RE: Are You Not Entertained? Physical vs. Intellectual Conflict
Have we evolved yet?
Evolution is an ongoing process that does not have an end point. We have evolved and continue to do so with each new generation. It appears that you are looking for an evolutionary jump towards a more intellectual standpoint. I tend to agree with this mindset as well. However, major evolutionary changes typically take place when a species is introduced to a new environment and new set of challenges that need to be solved. Individuals that demonstrate an adaptive ability to overcome such challenges become desirable and their genes tend to be propagated. Humans have basically mastered the current environment so physical adaptations likely have slowed down tremendously. Now, if humans ever colonize Mars we would see major evolutionary changes taking place rapidly due to humans being introduced to new environments. In such a scenario we would likely see major differences between Earth born humans and a Mars born humans after several generations. In regards to an intellectual evolution though, I think the question is - what evolutionary advantage is there to being highly intelligent? There are advantages of course, but do they stand out when compared to other advantages? We could speculate that social skills as an adaptive trait out weigh intelligence at this point since humans are a social species. Entertainment appears to be very social in nature which may be one reason why it remains desirable (I'm speculating). In order for intelligence to truly stand out as a desirable adaptation which is then propagated among the gene pool, we would need problems/challenges in our society that are worth fixing, which require intellectuals to solve and which the general population recognizes as being important. In such a scenario, the intelligent individual can shine and their genes would advance. However, in our world today, society largely ignores the worlds problems (climate change, ocean pollution...etc) and opts instead for cheap entertainment and materialism. We live in a world in which our basic needs are met, jobs are largely meaningless to people and individuals therefore have no real purpose in life. To combat this we tend to focus on materialism and entertainment. So individuals who portray themselves as extravagant entertainers (celebrities and athletes) are desirable.
I'm with you - I hope that we can move towards a place where intelligence is valued, but that seems like it will be a slow process.
I use "evolve" as shorthand for improved consciousness and actively working on the top rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs (Self Actualization). In many ways, I think, natural selection evolution no longer applies to our species. We control our environment so are we now under self-directed evolution?
Yeah I assumed that it was a play on words and I believe that I understood your overall message. Sometimes I just like to hear myself talk so to speak haha or to see where a conversation will go.
I agree with your point of view. Its hard to say if natural selection still applies to the human species and in many ways evolution is self-directed. One small example is cesarean section births. In many cases c-sections are completely unnecessary, yet they take place anyway and for any number of reasons. However, they do alter the course of our natural evolution in that mothers and children survive childbirth when they otherwise would not have. I am not implying that this is a bad thing, I am merely pointing out a fact. There are many examples like this as well, in which human intervention influences the natural course of evolution. Perhaps we need a new evolutionary theory beyond natural selection to explain our current evolutionary process?
On another note, a concept that I find interesting is the question of "what is natural? and similarly should any sort of human intervention be considered "unnatural?" For instance, altering the human genome, is that unnatural? Human beings are a part of nature regardless of how complex our behaviors, inventions and ideas become. Regardless of how complex we are, we are an animal just like any other. Therefore, can our behaviors ever truly be unnatural?
Side note: I've obviously strayed from your original topic so feel free to disengage from this conversation if its uninteresting. Like I said, I just like to see where thoughts will go.
I've thought of that also. What if materialistic determinism means even what we think is "directed" by our "choice" is still being driven by evolved impulses like any other animal? Interesting to consider.
Yes that is interesting to consider.
I have also been thinking about the original topic and what you said about Maslow's hierarchy of needs (self-actualization). Self-actualization according to Maslow, occurs when an individual reaches their highest potential and it is associated with self growth and meaning of life among other things.
Some could argue that athletes who are at the apex of their careers, in fact reach a state of self actualization. For instance, they strive to achieve their highest potential and since "purpose" and meaning of life is a subjective concept created by each individual's mind, perhaps the meaning of these athletes lives is simply to be the best they can be at what they are good at (sport). For them, maybe their purpose in life is to be a top athlete. As such, perhaps other individuals like to watch athletes because they admire individuals who are at their highest potential; individuals who are "self-actualized." Its just a thought. It would be just as easy to argue that sports are nothing more than cheap entertainment meant for the unintelligent portion of a population. I guess that depends on one's perspective.
I can see how each individual is going to put forward and show off their strengths though, whether they are intelligence, athletics, altruism, attractiveness...etc. Each individual is also likely going to put an emphasis on the importance of the traits that they themselves are privy to (IE. intelligent individuals will believe that intelligence is an important trait, attractive individuals will believe that attractiveness is important, and altruistic individuals will believe that altruism is important and so on).
I think you made an important point and it's why I wasn't commenting on the individual sportsmen directly, but more so on the forms of self actualization we value most as a species. Previously, physical strength was important for our survival and continued spreading of our genes. Today, I don't think it is so much and I'm arguing we should consider adjusting what we value accordingly.
The nice thing about all these various perspectives is we can actually measure them against each other to some degree. We can find peaks and valleys of wellbeing as Sam Harris describes in the Moral Landscape.
ahhh I see.
I agree with you that
I am not familiar with "The moral Landscape" or Sam Harris's work. I am curious how he proposes to measure such values.
now this however is spot on, IMHO
I personally think you have not read very much about what is going on with c-sections, they are rarely done for the patient's benefit, but rather the doctor's, and there is evidence to suggest that they weaken the mother, the baby, and the bond that they form.
So that's a pretty bad example to use
Babies that do not pass through the birth canal start with a disadvantage in life
I'm a bit confused by this. How is what I said about c-sections being a way that human beings influence natural evolution a bad example? What is it a bad example of? Can you explain your point further?
I will be back to do this. I am afraid I have just seen this and am out of time.
But stay tuned.
Don't take me badly, sorry If I sounded a little abrupt, I hope to be able to illustrate my point.
I will be back a little later.
big hugs