Survival of the Smartest
While tripping through the The Carnival of Elitist Bastards post, I happened upon Mr. O’Risal’s refutation of Berg The Creationist. Mr. Berg comments that the poor cockroach may have had the intelligence to last a million years. “Whoa there!” Mr. O’Risal says:
By the way, insects have been around for a lot more than a million years, and the nobody is handing out MacArthur grants for the ability to reproduce. Instinct is not intelligence; it involves, by definition, no analytical ability nor even a faculty for relating phenomena. Instinct, taxis and reflex are the necessities of life; intelligence is a luxury in terms of the continuation of life. It’s a luxury that allows a select few living things to exercise their will upon their environments and to collectivize experience in ways that organisms that do not possess it cannot do. My writing this entry is an example of what this luxury makes possible (at least I hope so). We humans can give our knowledge to one another; cockroaches cannot.
Actually, I believe it was Piaget who suggested that intelligence really isn’t the luxury that Mr. O’Risal suggests it is, but is, in fact, an adaptive mechanism, an outcome of evolution, that allowed homo sapiens to survive. When you consider that, as a species, we’re not particularly strong, can’t run especially fast, are not possessed of sharp claws, need weeks of work to just bench press our own weight, and have teeth so dull we’ve got to put flame to our food to chew it efficiently, we have to have something that puts us above the average (ravenous) Big Cat. Enter The Big Brain, endowed with pattern matching and predictive modeling engines so powerful and complex that to date we have yet to be able to fully understand how they work, much less replicate it with our technology. It’s really not instinct at work here, its the ability to observe, correlate and predict.
Now I think this makes for a much stronger argument than Mr. O’Risal’s “Intelligence is a luxury” argument. For one thing, Nature really isn’t in the habit of creating frivolous indulgences; things happen for very good reasons. He does go on and talk about how we are able to contemplate objects and “…dissect them in our minds and compare them to things similar and dissimilar to them”. But he doesn’t quite seem to make the leap as to why that would be a Good Thing for the Species as opposed to something that simply allows us to gaze at the Universe and contemplate the way stars work.
After all, I doubt that the whole point of intelligence is to provide a mechanism to turn a quarter section of prairie into a shopping mall.
