Happy Wonderer

I just thought of an interesting effect that might skew our perceptions of animal intelligence. I do not believe that we test the intelligence of our predators very frequently...

"Oh Mr. Grizzly Bear, which card is the most similar to the card on the...AAAAIIIGHHH!"

HW

Undercurrent

We do, in fact, (in talking about compensating for physical defects through intelligence,) define superiority as things we do through intelligence. But that doesn't mean that we can't compare our abilities that we gain through intelligence with the equivalent ability in animals that don't acquire it through intelligence.

Consider comparing flying ability between four groups:

• Insects: Flight through thin wings extending from thorax.
• Birds: Flight through feathers extending from modified arms.
• Bats: Flight through skin streched between elongated fingers.
• Humans: Flight through mechanical devices crafted through intelligence.

Just because the groups fly based on different mechanisms, doesn't mean that you can't compare based on standard metrics of flying (speed, distance, &c).

Of course a human couldn't do any flying without intelligence, but that's hardly saying that intelligence is the metric. None of these species could fly without mitochondria, but that doesn't make "having mitochondria" the metric.

m.

P.S. I contend, however, that intelligence does deserve a special priority amoung abilities, but I contend that that belief is due to the fact that intelligence is so useful in acquring other abilities, not just because humanity is looking for a reason to think of itself as "special".

Undercurrent

Why not. I believe Scientific American conservatively estimated the time it would take to colonize the galaxy as something like a million years. That's not a terribly long amount of time for a species to remain the same. Especially if colonies were specifically trying to maintain genetic diversity.

Why not? I certainly see no particlar physical barriers to creating nanomachines that would revert my body's cells to the way they were 5 years ago, and just keeping repeating this process every 5 years.

The only true, unsurpassable end I could see is when the usable energy in the universe dries up, which is far enough off (10^100 years, estimated by sci. am., provided we can find ways to extract energy from evapourating black holes) that I would call living until then "immortal".

m.

Dr S

Thank you. Somehow it has gotten to be over two years. April 19, 2000, he was only 27.

Quetzal

Interesting topic. I read through the thread, but haven't really seen an operational definition of "supremacy". Is there one? We seem to be arguing about the criteria used, but has anyone actually defined what we're attempting to measure?

IMO, the only thing that can be unequivocally stated is that the human species is unique in the sense it is the only species in the history of life on Earth that has the capability to effect environmental change on a global scale (although those cyanobacteria back in the Pre-Cambrian that pooped O2 did a pretty fair job at that). I get concerned when I hear about human supremacy, because if we are simply applying subjective - often anthropocentric - criteria to the analysis, we risk forgetting that a belief in the supremacy of man can become a fairly destructive mindset. I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone that if the global environment is changed enough, we might even bring about our own extinction. I guess we would be pretty unique in that, as well...

echidna

Are those Pre-Cambrian cyanobacteria still around ?

Quetzal

You're kidding, right? Identifiable cyanobacterial microfossils first appear around 2.5 gya. They were preceeded by stromatolites (to about 3.5 gya) and chemical traces that appear to be bacterial in origin (3.8 gya). There are still lots of cyanobacteria "families" today, but I don't think they're the same species that existed way back when.

echidna

Sorry, it was a tongue-in-cheek reply to the above ...

Quetzal

Oookaaay.

Interesting that you seem to feel the statement was in error. You might want to look up a bit about the oxygen holocaust in the Proterozoic that occurred around 2.5-1.9 gya. A whole lot of prokaryotes went extinct. In fact, the cyanobacteria nearly wiped themselves out as well - it was only the fortuitous evolution of superoxide dismutase in some families of cyanobacteria that allowed them to survive themselves. Certain archaea and other anaerobic prokaryotes survived in locations/conditions where oxygen didn't penetrate. I even read somewhere (I can't find the reference) that it was the oxygen poisoning that created the selection pressure that led to eukaryotes in the first place - someone may be able to find it (and I don't know how valid the hypothesis is).

OTOH, humans rely on a whole pile of other organisms for survival. In spite of our adaptability and technical savvy, if we screw things up badly enough, it's quite possible we can render the planet uninhabitable for humans. Note: I didn't say all life - life is incredibly persistent. Humans are very likely to write themselves out of the equation, however.

Anyway, I'm not a tree hugger (I hate it when the bark gets stuck in my teeth). Nor do I subscribe to the metaphysics of the Gaia hypothesis. OTOH, my argument revolves around the common Xian view that humans are somehow special and not subject to their environment (the whole gawd gave dominion over the cattle and beasts, etc thing). To an extent our technology and adaptability has mitigated direct environmental selection pressures on the species as a whole. However, there IS a point of no return where the cumulative effects of continual environmental degradation produce irreversible negative effects on our own survival. I consider the Xian view to be potentially dangerous because it ignores this basic fact. Fine for a Bronze Age tribe of goat herders with no environmental impact beyond their tiny local region. Potentially lethal for a modern society.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

pz

"Conservatively"? What is a conservative estimate for how long it would take us to reach the nearest star, 4 light years away? Compare that to your million year estimate to expand outwards about 100,000 light years.
Your body is full of "nanomachines" right now: we usually call the simpler ones "enzymes" and the bigger, more elaborate ones "cells". They are much, much more sophisticated than the ones nanotechnologists dream of, and they haven't led us to virtual immortality yet.