From "Alien Civ" Thread-Is Intelligence a Laibilit

[Rich]

Picked up this thread in the other string, and wanted to explore it more with anyone interested. Is intelligence leading to technological civilizations really a liability? Does an examination of homo sapiens really show us to be a self-destructive intelligence? Does it really make an species more likely to cease to exist through self-destructive behavior? And finally, is this an important factor when considering any chances of contacting other civilizations or does it even apply at all to any "others" out there?

I'll take the con position, because when you add everything up I just don't buy it.

I definitely see why some folks get into the argument that intelligence and technology may be a limiting factor in the lifespan of any giving species and its civilization. As technology becomes ever more complex the likelyhood that something truly dangerous will be created also increases. The key here is "likelihood" and "created", not "used". In fact, I contend that though the dangers of technology are not always clear and quite often perilous (see nuclear weapons), intelligence will far more often prevent or mitigate the use of these technologies than result in disaster.

Have the developments of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and other planet impacting technologies increased the risk of war, accident, or short-sightedness wiping out most, or even all, of humanity? Surely. But the same intelligence that helped create these things also helps us to foresee the dangers and, hopefully, avoid them. As it appears we have so far.

"So far" I understand is the operative phrase there, but let's look at the other pitfalls intelligence has helped us to avoid. Due to the technologies and understanding of the natural world our intelligence has provided we are much less likely to die of disease or hunger. Amazingly the political systems we have developed (a kind of technology if you think about it) have resulted in most modern countries becoming mutually dependent as a result we have little desire to wage war on our peaceful neighbors. There are exceptions to this example of course, but they serve to prove the rule. We've tried to deposit knowledge for future generations in libraries and repositories around the world as a safeguard against future disasters. There are more of us, and we are living longer, more fulfilled lives as a whole than ever before. We have even begun, in fits and starts, the process of expanding humanity beyond one fragile basket.

In the future what other threats will we be able to stop or mitigate due to our growing technology? Comet and asteroid impacts? Probably. What else? Threats we've never even thought of are mostly likely lurking out there, both from ourselves and our creations, and from unknown sources. I contend that our intelligence and the technologies we create with it may help to create some of those threats, but they have also (here it is again) "so far" provided the forethought to stop the worst case scenarios.

As a whole, I'd take the direction we've moved in over some sense of new age pastoralism any day. We are far better off and more prepared for the challenges presented on this planet and in the universe at large equiped with our "dangerous" tools and intelligence than without them.

So, where does this leave any other potential civs out there? In the same basket is my bet. Of course, all of this is based upon speculation from examining a population of one known technological intelligence which really might not tell us much about anything "alien" out there at all. I'm sure there could be more psychotic or more peaceful technological intelligences than homo sapiens crawling around out there somewhere. Even "smarter" ones with little gift for forethought or plain-old dummies who just blow it altogether. But the end result is that technological intelligences should avoid far more pitfalls (on average) than they create and fall into.

IMHO

Oh and IAAMOAC! Bonus points to anyone who knows what that one means!

[Sigma_Orionis]

my 2 cents are nothing that probably hasn't been said before: As society and the infraestructure on which is built gets more complex I guess that the average person (any of us of course) understands less and less how it works. While ignorance has always been with us, intuition was far more useful in "figuring" things out in say the 18th century than now. After all you could usually observe directly what you wanted to understand. Science now deals with things that are harder and harder to observe directly. Specialization is also a cause, things are so complex nowadays that you need a lot of people in completely different fields to get anything useful done, but each of them is a specialist, he/she (usually) has little knowledge outside of his/her specialty. The idea of the scientist/inventor that worked in his backyard died probably just before WWII (heck the last of them I heard about was Robert Goddard!) I am subscribed to a mailing list called "Forum On Risks To The Public In Computers And Related Systems" and some of the stuff one can read there are issues caused by badly designed software or computing infrastructure some of them funny, some of them are sobering. But in general I agree with you I don't think that technological intelligence is or will be a liability for the development of society. OTOH hand we don't have a technologically advanced society to compare to (IMHO).

[kenneth rodman]

you could look at it as being another step in darwinian evolution. Only the civilizations that are able to overcome their self distructive natures survive past a certain technological level.

[Cougar]

Intelligence: good. Stupidity: bad.

[wedgebert]

Originally Posted by Cougar

Intelligence: good. Stupidity: bad.

Intelligence: rare. Stupidity: most common 'resource' in the known universe.

[LawBeefaroni]

Take humans completely out of the picture. Aside from a few more or less species going extinct, life as we know it would still exist without our intelligence. All those species getting along just fine without technological civilizations. The difference is that with humans, the potential to self-destruct is there.

If there is more than one species capable of technological advancements, being the most intelligent is vital and beneficial. If there is only one, as there is with us, it can be a detriment. Not a sure-fire path to oblivion, but much closer than if we were still living in trees.

As far as natural disasters, the ones we can possibly mitigate or stop are far fewer than the ones we can't. And of the ones we can or could one day stop, few are species (our own) killing.

[Rich]

Law,
Humans or not, a species has a much greater ability to survive with intelligence as an asset. Again the question is whether intelligence is a greater asset than a liability. There seem to be many who think that intelligence will more often than not spell the doom of any potential other intelligences out there.

As I pointed out above this just doesn't make much sense to me. Advanced intelligence allows the forethought, planning, and technology to avoid many natural pitfalls which would (and have) resulted in the extinction of less intelligent species.

In the context of how long a technological civilization will be around making electronic or other noise that we might hear, I simply think most folks vastly overestimate the likelyhood that they will self-destruct.

[Alex W.]

We're the most intelligent species on the planet, and we're one of the most successful (we're very good at competitively excluding other species, at least). That must speak volumes for how helpful intelligence is.

[LawBeefaroni]

Intelligence most certainly is an asset, I'm not denying that. But it isn't a requirement. Some of the best surviving species on the planet have been around a lot longer than we have. We've got a good game going but don't have the high score, so to speak.

Is it a greater asset than a liability, I suppose it is. I mean if you're talking single species, it's better to exist with intelligence than without, all other things being equal. Like I said, it doesn't mean a civilization will self-destruct just because they have the means to.

Another question to consider, it an asset for survival when coming into contact with a species of greater or equal intelligence? When as more than food or resource or curiosity you become a threat. Maybe that's OT, ignore it if you want.