NationStates Jolt Archive

...was self-awareness an advantage too far?

Discuss!

Psh no...Im quite happy with it, lol...

How can something evolve too far? Unless you mean that self-awareness has forced us into a niche that could wipe us out because we are unable to adapt.

But in that case, unless the Borg show up I'm not quite sure what could be the cause of that.

Okay first we need a definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness

Self-awareness is the concept that one exists as an individual, separate from other people, with private thoughts. It may also include the understanding that other people are similarly self-aware.

Self-awareness is a self-conscious state in which attention focuses on oneself. It makes people more sensitive to their own attitudes and dispositions.


Humans are not the only creatures who are self-aware. Thus far, there is evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes, [1] and elephants have the capacity to be self aware.[2]

How could be evolution gone wrong?

How can something evolve too far? Unless you mean that self-awareness has forced us into a niche that could wipe us out because we are unable to adapt.

But in that case, unless the Borg show up I'm not quite sure what could be the cause of that.

Its not that we can't adapt its that so many among use refuse to adapt. Awareness is not evolution gone wrong.

Can anyone explain how this might evolve in the first place? Theories welcome.

Unless you mean that self-awareness has forced us into a niche that could wipe us out because we are unable to adapt.

Sort of...it was a thought I hoped NSG might help clarify my thoughts on the matter.

Its not that we can't adapt its that so many among use refuse to adapt. Awareness is not evolution gone wrong.

My issue is that we are too dominant, too able to affect our environment and yet still very much driven by primal instincts, far more than we care to admit or even realise on an individual level.

So we justify our wants even though those wants are, where excessive, self-destructive, and there's nothing to really stop the excess.

The Easter Island case has something to do with my thinking, it shows that people will blindly cause their own destruction for immediate needs over long term consequence.

Without self-awareness, we wouldn't have the taco.

Without self-awareness, we wouldn't have the taco.

Burritos are better, and based of the law of Isayso, have always existed.

My issue is that we are too dominant, too able to affect our environment and yet still very much driven by primal instincts, far more than we care to admit or even realise on an individual level.

So we justify our wants even though those wants are, where excessive, self-destructive, and there's nothing to really stop the excess.

The Easter Island case has something to do with my thinking, it shows that people will blindly cause their own destruction for immediate needs over long term consequence.

Thats because so many people are willing to be willfully ignorant. They see things work the way they are, and don;t think we need to change even if it means certain and utter destruction, because they don;t care about consequences "I won't have to deal with them" is the way of thinking for probably a majority of the world.

My issue is that we are too dominant, too able to affect our environment and yet still very much driven by primal instincts, far more than we care to admit or even realise on an individual level.

So we justify our wants even though those wants are, where excessive, self-destructive, and there's nothing to really stop the excess.

The Easter Island case has something to do with my thinking, it shows that people will blindly cause their own destruction for immediate needs over long term consequence.

I would agree with that. We lack wisdom sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment. Judgment is a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties.

Humans are not the only creatures who are self-aware. Thus far, there is evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes, [1] and elephants have the capacity to be self aware.

Possibly but they're nowhere close to humans.

Where I say environment, I'm not necessarily talking about pollution, global warming etc., though that is a sign that we don't really do what's best, it's more our total environment in terms of the world we live in.

Can anyone explain how this might evolve in the first place? Theories welcome.

Enough neo-cortex to process greater connections, great enough that we could use symbols to represent reality, that allowed for language and everything seems to have exploded from there.

Thats because so many people are willing to be willfully ignorant. They see things work the way they are, and don;t think we need to change even if it means certain and utter destruction, because they don;t care about consequences "I won't have to deal with them" is the way of thinking for probably a majority of the world.

We're all guilty of it, just as we're all guilty of blaming anyone but ourselves.

Without self-awareness, we wouldn't have the taco.

True on a fundamental level but without awareness we wouldn't know what we're missing.

Clouds and silver linings.

Can anyone explain how this might evolve in the first place? Theories welcome.
Hallucinogenic mushrooms. It is totally the truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_hypothesis_of_human_evolution).
My issue is that we are too dominant, too able to affect our environment and yet still very much driven by primal instincts, far more than we care to admit or even realise on an individual level.

So we justify our wants even though those wants are, where excessive, self-destructive, and there's nothing to really stop the excess.

The Easter Island case has something to do with my thinking, it shows that people will blindly cause their own destruction for immediate needs over long term consequence.
That's not an issue of self-awareness. Any animal can destroy it's ecosystem, that's part of why evolution is a continuous process. If anything, self-awareness makes us less self-destructive, because we are aware of impact on the world (as opposed to a slaver ant, for instance, which never stops to say, "You know. Killing and enslaving other ants is good fun, but aren't we going to run out of victims soon? And then, won't we all starve to death? Shouldn't one of us try being, like, a worker for a while? See how that works out?")

Possibly but they're nowhere close to humans.

Where I say environment, I'm not necessarily talking about pollution, global warming etc., though that is a sign that we don't really do what's best, it's more our total environment in terms of the world we live in.



Enough neo-cortex to process greater connections, great enough that we could use symbols to represent reality, that allowed for language and everything seems to have exploded from there.

I agree we should see dolphins with tools by now. Apes I am told now and then use tools but do not seek to maintain them.

We have taught apes sign language yet it did not hold. If we released those apes back into the wild if they "got it" they would teach others to sign. Something to do with the way we process information?

That's not an issue of self-awareness. Any animal can destroy it's ecosystem, that's part of why evolution is a continuous process. If anything, self-awareness makes us less self-destructive, because we are aware of impact on the world (as opposed to a slaver ant, for instance, which never stops to say, "You know. Killing and enslaving other ants is good fun, but aren't we going to run out of victims soon? And then, won't we all starve to death? Shouldn't one of us try being, like, a worker for a while? See how that works out?")

Fair enough, the difference is that we can overcome the natural forces that tend to balance things out.

An ant colony may self-destruct, it's unlikely for all ants to self-destruct.

We have the ability to make this planet entirely unlivable, due to the extremely rapid advances we've made in consuming resources.

Hallucinogenic mushrooms. It is totally the truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_hypothesis_of_human_evolution).

That's not an issue of self-awareness. Any animal can destroy it's ecosystem, that's part of why evolution is a continuous process. If anything, self-awareness makes us less self-destructive, because we are aware of impact on the world (as opposed to a slaver ant, for instance, which never stops to say, "You know. Killing and enslaving other ants is good fun, but aren't we going to run out of victims soon? And then, won't we all starve to death? Shouldn't one of us try being, like, a worker for a while? See how that works out?")

That is awesome theory! There wasn't much else to do for first couple of 1000 years.

I agree we should see dolphins with tools by now.

Why? Does the modern, sophisticated, career-oriented lady dolphin prefer a male who is handy around the house? Ability to spot drift nets - that would be a survival feature. Ability to use tools - no.

Why? Does the modern, sophisticated, career-oriented lady dolphin prefer a male who is handy around the house? Ability to spot drift nets - that would be a survival feature. Ability to use tools - no.
If dolphins would just hurry up with inventing torpedoes and laser cutters, we could quit trying to save them from getting caught in those tuna nets.

Nope, and how can evolution be wrong, it has no sense of morlity?

Evolution doesn't really go wrong. Stuff just happens, and it works or it doesn't.

Nope, and how can evolution be wrong, it has no sense of morlity?

Evolution doesn't really go wrong. Stuff just happens, and it works or it doesn't.

Exactly, it has no plan and no morality, which means it's subject to enormous mistakes, one of which might be a line that results in such advanced intelligence, coupled with ignorance as to the consequences of the efficiency that creates, that it self-destructs.

A community of ants that goes ballistically successful and self-destructs through the rapid consumption of resources is a failure.

Too much success can be counter-productive.

In no way am I ascribing any intent or conscious fault on evolution, simply saying that given the success of success it can create a species that is too successful, yet still cannot overcome its base instincts to consume.

True on a fundamental level but without awareness we wouldn't know what we're missing.

Clouds and silver linings.

I'd know. :(

I'd know. :(

Now now, don't worry *pats head* we're just talking nonsense here, you'll always have tacos okay little LG?

Now now, don't worry *pats head* we're just talking nonsense here, you'll always have tacos okay little LG?

Yay! :D

Exactly, it has no plan and no morality, which means it's subject to enormous mistakes, one of which might be a line that results in such advanced intelligence, coupled with ignorance as to the consequences of the efficiency that creates, that it self-destructs.

A community of ants that goes ballistically successful and self-destructs through the rapid consumption of resources is a failure.

Too much success can be counter-productive.

In no way am I ascribing any intent or conscious fault on evolution, simply saying that given the success of success it can create a species that is too successful, yet still cannot overcome its base instincts to consume.

Ahhh I get you. Any blame for mankind not working or surving has to be laid on the doorstep of mankind itself though yes?

Ahhh I get you. Any blame for mankind not working or surving has to be laid on the doorstep of mankind itself though yes?

I'm not sure, the driving force of evolution is dissemination of the gene, requiring as much growth and consumption as necessary.

Where other species are checked from such expansion is the natural checks and balances of competitive species in nature.

Yet evolution has created a species, still driven by procreation and consumption that has no predators or environment to check it.

Perhaps, as H.N. Fiddlefuckspellingthisentirename alludes, that same intelligence will create a solution, but Easter island doesn't provide a good precedent.

A community of ants that goes ballistically successful and self-destructs through the rapid consumption of resources is a failure.

Too much success can be counter-productive.


Which is, possibly, the precise reason WHY we have evolved as individuals. We have no natural predators, therefore we have each other to keep ourselves in check, be it through raw violence, selective mating habits, or cultural ostracism. Human are not a hive structure naturally, so we come up with ways to divide, differentiate, and defeat.

Which is, possibly, the precise reason WHY we have evolved as individuals. We have no natural predators, therefore we have each other to keep ourselves in check, be it through raw violence, selective mating habits, or cultural ostracism. Human are not a hive structure naturally, so we come up with ways to divide, differentiate, and defeat.

That's not an unreasonable point, though we have both created the means of mass destruction on a scale unimaginable merely 100 years ago - or whenever the atom was discovered - as well as means of extracting resources unimaginable 300 years ago.

As a species, despite - is this the right word - internecine fighting, we're still growing at an extraordinary rate.

I suppose, as someone in another thread pointed out, that as long as we don't go through complete systemic collapse, resulting in the end of the entire species, it only takes a few to build back up. I think I remember that at some point in human history, we were down to critical levels before.

Pessimistically, I'd say we're not too far from a fine line.

How can something evolve too far? Unless you mean that self-awareness has forced us into a niche that could wipe us out because we are unable to adapt.

But in that case, unless the Borg show up I'm not quite sure what could be the cause of that.

Well we have kinda adapted ourselves into a niche that will eventually destroy itself . . .course that woulda happened eventually anyway but still.

That's not an unreasonable point, though we have both created the means of mass destruction on a scale unimaginable merely 100 years ago - or whenever the atom was discovered - as well as means of extracting resources unimaginable 300 years ago.

As a species, despite - is this the right word - internecine fighting, we're still growing at an extraordinary rate.

I suppose, as someone in another thread pointed out, that as long as we don't go through complete systemic collapse, resulting in the end of the entire species, it only takes a few to build back up. I think I remember that at some point in human history, we were down to critical levels before.

Pessimistically, I'd say we're not too far from a fine line.

Yah I think we may be in trouble . . .sometime within the next hundred or s years anyway.

That's not an unreasonable point, though we have both creating the means of mass destruction on a scale unimaginable merely 100 years ago - or whenever the atom was discovered - as well as means of extracting resources unimaginable 300 years ago.

As a species, despite - is this the right word - internecine fighting, we're still growing at an extraordinary rate.

I suppose, as someone in another thread pointed out, that as long as we don't go through complete systemic collapse, resulting in the end of the entire species, it only takes a few to build back up. I think I remember that at some point in human history, we were down to critical levels before.

Pessimistically, I'd say we're not too far from a fine line.

That's the thing with humanity. We keep finding ways to save ourselves when Nature's pinball machine seizes up and flashes "TILT" at us. We live as a billions-strong mass of people; we survive as smaller groups. For every destructive, divisive dictator, we seem to find an equally compassionate, constructive and cooperative leader as well. And even when we don't, being self aware lets us know when we're getting the shaft, and that's how revolutions happen. Our survival instinct has gotten all dressed up and called itself politics.

Why? Does the modern, sophisticated, career-oriented lady dolphin prefer a male who is handy around the house? Ability to spot drift nets - that would be a survival feature. Ability to use tools - no.

You would think she would prefer a dolphin that is good with his flippers. Tools to get others out of the drift net possibly?

Maybe their design is the issue.

If dolphins would just hurry up with inventing torpedoes and laser cutters, we could quit trying to save them from getting caught in those tuna nets.

Exactly if you want your youth to survive. Saving them from drift nets is an excellent way. Tools would go a long way to improving this.

Maybe their design is the issue.

design? by...whom?

design? by...whom?

Oy, don't go into this...

I'm not sure, the driving force of evolution is dissemination of the gene, requiring as much growth and consumption as necessary.

Where other species are checked from such expansion is the natural checks and balances of competitive species in nature.

Yet evolution has created a species, still driven by procreation and consumption that has no predators or environment to check it.

Perhaps, as H.N. Fiddlefuckspellingthisentirename alludes, that same intelligence will create a solution, but Easter island doesn't provide a good precedent.

Well I have no idea of this Easter Island connection, care to explain?

Evolution has not in fact created anything, it simply does not work like that. Genes randomly mutate and those that give a species an advantage in it's enviroment typicaly mean that that gene is passed on with surviving members of the species. So it is not only evolution that 'creates' speices, enviroment has a hand, and of course with species able to change their enviroment, then the species in question also has a say.

An illustration:

We now seem to be getting a lot more asma sufferers than say 20-30 years ago. Is the evoltionary force of genetic mutation to blame for this, or is it more likely human driven changes to our enviroment?

I'm going for the latter BTW.

It is true that we have very little species that predate upon man, but we certianly have some(My grandad was responisble for shooting man eating tigers back in the 30-40s). And of course we are very, very prone to our enviroment.

Thats because so many people are willing to be willfully ignorant. They see things work the way they are, and don;t think we need to change even if it means certain and utter destruction, because they don;t care about consequences "I won't have to deal with them" is the way of thinking for probably a majority of the world.

Agreed. I would argue that it isn't so much self-awareness that is the problem, but the overwhelming levels of individualism and laissez-faire attitude displayed by much of humanity.

Agreed. I would argue that it isn't so much self-awareness that is the problem, but the overwhelming levels of individualism and laissez-faire attitude displayed by much of humanity.

Ummm not sure that I can go with this one.

Is it a problem? Why should a species that lives for an avarage 80 years really care over much about life after their own deaths?

Well I have no idea of this Easter Island connection, care to explain?

Evolution has not in fact created anything, it simply does not work like that. Genes randomly mutate and those that give a species an advantage in it's enviroment typicaly mean that that gene is passed on with surviving members of the species. So it is not only evolution that 'creates' speices, enviroment has a hand, and of course with species able to change their enviroment, then the species in question also has a say.

An illustration:

We now seem to be getting a lot more asma sufferers than say 20-30 years ago. Is the evoltionary force of genetic mutation to blame for this, or is it more likely human driven changes to our enviroment?

I'm going for the latter BTW.

It is true that we have very little species that predate upon man, but we certianly have some(My grandad was responisble for shooting man eating tigers back in the 30-40s). And of course we are very, very prone to our enviroment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island - head down to destruction of the eco-system.

I shouldn't, on reflection, have said 'create', perhaps 'resulting in' would be better, ignore my poor choice of words on the understanding that I know how evolution works :)

Nope, if there were no self-aware organisms, there would be absolutely no chance of life surviving long-term offworld. The result of that would be 100% certainty that every organism on Earth would go extinct and life as we no it would no longer exist. Evolutionarily speaking, humans have pretty much won the game.

Nope, if there were no self-aware organisms, there would be absolutely no chance of life surviving long-term offworld. The result of that would be 100% certainty that every organism on Earth would go extinct and life as we no it would no longer exist. Evolutionarily speaking, humans have pretty much won the game.

Yes, I accept that but I'd say it was a race. How far away are we from reasonably colonizing a planet?

When life is in danger, it throws out more mutations, doesn't mean they'll actually work, just raises the odds that one might, there's no guaranteed outcome with evolution.

Similarly, while we are capable of the technology, we're on the fine line I stated earlier, it's a gamble as ever.

You would think she would prefer a dolphin that is good with his flippers. Tools to get others out of the drift net possibly?


Are you serious?

Exactly if you want your youth to survive. Saving them from drift nets is an excellent way. Tools would go a long way to improving this.

Again I must ask: are you serious?

I've got a large pair of garden shears that I don't need. (My bow saw FTW) They might be good enough to cut through a drift net - perhaps I should lend them to a dolphin? I'm sure they'd be really handy. (Geddit? Handy - hands - limbs to grasp and manipulate objects - a type of limb which dolphins do not have, the absence of which makes it ridiculous to suggest that they should be able to use tools.)

Are you serious?



Again I must ask: are you serious?

I've got a large pair of garden shears that I don't need. (My bow saw FTW) They might be good enough to cut through a drift net - perhaps I should lend them to a dolphin? I'm sure they'd be really handy. (Geddit? Handy - hands - limbs to grasp and manipulate objects - a type of limb which dolphins do not have, the absence of which makes it ridiculous to suggest that they should be able to use tools.)



Right a limitation of their design, however you want to phrase that. The tools would be have to be use via the mouth or flippers which would complicate things.


A better way to phrase it might be a limitation of their anatomy

design? by...whom?

I am not going there for this discussion. I meant a limitation of their anatomy. Flippers are not as good at using tools while hands are. Likewise the mouth would also have the same issue.

Nope, if there were no self-aware organisms, there would be absolutely no chance of life surviving long-term offworld. The result of that would be 100% certainty that every organism on Earth would go extinct and life as we no it would no longer exist. Evolutionarily speaking, humans have pretty much won the game.

No, evolution is nothing like a game. It has no goals, no achievements, no high score table. Even species survival isn't an aim - it's just a consequence.
We haven't won at evolution, any more than a black hole has won at gravity.

Right a limitation of their design, however you want to phrase that. The tools would be have to be use via the mouth or flippers which would complicate things.

Yes, and how do you expect dolphins to take the first steps necessary for them to acquire such a skill?

I'm surprised no one has referenced Kurt Vonnegut's Galápagos (http://www.amazon.com/Galapagos-Delta-Fiction-Kurt-Vonnegut/dp/0385333870), which explores this question (or at least the related question of whether human's big brains are an evolutionary mistake). See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3%A1pagos_(novel)

I've got a large pair of garden shears that I don't need. (My bow saw FTW) They might be good enough to cut through a drift net - perhaps I should lend them to a dolphin? I'm sure they'd be really handy. (Geddit? Handy - hands - limbs to grasp and manipulate objects - a type of limb which dolphins do not have, the absence of which makes it ridiculous to suggest that they should be able to use tools.)
Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs -- 'Oh, Shit,' Says Humanity (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315)

Yes, and how do you expect dolphins to take the first steps necessary for them to acquire such a skill?


Just as an interesting idea suppose we [humans] made them for them [dolphins] would they recognize the benefits of using tools and further would they use them?

As to the OP, though self-awareness is the root cause of most of life's quandries and problems, I wouldn't give it up.

Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs -- 'Oh, Shit,' Says Humanity (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315)

Damn you. That would actually have been pretty cool. :(

Just as an interesting idea suppose we [humans] made them for them [dolphins] would they recognize the benefits of using tools and further would they use them?

Now that's a good question. Being intelligent, you would expect them to grasp (haha) the usefulness of the tool, and start using it. Though it would have to be associated with a behaviour that brought some kind of fairly immediate reward, or they'd presumably lose interest.

If this behaviour was beneficial (or at least not harmful) to their ability to survive and reproduce, we could eventually end up with a new subspecies of tool-using dolphin.

Evolution inherently can't "go wrong" since it is non-directional. There are no accidents or mistakes in evolution, only what happened.

Now that's a good question. Being intelligent, you would expect them to grasp (haha) the usefulness of the tool, and start using it. Though it would have to be associated with a behaviour that brought some kind of fairly immediate reward, or they'd presumably lose interest.

If this behaviour was beneficial (or at least not harmful) to their ability to survive and reproduce, we could eventually end up with a new subspecies of tool-using dolphin.

Now that would be worth seeing. Cool.

I don't know i just don't know.
it's like a blessing and a curse at the same time.
I wonder if self-awareness would occur if we grew up without knowing another human being?

Now that would be worth seeing. Cool.

This whole thing puts me in mind of something I was listening to last night: Derek and Clive, Endangered Species.

I'd post a link, but the uncensored version surely violates the PG-13 rule.

Damn you. That would actually have been pretty cool. :(
It's possibly my favourite Onion article.


Evolution inherently can't "go wrong" since it is non-directional. There are no accidents or mistakes in evolution, only what happened.
/\ This.

Nature isn't teleological, IMHO.



This whole thing puts me in mind of something I was listening to last night: Derek and Clive, Endangered Species.
Fucking love Derek and Clive.

Clive: Whales are fucking stupid. Can you mention one whale in the history of mankind that's had a record in the top ten? Can you? Can you mention one whale that's written the equivalent of, er, Othello, Shakespeare, Health and efficiency? During the war, did we notice a lot of whales rallying around saying, "Save England?" I didn't notice any down my part of the world. I didn't see whales coming up with the Union Jack saying, "We'll fight the bosch."

Derek: The whales were all Nazis! They were at the Nuremberg rallies, mate. They were all whales.

Clive: What, they were tried at the Nuremberg trial?

Derek: No, they were whales at the rallies. Hitler, Hitler was talking to whales.

Clive: Well, that doesn't make them more intelligent cos, er, Hitler lost, didn't he?
Awesome.

It's possibly my favourite Onion article.



/\ This.

Nature isn't teleological, IMHO.




Fucking love Derek and Clive.

Clive: Whales are fucking stupid. Can you mention one whale in the history of mankind that's had a record in the top ten? Can you? Can you mention one whale that's written the equivalent of, er, Othello, Shakespeare, Health and efficiency? During the war, did we notice a lot of whales rallying around saying, "Save England?" I didn't notice any down my part of the world. I didn't see whales coming up with the Union Jack saying, "We'll fight the bosch."

Derek: The whales were all Nazis! They were at the Nuremberg rallies, mate. They were all whales.

Clive: What, they were tried at the Nuremberg trial?

Derek: No, they were whales at the rallies. Hitler, Hitler was talking to whales.

Clive: Well, that doesn't make them more intelligent cos, er, Hitler lost, didn't he?
Awesome.

Very funny! What about the great apes. I think they watch us and say "Uh, uh, We don't want any part of that. As soon as we start using tools someone will make us work. Sure cars are cool and stuff but we have everything we need right here." When they are in the lab they are all like" Play dumb, play dumb if you act too smart the humans are liable to dissect you or something"