Is human intelligence a species survival trait??? Keep in mind that the smartest humans created the atomic bomb.
The “smartest” humans are overrated. Einstein thought that time could be manipulated as if it were a tangible substance, when even a little kid knows it’s just nothing more than a measurement of various things (the earth around its axis, the moon around the earth, the earth around the sun, the sun around the center of the galaxy, etc.)
Quite a few of them teach as fact that we came from lower primates when there is no evidence that there are any links between them and “modern” man. I mean, grass has a lot in common with trees, but they don’t go saying that trees evolved from grass or vice versa.
Just goes to show you that the “smartest” person is just as smart, and maybe not as smart, as the average layman.
Just goes to show you the difference between educated and “layman”. Einstein was indeed smart. The fact that you seem to think that even a little kid understands the concept of time better, well, that just goes to show your qualifications for judgement upon this topic.
VelikM, when you say the smartest people created the atomic bomb, I agree partially. Actually, it is true, but not complete. There is different kinds of intelligence, and all is needed for human survival. To create an atomic bomb is simple discovery and understanding of the world we live in. Just like we create everything else. However, how we use that knowledge, is a whole different aspect.
I think human intelligence is indeed a survival factor. But intelligence on a broad basis, not just what we would consider “smarts”.
I don’t think that intelligence is in it’s self a species survival trait. After all some of the oldest and most successful species aren’t intelligent (not in the human sense of intelligence). I think the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions contributes more to survival as a species than intelligence. Man (modern version) hasn’t been around long enough to say that we as a species are successful.
Well, then how you are phrasing the question is wrong. Because I don’t think I’m getting your reason. Intelligence is indeed a trait that can be used for survival. Do you have anything more specific in mind? What kind’ve survival? What kind’ve situations? What kind’ve intelligence?
The water bear is extremely good at survival, but not intelligent. But then that form of survival traits is tailored for water bears, not humans. Just like humans needs for survival isn’t right for water bears. I think you are looking and asking on a too broad of a spectrum.
Emotions and feeling could be considered a part of generalized intelligence. People, and even some animals can not survive properly without the social relationships. Take gorillas or dolphins for example. They depend on group work to live. That would be survival traits directly linked to intelligence. So given that humans are on an even more complex level, it would most definitely be a trait needed for survival.
Answer the following:
What is the distinction of survival?
Is it immediate survival of the organism?
Or long term survival of the species?
Without the things that make us human, could we survive?
Is this level of intelligence something that makes us human?
When considering something like intelligence, you have to remember that intelligence is relative.
Yes, very smart people did indeed create the atom bomb, which isn’t “smart” when considering the anit-survival issues it deploys. 
But that is just one small example of human intelligence. Think of all of the positive advancements in science and medicine, and not to mention all of the human basics which lend to our survival every day.
I would say that most definatly, it is a survival trait, without any intelligence i doubt we would have even evolved more than our current primate brothers and sisters.
Matt
Blend on, and blend well!!!
Yet it is because the “anti-survival” issue is only relative to the use of the knowledge. You ever seen the movie Armageddon?
But that is just one small example of human intelligence. Think of all of the positive advancements in science and medicine
Which nuclear science has a major role in.
Look what pollution has done to our world and what it will do if things keep going this way. But would you say the discovery of combustion was not smart? What about the invention of the wheel? How many people have died in car accidents? I don’t really think there is such thing as “anti-survival”, other than just plain suicide. It is not in human nature to kill oneself without some type of mental disturbance. I think what you are refering to as “anti-survival” is simply “risk”.
I’m speaking of the long term survival of a species. What is required for a species to survive?
1: Procreation: Individuals of a species have to live long enought to breed and raise their young to the point that they can be self supporting so they can breed and raise their own young. For most species this is 1-3 years, for humans it’s getting to be (in western society) 18-25 years (it used to be 13-14 years), the more complex the society the longer it takes the young to learn what’s required to live independent of the parents.
Man as a species uses the resources at hand until the surounding environment is destroyed then moves on to the next area, we no longer have a next area but seem to be unable to change our pattern of rape and run. Will we be smart enough as a species to change??
Ahhh… so due to the fact that humans don’t have the basic survival skill programmed into them like animals, we must learn in order to procreate. That would involve intelligence. So that would indeed make intelligence a survival skill, or else we would never reach a level required to procreate.
Look at babies born with down syndrome and other conditions. The ones that seem to be stuck at a certain age in intelligence and learning capabilities. They as a species would not be able to survive on their own.
Man as a species uses the resources at hand until the surounding environment is destroyed then moves on to the next area, we no longer have a next area but seem to be unable to change our pattern of rape and run.
This is not so much a species as it is a culture/regional issue. Each area and culture has their own methods and ways of using and regulating their resources.
Will we be smart enough as a species to change??
The question is:
As as species, will be able to work together?
It’s not anti-survival unless we make a car big enough for the population of the planet to fit, and then go out drinking and driving 'eh?
I would say there are positive effects and negative effects to any invention or advancement, but that was not my point. Of course i think that combustion and cars are great inventions, but i wouldnt call those things anti-survival because they cannot effect the whole of the population of Earth.
Something like atom bombs, no matter how it “could” be used, are still a very dangerious threat. It’s the kind of weapon which gives one person the power and desicion to kill millions in one quick genocide.
Look at all the nuclear problems the US is having with NKorea and the middle east, i think if the inventors could see these issues, they may have decided NOT to invent it because of the devostating effects it could have for humanity.
I would call, and only call, a weapon of mass destruction, or a engenired deadly strain of virus, anit-survival. Simply because they enable a small group of people to rid the planet of all life, and that is far from smart.
As far as polution, that is one unfortunate side effect, but its always been that way since cavemen first lit fires on purpose to cook or keep warm. Something cannot exist in an environment without disrupting it in some way, either by taking food from it or leaving waste. When it comes right down to it, even the inividual amount of heat you generate in your body causes entropy in the universe. We just have to find ways to minamize negative effects on an environment while reaping the most out of the natural benifits.
Matt
Blend on, and blend well!!!
Using the past as a guide…no way.
Using the past as a guide…no way.[/quote]
Sad, but true… and yet i like to think, that at least the greater portion of the population will eventually be able to work together. This is unlikley to happen however, unless it was to save ourselves from a threat (like alien invasion).
Matt
Blend on, and blend well!!!
Cars and combustion do effect the whole planet, acid rain doesn’t fall only on the owners of cars (yes there have been great strides made in the reduction of acid rain).
The problem with N. Korea and Iraq having nuclear devices, the US is the country with enough nuclear devices to destroy all life on earth and the guy with his finger on the button has said he’ll push it if he feels threatended, not if attacked, threatened. Are you really smart if you do something just because you can, but without thinking about the long term results of your actions. How do you store nuclear waste? Just put it in the ground and let someone in the future worry about it. Whats 10,000 years anyway, the government’ll last that long won’t it? If you look at the current plans for the storage of nuclear waste (there is already more waste than the current plan can handle with more being generated every day) it reads as if they ass-u-me that the goverment will be around to take care of it, how smart is that. The entire history of man doesn’t cover the time span required for the storage of nuclear waste.
It dosen’t matter what it is. Whether it’s nuclear weapons or engineered viruses. They all stem out of the one thing, our evolution as a species. As we move forward and continually learn more about the world in which we exsist, as a result we will learn ways to apply the knowledge we have gained. Often with the purpose of gaining more knowledge, which will then lead to more of the same.
To invent a nuclear weapon, you don’t really have to invent anything. Just discover, just take the leash off what already is there. Although today’s thermonuclear weapons you may be able to consider as such.
Using the past as a guide…no way.[/quote]
Sad, but true… and yet i like to think, that at least the greater portion of the population will eventually be able to work together. This is unlikley to happen however, unless it was to save ourselves from a threat (like alien invasion).
Matt
Blend on, and blend well!!![/quote]
You have just made an excellent case/reason for war.
Ooo, you 2 are certainly hot on my tail tonight!!! hehe 
Could you please explain that a bit clearer? I have no idea what you are refering to, unless, by my statement, you mean war with aliens, in which case i ment self-defence.
Yes, i know the US has the majority of nukes, i didnt mean otherwise, but cited all 3 as a “problem”. And yes cars do make polution and acid rain, though in theory they dont HAVE to. Thats what i ment by the statement learn to minamalize the negative effects on our invironment while still being able to do things like drive and such.
I know you guyz are probably itching to tell me im wrong over this or that, so i’ll keep it short, and add that i’m not wrong, your not wrong, there is no such thing as wrong, only human perception of…
Matt
Blend on, and blend well!!!
Using the past as a guide…no way.[/quote]
Sad, but true… and yet i like to think, that at least the greater portion of the population will eventually be able to work together. This is unlikley to happen however, unless it was to save ourselves from a threat (like alien invasion).
Matt
Blend on, and blend well!!![/quote]
You have just made an excellent case/reason for war.[/quote]
Wars have been fougth for idiot-ology, I’m an idiot and if you don’t follow my ology I’ll kill you, most fighting going on today falls under idiot-ology.
This is such an opinionated statement compared to this one:
Using the past as a guide…no way.[/quote]
So, relative to the past, we as a species will not be able to work together. This in itself would make general conflict unavoidable. What would then be in question, is the resolution to the conflict. Given the fact that we have yet to find a suitable way to fully solve these conflicts, that would make your “idiot-ology” post highly relative to perspective and opinion.
By that same token, the royalty of Spain could’ve said to Columbus, “You think that the world is round, when even a little kid knows it’s flat and has edges.” Well… several royal families did say that, and it’s why Spain got so powerful. The fact is, Einsteins theories were concieved completely of his own mind and reasoning, without even the apple to fall on his head as a clue. Many were proven true in his time, many proven true since, and many yet to be proven. So far, at least, the time distortions caused speed have been proven (perhaps the distortions caused by gravity too, not sure). If someone says wormholes exist, would you say it’s untrue, just because one hasn’t been spotted yet? Of course you wouldn’t say it is true… but the possibility is there. Either way, we certainly don’t know enough knowledge yet to disprove it.
I agree with you there, it’s called the THEORY of evolution for a reason. I’ve seen some scientists present some fairly compelling evidence for biblical creation as well. Now, just to set things straight… I’m no bible thumper, and while open to ideas other than evolution, I tend to accept that at the moment as the best explanation of the development of life, but until we can observe once species evolve into a new and different species, it is still just a theory, and should be taught that way, not as fact.
I can’t disagree more. I used to think the same way, until a book made a compelling argument. I think it was “Farmer in the Sky”, by Robert A. Heinlein (sci-fi about the colonization of the Jupiter moon Ganymede). As that book pointed out, human’s can’t adapt to different environmental conditions at all. Could we survive without oxygen? If it were too hot? Too cold? Not enough water of food? Etc, etc. We’re fragile creatures, and survive only within a narrow set of conditions. We do deal with these things, though. Not enough water… we bring it from elsewhere. Too hot… we use shelter and air conditioners. Can’t breath underwater… we build tanks to hold air for us. Can’t breath at high altitude… we pressurize our aircraft. Too cold… we wear extra clothing, build fires, and any other methods for keeping us warm enough. No… we cannot adapt to new environments, we have the amazing ability to adapt harsh environments to US!
Ridding the planet of all life is next to impossible. It’s almost as hard to rid the planet of only human life. Mother Earth is far more resiliant that you can imagine. There have been several mass extinctions in Earth’s history, but not a single event has ended all life. 100 years ago, smallpox was around. Sure… it killed a lot of people, it has devastated many communities, but at no time ever has any plague or epidemic ever threatened the extinction of man. Not even massive nuclear world could end humanity (in my opinion). The Russians believed that while it would be devistating, nuclear war was survivable, and took steps to prepare for it (though the US government followed through with the “MAD” agreements, and took no action, as I’ve heard… though I’m not exactly convinced such agreements existed). Anyhow… I do think that it would be possible to destroy civilization, I don’t believe is the same of humanity. And of course, if humanity survived, new civilizations would follow (who knows, perhaps there were once Atlantians discussing the same subject through a similar, yet different, interface).
Two comments on this one. First, I don’t think that automobiles cause acid rain, but rather certain emissions from factories, such as sulphur. Second, acid rain is not a world problem, but a regional one. We don’t get acid rain in this part of the U.S., while it has been a problem in the highly industrialized Northeast, and areas downwind. Cars do cause their own problems (also regional), such as smog. Want to look at a world problem, you have to move on to the theory of global warming.
Hrm… ok. First off that is a threat meant for deterrence. President Bush feels threatened right now, so why aren’t the nukes a flyin’? Could be a bluff, could not be, but rest assured that such actions wouldn’t be taken unless absolutely necessary. Consider some fictitious nation proving first that it had the capability to deliver a payload that could reach the U.S., or an allied country, then proving that it had created a functional nuclear weapon (such as Pakistan and India’s test blasts). Then that fictitious nation threatened to use such weapons, unless xyz were done… essentially some form of ransom. Do you think that if a single targeted nuclear strike could disable that ability, while causing fewer deaths and less destruction than the threatened attack, and there were no other alternatives that such a preemptive nuclear attack would be warranted? This is the type of “threatened” mentioned. Finally, I still doubt our arsenal would kill all life, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Exactly… all you got to do is run hydrogen in the engine instead of gasoline, and all you got coming out of the tail pipe is a little water vapor. Only real problem is the infrastructure to produce hydrogen in an ecologically low-impact manor (I think most commercial hydrogen production today comes from fossil fuels), and the infrastructure to distribute that hydrogen. Even 30 year old caddy’s could run on it, with a few modifications (just got to switch the tanks, fuel lines, and carbeuration system for a gas fuel, rather than a liquid one). Though, I think hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a bit more efficient than using hydrogen for internal combustion engines… but with internal combustion, you still get the heart-pumping “vroom vroom” we all love so much. 
In fact, I believe it’s BMW that’s been working with hydrogen combustion vehicles for over 25 years. Their current models (not widely available, maybe not even commercially available at all, though I don’t know) can run on both gasoline and hydrogen, and switch from one to the other with the push of a button, and you don’t notice a difference… not even a “hiccup” while switching.
Imp
Then the US threatened to use such weapons, unless xyz were done… essentially some form of ransom.
The US is the only country that I’ve heard of that has threatened to use weapons of mass destruction if it’s demands weren’t met, disarm or else is what Bush was saying. Doesn’t his threating to use weapons of mass destruction constitute a threat to another country that meets your definition of a threat that would make using weapons of mass destruction in a preemptive strike ok? After all we have the weapons (nuclear, chemical and biological) and the delivery systems to back the threat up with the ability to strike anywhere on the planet. Do they not have the same right to defend them selves as we do? Lets hope that Saddam isn’t as crazy as Bush says he is, it could be a real mess if he called the bluff. For the US to launch a missle towards Iraq it would have to be launched towards Russia (Russia and Iraq share a border, would the US stand still for Russia setting a nuc off in Mexico or Canada?), what if they feel threatened by the launch and launch towards us?What about all the rest of the countries that border Iraq, they are all going to be effected, what if they feel threatened by a nuclear response against Iraq?