Do you think humans could survive natural selection if we weren't intelligent?

[theend3r]

Wait...so, you're asking for a fossil of an animal that cannot survive?

You're not going to find it. I suggest you learn about the theory of evolution (or anything, really) before you try to poke holes in it, otherwise you're going to run into some confused looks.

Stop.

As for the topic, we would survive, even with very low intelligence. As others said, it would mainly depend on the location. Africa would be far easier than Europe and anything colder than that would be impossible. Even then, the population would drastically decrease to about 10 % of its current numbers.

For people saying we are weak like:

They're slow, they're inefficient, they're naked, they require a lot of energy...

that's false. Humans are sufficiently strong and fast when trained properly and living in wilderness doesn't leave you with many other things to do.

Edited August 22, 2015 by theend3r

[Godot]

Well, as OP doesn´t say "unintelligent", but rather "as intelligent as a chimpanzee" ... with chimpanzees already showing a xconsidrable level of intelligence (including tool use) and social behavior,

I am sure that mankind would survive ... but it surely would get thinned out ... swith the numbers rapidly declining from 7+ billions to, perhaps, less than a million specimens and, if we assume that it is present day mankind which, for example, was struck by a disease that reduced all humans intelligence, it would surely go through processes of selection which would favor the strongest, most (remaining) intelligent and most resistant to diseases and adverse conditions (like starvation and cold) specimens (and, on a tribe level, probably those tribes which had the most social cohesion)

[KerikBalm]

It does not matter. That there are many dogs that do tells something about their level of awareness. That they are pretty intelligent I will not deny, all their behaviours are fairly complex and, of course, they are high level animals to begin with.

That was pretty much my point: almost any animal functions perfectly fine without self-awareness, ergo, humans would most likely do too.

Not all dogs are the same, it is well known that some breeds are smarter than others.

I wouldn't compare a border collie to a chihuahau, for instance.

[Lukaszenko]

Stop.

As for the topic, we would survive, even with very low intelligence. As others said, it would mainly depend on the location. Africa would be far easier than Europe and anything colder than that would be impossible. Even then, the population would drastically decrease to about 10 % of its current numbers.

For people saying we are weak like:

that's false. Humans are sufficiently strong and fast when trained properly and living in wilderness doesn't leave you with many other things to do.

You're acting as if it's settled and end of discussion. I don't think it is, and I'm not sure it would be even if we got experts in the appropriate fields to weigh in. So I will continue to discuss.

Depending who you ask, a chimpanzee is considered to be 4-5x stronger than a comparable human. It has to be to survive, and it can be, because it doesn't have a brain which uses 20% of its energy. If a human was much stronger, there'd just not be enough energy to go around. Not in the wild, even with cooking our food, which is considered an essential step to allow the brain to grow (and weakening the jaws because they had to weaken, and because they could). I know very little abut human evolution, so these are just small examples of how the entire human body evolved to support and harness intelligence.

The point is, everything else took second place, right down to how useless we are when we are born (any more "useful" and the head would be too big to fit through the birth canal). In the wild, nothing survives unless it fills a particular niche. A stupid human fills no niche.

But who am I to talk. Why don't we let history decide. IF stupid humans could survive, why didn't they? There are plently of extinct hominds that were not only much more intelligent than chimpanzees, but much better physically equipped to survive than a modern human. They clearly didnt have what it takes in the long run.

[RainDreamer]

They clearly didnt have what it takes in the long run.

Probably because of a certain other species that beat them in the intelligence front and take up the niche, and if that species lose their intelligence, perhaps another would take the place instead. But I digress. Alternate history theories are always full of unforeseeable variables that can cause significant changes over a long period of time. The more we delves into it, the more possibilities we see and the more we argue.

[theend3r]

Depending who you ask, a chimpanzee is considered to be 4-5x stronger than a comparable human.

So a chimpanzee can bench press half a ton?

Of course, if you compare an average chimpanzee to a human that spends 90 % of their time sitting at a computer or eating fast food then it might be true.

If you compare them to an athlete then chimpanzees will still be probably better in most areas.

But if you compared them to warriors from human history then chimpanzees would probably stand no chance 1 on 1 (although such refined warriors wouldn't exist if we had identical intelligence.).

All of this is not really important though. Yes, there are stronger species than humans, but there are also significantly weaker species than humans still surviving (like sloths).

Another thing is the OP doesn't consider current humans (i.e. take current humanity and remove their intelligence - that would be unnatural), but humans before they adapted to advanced technology (= stronger jaws...etc.). It wouldn't make sense otherwise.

If the scenario was that a recently released virus turned all humans into monkeys with human bodies then we would indeed probably all die.

[WinkAllKerb'']

h'int. is relative, clue it's not absolute at all ...

so on it's totally ego "self" (and/or intra-species//other species) stroking related ...

*#/sigh, /shrug, /yawn, /bored, /next*

[windows_x_seven]

h'int. is relative' date=' clue it's not absolute at all ... [/size']

so on it's totally ego "self" (and/or intra-species//other species) stroking related ...

*#/sigh, /shrug, /yawn, /bored, /next*

Can someone translate this, please.

[KerikBalm]

I have long since given up on trying to make any sense of winkallkerb's posts.

One made sense to me once(more or less).... yet someone else posted that they didn't get it, and I was scared that I was begining to go insane.

[RainDreamer]

Can someone translate this, please.

Not exact translation, just a loose interpretation:

"We cannot be sure of an answer when account for the complex nature of evolution. The views expressed so far are anthropocentric (human-focused) and mostly served as ego-stroking to feel good about our own place and importance in the natural world and in intra-species relation. I no longer wish to concern myself with this debate as is and shall move on to other things."

[theend3r]

h'int. is relative' date=' clue it's not absolute at all ... [/size']

so on it's totally ego "self" (and/or intra-species//other species) stroking related ...

*#/sigh, /shrug, /yawn, /bored, /next*

TL;DR It's self stroking related.

[Hagen von Tronje]

Yes, absolutely. We more or less already did exactly that in our evolutionary past, no?

If anything, intelligence seems to be overrated as a survival attribute. Which highly intelligence species other than humans has been truly successful? Most are endangered now, and while it's true enough that human intervention itself has brought that about, it nevertheless speaks to a certain lack of resilience in said species that suggests the biological costs of intelligence, which are considerable, all too easily outweigh the benefits.

Even without tools, humans are easily the most versatile predatory species on the planet. A lot of folks overlook just how good we are at that; persistence hunting is one especially impressive example of how humans can run many species utterly into the ground based purely on our physical advantages. One must also imagine that even with chimpanzee intelligence, we'd certainly utilize sticks as clubs and spears, making us an instant match for anything from lions to mammoths. There's a reason why we spread across the entire planet before even bothering with civilization - because it was very easy for us, broadly speaking. Certainly you will find that, oh, chimpanzees themselves maybe, did not fare so well.

As it turns out, being a tightly social omnivore with surprisingly effective innovations of biomechanics is a winning formula. Intelligence just happened to be the glue needed to hold all that together.

[Camacha]

Of course, if you compare an average chimpanzee to a human that spends 90 % of their time sitting at a computer or eating fast food then it might be true.

If you compare them to an athlete then chimpanzees will still be probably better in most areas.

But if you compared them to warriors from human history then chimpanzees would probably stand no chance 1 on 1 (although such refined warriors wouldn't exist if we had identical intelligence.).

This is false. Chimpanzees are quite a bit stronger than humans. Comparing average chimpanzees with the strongest the human race can provide seems hardly a fair comparison, though I am pretty sure the chimpanzees would still come out on top. Why I already explained a number of times: there are strong indications that humans, as a species, sacrificed muscle strength for brain development. We basically traded physical strength for intellectual prowess. As a result, we are comparatively much weaker than the other monkeys. The benefits of a brain meant that we still came out on top.

Another trade-off being made seems that to be one of muscle control versus strength. While chimpanzees are stronger, they have less control over their movements. Our increased brain capacity (with the associated problem solving and tool use) required ever finer finesse, which apparently required sacrificing some of the strength in the process. That is also an explanation why there is a limit to human hand control - we would simply become too anaemic otherwise.

I have long since given up on trying to make any sense of winkallkerb's posts.

One made sense to me once(more or less).... yet someone else posted that they didn't get it, and I was scared that I was begining to go insane.

I think it is a matter of huge language barriers and perhaps other elements confusing communication.

Not all dogs are the same, it is well known that some breeds are smarter than others.

I wouldn't compare a border collie to a chihuahau, for instance.

That is not relevant for the point being made.

If anything, intelligence seems to be overrated as a survival attribute. Which highly intelligence species other than humans has been truly successful? Most are endangered now, and while it's true enough that human intervention itself has brought that about, it nevertheless speaks to a certain lack of resilience in said species that suggests the biological costs of intelligence, which are considerable, all too easily outweigh the benefits.

There seems to be good reason for that: intelligent species are high level species, which means they require a lot of space to live, and a lot of food and subspecies to thrive. As soon as another intelligent species begins to target those habitats and resources, you lose out quickly if you are not capable of matching that species right away. Intelligent species pretty much all compete for the same stuff, so one pushes others away quite quickly.

Without humans, the story would be quite different.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Camacha

[AcidSludge]

I never fought an ape, so I can't say much on that "Who's the strongest"-topic.

I think with an pan-like intellect the sapiens-species - albeit much, much smaller in quantity at all - would diverse into numerous subspecies, like homo sapiens desertiis, homo sapiens tropica and whatnot, maybe living alongside groups of erectus, neanderthalensis, denisovas et cetera frolicking in their nichés.

Sounds nice, actually.

Sympatric living alongside other hominini and hominae wasn't (or isn't, actually) that unusual in "our" history, before we came up with things like the wheel, throwing spears and stealth bombers, that is.

[windows_x_seven]

Sympatric living alongside other hominini and hominae wasn't (or isn't, actually) that unusual in "our" history, before we came up with things like the wheel, throwing spears and stealth bombers, that is.

Well, that escalated quickly.

[PB666]

You're acting as if it's settled and end of discussion. I don't think it is, and I'm not sure it would be even if we got experts in the appropriate fields to weigh in. So I will continue to discuss.

Depending who you ask, a chimpanzee is considered to be 4-5x stronger than a comparable human. It has to be to survive, and it can be, because it doesn't have a brain which uses 20% of its

Well, that is in upper arm strength due to their need to forage constantly in trees. Lets be clear hear that Chimpanzees Are reasonably intelligent, that lack a few language facilities but they do have the a ability to commuicate in a complex lexico.

If you want an unintelligent starting point for an experiment might I recommend something like a tadpole, or a c. elegans a free swimming soil nematode or an earth worm. There Are lots of species on earth that fall below these levels of intelligence.

- - - Updated - - -

There seems to be good reason for that: intelligent species are high level species, which means they require a lot of space to live, and a lot of food and subspecies to thrive. As soon as another intelligent species begins to target those habitats and resources, you lose out quickly if you are not capable of matching that species right away. Intelligent species pretty much all compete for the same stuff, so one pushes others away quite quickly.

Without humans, the story would be quite different.

Well, its actually more severe than what you describe. There have been population size estimates and studies done on entry populations, and a fairly small number of humans (100s to 1000s) have wiped out the megafauna in certain parts of the world within a few 100 generations. Whenever anatomically modern humans arrive anywhere on the earth, the previous versions of hominids Often 10000s of generations surviving have dissappeared. most of these populations lived in relative harmony with Apex predators like short-faced bear or cave-lion. And you might argue that humans interbred with these, but at least two populations are missing evidence in the human genome (h. floresiensis and h. erectus asian).

Agriculture and animal husbandry in any form have been really destructive as most predators and many herbivores become competiotrs where previously they were just threats, food, or the occassional nuiscance. In gathering communities that are established in coastal areas there has benn a trend to conserve fisheries, particular when access is governed by tradition, as soon as long distance sailing and Engined boats cone along fisheries everywher begin to collapse.

[Ten Key]

Endurance running isn't the whole story when it comes to the success of prehistoric humans. This was an interesting read.

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-chimps-humans-baseball-pitcher.html

[magnemoe]

Endurance running isn't the whole story when it comes to the success of prehistoric humans. This was an interesting read.

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-chimps-humans-baseball-pitcher.html

Make a lot of sense then you think about it, ranged attacks works well and is rare in nature outside of spitting.

Now take an 1.5 to 2 meter long straight stick and fire harden one end for close in work, make it longer and anchor the other end in the ground and you have an pike, an single hit to kill weapon against an fast moving attacker.

The next 300K years was just about reducing risks and workload it worked better than expected.

[KerikBalm]

This is false. Chimpanzees are quite a bit stronger than humans. Comparing average chimpanzees with the strongest the human race can provide seems hardly a fair comparison, though I am pretty sure the chimpanzees would still come out on top. Why I already explained a number of times: there are strong indications that humans, as a species, sacrificed muscle strength for brain development. We basically traded physical strength for intellectual prowess. As a result, we are comparatively much weaker than the other monkeys. The benefits of a brain meant that we still came out on top.

I disagree.

One thing is that its a bit of a myth about how strong chimps are relative to humans - they are stronger, but not 5x stronger as is often said.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/02/how_strong_is_a_chimpanzee.html

But the "five times" figure was refuted 20 years after Bauman's experiments. In 1943, Glen Finch of the Yale primate laboratory rigged an apparatus to test the arm strength of eight captive chimpanzees. An adult male chimp, he found, pulled about the same weight as an adult man. Once he'd corrected the measurement for their smaller body sizes, chimpanzees did turn out to be stronger than humansâ€â€but not by a factor of five or anything close to it.

Repeated tests in the 1960s confirmed this basic picture. A chimpanzee had, pound for pound, as much as twice the strength of a human when it came to pulling weights. The apes beat us in leg strength, too, despite our reliance on our legs for locomotion. A 2006 study found that bonobos can jump one-third higher than top-level human athletes, and bonobo legs generate as much force as humans nearly two times heavier.

So the figures quoted by primate experts are a little exaggerated. But it is a fact that chimpanzees and other apes are stronger than humans.

...

Even though chimpanzees weigh less than humans, more of their mass is concentrated in their powerful arms.

Your next point:

Another trade-off being made seems that to be one of muscle control versus strength. While chimpanzees are stronger, they have less control over their movements. Our increased brain capacity (with the associated problem solving and tool use) required ever finer finesse, which apparently required sacrificing some of the strength in the process. That is also an explanation why there is a limit to human hand control - we would simply become too anaemic otherwise.

While fine motor control may be involved, we should also consider strength vs endurance.

As previously noted on this thread, Humans actually have remarkable endurance.

One gene, for example, called MYH16, contributes to the development of large jaw muscles in other apes. In humans, MYH16 has been deactivated. (Puny jaws have marked our lineage for as least 2 million years.) Many people have also lost another muscle-related gene called ACTN3. People with two working versions of this gene are overrepresented among elite sprinters while those with the nonworking version are overrepresented among endurance runners. Chimpanzees and all other nonhuman primates have only the working version; in other words, they're on the powerful, "sprinter" end of the spectrum.

That is not relevant for the point being made.

Sure it is.

There are considerable differences among dog breeds. You can't judge one dog breed on the characteristics of another.

Just as you can't judge all humans on the basis of individual humans. I could take a person with a severe disability, and argue all humans are not sentient. If some "alien" was breeding humans, and liked those humans with a cogntive defect for some reason, and made a breed out of them, it wouldn't be fair to judge you based on that breed.

I've never even seen a cat that wasn't a kitten fail the mirror test (as you describe it). I've seen baby humans fail the mirror test.

I don't think I've ever seen a dog fail the mirror test - though I do notice that tiny dogs seem to yap at everything.

Your statements simply don't reflect my personal experience, and they seem a bit anachronistic. The field of animal congition keeps having study after study breaking down the barriers between humans and other animals.

Its actually a bit offensive and reeks of arrogance to see people saying other animals probably aren't even self-aware, when they are talking about some animals with pretty advanced brains (if you were to talk about a flat worm, then fine).

In July, 2012 during the "Consciousness in Human and Nonhuman Animals" conference in Cambridge a group of scientists announced and signed a declaration with the following conclusions:

"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."