Quote:
|
Originally Posted by August
You are correct of course but we aren't sharks. Our bodies aren't nearly as suited to our environment as theirs are to their environment. We rely on our intelligence to make up for the specialization that our bodies lack, to clothe, feed and shelter ourselves, not to mention defend ourselves against large predators. Had we not we'd quickly have gone the way of the dodo bird.
|
And I agree, we have relied upon our intelligence to make up to the lack of "natural ablility" we would have needed to survive otherwise. Thinking in Darwinistic terms, our intelligence has made us the dominant species on the planet by dint of our evolution of the brain... We subjugate everything that confronts or opposes us by sheer intellect and willpower.
Here's the catch, where has this application of intelligence led us to? Certainly, Man's ability to make fire, flint tools and stone weapons and engaging in primitive agriculture would have little effect on the earth in millenia past. Man's early populations would have been a trifle to support in a natural ecosystem. But, it just wasn't enough... Man wanted more...
So, in the long run, has Man's "superior intellect" saved him from inevitable extinction? Taking the current state of affairs (social, political, ecological) at face value (for there are many arguments one might raise for and against) my position is no. We're merely prolonging the inevitable.
I love reading Douglas Adams: "Human beings, who are unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
