Intellectual Abundance

[Matt R.]

Smarter = better use of tools = better chance of survival and reproduction. As far as the really complicated stuff goes (i.e. theoretical physics, advanced mathematics, etc) this is just a direct consequence of the larger and more efficient brain. Also, our intelligence allows us to create better healthcare and medicines, giving us longer lifespans and, more importantly, vastly greater health. Also, let's not forget the advancement of agriculture and industry. These both lead to a much larger ceiling for population growth, leading to greater dispersal of genes. All of these things are consequences of our larger brains.

[Lestat]

I see what you're saying. I suppose advancements in agriculture is a way of using our resources that is not much different than say, a beaver building a dam. But I still say we don't need NEAR the intelligence we currently possess in order to survive and propagate on this planet. I understand our need for a larger brain given our inadequancies in other areas. But man's brain power is over-the-top.

[imported_luckyme]

I wonder if the peacock is pondering.

Selection pressures come at us from all sides. So, besides the obvious 'it was for other uses', such as language, trajectories, large social structure to track, etc, it's possible it's even more frivolous, such as 'quicker wit', or better story teller.

I'm not convinced we don't need it all. People with 90 IQ would be in pretty tough shape in a less coddling society. Evolution can be very slow and if was more impoprtant 5000 years ago we'd still be enjoying the benefits of it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Selection pressures come at us from all sides. So, besides the obvious 'it was for other uses', such as language, trajectories, large social structure to track, etc, it's possible it's even more frivolous, such as 'quicker wit', or better story teller. </font>

Language, trajectories and tracking social structure were obviously very important to our evolutionary advancement. I can also see how quicker wit and story telling may have played a role. But do you think evolution has a place for frivolousness? And this is really the point of my post...

Yes, we developed our overly large brains for specific reasons and specialized survival purposes. But is the rest just frivolous fluff? Or do we continue to get smarter and integrate new knowledge and intellectual skills in our evolutionary development? We are so far past the next highest species in the food chain, it's a joke. We have long since surpassed the threat from packs of carniverous predators. We have found ways to settle on all corners of the globe. Our biggest fear is man himself. Have we become our own predator? Do we now need to develop intellecutally (build war machines), in order to survive to survive as a species? Is our species looking to segregate? Is religion and/or other belief systems our way of breaking away so that one particular group will survive to higher evolutionary ground?

What other purposes does evolution have in store for all this intelligence?

[stackm]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Selection pressures come at us from all sides. So, besides the obvious 'it was for other uses', such as language, trajectories, large social structure to track, etc, it's possible it's even more frivolous, such as 'quicker wit', or better story teller. </font>

Language, trajectories and tracking social structure were obviously very important to our evolutionary advancement. I can also see how quicker wit and story telling may have played a role. But do you think evolution has a place for frivolousness? And this is really the point of my post...

Yes, we developed our overly large brains for specific reasons and specialized survival purposes. But is the rest just frivolous fluff? Or do we continue to get smarter and integrate new knowledge and intellectual skills in our evolutionary development? We are so far past the next highest species in the food chain, it's a joke. We have long since surpassed the threat from packs of carniverous predators. We have found ways to settle on all corners of the globe. Our biggest fear is man himself. Have we become our own predator? Do we now need to develop intellecutally (build war machines), in order to survive to survive as a species? Is our species looking to segregate? Is religion and/or other belief systems our way of breaking away so that one particular group will survive to higher evolutionary ground?

What other purposes does evolution have in store for all this intelligence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution doesn't have "purposes in store" for anything - that's not how it works. It often appears that way because of the principle of survival of the fittest, but evolutionary processes aren't designed to do anything - not even to eliminate defects, etc. - that's just what happens. In the case of humans, there's no "purpose" for having incredible intellect any more than there's a purpose for having five fingers on each hand and not six; that's just the way it's worked out. Sexual selection seems like a very plausible explanation for this phenomenon.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
We are so far past the next highest species in the food chain, it's a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to digress from the original topic, but this has been bugging me for a while. What do you mean by the "highest species in the food chain"? Or, put another way, what's eating you right now?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
What other purposes does evolution have in store for all this intelligence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's just a big experiment, the outcome of which is not known yet. Dinosaurs represented the experiment of whether size and strength were the most important. Their eventual plight showed that the answer was "no". Now the grand jury in the sky, be it God, Mother Nature or whatever, is deliberating on whether extreme intelligence will be shown to be the ulitimate asset. So far it seems like it might be, but there are some areas of doubt.

We seem to be lacking overall purpose. Mere survival is trivially easy to accomplish while higher-level goals cannot be agreed upon. We have some duking out amongst ourselves to do before we can embark on the important mission of what's best for the human race.

Probably a major event or two that will serve to control the growth of (or maybe even reduce) the population of humans will be the necessary first step. The next step will depend on how the first step pans out.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, we developed our overly large brains for specific reasons and specialized survival purposes. But is the rest just frivolous fluff? Or do we continue to get smarter and integrate new knowledge and intellectual skills in our evolutionary development?

[/ QUOTE ]

If somewhere in our evolutionary history we started 'noticing' ( at the gene level, not intellectually) that smarter people left more offspring, then sexual selection will do the peacocks tail trick and start selecting for evidence of intelligence rather than the direct benefits of that intelligence.

That leads to an advantage to people that exhibit intelligence in a easily noticed way. Some (but only some) of the attraction of younger women to successful-seeming older men may be attributed to this factor.
[ QUOTE ]
we developed our overly large brains for specific reasons and specialized survival purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What other purposes does evolution have in store for all this intelligence?

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope that's all just rhetorical. Future purpose is one thing that evolution does not factor in. How could it. Even current 'purpose' is a unhelpful way of looking at current features. Features aren't evolved 'for'.

[Matt R.]

Lestat,
I think another good way to look at it is as follows:

When choosing a mate, intelligence has always been a positive quality, as it gives a higher probability of success to your offspring. Both in terms of the genes they get and the resources your mate can provide with his/her higher than normal intelligance. Even if there is no environmental selection pressuring for a higher and higher IQ, there is still sexual selection going on. When the more highly intelligent members of the species are favored, this leads to selection of their "high IQ" genes.

I think this may be more along the lines of what you were looking for. Once you get past the ability to use tools, there isn't much environmental selection going on for smarter individuals (e.g. we're not getting any reproductive advantage by formulating quantum mechanics). But, there is still sexual selection occuring for the more fit members, and intelligence is highly correlated with "fitness".

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat,
I think another good way to look at it is as follows:

When choosing a mate, intelligence has always been a positive quality, as it gives a higher probability of success to your offspring. Both in terms of the genes they get and the resources your mate can provide with his/her higher than normal intelligance. Even if there is no environmental selection pressuring for a higher and higher IQ, there is still sexual selection going on. When the more highly intelligent members of the species are favored, this leads to selection of their "high IQ" genes.

I think this may be more along the lines of what you were looking for. Once you get past the ability to use tools, there isn't much environmental selection going on for smarter individuals (e.g. we're not getting any reproductive advantage by formulating quantum mechanics). But, there is still sexual selection occuring for the more fit members, and intelligence is highly correlated with "fitness".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this kind of throws my whole theorum of full figured blonde girls out the window. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] (sorry, I couldn't resist).