3 ms·

Not going to disagree that there are clearly differences in intelligence. However, the same intelligent humans managed for tens to hundreds of thousands of yea

Not going to disagree that there are clearly differences in intelligence. However, the same intelligent humans managed for tens to hundreds of thousands of years to not destroy their environments until all of a sudden that became their imperative. In numerous parts of the world during the last 10,000 years there have been plenty of humans living within their means until they were assimilated or eradicated into the culture that dominates and destroys. People hopefully say, "at least we're becoming a space-faring society." As if we're really going to be able to outgrow this planet and move on and destroy another one. We're definitely an exploring species, and for that space is gratifying, but there is no indication that there will be another Earth to colonize anytime soon.

ivalm 7y ago
Re: environmentally conscious primitives. It is a myth that early/primitive societies didn't destroy their environments. Basically all recent (past 100k years) megafauna extinctions were driven by human migration. Plenty of fragile environments (eg Easter Island) were wrecked by early/primitive societies. The only thing that prevented previous generations from wrecking the environment the way we do now is the same thing that prevents chimps: lack of capability. Re: space as the new frontier. I agree that resource net positive space exploitation is a long ways away. So long away that we might have critical resource/environmental catastrophe here on earth before space can bail us out. I am not super positive on human long term survival (heck, even 1000 more years; we're too dumb and have too many ways to kill ourselves), but if our descendants do live in a million years, I am fairly certain space exploitation will be part of the equation.
- projektfu 7y ago
  I'm not sure what your position is. That we're very smart? Smarter than the "primitives" who also destroyed their habitats? But definitely smarter than the humans who managed to live in their habitat for at least a hundred thousand years until our culture came along? I can agree we are more capable than chimps, but only in the sense of being able to plan and make tools, that sort of thing. But chimps are adapted to their environment, at least until it gets upset by habitat loss or change.

ivalm 7y ago

Re: environmentally conscious primitives. It is a myth that early/primitive societies didn't destroy their environments. Basically all recent (past 100k years) megafauna extinctions were driven by human migration. Plenty of fragile environments (eg Easter Island) were wrecked by early/primitive societies. The only thing that prevented previous generations from wrecking the environment the way we do now is the same thing that prevents chimps: lack of capability. Re: space as the new frontier. I agree that resource net positive space exploitation is a long ways away. So long away that we might have critical resource/environmental catastrophe here on earth before space can bail us out. I am not super positive on human long term survival (heck, even 1000 more years; we're too dumb and have too many ways to kill ourselves), but if our descendants do live in a million years, I am fairly certain space exploitation will be part of the equation.

projektfu 7y ago
I'm not sure what your position is. That we're very smart? Smarter than the "primitives" who also destroyed their habitats? But definitely smarter than the humans who managed to live in their habitat for at least a hundred thousand years until our culture came along? I can agree we are more capable than chimps, but only in the sense of being able to plan and make tools, that sort of thing. But chimps are adapted to their environment, at least until it gets upset by habitat loss or change.