TED Conversations

O'Neil Poree

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The intellectual instability of our species

Supposing that our species is collectively Insufficiently intelligent (or intellectually stable enough) to now protect our ecosphere. Correspondingly, this situation risks our survival, at least, as we are now constituted.
Central questions these implications give rise to then are:
What are the fundamental causes of this inadequacy?
Can we then attempt to sponsor a Worst Case Scenario solution, such as work towards the highest possible assurance of surviving seed populations to evolve some successor human species more fit to steward a healthy natural world?

At least twice, science indicates, our sspecies has passed through bottlenecks of ten thousand or so people. during the last 800 centuries.

The Gotterdammerung I hypothesize is now surely upon us, I claim. We are going to, willy-nilly, establish sanctuary alcoves all over the world (hopefully well-designed ones) for a long period of climate catastrophe. My topic begins with our evolution within whatever we are stuck with for coming centuries of inhospitable climate.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 14 2013: If I understand your definition correctly (please do correct me if my response is completely off base), I would identify one of the fundamental causes of this collective intellectual "instability" as the fact that intellectual deficiency does not inhibit procreation. In fact, there are many instances where intellectual deficiency facilitates higher procreation rates. Conversely, intellectualism often leads to other pursuits which distract from or delay procreation. This process contributes to higher population percentages of individuals who are not exposed to intellectualism (by genetics and/or in the environments in which they are raised).

    This situation is further aggravated by public policies and attitudes that further discourage intellectual values and promote spending resources on short-term solutions that are subversive of traditional natural selection. The cycle is self-fulfilling, since demonstration of intellectual capacity is not required for participation in the voting process that dictates public policy, and positions of office (generally/collectively) do not attract individuals who are capable or willing to consider the long term implications of our actions and policies.

    How to prime our descendants to evolve into a race that is more intelligent and less destructive to the environment is highly problematic, given the situation described above. If a worst case scenario occurs and we are forced to contend with a self-imposed, inhospitable (to human life) environment, there may be a chance of restoring "traditional" natural selection such that intellect (and by proxy, conservationist values - if the two go hand in hand) is selected for. But we also must consider the possibility that there isn't a way to ensure the survival of humanity, and that Earth's new chemistry and climate will only serve to make way for another generation of new species to evolve (and hopefully not make the same mistakes we have in their societies).
    • Jan 15 2013: By intellectual instability I do'nt wish to indicate deficiency so much as what you might think of as corruptibility, It isn't meant to refer to individuals, but is a comment on group behaviors. For example, the mad rush of China to achieve the same high level of consumeristic living standards, at the expense of the environment as is the most dangerous peaceful achievement of the developed world.
      Evolution will once more produce a handful of survivors at worst, I expect, after the climate hits its worst.
      I just want to debate trying to establish an intellectual outlook defining a better grade of steward of "the Creation" than we have been.
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2013: Thank you for clarifying. I was also referring to collective behaviors. I still feel that addressing the situation I described in my first post is imperative to successfully implementing any sort of preventative measures, but for the sake of this discussion, I will disregard it for now and treat the conditions as (more) ideal.

        In order to facilitate intelligence and conservationist values among future generations such that they begin to evolve into a race less destructive to the planet, we must structure our societies such that these traits will be advantageous and get selected for on a grand scale. The best way I can think of to go about doing so would be to create a societal paradigm shift by promoting such values among our children practically from birth. The educational model that some organized religions use has successfully produced billions of people (the majority of the population) who subscribe to teachings of their faith and impart those teachings to their own children. In general, I believe its success can be largely attributed to the age at which "indoctrination" begins, the social incentives that following the teachings and demonstrating favorable behaviors provide, and the fear that is invoked from certain aspects of their teachings. Perhaps something similar can be adapted for this purpose as well.
    • Jan 17 2013: don't worry. the earth won't make mistakes humans have made.
      And humans made them intentionally.
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2013: Which intentional mistakes are you referring to? Aside from developing nuclear weapons (and the like), which are destructive by design, it seems to me that many of the things that have been the most regrettable and harmful to the Earth were created for other purposes, and the damage to the Earth was accidental or collateral.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.