Intelligence is arguably humanity's strongest survival trait or at least one of them (our adaptability and curiosity are the other two major traits I can think of that would vie for pole position). However, in our pursuit of our own survival we have caused pain, death and extinction to other species.

Is it evil to use an inherent genetic characteristic to the detriment of other species to ensure our continued existence? Without our more advanced intelligence we would still kill and displace other species just as everything else in the food chain does. Is it that some of the uses we put our intelligence to that are evil?

Is intelligence unnatural, a mistake? Does anyone think that we should not have evolved as far intellectually as we have? Is it a disadvantage as well as an benefit? Thinking about the things we do can sometimes make us alter our present course; should we ignore analysis and simply outrun as many species as we can in the race for survival? Is thinking slowing down our progress as a species?

Interesting...I was just reading about something similar to this in the Tao Te Ching recently.

Screw other speicies. Its a god given right that we can manipulate the world as we see fit.

You are a believer Billy???

I agree.

We can manipulate it. No going back now. All we can do is try to manipulate it to our benefit.

There is nothing evil about evolutionary economics.

Intelligence is not a mistake it is a selected for trait.

The evil thing on the other hand, it would appear to be

Tao Teh Ching...fuckin' Eastern-Philosophy rubbish!

Anywho, is intelligence unnatural or evil? Certainly not! As the others have said, we reserve the right to manipulate this world as we see fit. It's ours. Every other species had their chance, and blew it!



But, to speak philosophically, and not like a right-winged redneck, intelligence is only truly evil to one species...man. We, as humans, are content with our station in this world. We're content with the knowledge we've grasped (despite our yearning for more), we're content with the technology we've revealed (and interestingly enough, technology is now in controll...not Matrix style...but more, well...that's another discussion for another day).

Anywho, as we are content with our stance in life, it really makes one wonder if it's possible to push ourselves further. If in 1,000 years we'll be using 20% of our brain instead of 10%. Is it possible to achieve 100%...is it possible to be so intune with oneself, and with everything around us, that we view intelligence as ignorance?

The 10% of your brain thing is a commonly repeated, even by scientists, myth, with no basis in fact.


I also don't see people as content. I think people today are constantly wanting to prove themselves. The world, the Western world, anyway, is a perpetually improving place at this point in history. Things, nearly everything, are really getting better; crime is going down, murder is going down, divorce is going down, tolerance is rising, college education is more common, the standards of living are up, we have an increasingly powerful internet. Wikipedia, for the love of God. Do you know what Socrates would've done for something like Wikipedia? And I-pods. Christ, I'm of the generation that is supposed to take this shit for granted and I'm constantly amazed. It's approximately five billion times better to be alive in a first world country today than in almost any other place and time in history. Based on this, I'd say our intelligence certainly isn't evil to us. Intelligence causes people to think things through more thoroughly and be more humane/good, in my experience. Intelligence is, however, highly over-rated, in that a lot of people underestimate how common it is and tend to inflate their opinions of themselves on account of this.

Evil?... Well, evil is what you don't like - basically. Maybe the real question is, "Is evil intelligent?" O_O

Sorry.

I think intelligence is a beautiiful thing. For anyone who believes in evolution, you can appreciate how many years of evolution and natural selection it took to get us this far in nervous system power. The only "evil" part of intelligence, I think, and only a little bit, is that since humans have so much of it (most of the time), it can outweigh and even completely disregard our animal instincts.... Like suicide. It may be possible for a dog to commit suicide (I'm not well versed on the matter) but I know damn sure it's not in their nature and it's not probable. That is because they can't know what we know. All they know is what their natural instincts tell them. They get hungry, they kill for food. We get hungry, some of us spare a life and eat some leaves. It's a very interesting topic.

I think you missed my point completely. The point is, no matter in what ways we're improving ourselves, we're content with our station in life. We're content with being man, with being the masters of our life, with the knowledge we've gained or are gaining. When you really dissect it, when you look at technological philosophies, we as man have created a world where we are content.

Especially since it wouldn't make sense -not- to... Why would something/someone form a civilization, or a whole life system, if it didn't fit to their wants/needs? *agrees*

Hmm Not completely sure if I agree with this assement here are my points against.

1. We have no other frame of refrence on which to base this statement, no man has been for example a goat.

2. We are still subject to evolution, as a species we are not content

3. Individualy we strive to improve our station, we call it motivation, in fact we tend not to be satisfied with the simplist things.

4. Had we been content with being man, there would have been no need to create a world of contentment, it was already there.

5. If anything the world which we have created fosters discontent.

Its just a phrase. I just believe that our intellect gives us a birthright to do as we please with our physical reality.

You really haven't shown any way in which this is the case. You've just said, "When you get past the constant strides forward in technology and shifts in culture and morality, humans are actually content exactly as they are" without any demonstratable proof that this is so. I think all the available evidence points the other way.

Using our intelligence is no more evil than a chamelon using its tongue to catch bugs, or a cheetah using its superior speed to run down prey...

Is it a mistake? No.

Whether we "should" have or not is a moot point. We have.

A disadvantage? Well, yes, probably. Sometimes.

1. I recall Goatboy from SNL! No, but seriously, when you look at the sciences, and philosophy's view of it, you have 3 eras/variations/forms:

A. The first of which is Ancient Science (i.e. Egyptian, Greek, Roman) where science was a combination of logic and faith. Gods and Godesses were in control, and science as they knew it was attributed to them. "Why does this happen?" Because of Poseiden. "Why does that happen?" Because of Vulcan. Yet they obeyed rules of logic...such as the Pre-Socratic thought: "Water is the essence of life." Not very valid, but it was logical at the time.

B. Medieval science was the most prejudiced of all the sciences. In short, it's the era stemming from the medieval philosophies, which were theologically based and quite concerned with that lovely little diety known as God. And we all know the basics...God made the world the center of the universe! God made man the greatest of creatures! God did this! God did that! God, God, God! Rubbish...but medieval philosophy is quite fascinating.

C. Today is the mathematical! And I don't mean numerals or numeric values or whatever. What is implied here, which is from Heidegger, is that technology today is nothing more than a collection of facts, which aren't necessarily logical, but do adhere to rules of logic within their own system (i.e. physics vs' metaphysics). The point being, today's sciences aren't concerned as much with faith based idealogies.

The point being that we can compare our station in life with those stations in the past. The evolution of science, of philosophy, and it doesn't really look like it shall evolve any further. Why should it? You had logic/faith science, then faith science, now logic science. What's left?

2. Yes and no. We are content as I showed in 1, but we're not content if you take into consideration our obsession to makes things faster, better, smaller, etc. But even then it's not so much an evolution as it is a growth. A phone today is much like a the phone of yesteryear...just, aged better.

3. Look my response for 2.

4. Hmm...interesting. I'll have to think about that one. Only thing I can think of is that perhaps we weren't content with being man.

5. Explain in further detail.

1. perhaps pure science unbiased by any other camp (is it even possible)?

2. I meant more pure evolution as in perhaps the new and improved model due out some time in the future distant or near (interestingly enough it would appear from the fossil record that the more intelligent a species the less time it exists as a species)

3. Agreed not demonstrative of progress

4. I am fasnited with the implications of "perhaps we were not content on being man" care to explore that further?

5. It would seem that any efforts to make our lifes more content (under the logic of your prior statement) lead to more discontent. simply put the more things that exist the more possiblities for things to go wrong, hence greater discontent

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you're saying: "If the man is content with being man, why does man still strive for contentment; and why does contentment even exist?"

I obviously recognize that we as individuals aren't content in every fashion. I think that would be impossible. But what I'm suggesting is that nature of man, man's place in the world, the morals we abide, the knowledge we seek, the societies we've created, we're content in that fashion. We as man, especially man in the USA, are content with the world around us. Yes some of us strive for this (such as Operation Iraqi Freedom) or that (Green Peace) or this (luxury cars) or that, or this, or that, or this. How's that any different than it was 50 yrs ago? 100 yrs ago? 200 yrs ago? Things change, but our station in life, what we aim for, what we've been aiming for, is more or less the same. To better ourselves in a fashion to our liking. We're content with that.

And if something goes wrong...well, we understand that that's a possibility. But you don't really see man putting any real effort into changing the world drastically. Anarchy, for example.

Is that rubbish? Perhaps...