4 ms·

But this type of reasoning went out the window, as soon as humans started killing dolphins in large numbers (see tuna nets), and the dolphins had no way to defe

But this type of reasoning went out the window, as soon as humans started killing dolphins in large numbers (see tuna nets), and the dolphins had no way to defend themselves or otherwise dissuade humans from doing that. This is one of the big lessons in history. The civilizations that use their intelligence to make tools and weapons end up screwing civilizations that "muck about, having a good time".

summitsummit 6y ago
what would be the next trump card above intelligence for survival/evolution/procreation/whatever the "goal" is?
- armatav 6y ago
  Omnipotence. Or something approaching it.
- aeternum 6y ago
  I think the ability to 'reprogram' oneself. We are currently more or less stuck with the genetic code we receive at birth. A species which is able to modify their code at will would be incredibly adaptable and would likely surpass us very quickly.
  - novok 6y ago
    hey we might be there in a couple hundred years
  - summitsummit 6y ago
    your comment reminds me of something that I secretly do which I personally used to think was kind of bizarre. when i stumble upon evidence or signs that a certain way of my thinking is incorrect, i like to confirm that suspicion and dedicate time to go into a meditative state where i take my findings and effectively attempt to reprogram my mental algorithms/principles. this takes anywhere from 15m to several hours depending on how fundamental and low level the change is. obviously, the perceived roi is immense. for instance, this is how i converted from religion to atheism (arguably still a religion)... a product of my nurture that i decided to shed. other examples include my interaction model with others which included tenets such as curbing my decidedly unjustified high level of empathy for all others, controversial as it may be. 1. reprogram in the sense of mental models and thoughts or in a literal cells and atoms sense? 2. potentially depending on your definition and scope of `reprogram`, wouldn't that be a subset of intelligence, as opposed to something higher order or different? 3. what kind of behaviors/habits do you think humans (like you or I, not high-funded corporations) could employ now to get as close to achieving your second sentence as possible?
- eternalban 6y ago
  Self knowledge and self control.
Eyas 6y ago
That's uncomfortably close to Eurocentric claims of superiority that point to their colonization and exploitation of other countries in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century. I don't necessarily buy it. A pacifist civilization might be "dominated" by a violent civilization, but they might still choose death over becoming violent themselves.
- teucris 6y ago
  I agree with your post but it’s worth noting it does not apply to dolphins. Dolphins are not pacifists[0]. [0] http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160204-cute-and-cuddly-dolphins-are-secretly-murderers http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160204-cute-and-cuddly-dolp...
  - kyuudou 6y ago
    They can be pretty brutal to sharks and themselves. Also on a more bizarre note they can get rather rape-y esp. on hallucinogens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prmx0lYBTko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prmx0lYBTko
- worldsayshi 6y ago
  I do not read that the previous poster meant that the superior one was morally superior. Only superior in terms of violent power. You're not buying it but they're not selling it?
- notahacker 6y ago
  The nets aren't a plot to subjugate the dolphins though; for the most part humans would rather not have dolphin bycatch. They're just something that dolphins haven't collectively figured out how to avoid.
  - jychang 6y ago
    That’s like saying humans aren’t intelligent because they can’t avoid car accidents in the rain. Even if you were super intelligent, i bet you’d get fucked up in a net if you had low visibility in the water, you were traveling at high speed, and you didn’t have opposable thumbs to untangle yourself.
fao_ 6y ago
Aha, so when an interstellar empire comes around and fucks up our planet -- if not outright just sending an asteroid our way, it's justified because we are of a lower technological level? The humans and proto-humans of the past weren't 'stupid'. And even if they were comparatively, 'stupidity' isn't a justification for committing harmful actions, degrading, or otherwise treating the recipient as lesser. This sounds like a philosophy that encourages "well I'm going to hurt you and it must be right because you can't stop me or dissuade me".
- pdonis 6y ago
  > even if they were comparatively, 'stupidity' isn't a justification for committing harmful actions, degrading, or otherwise treating the recipient as lesser I don't think the GP was saying it is. I think he was trying to look at it from the dolphins' point of view: he was proposing that the fact that they didn't use any of their intelligence (assuming they have it) to construct ways to defend themselves from other intelligent species, like humans, was a mistake on their part.
- worldsayshi 6y ago
  Why are you assuming that previous poster aimed to justify that behaviour? I don't see that that was implied.
- filoleg 6y ago
  > it's justified because we are of a lower technological level? No, it isn't. Just like killing dolphins isn't justified. But it probably means that the interstellar empire in question is very likely to be more intelligent and/or advanced than us.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jmull 6y ago
Well, species success is measured in periods of time orders of magnitude larger than recorded human history. It’s an open question whether our aggressive strategy will be successful past anything but the very short term. (Currently it’s not looking that good.)
- nullc 6y ago
  > (Currently it’s not looking that good.) I dunno. There is a real, if dwindling and not that large, possibility that mankind breaks free of earth and establishes itself elsewhere. You can't say that for any other species except perhaps some microscopic extremophiles. It's only so easy to be cynical about this because of how close we are to something greater, because of how much we are poised to lose.
- angst_ridden 6y ago
  Exactly. There are species that have been successful for millions of years. Modern humanity has certainly impacted the ecology dramatically over the past couple hundred-thousand, but calling us successful is premature. When we're as old as bluegreen algae (or hell, even Araucaria araucana), I'll happily revise my position.

summitsummit 6y ago

what would be the next trump card above intelligence for survival/evolution/procreation/whatever the "goal" is?

armatav 6y ago
Omnipotence. Or something approaching it.
aeternum 6y ago
I think the ability to 'reprogram' oneself. We are currently more or less stuck with the genetic code we receive at birth. A species which is able to modify their code at will would be incredibly adaptable and would likely surpass us very quickly.
- novok 6y ago
  hey we might be there in a couple hundred years
- summitsummit 6y ago
  your comment reminds me of something that I secretly do which I personally used to think was kind of bizarre. when i stumble upon evidence or signs that a certain way of my thinking is incorrect, i like to confirm that suspicion and dedicate time to go into a meditative state where i take my findings and effectively attempt to reprogram my mental algorithms/principles. this takes anywhere from 15m to several hours depending on how fundamental and low level the change is. obviously, the perceived roi is immense. for instance, this is how i converted from religion to atheism (arguably still a religion)... a product of my nurture that i decided to shed. other examples include my interaction model with others which included tenets such as curbing my decidedly unjustified high level of empathy for all others, controversial as it may be. 1. reprogram in the sense of mental models and thoughts or in a literal cells and atoms sense? 2. potentially depending on your definition and scope of `reprogram`, wouldn't that be a subset of intelligence, as opposed to something higher order or different? 3. what kind of behaviors/habits do you think humans (like you or I, not high-funded corporations) could employ now to get as close to achieving your second sentence as possible?
eternalban 6y ago
Self knowledge and self control.

Eyas 6y ago

That's uncomfortably close to Eurocentric claims of superiority that point to their colonization and exploitation of other countries in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century. I don't necessarily buy it. A pacifist civilization might be "dominated" by a violent civilization, but they might still choose death over becoming violent themselves.

teucris 6y ago
I agree with your post but it’s worth noting it does not apply to dolphins. Dolphins are not pacifists[0]. [0] http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160204-cute-and-cuddly-dolphins-are-secretly-murderers http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160204-cute-and-cuddly-dolp...
- kyuudou 6y ago
  They can be pretty brutal to sharks and themselves. Also on a more bizarre note they can get rather rape-y esp. on hallucinogens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prmx0lYBTko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prmx0lYBTko
worldsayshi 6y ago
I do not read that the previous poster meant that the superior one was morally superior. Only superior in terms of violent power. You're not buying it but they're not selling it?
notahacker 6y ago
The nets aren't a plot to subjugate the dolphins though; for the most part humans would rather not have dolphin bycatch. They're just something that dolphins haven't collectively figured out how to avoid.
- jychang 6y ago
  That’s like saying humans aren’t intelligent because they can’t avoid car accidents in the rain. Even if you were super intelligent, i bet you’d get fucked up in a net if you had low visibility in the water, you were traveling at high speed, and you didn’t have opposable thumbs to untangle yourself.

fao_ 6y ago

Aha, so when an interstellar empire comes around and fucks up our planet -- if not outright just sending an asteroid our way, it's justified because we are of a lower technological level? The humans and proto-humans of the past weren't 'stupid'. And even if they were comparatively, 'stupidity' isn't a justification for committing harmful actions, degrading, or otherwise treating the recipient as lesser. This sounds like a philosophy that encourages "well I'm going to hurt you and it must be right because you can't stop me or dissuade me".

pdonis 6y ago
> even if they were comparatively, 'stupidity' isn't a justification for committing harmful actions, degrading, or otherwise treating the recipient as lesser I don't think the GP was saying it is. I think he was trying to look at it from the dolphins' point of view: he was proposing that the fact that they didn't use any of their intelligence (assuming they have it) to construct ways to defend themselves from other intelligent species, like humans, was a mistake on their part.
worldsayshi 6y ago
Why are you assuming that previous poster aimed to justify that behaviour? I don't see that that was implied.
filoleg 6y ago
> it's justified because we are of a lower technological level? No, it isn't. Just like killing dolphins isn't justified. But it probably means that the interstellar empire in question is very likely to be more intelligent and/or advanced than us.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jmull 6y ago

Well, species success is measured in periods of time orders of magnitude larger than recorded human history. It’s an open question whether our aggressive strategy will be successful past anything but the very short term. (Currently it’s not looking that good.)

nullc 6y ago
> (Currently it’s not looking that good.) I dunno. There is a real, if dwindling and not that large, possibility that mankind breaks free of earth and establishes itself elsewhere. You can't say that for any other species except perhaps some microscopic extremophiles. It's only so easy to be cynical about this because of how close we are to something greater, because of how much we are poised to lose.
angst_ridden 6y ago
Exactly. There are species that have been successful for millions of years. Modern humanity has certainly impacted the ecology dramatically over the past couple hundred-thousand, but calling us successful is premature. When we're as old as bluegreen algae (or hell, even Araucaria araucana), I'll happily revise my position.