3 ms·

To truly argue on this point you need to, I think or at least in my opinion, settle on a definition of "smart" and "dumb". I like to view our intellect as a to

To truly argue on this point you need to, I think or at least in my opinion, settle on a definition of "smart" and "dumb". I like to view our intellect as a tool for survival of our species. By that measure, we are doing fairly well. We used to get wiped out by minor stuff like not enough food, not enough protection from the elements and other animals, diseases, we have eradicated the majority of these things hindering our survival. I hypothesise that most of the people here (on average) on HN are highly educated. It's kind of fashionable and almost necessary social behavior to be humble in your own intellect. By all objective measures the people on HN are really fucking smart but you can't say that of course because that's "arrogant". Yes, I too think I'm stupid and suffer from impostor syndrome having two graduates degree in applied math. Anyway, humans, compared to other animals we compete with for survival, food, and territory, are doing really well. I don't see any cows on the moon yet.

deltron3030 8y ago
> Anyway, humans, compared to other animals we compete with for survival, food, and territory, are doing really well. I don't see any cows on the moon yet. Would all this be possible without other mammals? Or is the ecosystem (including mammals) the enabler for us?
- qkls 8y ago
  Probably yes, but on a longer timeline. Humans don't need other mammals to survive.
  - leadingthenet 8y ago
    Maybe not survival, but would we be anywhere near where we are now without the help of say, cows and horses? Possibly, but maybe not.
simonh 8y ago
>To truly argue on this point you need to, I think or at least in my opinion, settle on a definition of "smart" and "dumb". That's exactly what I just did - the level of intelligence necessary to build a technological society. On that scale we only just register above the threshold, as a species. I'm not saying our intellectual capacity is rubbish or useless, we make the grade to be significant on this scale. Yay us! I'm just trying to put our intellectual achievements in perspective given that we have no other intelligences on the planet anywhere close to competing with us on this scale. Making a comparative analysis of a single data point is alway difficult, but I think this is a useful way to think about the problem.

deltron3030 8y ago

> Anyway, humans, compared to other animals we compete with for survival, food, and territory, are doing really well. I don't see any cows on the moon yet. Would all this be possible without other mammals? Or is the ecosystem (including mammals) the enabler for us?

qkls 8y ago
Probably yes, but on a longer timeline. Humans don't need other mammals to survive.
- leadingthenet 8y ago
  Maybe not survival, but would we be anywhere near where we are now without the help of say, cows and horses? Possibly, but maybe not.

simonh 8y ago

>To truly argue on this point you need to, I think or at least in my opinion, settle on a definition of "smart" and "dumb". That's exactly what I just did - the level of intelligence necessary to build a technological society. On that scale we only just register above the threshold, as a species. I'm not saying our intellectual capacity is rubbish or useless, we make the grade to be significant on this scale. Yay us! I'm just trying to put our intellectual achievements in perspective given that we have no other intelligences on the planet anywhere close to competing with us on this scale. Making a comparative analysis of a single data point is alway difficult, but I think this is a useful way to think about the problem.