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

[windows_x_seven]

Title says all.

Do you guys think if we were physically human, but as intelligent as, let's say, a chimpanzee, could we survive natural selection?

If that didn't make much sense, basically, without being able to make tools, build shelter and think like we, modern humans do, do you think that humans would be able to survive natural selection?

Note: I don't mean having humans suddenly lose intelligence and attempt surviving in the 21st century. I mean having humans with intelligence comparable to other animals, in an Earth where there were no humans before.

Edited August 22, 2015 by windows_x_seven

[J.Random]

We already did.

[Camacha]

Self-consciousness is not required for survival, so I do not see why not. Maybe you need to specify what you mean exactly a little bit more, because I feel the question you are asking is probably not exactly what you mean to ask

[MinimumSky5]

I think he means if we were physically human, but as intelligent as, say, a chimpanzee, could we survive. I think we could, barely. our intelligence is our main strength, and it ties together our other adaptions (tool using hands, vertical stance, social cooperation ect). Without it, we would have severe difficulty in the wild, as we are very weak and slow animals, and as only have two legs, a broken bone would be a death sentence.

[theend3r]

Without it, we would have severe difficulty in the wild, as we are very weak and slow animals, and as only have two legs, a broken bone would be a death sentence.

Not really. There are historical records of humans beating bears to death with bare hands. Broken bone is always a death sentence in the wild. Plus if sloths can survive then so can we or anything else.

We already did.

↑↑↑↑↑

Edited August 21, 2015 by theend3r

[windows_x_seven]

I think he means if we were physically human, but as intelligent as, say, a chimpanzee, could we survive.

Yep, that's what I meant.

I'll update the OP.

[Camacha]

I think he means if we were physically human, but as intelligent as, say, a chimpanzee, could we survive. I think we could, barely. our intelligence is our main strength, and it ties together our other adaptions (tool using hands, vertical stance, social cooperation ect). Without it, we would have severe difficulty in the wild, as we are very weak and slow animals, and as only have two legs, a broken bone would be a death sentence.

Dogs/wolves also have a high level of social cooperation, to the point that otherwise fatally injured members of the group are nursed back to good health. As always, there is some disagreement to what level dogs are self aware, but there seems to be some consensus they are not really very much.

I think he means if we were physically human, but as intelligent as, say, a chimpanzee, could we survive. I think we could, barely. our intelligence is our main strength, and it ties together our other adaptions (tool using hands, vertical stance, social cooperation ect). Without it, we would have severe difficulty in the wild, as we are very weak and slow animals, and as only have two legs, a broken bone would be a death sentence.

That is the point. We were shaped by our mind, in the most literal sense. We probably even sacrificed a lot of muscle strength for brain power, employing proteins in a different way. If we were to be unintelligent, we would be a lot stronger. This makes the discussion a bit moot.

Besides, any mammal has a fair amount of intelligence, monkeys and dolphins included, so it really depends on where you put the limit. A monkey would die without intelligence too.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Camacha

[tater]

This question is very oddly phrased.

Are you asking if intelligence is our primary survival adaptation? If so, define the level of intelligence.

Early hominids had considerably smaller brains, but had adaptations that we have shed (fur, for example). Modern Homo sapiens are a sort of neotenous ape, and we had adapted within an environment of technology, even if just simple, stone tools.

So define intelligence in this what-if by tool use. Too dumb to use tools. We die anywhere it gets too cold for naked people to survive.

[RainDreamer]

Well, the Neanderthal would take our place instead.

[windows_x_seven]

This question is very oddly phrased.

Basically, without being able to make tools, build shelter and think like we, modern humans do, do you think that humans would be able to survive natural selection?

[tater]

I don't think you know what "natural selection" means.

The "fitness" aspect is reproductive fitness.

Those that managed to successfully reproduce, would eventually evolve to survive better, or humanity would be extinct. There is no modern Homo sapiens without having already evolved to be the way we are, so it's an odd question. Had we not come up with tools, we'd not look like what we look like now.

How about you can edit genes at will, and you make a novel, complex animal out of whole cloth. Then you let it loose someplace. Does it survive? Does it reproduce and thrive?

[Camacha]

Basically, without being able to make tools, build shelter and think like we, modern humans do, do you think that humans would be able to survive natural selection?

Most would perish, but I can only assume some would survive in favourable environments. Like I said, the human body has adapted in many ways to our brains, so taking those out of the equation would eliminate lots of nutritional requirements and also leave room for other developments.

[tater]

The question is in effect, "could a tropical monkey thrive at the South Pole?"

It needs to be grossly more specific. How dumb do you have to be to not be able to make any tools since Great Apes make some tools? What survival stories are there of modern humans with bad intellectual deficits surviving on islands, or otherwise in the wild?

Imagine an incredibly unethical experiment: take some people with IQs below... 60? 50? Lower? And drop them in the wilderness, "Naked and Afraid" style. Come back in a few years. Are any alive?

[KerikBalm]

Those that managed to successfully reproduce, would eventually evolve to survive better, or humanity would be extinct. There is no modern Homo sapiens without having already evolved to be the way we are, so it's an odd question. Had we not come up with tools, we'd not look like what we look like now.

Yes... but the challenges we faced in the past, we faced with different anatomy.

There is this perception that human senses are weak and dull, that humans are frail and weak. Presumably, its accompanied with the perception that our ancestors, before technology were just all around tougher.

If we have become physically less capable that our ancestors, then the fact our ancestors survived without our technology is irrelevant to our chances of survival without intellect and technology.

That there are many people surviving now that wouldn't without technology is undeniable (diabetics for instance).

While some people have poor eyesight, many people have very good eyesight relative to other creatures.

Our eyesight is actually pretty good. Its better than average in some areas, and worse in others.

FWIW, chimps are pretty smart, and I think we would survive with their level of intelligence.

With the intellect of a cow or sheep? probably not.

As always, there is some disagreement to what level dogs are self aware, but there seems to be some consensus they are not really very much.

I very strongly dispute this statement. I think if anything, the consensus is the opposite of what you say.

[Camacha]

I very strongly dispute this statement. I think if anything, the consensus is the opposite of what you say.

Dogs bark at their own reflection because they think it is another dog. I know many dog owners would like to believe differently, but it really seems there is not much going on there when it comes to dogs.

If you have any reliable sources, I do not mind being surprised

Edited August 21, 2015 by Camacha

[tater]

FWIW, chimps are pretty smart, and I think we would survive with their level of intelligence.

With the intellect of a cow or sheep? probably not.

Well, we could survive where chimps do, probably.

Chimpanzees use tools, however. We'd get their level of tool use, plus hands adapted for habitual bipedalism. It's a weird counterfactual. Take simple defense against predators, or in fact humans vs chimpazees. They have huge canines. An adult chimp, bent on killing a man would kill most humans. Easily, even if the human was pretty large. We could not bite through their fur, we'd have to try and strangle, and any bite from the chimp creates a severe laceration.

If we wanted to hunt a chimp, they scamper up a tree. If we try and follow, we are in trouble, comparatively.

[WinkAllKerb'']

Title says all.

Do you guys think if we were physically human, but as intelligent as, let's say, a chimpanzee, could we survive natural selection?

If that didn't make much sense, basically, without being able to make tools, build shelter and think like we, modern humans do, do you think that humans would be able to survive natural selection?

Hum, it depend if we can survive money and exchange market or not ; ) then, and only then, may be we could say we are intelligent regarding the natural selection laws ... if we disapear money might disapear too, so may be not a bad thing not be that "inteligent" in the end & and etc.

pom pom pom (opening some vinegar chips, hum yummies xDr) *shrug*

[tater]

Dogs bark at their own reflection because they think it is another dog. I know many dog owners would like to believe differently, but it really seems there is not much going on there when it comes to dogs.

Mine doesn't.

Dogs are actually pretty intelligent. There is a woman at Yale doing research that shows dogs adopting very human strategies involving risk avoidance.

http://doglab.yale.edu/our-research (found it)

Edited August 21, 2015 by tater

[Camacha]

Mine doesn't.

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.

[RainDreamer]

I imagined the homo sapien without tool-using ability would be either be assimilated or replaced by the Neanderthal in the long run, but perhaps they may survive in certain area where there are not a lot of larger predators, like some islands, feasting on fruits and insects, and whatever else they can grab.

[Soda Popinski]

We need to take into consideration our current bodies are adapted to our level of intelligence / technology. Our digestive tract is much shorter than any of the other great apes, because it's adapted to eating cooked food. If we don't have fire, we'd have a much harder time getting nutrients, and would have to spend a lot more time gathering and hunting, without the physical characteristics to allow for efficient hunting you see in other predators. We don't have particularly large canines, or claws, nor can we climb trees well enough to catch prey up there. Without the ability to build spears I doubt we'll do very well taking down much prey.

Of course it also depends where these unintelligent humans are placed. In a tropical area with lots of natural food available, such as fish and fruit in the jungle, I'd think we'd have a better chance.

[Camacha]

We need to take into consideration our current bodies are adapted to our level of intelligence / technology. Our digestive tract is much shorter than any of the other great apes, because it's adapted to eating cooked food. If we don't have fire, we'd have a much harder time getting nutrients, and would have to spend a lot more time gathering and hunting, without the physical characteristics to allow for efficient hunting you see in other predators. We don't have particularly large canines, or claws, nor can we climb trees well enough to catch prey up there. Without the ability to build spears I doubt we'll do very well taking down much prey.

Of course it also depends where these unintelligent humans are placed. In a tropical area with lots of natural food available, such as fish and fruit in the jungle, I'd think we'd have a better chance.

Agreed. The human brain expanded dramatically when fire was discovered, and there is evidence to suggest our muscles decreased in volume and strength much faster than is normally the case to accommodate brain development . Both are methods to increase protein intake. Our brains are very expensive tools, so they have come at a considerable cost. It is no coincidence that other monkeys are all relatively many times stronger than we are. They are not strong, we are weak, but the trade-off was well worth it.

That being said: if you eliminate the intelligence, you eliminate much of the brain. If you eliminate much of the brain, our nutritional requirements change quite a bit, which should make life easier with little food and few skills. Making a comparison without the intelligence, but with the associated costs is not a fair or realistic one at all.

[Darnok]

You can leave intelligence, just get rid of all our technology and most people would be useless, very angry, very hungry and very useless.

Most of human population would die without:

- electricity - from cold or hunger, lack of communication and access to knowledge TV and internet, no water in cities

- cars - no food in large cities, no warm houses far away from cities

- markets - when food in markets ran out people in towns are dead

- internet - without access to ultimate knowledge base people would have no idea how to make fries

- medicines - we forgot almost all methods that doesn't require large corporations and patents

- vaccines - no natural immunity... epidemics

- clothes - who today knows how to make warm clothes without using electricity and factories?

So we probably wouldn't be able to survive, because those useless people would start to kill and steal things from those who knows how to survive.

Take away intelligence and leave technology and we die as well... from weapons of mass destruction.

Take away both technology and intelligence and we also die, because our bodies are not prepared for wild live... no medicines, no claws or furs, we would become free food for most of large predators. We wouldn't be able even to eat raw meat, so we would have to be herbivorous and spend most of our day time on gathering and eating, also no hunting means no furs from herbivorous animals, most people would die after first winter.

[Camacha]

You can leave intelligence, just get rid of all our technology and most people would be useless, very angry, very hungry and very useless.

Do not underestimate humans. They are very resilient when pushed, if only just for the fact that they are too stubborn to realize the odds are stacked against them. I would argue that the latter is our greatest trait. We, as a species, simply refuse to understand some things should not or cannot be done, and therefore we do the impossible. Homo sapiens, homo impossibile.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Camacha

[FishInferno]

I do not think we would make it, aside from a very small number, mainly because humans in their physical form are not particularly fast or strong compared to other animals. We don't have sharp teeth or razor claws, we have our intelligence, but when you take that away we are all but gone