it insulting.

> Are you implying that females are not intelligent because they have no y-chromosome?

No. And to infer such from what I posted would indeed be absurd. Why do you presume that I'm correlating fully homo sapiens sapiens genes with intelligence? Especially in a poll that asks if we're "the dumbest animals ever to walk the planet"?

Yes, there's some absurdity happening here, but it's not what you think it is.

[libhill]

31. We are without doubt

The dumbest critters ever to walk this planet.

[Senior citizen]

32. Something else.

There are SOME species of amoebae (one-celled, brainless) that are just as dumb and nonviable as we are. I don't know of any species with brains or more than one cell that's as dumb.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. I think trilobites might have been dumber.

[hellbound-liberal]

37. As George Carlin might say," If humans are the best that Mother Nature

can do, all I can say is, she set her sights low and settled even lower."

[DS1]

38. Hating humans for republicans is hating dogs for shitting on the carpet

[0rganism]

41. This is not an exclusively republican problem

The republican party did not spring into existence straight from Satan's arse 150 years ago just to wreak havoc on the planet. They're a natural outgrowth of a particular sort of American stupidity. But the stupidity has been going on for quite some time without the republicans.

I wouldn't associate Stalin's USSR or Mao's China with the republicans, and they promoted a highly advanced flavor of modern stupidity. No one nation or political party has a monopoly on stupidity. Stupidity will always be produced in a highly competitive marketplace.

[DS1]

44. I know, I just wanted to blame the GOP for shitting next to the food dish

since while they haven't been around forever, they're damn sure trying like hell to catch up!

[tom_paine]

46. The species just might be an evolutionary dead end

Too many pleasure receptors linked to the brain leads to impossible greed and an inability to evolve past (though not necessarily to discard, but to get control of) our animal natures.

I imgaine it says something like that on the Alien Anthropological Report on the Tragically Comic shortsighted Species of Sol III.

[Kal Belgarion]

49. No, lemmings are...

And humans are just lemmings with more destructive power.

[Bucky]

51. Actually lemmings' stupidity is a myth perpetuated by Disney genocide

Twisted story that. Read this:
http://www.jimloy.com/biology/lemmings.htm

and this:
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

[KamaAina]

52. Remember, Bush* is actually a specimen of Pan troglodytes

the chimpanzee.

So take him out, and no, we're not the stupidest species ever, so stop saying that!