4 ms·

Just thinking of bacteria who possibly escaped planet earth at sometime. Given this argument, such bacteria would be classified more intelligent than humans.

nis0s 1y ago
Bacteria can beat humans anytime in any number of ways. One important difference to me between a bacterium and human is that humans are concerned with more than feed-fuck-fight cycles of life. Look at what you’re doing now, for example, advocating for thoughtfulness towards other animals. What other animal is doing that for you? The point is that no other animals can be stewards, historians, or guardians of this planet. If there is a mass extinction event, no other animal would be capable of escaping it consciously, except by random chance. Humans are better off understanding everything else they inhabit this planet with, it’s better for them and the incidence of life and intelligence, which shouldn’t be taken for granted, IMO.
- Helmut10001 1y ago
  You're framing this as a matter of consciousness and stewardship, but I believe that perspective misinterprets the fundamental mechanisms of life and overlooks humanity's actual role on this planet. Firstly, your argument about "consciously" leaving the planet versus bacteria doing so by "random chance" presents a false dichotomy. Evolution, the very process that led to human consciousness, is built on random mutations and environmental pressures. Bacteria's ability to survive in extreme environments, including the vacuum of space, is a testament to their evolutionary success. Studies have shown that bacteria can survive for years in space, suggesting that the "panspermia" hypothesis—life spreading between planets—is plausible. In a very real sense, their evolutionary trajectory has prepared them for interstellar travel in a way ours has not. While we develop technology to escape Earth, they have evolved the biological means. At this moment, their "random" adaptations have made them more successful at leaving Earth's biosphere than our conscious efforts. Secondly, the idea of humans as "stewards, historians, or guardians of this planet" is a noble thought, but it starkly contrasts with our actual impact. To an outside observer, humanity would not appear as a guardian but as a significant threat to the planet's ecosystems. We are currently causing environmental degradation on a massive scale, including mass extinctions, deforestation, and climate change, which threatens not only other species but our own civilization. Attributing a unique "thoughtfulness towards other animals" to humans is an anthropocentric view that ignores the fact that we are the primary drivers of the current biodiversity crisis. The very existence of a mass extinction event, driven by a single species, is unprecedented in Earth's history. To suggest that humans are the planet's only hope for survival is to ignore the fact that we are currently its greatest adversary. It is a form of exceptionalism that prevents us from seeing our place within the ecosystem, not above it.
  - nis0s 1y ago
    Granted that the fundamental mechanisms of life are stochastic processes. But so what? The point is that those random processes converged to intelligent life more than once, and independent of one another. Intelligent life is exceptional by itself, but human life doubly so because we have the cognitive ability to do a lot more than the majority of our intelligent counterparts in the animal kingdom, which is feed-fight-fuck. This isn’t a pejorative phrase, but a concept in biology. Bacteria can indeed survive in extreme conditions, but what’s the point? It can never understand anything about the universe or nature of reality as it lacks the cognitive tools required to do so. Why is knowing anything about the universe important? Animal curiosity has been a major driver of many evolutionary processes, including cultural evolution. To your last point. Every era seems like the end of the world to the people living in that time, but I think that’s just a trick of the mind played on us due to our mortality. Regardless, I didn’t make up these ideas on my own—better people than me have said them in much better ways. Hope is an important psychological trick for troubled times because otherwise there’s only defeat or death. Honestly, things are not that hopeless, there’s almost always a course correction any time things get too extreme, and that’s fine.
    - Helmut10001 1y ago
      Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Your argument hinges on a very human-centric metric for value: the ability to conceptually "understand the universe." But what if that's a narrow and self-serving definition of success? You dismiss other intelligent life as being stuck in a "feed-fight-fuck" cycle, a concept from biology. Yet, anyone who has spent time observing animals, even chickens, sees intricate social structures, communication, and what appears to be a rich perceptual world that is simply alien to us . To claim their existence has less "point" because they don't develop cosmology is a failure of our limited world view, not a failure of theirs. It defines intelligence only as that which mirrors our own specific cognitive strengths. This is the same intellectual blind spot we see today, as we struggle to define what truly separates human thought from the emergent abilities of LLMs. Regarding the "course correction," I agree the planet will be fine. Mass extinctions are a form of course correction. The crucial detail is that the dominant species causing the imbalance rarely survives that correction. Our hope shouldn't blind us to the fact that we are not separate from the system we are destabilizing. Perhaps the ultimate test of our unique intelligence is not our ability to look outward and understand the cosmos, but our ability to look inward, recognize our limitations, and understand our place within the only biosphere we have ever known.

nis0s 1y ago

Bacteria can beat humans anytime in any number of ways. One important difference to me between a bacterium and human is that humans are concerned with more than feed-fuck-fight cycles of life. Look at what you’re doing now, for example, advocating for thoughtfulness towards other animals. What other animal is doing that for you? The point is that no other animals can be stewards, historians, or guardians of this planet. If there is a mass extinction event, no other animal would be capable of escaping it consciously, except by random chance. Humans are better off understanding everything else they inhabit this planet with, it’s better for them and the incidence of life and intelligence, which shouldn’t be taken for granted, IMO.

Helmut10001 1y ago
You're framing this as a matter of consciousness and stewardship, but I believe that perspective misinterprets the fundamental mechanisms of life and overlooks humanity's actual role on this planet. Firstly, your argument about "consciously" leaving the planet versus bacteria doing so by "random chance" presents a false dichotomy. Evolution, the very process that led to human consciousness, is built on random mutations and environmental pressures. Bacteria's ability to survive in extreme environments, including the vacuum of space, is a testament to their evolutionary success. Studies have shown that bacteria can survive for years in space, suggesting that the "panspermia" hypothesis—life spreading between planets—is plausible. In a very real sense, their evolutionary trajectory has prepared them for interstellar travel in a way ours has not. While we develop technology to escape Earth, they have evolved the biological means. At this moment, their "random" adaptations have made them more successful at leaving Earth's biosphere than our conscious efforts. Secondly, the idea of humans as "stewards, historians, or guardians of this planet" is a noble thought, but it starkly contrasts with our actual impact. To an outside observer, humanity would not appear as a guardian but as a significant threat to the planet's ecosystems. We are currently causing environmental degradation on a massive scale, including mass extinctions, deforestation, and climate change, which threatens not only other species but our own civilization. Attributing a unique "thoughtfulness towards other animals" to humans is an anthropocentric view that ignores the fact that we are the primary drivers of the current biodiversity crisis. The very existence of a mass extinction event, driven by a single species, is unprecedented in Earth's history. To suggest that humans are the planet's only hope for survival is to ignore the fact that we are currently its greatest adversary. It is a form of exceptionalism that prevents us from seeing our place within the ecosystem, not above it.
- nis0s 1y ago
  Granted that the fundamental mechanisms of life are stochastic processes. But so what? The point is that those random processes converged to intelligent life more than once, and independent of one another. Intelligent life is exceptional by itself, but human life doubly so because we have the cognitive ability to do a lot more than the majority of our intelligent counterparts in the animal kingdom, which is feed-fight-fuck. This isn’t a pejorative phrase, but a concept in biology. Bacteria can indeed survive in extreme conditions, but what’s the point? It can never understand anything about the universe or nature of reality as it lacks the cognitive tools required to do so. Why is knowing anything about the universe important? Animal curiosity has been a major driver of many evolutionary processes, including cultural evolution. To your last point. Every era seems like the end of the world to the people living in that time, but I think that’s just a trick of the mind played on us due to our mortality. Regardless, I didn’t make up these ideas on my own—better people than me have said them in much better ways. Hope is an important psychological trick for troubled times because otherwise there’s only defeat or death. Honestly, things are not that hopeless, there’s almost always a course correction any time things get too extreme, and that’s fine.
  - Helmut10001 1y ago
    Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Your argument hinges on a very human-centric metric for value: the ability to conceptually "understand the universe." But what if that's a narrow and self-serving definition of success? You dismiss other intelligent life as being stuck in a "feed-fight-fuck" cycle, a concept from biology. Yet, anyone who has spent time observing animals, even chickens, sees intricate social structures, communication, and what appears to be a rich perceptual world that is simply alien to us . To claim their existence has less "point" because they don't develop cosmology is a failure of our limited world view, not a failure of theirs. It defines intelligence only as that which mirrors our own specific cognitive strengths. This is the same intellectual blind spot we see today, as we struggle to define what truly separates human thought from the emergent abilities of LLMs. Regarding the "course correction," I agree the planet will be fine. Mass extinctions are a form of course correction. The crucial detail is that the dominant species causing the imbalance rarely survives that correction. Our hope shouldn't blind us to the fact that we are not separate from the system we are destabilizing. Perhaps the ultimate test of our unique intelligence is not our ability to look outward and understand the cosmos, but our ability to look inward, recognize our limitations, and understand our place within the only biosphere we have ever known.