NationStates Jolt Archive

So just the other day, I had a really creepy thought.

Also bear in mind, this is not an argument for Social Darwinism. Humans are homogenized in terms of intelligence.

Everybody knows that predators are smart (i.e. Cats, Dogs) and the herbivores are stupid (i.e. Bunnies, Squirrels).

So what exactly would this imply about different species that are already considered intelligent? (Bear in mind, of course, that this is completely philosophical, because Humans are the only known intelligent species)

So here's the situation. We build our first interstellar space ships and send out ships to other planets. We meet two races, one peaceful, and one aggressive. For simplicity's sake, we will call them the Vulcans and the Klingons respectively.

Here is why the thought scares me. According to the animal kingdom, the aggressive carnivores, not the passive herbivores, are the smarter animals. By this logic, the Klingons would be smarter than the Vulcans, and hence have better technology. Combined with their aggression, they would most likely conquer the Vulcans.

Now, I am not saying my hypothesis is necessarily true (and there is no way to test it, so this argument is already kind of silly). But where exactly would we stand when we reached the Klingons and the Vulcans? Would we be more or less aggressive than Klingons? Would aggression and intelligence even be related?

You could also argue that we are omnivores, and therefore don't fit the pattern anyway...

Everybody knows that predators are smart (i.e. Cats, Dogs) and the herbivores are stupid (i.e. Bunnies, Squirrels).

Since you have not in any way defined "smart" then tried to explain how that definition fits in with your perspective, I'm gonna have to stamp this thread with a big ole "FAIL"

You could also argue that we are omnivores, and therefore don't fit the pattern anyway...




Bingo.

I think by the time we can colonize the stars we will have realized that war is a silly waste of resources and instead we'll have a contest to see who can have the most fun!

*dreamy smile*

If such a situation ever presented itself I believe we would side with the Vulcans as you say. I believe humans generally want the underdog to win.

Intelligent species tend to be social. Amidst creatures of comparable intelligence, especially if we have means of communication, at least some of our (and hopefully their) social instincts are likely to encourage cooperation and sympathy.

Would we also have to cope with aggression? Of course. But we do now too.

I think by the time we can colonize the stars we will have realized that war is a silly waste of resources and instead we'll have a contest to see who can have the most fun!

*dreamy smile*

No.




but dreaming is nice...

what makes you think humans are smart?
we're pretty dumb as a whole (not all of us, but taken altogether) we've had the power to destroy millions of others of our kind and used this power aggressively and ruthelessly, what part of that was intelligence?

I need a good definition of intelligence here, there are many things that can be regarded as intelligent, and others as meaningless.
I think reproduction also plays an important role, and adaptability to different situations, due to humans having few physical powers (such as hard shells or big teeth) we needed to rely on our intelligence to evolve.

Using a voilent aggressor is not necessarily a sign of power, or intelligence, remember of the two enemies of sheer brute force, and chilly intelligence, intelligence is far more terrifying and destructive than physical power can ever be.

Okay i'm done i hope i've added some relevant things somewhere.

No.




but dreaming is nice...
It's a silly to spend half a billion dollars a day when you could be eating pudding for 3.59$ for a ten pack.

If those bad ole klingons every tried anything like that, we'd just set the Master Chief on 'em.

Eveer that or weel destruy theer magik piktur b0x3s.

Because we have no other ecosystem to compare to our own, we don't really know if herbivores/carnivores on other planets would be smart or aggressive, or if they would exist in the same way that they do here. It'd be my assumption that carnivores would be smarter and more aggressive, seeing as they'd have to come up with either good plans to catch their prey, or a really good sensory package in order to find out where they are, and a bigger brain that way.


Of course, evolutionarily being omnivorous is the smartest route, but that wouldn't really translate into any direct intelligence factor. I guess the question to ask would be whether dolphins are omnivores or not, I know that Apes are. Elephants (I'm pretty sure) are strictly omnivorous.

Elephants (I'm pretty sure) are strictly omnivorous.
Elephants are herbivores.

Dolphins are carnivores.

And, for the record, I am a puddingvore.

wow. 15 posts and every point i could think of (and a few i wish i had thought of) are already covered.

good job nsg!

Under your definition, humans ARE Klingons. We're both intelligent and aggressive. Other factors would determine the outcome of a war against Klingons, but humans have the aggression to match the Klingons any day. And sadly for them, we have abandoned primitive concepts such as a "fair fight".

Elephants are herbivores.

Dolphins are carnivores.

And, for the record, I am a puddingvore.

whoops, that's what I meant, herbivores.

Under your definition, humans ARE Klingons. We're both intelligent and aggressive. Other factors would determine the outcome of a war against Klingons, but humans have the aggression to match the Klingons any day. And sadly for them, we have abandoned primitive concepts such as a "fair fight".

Why would we want a fair fight? So we could lose? The whole concept doesn't make any sense.

what makes you think humans are smart?
we're pretty dumb as a whole (not all of us, but taken altogether)

Hear hear, some humans are dumb look at all the vegetarians and the more stupid vegans.

Why would we want a fair fight? So we could lose? The whole concept doesn't make any sense.

Exactly.

I see no evidence suggesting that herbivores are any stupider than predators. Their prey develops defensive mechanisms the same way predators combat them.

Everybody knows that predators are smart (i.e. Cats, Dogs) and the herbivores are stupid (i.e. Bunnies, Squirrels).


Nope, we don't know that. Squirrels can be trained to do more tricks than most cats can. Bunnies know how not to get caught by dogs. Each species has their own brand of "smarts".

One of the things that puts humans on the top of the food chain is their ability to cooperate. Hopefully THAT would be the trait that wins out, not wanton destruction of everything we come across in the universe, because that would mean we could miss out on many good things that the aliens could teach us.

It's a silly to spend half a billion dollars a day when you could be eating pudding for 3.59$ for a ten pack.

yeah, but people hate each other too much to realize that

Yes, but those aren't really smarts just tricks. They cannot be born and do those. We have to train them to do that.

For those of you who have asked, I would define intelligence as the capability to learn, or for abstract thought.

I know, for example, that my dog is capable of counting to two (If you give him half a cookie, he knows he should get another half). Just because a rabbit "knows" how to get away from a dog doesn't make it smart; that is the oldest instinct. The one's that can't do it get eaten.

One of the things that puts humans on the top of the food chain is their ability to cooperate.
I think this point is the most valid, and most likely diffuses most of my argument. Any space-faring race would be cooperative in some manner or another, even the Klingons. If they can cooperate, and we can cooperate, then why can't we cooperate with them?

My ultimate hope would be that both sides just realize the galaxy is huge (~ 1x10^11 stars) and would just ignore each other.

Good thoughts, and this is my final comment.
Zalanicia

as frequently happens, what everybody THINKS they know, is at best "inaccurate".

not all herbivours are herd grazers, and not even all herd grazers are as complacent as domestic cattle.

nor are the challanges of hunting prey the only stimulus of presentient intellectual development.

a couple of the most dangerous, and relatively quite intelligent creatures on the planet happen to be herbivours. you're welcome to try telling an african water buffalo he's stupid. i'll sit back and watch. through binoculars. a good long distance away.

same goes for the asian rhyno.

even with herd animals, there's a reason carnivours pick off the very young and the very old or infirm. it isn't just a choice of taste.

=^^=
.../\...

I like the thread. I agree that carnivores, due to their increase brain activities in order to sustain life would probably develop intelligence quicker. But I think that an environment where plants like the Venus fly trap did better than on earth the learning curve would be start much stronger. Wisdom though, is learned through other paths. One would hope that when we meet our companions of this reality that our wisdom is more comprehensive than it is now.

But to the last question "Would aggression and intelligence even be related?". Aggression would definitely play a less important role than it does today.

Wouldn’t it be nice to if intelligence was not determined by who can own the most but by who can use the most.

Now that’s a dream.:headbang: