4 ms·
> We’ve poured money into SETI to try and answer the anguished question, are we alone? Well, it seems that we aren’t, but we might be too stupid and self-absorb
by pdpi 5y ago
> We’ve poured money into SETI to try and answer the anguished question, are we alone? Well, it seems that we aren’t, but we might be too stupid and self-absorbed to notice.
We seriously underestimate other animals' intelligence, but until some other animal on earth puts a flag on the moon, it's safe to say that no other animal on Earth shares our unique brand of intelligence.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoI don't believe that necessarily follows. How much of what we are is a product of what we've built up? Take all that away and revert humanity to its pre-civilization state. To an outside observer, would we obviously be capable of one day going to the moon?
- TheFreim 5y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong but it seems like you're saying "take away what humans used their intelligence to build and it'll appear that they aren't intelligent"?
- JCharante 5y agoSounds about right, because if they were intelligent then surely they would have built something is the common line of thinking. So taking away what humans have built and examining them through these same lenses would lead you to conclude that they're not intelligent.
- pdpi 5y agoThe moon is a somewhat facetious benchmark, but we harnessed fire some 400k years ago. Agriculture, or more generally culvitating your own food, is another major milestone that happened 10k years ago, or thereabouts. Those are more reasonable, especially because other intelligent species could piggy back off our technology to speed up their own progression.
- adriand 5y agoI agree with you that we have a “unique brand” of intelligence but we’ve gone astray in ascribing a value judgment to that, in my opinion - as in, our brand is the best. Or, our brand is so much better than others that those others are worthless. This doesn’t just apply to other species but also to other ways of being (“cultural intelligences”?) than our neoliberal, capitalist and technology-focused society. Our great technological achievements have been fatal for millions of other species and there is a strong possibility that they will be fatal for us as well. How intelligent is that? I recognize that when we talk about “intelligence” in the context of the original article we mean something different than the more common sense meaning I used in my last paragraph. However it seems to me that the way we define intelligence is part of the problem. What’s a greater achievement, traveling to the moon or living for millions of years in harmony with the natural systems of the planet? Or who is happier, a blue whale or a Walmart employee?
- pdpi 5y ago> However it seems to me that the way we define intelligence is part of the problem. Problem isn't how we define it, the definition we have is useful because it describes a very real qualitative difference between us and other animals. I think you nailed it on your first paragraph: the problem is the value judgment that goes along with that definition.
- GuB-42 5y ago> How much of what we are is a product of what we've built up? At least 1.5% by mass About 3% of our body is nitrogen, about half of it comes from fertilizers made using Haber-Bosch process, an industrial chemical process that is unlike anything found in nature. But if we count differently and consider agriculture in general as "something we've built up", then it is about 99.9%. It is estimated that the earth would support about 10 million hunter-gatherers, we are nearing 10 billion.
- howdydoo 5y agoWhat's so special about the moon? I say no life should be considered intelligent until they can swim down the Marianas Trench and carve their initials in the wall.