Do you think that human beings are over-evolved?

[sserafim]

Do you believe that human beings are over-evolved? The philosopher Peter Zapffe likens humanity to the Irish elk, whose massive oversized antlers eventually caused its extinction. Its antlers evolved to become too big to be beneficial and instead became a hindrance, much like our brains and how we have so much consciousness and awareness that it can be detrimental to our well-being (nihilism, etc). Other animals don't search for meaning or question existence, only humans do.

 

[sserafim]

He also calls human beings a "biological paradox".

 

[EpistemicSloth]

Do you believe that human beings are over-evolved? The philosopher Peter Zapffe likens humanity to the Irish elk, whose massive oversized antlers eventually caused its extinction. Its antlers evolved to become too big to be beneficial and instead became a hindrance, much like our brains and how we have so much consciousness and awareness that it can be detrimental to our well-being (nihilism, etc). Other animals don't search for meaning or question existence, only humans do.

Thank you for this. I think I'll learn about Zapffe next. This idea resonates with some things I've learned before. Ernst Mayr an evolutionary biologist argued with Carl Sagan over the likelihood we will find signs of intelligent life that can send radio signals, etc. Mayr argued that of billions and billions of organisms very few have developed intelligence to the degree that mammals have. And only one species has reached where we are at. Arguing that it is a rare anomaly in evolution and perhaps, the human intellect, being generally not desirable in any given species.

Noam Chomsky referenced this debate and added the phrase 'fatal mutation' to the matter of human intelligence. He was saying that given how we've handled climate change as well as a multitude of environmental issues, perhaps Mayr was right in his assessment.

To expand on this idea, humans are emotional beings who tend not to seek objective truth, but to intellectually work to serve our instincts and emotions. Of course one can have an attachment to pursuing objective truth or rational philosophical analysis, etc, but even then there is an underlying foundation of instincts, emotions, attachments, etc, some of it often being unconscious or subconscious.

So in my opinion, we have evolved in a way that leaves us unfit to handle the vast complexity of modern civilizations' many issues. And we've possibly hit the point of no return.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I would say over-evolved is something you can only attribute in the retrospective. It ultimately doesn't matter to nature whether you're suffering or not so long as the species continues to propagate, so in my conception of what evolution is you can't really say a trait is over-evolved and truly self-destructive until humanity actually goes extinct because of it.

Notably, though it would be cataclysmic, humanity is actually pretty likely to actually survive runaway climate change and even all out nuclear war. It might take thousands of years to recover the lost progress, but barring a cosmic event like a gamma ray burst, it's pretty difficult to actually fully destroy humanity.

To my understanding, Peter Zapffe embraced his own ideation of the four ways humans avoid facing the absurdity that is their own existence and awareness, being the total ignorance towards this paradox, fixation on something like religion or justice, distracting oneself with constant stimulation, and, finally, what he calls sublimation or essentially pointing this negative energy towards something positive, like art and self expression (which he himself fully embraced).

 

[EpistemicSloth]

To add a comment about my previous comment, I do realize the specifics of the topic are a bit different in what I'm talking about. As for our awareness and conscious experience, I haven't thought about that as much so it's certainly an interesting thing to consider.

 

[lwlaiet8887]

I think we'd be way better off as "primitive" ignorant tribes. Knowing too much and living in modern society with no real strife has killed the "human soul" at least in my eyes. It has caused this prevailing nihilism (similar to the fall of Rome, this is especially seen in Western societies) and we live in absolute opposition to the wellbeing of the world, it's not healthy. Another thing to note is that human brains have barely changed since inception, we were not remotely meant for so many of the challenges of the modern world like being over stimulated, overworked, extreme social isolation, extremely low trust societies, lack of culture (faith/spiritually). It's just all so wrong and harrowing.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

This kind of world is definitely hostile to sophont life.

 

[sserafim]

I think we'd be way better off as "primitive" ignorant tribes. Knowing too much and living in modern society with no real strife has killed the "human soul" at least in my eyes. It has caused this prevailing nihilism (similar to the fall of Rome, this is especially seen in Western societies) and we live in absolute opposition to the wellbeing of the world, it's not healthy. Another thing to note is that human brains have barely changed since inception, we were not remotely meant for so many of the challenges of the modern world like being over stimulated, overworked, extreme social isolation, extremely low trust societies, lack of culture (faith/spiritually). It's just all so wrong and harrowing.

The thing I hate the most about modern society is overworking, as well as having to work in the first place. I hate the fact that we have to pay to exist on this planet and that we have to work for a living. I hate how humanity invented capitalism and money, and I hate that the world runs on those two things. I hate that food, shelter, and water cost money. They should be human rights! I hate that we have to earn our livings, we're the only animal that has to earn it. I hate that after college, we just become slaves to the capitalist system. We have to enter the workforce and working world because our survival depends on it. I hate the idea of slaving away at and being chained to a job for the rest of my life. I hate the idea of being burdened by the costs of existence. I hate that everything in this world is about money and profit.

Thank you for this. I think I'll learn about Zapffe next. This idea resonates with some things I've learned before. Ernst Mayr an evolutionary biologist argued with Carl Sagan over the likelihood we will find signs of intelligent life that can send radio signals, etc. Mayr argued that of billions and billions of organisms very few have developed intelligence to the degree that mammals have. And only one species has reached where we are at. Arguing that it is a rare anomaly in evolution and perhaps, the human intellect, being generally not desirable in any given species.

Noam Chomsky referenced this debate and added the phrase 'fatal mutation' to the matter of human intelligence. He was saying that given how we've handled climate change as well as a multitude of environmental issues, perhaps Mayr was right in his assessment.

To expand on this idea, humans are emotional beings who tend not to seek objective truth, but to intellectually work to serve our instincts and emotions. Of course one can have an attachment to pursuing objective truth or rational philosophical analysis, etc, but even then there is an underlying foundation of instincts, emotions, attachments, etc, some of it often being unconscious or subconscious.

So in my opinion, we have evolved in a way that leaves us unfit to handle the vast complexity of modern civilizations' many issues. And we've possibly hit the point of no return.

I would think that in a universe as vast and never-ending as ours, there has got to be more intelligent life out there. We can't be the only intelligent life there is. The universe is literally infinite and is expanding with every second. I believe that intelligent extraterrestrial life and aliens exist, they just haven't come into contact with us or found a way to reach us yet. Maybe they think they're the only intelligent life in the universe…

 

[R_N]

It is funny how we still make more mess out of everything than other species.

I feel like simplicity animals often express makes the world less hectic.

 

[WAITING TO DIE]

I think we have become too clever for our own good, and rely way too much on technology.
Personally, I wish I could have lived many centuries ago when life was so much simpler.
If we were more like animals, then we could live much more peaceful and uncomplicated lives.
Humans are definitely over-evolved.
It is our stupid so-called intelligent brains that are the reason why the world is currently descending into chaos.

 

[moondazed]

Do you believe that human beings are over-evolved? The philosopher Peter Zapffe likens humanity to the Irish elk, whose massive oversized antlers eventually caused its extinction. Its antlers evolved to become too big to be beneficial and instead became a hindrance, much like our brains and how we have so much consciousness and awareness that it can be detrimental to our well-being (nihilism, etc). Other animals don't search for meaning or question existence, only humans do.

This is interesting. I've always been in the camp that humans have essentially "won" against evolution. We are no longer at the whims of natural selection, at least not on a species scale. We have had medicine, agriculture, and engineering to protect us from most natural elements that keep nature in balance, for quite awhile.

Even in the climate disaster we're facing, there will be people with the resources and means to protect themselves from most of the damage. As long as the earth doesn't become a total char or a block of ice, there will likely be *some* human survivors at the end of the catastrophe. The earth has gone through five mass extinctions before, and life always pulls through somehow. It's not pretty though.

We haven't really changed much biologically in tens of thousands of years, because we haven't really needed to. In fact, the sheer diversity of human traits we see is due in part to our ability to survive and not need a specific set of traits for it.

I agree mostly. Our ability to be aware of ourselves, our default mode network, is kind of our own sword we've fallen on. I think that perspective is a very personal one, and doesn't completely translate to the species level though.

we're the only animal that has to earn it.

I hear this argument a lot but it's really not true. Animals fighting over territory, or being preyed on, have to earn it. Just not with money. Life, especially as an animal, is not easy at all. It's very violent, and constant struggle, in fact. They just probably aren't as aware of it.

Capitalism sucks and we don't need it as humans in our day in age, don't get me wrong.

 

[Unending]

He also calls human beings a "biological paradox".

I keep meaning to read Peter Zappfe's, The Last Messiah, but haven't done so yet. I think I may have already loosely mentioned this recently in another thread, but Thomas Ligotti has some pretty interesting commentary on Zappfe's philosophy in The Conspiracy Against the Human Race.

 

[icari]

Without writing a massive essay, I believe humans are currently in a transitory state of evolution after which we will be replaced by machines. I think this is probably a natural process that would happen to any sufficiently intelligent life. Life must spread, it is what it does, and to spread beyond a planet, it must become non-biological. So the question of whether or not we are over evolved sort of depends whether you prefer the wellbeing and continued existence of the human species, in which case we would be better off returning to a more agrarian, community focused existence free of electronic technology. If you wish to prioritise for the further continued evolution of consciousness itself and the mastery of space and time, then we probably have to accept that nothing recognisably human makes it out of the other end of the technological process.

 

[Spiritual survivor]

Not even close. Actually we are probably devolving or going backwards as the average intelligences lower through social engineering and attempts to reduce certain traits out of the population. There's been ongoing eugenics programs in many countries to make us dumber and weaker. The people who rule over the world think they can just mold humanity to their desires. To them this means, lowering the IQ's, selecting for people who are very compliant and don't upset the status quo.

 

[sserafim]

Without writing a massive essay, I believe humans are currently in a transitory state of evolution after which we will be replaced by machines. I think this is probably a natural process that would happen to any sufficiently intelligent life. Life must spread, it is what it does, and to spread beyond a planet, it must become non-biological. So the question of whether or not we are over evolved sort of depends whether you prefer the wellbeing and continued existence of the human species, in which case we would be better off returning to a more agrarian, community focused existence free of electronic technology. If you wish to prioritise for the further continued evolution of consciousness itself and the mastery of space and time, then we probably have to accept that nothing recognisably human makes it out of the other end of the technological process.

This is interesting, could you elaborate on this?

What do you mean by a transitory state of evolution, and why do you think we're in one? What makes you think so? How exactly would we become machines?

I think that aliens and intelligent extraterrestrial life already exist though. How would life become non-biological? Would it just become pure consciousness? Or maybe something like AI? How would consciousness further evolve?

 

[icari]

This is interesting, could you elaborate on this?

What do you mean by a transitory state of evolution, and why do you think we're in one? What makes you think so? How exactly would we become machines?

I think that aliens and intelligent extraterrestrial life already exist though. How would life become non-biological? Would it just become pure consciousness? Or maybe something like AI? How would consciousness further evolve?

By transitory I mean that human existence currently serves something other than the continued existence of humans. Society has already tipped past a point where technology is built for our benefit and the technological process is now, save for some international coordination on a likely impossible scale, out of our control and serves itself more than us.

Our function is now like cells, constructing an embryo. We don't become machines, but some kind of conscious AI is birthed from the other end of this process. After that, conscious "beings" are now able to surpass the limitations on interstellar travel faced by biological life because the gargantuan timescales and hostile environments that need to be survived mean nothing to a machine. And therefore "life" continues to spread beyond earth.

By consciousness evolving I just mean that this AI would inevitably be far beyond humans in intelligence and it's perspective may well be unfathomable to us, it's behaviour not predictable. It may also be able to master genetic engineering and manufacture new types of intelligent biological life.

As for what happens to humans I don't really have any ideas, either we are left behind or somehow assimilated. The only reasons I believe this is happening is because 1) life spreads endlessly, 2) it seems that space is not traversable for any biological life we know, 3) the technological process on earth appears to be beyond our control, not fit for our own happiness, and also leading to the creation of a conscious machine of some type at some point.

I may also have just read too much sci-fi.