Sort of a follow up on the previous thread I guess ... I'm very much interested in all this stuff but I never really studied it or anything. The following is just my uneducated opinion, feel free to correct/add upon/comment on it.

Part A:

Clearly humans have developed well beyond the capabilities of any other animal. So the big question is: Why?

I'd say that our brain has developed into being able to form far more complex connections, in a brain that's physically much larger than it should be viewed against the general proportions of our body.

So what is required to develop a more sofisticated brain:

1. A strong curiosity. If you want to know what something is, you're thinking about it, which trains your brain. Curiosity is something pretty much all animals have, I guess. But I think pretty much only primates have it so strongly that it may actually overcome fear.

2. The right physiology to interact with your habitat. It helps to have hands. Yes, dolphins and other whale species are likely very smart, but they don't have the physical means to, for instance, create tools. With our hands we can make fine and controlled gestures, which helps us create delicate and precise tools to aid us in life.

3. Development of abstract thought. If you want to create a tool, you first need to think about what you need, what problem it is you're trying to overcome and what the right tool to solve it might be.

4. A long term memory. If you forget what you've discovered last week, how are you going to improve upon it?

5. Social encouragement. I guess in a way this is about competition, the desire to 'outsmart'. The need to come up with something even cooler than what that other guy had made.

6. ...

Now the strange thing is, we're part of the primate group, which means we are very similar on a genetical level. Chimps create tools, but these are a gazillion times more primitive than the peak of what we have created so far. So why are they so behind? They're not that different from us.

Another interesting thing is animals like the whale species group and elephants. It's obvious they are intelligent and have a good memory. But, they lack the proper physiology. They don't have hands. Do you think they think on a much higher level, compared to the vast majority of animal live, but are unable to actually achieve their ideas because of physical limitations?

Part B

Do you think the human mind is free, or is this an illusion?

Are we still bound by our instincts or have we really risen above them. At any rate, our body still has control over us. We can't decide to just stop breathing, for instance. It's literally simply impossible.

There are many examples of a genetic heritage. For instance, if you let a young boy walk around, he'll sooner or later pick up a stick or something and start hitting things with it. Any boy in a toy store will want something 'tough'. If you give them carte blanch, you can bet they'll come back with some sort of weapon or a cool car or heavy duty gear like a truck or something. Girls will automatically want something like dolls or a kitchen set, whatever.

I don't think you can raise a child to act against his genetic heritage. Ofcourse you could force him to use something else, by not buying what he wants, but instead buy what you want him to have. But that way you'll end up with a disfunctional kid, I'm sure.

Outside the human mind, there's also hormones. They are the triggers that start up processes of change in our bodies and alter/control the way we think. If your level of these hormones is outside of the normal required amount, you can bet you're generally going to end up being 'disfunctional' to a certain degree. Anyone with a really low hormone level would be found a-sexual. A person with mixed up hormone levels, like a hermaphrodyte, will show mixed up behavioural patterns.

- That's all I can think of (have time for) right now, I might add to it as I think of things to add.

"What is mind, don't matter. What is matter, nevermind!" - Homer J. Simpson.

7....

A harsh environment that is challenging for survival.

Why did the primates in south america never develop into great ape equivalents?

Lack of predation. Lack of competition for resources.


Watch "Survivorman", the episode where he spends a week on the african plain.

EVERYTHING there is dangerous. Deadly even. If Africa wasn't so harsh while we were developing, we would never have had our intelligence grow. In my opinion.

It is that struggle against the environment, and against competition for your echological niche that stresses a population enough to select the most beneficial of the naturally occuring random genetic mutations.

Survival of the fittest.

Those genetic mutations always exist. look at the difference between your nordic "strongest man" competitor, a Kenyan long distance runner, and a Japanese auto executive.

Put them in a group, with no stress (no danger, plentiful resources) and all will survive well.

Put that social group in stress, and depending on the kind of stress one of them will be definately better suited for survival.

Continue that stress over a long enough period of time, and that type of human will become highly prevalent.



This is one of the reasons why I believe human beings have not progressed in intelligence in a couple thousands of years, and will not progress in intelligence unless all of society collapses.

In modern societies, it is the intelligent, the driven, and the motivated who generally* succeed in society. Unfortunately, the breeding rate of the successful to the unsuccessful is upside-down in every human society on earth.


Normally, in nature, the successful breed more than the unsuccessful. This strengthens the species.

In Human societies. Who is breeding? In almost every country, even those considered "first world" or successful, it is the poorest who
outbreed the richest by a very wide margin.

This is one scientific reason why Abortion is bad for the human race.

Those successful enough to afford abortions, should be breeding at least as much as the inner city single mother of 5 who keeps popping out kids because the government gives her more money each kid she has...and pays her more if she stays single.

The two-income family who is successful, pulling down a combined 100k plus a year, highly trained, intelligent, probably able to pass that intelligence on to the next generation, are on average having less than two children.


Over time, Those who for WHATEVER*** reason are not successful in society are out breeding those who are.

This has been going on for a very long time. And will only continue until those who are not successful in society so vastly outnumber those who are successful in society, that the society created and supported by those who are successful, can no longer support those who are unsuccessful in society, and rely on that society's support. The society will collapse.

This is a logical reason why I do not believe any kind of socialistic or communistic government is self-sustainable without MASSIVE governmental control over everyone's everyday life.

The half-socialism that every western society has is not sustainable in the long run.

either you have personal freedom, and a government that is self sustainable by not increasing taxes on a shrinking tax payer base to pay for freebeis for an increasing lower class.

or, you have zero personal freedom, and a government that is self sustainable by utter and complete control over everything, down to breeding rights.

or, you have what western society has now. A society that is designed to inevitably collapse.

And coming up with some really strange ideas.

In Human societies. Who is breeding? In almost every country, even those considered "first world" or successful, it is the poorest who
outbreed the richest by a very wide margin.

You're assuming that poor people are somehow inferior to rich people, in some kind of genetic manner. Offspring of 'unsuccessful' couples may become 'successful'- that is one of many things that set human beings apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Our children are not necessarily doomed to fail as we did, if we did. In that same vein, our children may fail where we did not. This is a product of self-awareness.

Another assumption you are making is that a stable, rather than growing, population is bad. A world where approximately as many babies are born as people died is probably the best we can hope for. As it stands, the Earth is overpopulated already, a constant growth rate of the human population would mean disaster not only for us, but for every living thing on the planet. While you are correct in that in some highly educated countries the growth rate is negative, which is bad, it is unlikely that extinction via birth control could actually happen.

I'm not sure where your anti-socialist argument really fits, or even makes any sense. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe education is the primary factor in birth control usage. Rather than it being a populace's reaction to the kind of society a stalinist/soviet or even western socialist gov't creates. Ironically, both tend to be fairly well educated societies.

*******
You're assuming that poor people are somehow inferior to rich people, in some kind of genetic manner
/******
That's not what I meant at all.

Any society puts forth certain behaviors required for success in that society.

Unfortunately, in human societies, "success" in society is almost always accompanied by falling birthrate. This means that either culturally, or by genetic predisposition (just as alcoholism can be genetic, but isn't always, so can behaviors that are pre-disposed to be anti-success in society), or by a combination of the two, those who do not have it in them to become "successful" as defined by the society in which they live will eventually, given enough time, completely replace those who are "successful" as defined by the society. When this happens, the society falls.


This is the main reason why no human society has existed long enough so that it's definition of "successful" results in an evolutionary force that selects for that definition which would lead to the furthor evolution of humankind. Which was my main point in the beginning. As long as no human society is sustainable, barring global catastrophy that will bring 'evolutionary stress'* to the whole human population, humans will not evolve furthor.





*******
Another assumption you are making is that a stable, rather than growing, population is bad.
********

What you say might be true, but only in the vacuum of outside populations. This means your "best that we can hope for" is a world government with the authority and power to control the birthrate worldwide. Yes, that would be sustainable. (if not preferable to many people who like ideas such as freedom and justice)

However, in the absence of a world-encompassing birthrate control, there will always be an "outside" to any society.

My point was that any society, or species in the natural world, that chooses to self-abort will eventually, given enough time, be utterly and completely replaced by another outside society or species that doesn't.

You can see this happening now in europe. The poor immigrant muslim population (and the society that accompanies them) is breeding like rabbits. The native european population (and the society that accompanies them) actually has negative population growth.

It doesn't take a super computer or an einstein to see that it won't be long, if things continue as they are today, before the poor muslim population outnumbers the native european population by so much that the whole continent will, for all intents and purposes, become completely muslim.

You see the same thing today to a lesser extent with the American culture and the Spanish mexican culture**.


Let's do a logical thought-experiment.

You have two cultures. One sits on land very fertile. They are rich, and well fed and peaceful. Unfortunately, their society has evolved (like every human society has, if not destroyed before it got to this point)to the point where there are endeavors more important to the adults than raising children. As a result, their birthrate falls, and they stagnate.

Just outside their borders, is a culture on land not very fertile, they are poor. But, they breed. They have lots of kids.

Sooner or later, the people on the land that isn't very fertile will look at their millions, then look at the fertile land held by mere thousands, and ask themselves "Why are we struggling to eat, when there is all that food over there".

When that happens, the culture living on the fertile land will sooner or later...probably sooner...cease to exist. Either by conquest, or by the more common in human history, immigration and out-breeding. This is happening today with the influx of immigrants from all over the world, not just Mexico, although mexico has a large percentage of the immigrants just because it's closer and easier to get here from there.

This is also one of the main real reasons the Roman empire fell. The elite, the true "romans" stopped breeding, and couldn't keep their armies and their workforce full. so they imported labor and arms from outside "barbarian" societies. Finally, those barbarians looked at their vast numbers, and the small numbers of genetically roman, and asked themselves "why are we taking orders from these guys?"





*******
I'm not sure where your anti-socialist argument really fits, or even makes any sense.
********
If you take this argument outside population...

Let's look at this logically.

My argument is basically about unsustainability. Every politician in the west gets elected basically by promising two things. One, promising more government handouts. Two, promising to make the rich pay more taxes, and the poor pay less.

This quasi-socialistic type of government that pervades the west just is not sustainable.

You can not promise the people more and more benefits, while at the same time taking more and more taxes from less and less people. You will reach a point (I believe America is fast approaching this point) where it is impossible to collect enough from those still on the tax rolls to pay all of the promised benefits.

You see this in America today with the whole social security thing.

In the next 4 years or less, a quarter of the American population will begin going on social security and leaving the workforce. By the time all of the baby boomers are out of the workforce, and nolonger contributing to the taxes, social security will be beyond bankrupt. This is fact. Sure, you can make up for this for SOME time by raising taxes on those still left working, but that just is not sustainable.

The american system, economically at the VERY least, will fall. And we will almost assuredly live to see it. There is no way around the sheer numbers involved.

This half-socialism just isn't sustainable. Full socialism is. but it can only be so if the central government has total authority over every iota of currency in whatever form it takes. And, since governmental authority is just another way of saying "the use of force" this means that socialism can only be sustainable if it is complete, meaning that the government has the sole and unlimited right to the use of force upon it's citizenry.

I'm not saying, in this post at least, whether this is good or bad. I am just saying that his is *ONE* way to go about creating a sustainable society. The argument on whether this way of creating a sustainable society is preferable to other ways (yes, there are other ways)can be left for another thread, and there are quite a few people out there who say it is preferable. As proven by the wide variety of nation wide college student groups that proudly proclaim their are socialist, or even communist.


*************
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe education is the primary factor in birth control usage
**************

That isn't exactly different from what I said. Because education is ancillary. Education, in today's western societies, is a direct measure of success within society. So you are agreeing with me that "success" in a society is a primary factor in birth control usage.





*
The term 'evolutionary stress' is a scientific term to denote conditions that force a certain set of pre-existing genetic mutations to show themselves enough of a survival and breeding advantage as to lead to a species-wide selection for those genetic mutations.



**
As a complete aside about the Spanish mexican culture...

I always get giggles when I think of them. Why? Listen to the rhetoric and propaganda coming from groups like mecha and 'The Race' (can anyone think of a more racist name for a group?) Much of what they say is that America is bad because we took their land, blah blah.

The very fact that the group "The race" is actually called "La Rasa" is hilarious, if you think about it.

They name their group promoting their mexican heritage and race, in the language of the people that FIRST subjugated them, the Spanish.

Those groups are speaking every day the language of the Conquistador. Even today, the vast majority of the powerful in mexico, both politically and commercially, are genetically Spanish mexicans, not native mexicans.

I for one need a challenge to be at my best.

I guess you could say humanity has become too successful at evolution, because not only have we survived all the harsh dangers of the wild, we've limited them and in many ways annihilated them.

Our average lifespan has vastly increased because of it. In the old days, diseases and fatal infections after being wounded would be the biggest danger I think. Any open wound might infect (and likely would) and poison your blood if not sterilised, something we take for granted these days. Medical science had been more harmful than helpful for quite a while.

Our highly developed medical advances and level of education has vastly increased our chances of survival, in an evolution way of thinking, probably too far.

Back in the day, only survivors would be able to remain in the genetic pool. The weak/dumb/unlucky would not survive long and have a lesser chance of spreading their genetic heritage. In the past, if you had a semi-serious accident, you'd die. Now you walk out of a hospital as if nothing happened.

As a whole, especially the western world, has grown soft. Does that mean that if something really bad would happen, humanity would die out? I think not. For instance, if a global killer meteorite (like the Dinosaur killer) would strike, a select elite of people with a survivor mentality would fight and survive.

"What is mind, don't matter. What is matter, nevermind!" - Homer J. Simpson.

Homo Neanderthalensis*, better known as the Neanderthal, has lived together with Homo Sapiens, the modern man, namely us. I've heard that the Neanderthal were found to be living at the bottom of valleys, right next to the river. Modern man was found to be living on the slopes a bit higher up. At first glance it would seem the Neanderthal had the better spot, yet by living on the slopes modern man had an advantage. In this era, man was already a hunter, and they largely lived with the flow of the animals. They were settled as in they probably had a winter location and one for summer (either further southward or to the north, obviously). Farming hadn't been invented yet.

So the large herds were the main source of food for both the Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens. I said modern man had an advantage by chosing the slopes. Ofcourse, they're less effected by floods, but far more importantly, they could see the movements of the great herds. They would see either the movements or the dust cloud way sooner than their Neanderthal collegeas. Also from high above, you can plan better, as you have a broader overview.

Now an interesting question is, did modern man survive because they chose, maybe by chance, the slopes while the Neanderthal chose the valley? Or, was it a deliberate choice, which would indicate higher intelligence, compared to the Neanderthal. Apparently it was the latter. Neanderthals had a physique making them stronger and probably of a tougher constitution. But, there wasn't a lot of room for a really big brain, because of their big boned and strong heads. So they likely really weren't too bright.

In comparison, Homo Sapiens is rather frail. But they do have room for a bigger brain. Early Homo Sapiens likely was very ignorant to the ways of the world, but born with inherent intelligence and curiosity. Where the Neanderthal would be conservative and slow to change, Homo Sapience looked into everything he saw and either adapted their way of life to it, or even shaped it to their wishes and benefit.

As Darwin put it so correctly, survival is about being adaptive to change. Over (and under) specialization leads to decline and finally extinction. The Neanderthal was stuck in their primitive habits and were soon left behind, compared to Homo Sapiens. While Homo Sapiens flourished and grew, the Neanderthal fell back and became far less numerous until they finally died out. I don't know** if Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens were able to have sexual relations. Perhaps if they were, they blended in with Homo Sapiens in a limited way, leaving a part of their heritage in all of us. If not, they just died out.

* yes I looked that up , fyi, the name comes from 'Neander Thal', which means Neander Valley.
** perhaps no one does, I have no idea if that has been investigated or not

"What is mind, don't matter. What is matter, nevermind!" - Homer J. Simpson.

My thoughts on "mind" isn't an honorable mention to the Homo Sapiens. Since we started to flourish, yes a lot of things were invented, made better, etc...

However, the more we evolve, the more stupid we get. What is the ratio of people who would be able to survive if thrown in the Forest without any technology? Or able to say that they could live without the need for any external help (for food, drink, a roof over their head, basic tools and repair them when needed, etc)

We've become dependant, and as you put it, over specialized. We have one, two, a few at most, fields of expertise and we lack in nearly all the others. Yes there are more types of works than hundred of years ago, but that's exactly it...

If that wasn't enough, the minority who invent new things and giving them to others are only making us dumber and dumber. We are USING technology, but how many know HOW it works?

An humorist from Quebec put it this way: The more people in the group, the dumber the group gets.

It's impossible for one guy to know everything. I'm a programmer, in that field alone it's impossible to know everything. You chose your niche and try be an expert in that. If you do know something else as well, good for you, but it's very hard.

Suppose a large portion of humanity would die out. One scenario would be a global killer meteorite*. Ofcourse, if you are in the kill-zone it doesn't matter if you're smart or dumb, you'll die (if not evaporize).

But if you survive the onslaught, you need to FIGHT!|

If you fill your days buying that new mobile phone stacked with gadgets every 3 months while stuffing junk food in your mouth, doing no sport activity (or exercise) at all, or any high activity vacations, your chances are virtually zero.

Suppose you'd get a helicopter and grab random people from the major cities of western society and drop them in the middle of the wild, the vast majority would give up immediately. The rest would fight. Still, many people might surprise you, and prove to be more resilient than you'd guess. It's like the matrix, once you're in your cushion life too long, it's too late to be pulled out.

I like (close to) zero-comfort vacations**. Ofcourse, I like to return to my high luxury life, but I know that if it weren't there anymore I'd adapt and fight. I wouldn't like it, but I'd work on making life as comfortable as your environment allows. I know many people who's chances I'd estimate very close to zero.

People who's life is ruined once their nails can't be manicured on a daily basis anymore, would soon be extinct ofcourse (and good riddance ).

A good physical condition is an advantage, but before anything else you need mental strenght. You need to be a fighter. That doesn't mean you should be egocentrical, cause they don't last in the long run. You need to be strong in the face of high discomfort and still be able to laugh.

Many people I see do not qualify for that. In the least ...

* Which I also mentioned in my post in reply to Odrirg
** The kind that makes you think of a board with a hole in it, as a toilet, as a luxury.

"What is mind, don't matter. What is matter, nevermind!" - Homer J. Simpson.

They tend to know these kinds of clever things.

I'm off down the pub

Yhorian

nt

"What is mind, don't matter. What is matter, nevermind!" - Homer J. Simpson.

From a purely materialist point of view, humans are intelligent because intelligence is an evolutionarily adaptive trait.

Something that just occurred to me re: the above: if intelligence is evolutionarily adaptive for humans, why would it not be similarly adaptive for other species? The level of manual dexterity humans possess may allow them to make better use of their intelligence, but it seems like other species should still be able to derive some benefit. So, from the purely materialist view point, it seems counterintuitive that we're the only "highly intelligent" species on the planet.

As I stated, primates like chimps are very close to humans. In manual dexterity, they are vastly more developed, yet with the same, or similar, base qualities, they hardly got anywhere, especially compared to humanity.

"What is mind, don't matter. What is matter, nevermind!" - Homer J. Simpson.

which limits their ability to communicate and teach each other things. Chimps can, however, learn sign language. Also, the technological level of human cultures isn't always the same either. Different situations, different kind of development. Whatever leads towards survival. Maybe the humans needed the intelligence and tools more than chimps.

It's interesting to think about it. Do they not speak because they can't physically, or because they haven't 'tried enough'/'hadn't had the need' to develop speech, making physical change to accomodate complex vocal skills useless? I think it's the latter, because I would imagine them being able to come up with some form of a highly developed vocal speech. That they never really have might be because they never really needed it and/or they never were mentally capable of such (though I doubt that).

One of the larger factors in advanced speech patterns developing is distance, I think. Take for instance whales. They have a vastly complex system of sounds to take advantage of water carrying sound at vast distances. Apparently their vocabulary is exceptionally rich.

If you're a family linked community who pretty much stays at the same spot, you simply don't need a lot of words (ie sounds). Especially if you have no contact with other groups.

Apparently early humans and chimps had the same or similar traits, giving them a seemingly equal chance, except that humans clearly did more with it. They did things that brought along the need for more complex vocal systems, namely languages and dialects.

"What is mind, don't matter. What is matter, nevermind!" - Homer J. Simpson.

I'd say it's the former, due to the structure of their mouths. Also, their capability to recognize sounds is less sophisticated than that of humans.

As for Neanderthals, you should read the Wikipedia article about them if the topic interests you.

I don't know, it mostly makes sense to me.

Intelligence is an evolutionarily adaptive trait, but it's not necessarily the most important evolutionarily adaptive trait.

You figure all the good traits have opportunity costs. Intelligence probably is reasonably 'expensive' in multiple ways -- tends to need a larger organism that can support a big brain, tends to be able to gather excess food/resources to support it, tends to need a longer lifespan to develop/function than some other traits, etc. Probably an organism needs to be past certain thresholds in mobility, defense, food gathering, etc. before intelligence becomes a 'good buy'.

I assume if life on earth was somehow left alone long enough a variety of highly intelligent species would develop; the reason that hasn't happened is that once you get a first (presumably?) species on that level, in a lot of ways they step outside of / alter the course of normal evolution* such that the balance of trait value is all shaken up again. For example, now for squirrels 'instincts that avoid being hit by cars' or 'ability to scavenge Cool Ranch Doritos'** might suddenly have high evolutionary values as traits, whereas a thousand years ago those traits would have had no value at all.


* It's reasonable to say that humans are still evolving, but the pressures/choices of humans in modern human society, from an evolutionary standpoint, are vastly different than they would be for humans in the wild.

** I swear I have seen many squirrels forage these out of garbage and eat them.

A bigger organism for a bigger brain in itself also comes with a limitation. You need a diet that provides enough energy for both the body and the brain, both which drain a lot. So after a while you'll have to enhance your diet or hit a barrier.

Apparently for humanity that change was the addition of roasted meat to the diet. Before we were primarily herbivores with occasionnally scavenged meat, which wouldn't be a lot (unless lucky), raw, and of poor quality.

With actively hunting and roasting the fresh meat, the brain had the right energy source to advance further (a lot). Development of the hunt itself alone has been a good stimulance for growth. It requires teamwork, planning and courage (ie. the ability to overcome natural fear). All this requires an advanced 'train of thought' which in itself is a good way to develop the brain. Ofcourse this requires knowledge of fire.

Apparently humanity has known and used fire for a long time, but it took quite a while before we were actually able to create it ourselves. Before that, fire from a lightning blast, or other natural sources if available, would be used and fed to keep it going. If Iunna existed in those days, she would be very important, cause 'Guardian of the Fire' was a highly important job within a tribe/clan .

"What is mind, don't matter. What is matter, nevermind!" - Homer J. Simpson.

This doesn't sound like a guess to you? Heh. I wasn't aware evolution used the NutriSystem point approach.