On 5/13/2011 7:33 AM, Joe Street wrote:
> I think essential to your question is that there is confusion about the
> definition of intelligence. What does it mean? And should we assume
> that a consequence of what we define as intelligence precludes the
> possibility of self destruction? Perhaps our definitions are not good
> enough or maybe you are disturbed because you are just more highly
> evolved and you see a different set of incentives than the average slob?
First of all, after reading my post I've become concerned that it
came across a bit arrogantly. I'd like to apologize to the list for
that. It's not my intention to flaunt anything. I'm just trying to
wrap my mind around the construct that we represent another evolutionary
dead-end, and that having a big brain dooms us to destruction.
You bring up an excellent point about defining intelligence. There
is a difference between being smart and being wise, and arguably--among
people of equal intellectual capacity--wisdom confers an advantage. I
like to say: "Wisdom is the fair daughter of pain," because moderating
personal behavior is central to how we define morality, and we often
learn to do this after going through bad experiences. The only
difference between self-destruction and self-sacrifice involves motive,
and that's a discussion that could occupy its own thread.
It's clear to me that most people simply don't grasp the imminent
peril we face. Record numbers of tornadoes, lingering drought and
massive flooding have no impact on their behavior because they either
don't want to make the connections between our profligate, wasteful
lifestyle and climate; or the relationship is too complex for them to
understand. That speaks directly to the issue of intelligence. If
people are smart enough to see the danger, yet keep behaving in a manner
that leads to wide-scale death, we can rightly question their morality.
If they're NOT smart enough to foresee danger, then it's unreasonable
for anyone who can to hold the masses accountable.
> You are capable of choosing a more difficult road or perhaps a less
> immediately gratifying one in exchange for a much larger and more
> profound goal. Some of us feel very disturbed in the developed world
> because it appears the majority here don't seem to be capable of taking
> that road. Perhaps we should define intelligence in terms of where a
> person is willing to make these tradeoffs.(?) Look at the article in
> the recent post about Japanese society. Between the lines is a
> comentary about how individuals from the lowliest worker to the highest
> executive chose to defer or ignore some aspect of personal integrity in
> exchange for a personal incentive. In this case unswerving loyalty in
> exchange for security and reward. And now we see the result. A much
> larger threat which was unconsidered. Intelligent? There are so many
> manifestations of the same thing in so many different sociopolitical and
> socioeconomic contexts.
From a strictly behaviorist point of view, that article makes
perfect sense. I don't wish to diminish the impact of social
conditioning, as our entire frame of reference is formed by neural
connections either nurtured or trimmed by socialization, especially in
early childhood, when we lack the sophistication to question societal
values. But behaviorism fails to adequately explain the concept of free
will. I am an American, and I see the world through an American frame
of reference, yet I can choose to either support or oppose whatever
construct the larger society tries to impose. Just like in
Japan--though perhaps to a lesser degree--there are serious consequences
for defying the larger trends of my culture. However, I am certainly
not a slave to my nation's social order.
> I find it so ironic that people like you and me
> and many here on this list live in a state of conflict with this
> dichotomy. We are deeply ambivalent about being in a minority. We
> enjoy living in a prosperous condition, a circumstance of a global
> minority, and simultaneously rail amidst a majority of zombies in our
> own society. Is it because of your intelligence or your spiritual
> evolution that you wish to brake the train before it runs off the cliff?
> Is there a difference? Will we ever know? Do we even need to have an
> answer for that?
It's an interesting topic to discuss, but does it change anything?
I'm responding to Mr. Chomsky's thesis that intelligence will be our
downfall. I don't believe that's the problem. Keith likes to point out
that our success as a species has come about largely because we
cooperate with one another. From an anthropological perspective, the
division of labor enabled more efficient exploitation of resources.
From an evolutionary standpoint, intelligence enabled sophisticated
communication. These two form the foundation for every society that has
developed on earth, and a lot of good has come from the synergy of
these concepts. Both of these, require having a large brain, relative
to body mass.
Is there a physiological root to our environmental problems? If
so, there seems to be something deterministic about the idea that
evolution has doomed us to the same fate as the dinosaurs, who were no
match for us in the intellectual realm. Yet it's clear that people CAN
make choices to constrain their behavior. People CAN behave in a moral
fashion. Because I'm a devout Christian, that construct is central to
my being. But my faith informs (or perhaps, taints) my view of this
issue. I don't see environmental destruction as a problem with human
intellect. I see it as a spiritual problem, and God warned us a long
time ago that we will be held accountable for how we've managed his
creation:
"The nations were angry, but the time for your wrath has come.
It is time for the dead to be judged- to reward your servants, the
prophets, the saints, and all who fear your name, both unimportant and
important, and to destroy those who destroy the earth." (Revelation 11:18)
That chiastic twist on the end of the verse has long intrigued me.
Angry nations inspire God's anger (irony)
The time comes for judgment (a poetic pause)
reward for servants / destruction for the destroyers
(contrast in outcome)
Though John wrote this in Greek, he was a Jew, and Hebrew poetry is
full of thought-provoking contrasts like that. Yet we often hear the
most passionate laments against climate change coming from our pulpits.
This makes me conclude that the complicity of church leadership with the
immoral environmental destruction evident in our world will put
them--and all who follow them--into the category of those worthy of
destruction. That's a sobering thought!
> What if these ideals we strive for are themselves just artifacts of an
> overlarge brain mass? An evolutionary cul de sac. Mu.
We can speculate on this point, but can we actually prove
anything? Everything we do starts with an idea, so it's clear that we
have the power to implement ideas. Perhaps we're simply choosing to
explore the wrong ones . . .
robert luis rabello
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca
Crisis video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4
The Long Journey video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
