When I think of the rain forests I think of the most diverse and even most beautiful creatures one can think of. However aren't places like that also most dangerous? Animals having very specific means of attack, poison, camouflage, etc just so they can eat? Does scarcity of resources bring out the best in species or does it only make them more viscous? — TiredThinker

In my opinion, the answer to all those questions is no. I have thoughts on that, expressed before, and don't want to get into that right now because I am more interested in this:

Would a wiser more evolved living people be near defenseless? — TiredThinker

That is a good question. I have a feeling that right-leaning, conservative men, or those who admire them, think they would stand the best chance in a nature that is red in tooth and claw. I think they view others, who are not like them, as either akin to a prey species or people who need them for defense from the brutal realities of the world. You know, like Jack Nicholson's character in Code Red.

But I think the Tom Cruise character in the movie is a more likely outcome at the end of the day.

It could be that we need both, in separate bodies. Or it could be that we need old school enlightenment where we have both in one body.

I look forward to reading the thoughts of others on this question.

Would a wiser more evolved living people be near defenseless? — TiredThinker

Of course not. People evolved for being free. They are born without two the features all animals share. A coat and a weapon. People are born nude and can develop their own cloths and weapons. For that we have something no animals have. A neocortex. Free imagination and thinking takes place there. Why did this evolve. Biologists, especially the Dawkinskians, see this as a response to the demands of our selfish genes who are in control over our bodies and brain. To meat the challenges other bodies, other animals, controlled by other genes, are facing us with. The only objective of these selfish genes have is to be passed on. Idem dito for memes. The only goal of memes is to be passed on.

Lamarckians put the organism in the driverseat. We control the genes. The genes are altruistic. We developed in order to meet the challenges posed by other kinds of animals. We developed freedom so we can make our own weapons agaist them. This knowledge can be passed on. Like memes. But it's not the wanting of memes to be passed on. It's us who want them to pass on, just like our genes.

Both views have their shortcomings. I think the second view fits reality better. I don't think we are controlled by genes. They are merely a matter of practicallity. How else could we evolve?

In your example of a habitat many animals have their own degree of danger. But when an animal becomes dangerous? When it needs food or will possibly be food for others. Size doesn't matter. Some have the weapon of camouflage. Some of the poison. Some of the web. Some of the teeth and strength. These can be used for defense too. Some just have wonderful escape tactics.

People have evolved so they can understand all of these animals and we can build a defense against them challenging us. ALL of us (animals and people) have evolved just to be us. People have evolved to be free in the sense of not having fixed inner thoughts or outer appearance. Ideas come whirling around in our inner worlds. We want to express them and pass them on. The aspect of animal danger is not that important. We have a multitude of ways of dealing with them. I think the present day means have gotten out of hands. Scientifically based weaponary and chemical poison have replaced tbe Natural. In that sense we are more dangerous to the Natural world than the Natural world is to us. We have even managed it to give our offspring a world with more forrest fires and floods...

So, would a wiser man be near defenseless? Not at all! If he thinks and acts wise. He could become the victim though of his own wisdom. Like the animals are already. Biodiversity has diminished by 30%! How wise we are. The rainforrest is almost gone. Leaving less animal threat...

Would a wiser more evolved living people be near defenseless? — TiredThinker

And ty @James Riley for the focus on this question.

Defenseless? Never. But with so comprehensive an understanding of defense and what that means and their needs as to be able to integrate it such that it is there but non-intrusive. And to be sure, I think in this context "defense" may be a word that misleads and deceives. In the US, Department of War until 1947 and then in 1949 Department of Defense (ty wiki).

So the question might move towards laying out what exactly "defense" might mean, and if it has any context-specific limitations or qualifications. Or, of course, if some other word or ideas are needed. Is it, for example, part of US defense - "defense" properly understood - policy to interfere in the internal affairs of oil producing countries?

When adequately evolved we probably won't need the oil, and then the answer will be no. At that time should it be part of our "defense" policy that women in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other places should not be brutalized, burned, murdered? I think yes. As well as with lots of other abuses. "Defense" then becomes a matter of both positive and negative qualities of life. Against the bad and for the good.

And along these lines it seems "defense" becomes the sharing and adoption of ideas. Interesting, e.g., the US Dept. of War --> Dept. of Defense --> Dept. of the Promulgation of the Best Ideas....

However aren't places like that also most dangerous? — TiredThinker

Danger is subjective. Organisms evolve according to environmental pressures so one species can't really be said to be more evolved than any others. There are species (such as homosapien) that have stabilized in their current evolutionary development with only small fluctuations due to the distribution of the phenotypes throughout populations.

Would a wiser more evolved living people be near defenseless? — TiredThinker

More evolved? According to what measure? Human? Why not bacteria? Bacteria far out populate us, they inhabit nearly all the Earth's ecosystems, they were here long before us and will remain here long after we are extinct. So anthropocentric. With regards to biological evolution, (IMO) one should adopt an ecocentric or biocentric view. Your questions are all relative to the observer and therefore cannot be answered absent of such context.

Something I find remarkable about human babies is that they cry.

They are utterly helpless; an easy morsel for any predator that comes along. And yet when they are even mildly uncomfortable, they draw attention to themselves, loudly.

They are entirely confident that they will be protected. And they are right. That's the mark of something that is at the top of the food chain.

Evolution is not teleological, @TiredThinker. There need be no survival value in being wise.

And yet when they are even mildly uncomfortable, they draw attention to themselves, loudly. — Banno

I wonder if that is true, or if it's a more recent (10k - 13k years) thing. I'm not talking about various cultural methods of dealing with crying, but the crying itself. I've heard baby animals make noise in the wild. It's usually a tit in the mouth that shuts them up. Everybody likes a tit in the mouth.

Australian Aboriginal babies cry. They had a seperate evolutionary path for 60,000 years. Human children have been loud for a long time.

So do fawns (mule deer), calves (elk and bison), pups (coyote and wolf) kits (cougar and beaver) and cubs (bear). I admit that the baby birds that I am aware of are silent, as are reptiles. But I've heard a lot of animal babies cry.

The younger they are, the more a tit seems to be required to shut them up. However, as they get older, I've seen them pipe down when they see/sense tension in mom, the aunts, or even dad and uncles. But I'm still not seeing a lot of difference that can't be explained by spoiling or tolerating the way we do. That's why I wonder if indigs might do it less. I doubt Aborigines bawl incessantly like a suburban brat, if only because they have less to bawl about.

All of those critters can run. A human baby is a few kilos of flesh at no risk; unless mum is nearby.

But heading back to the OP - the notion of "More evolved" is a nonsense.

All of those critters can run. A human baby is a few kilos of flesh at no risk; unless mum is nearby. — Banno

Yes and no. But regardless, the distinction lies in the dependency/mobility, not crying.

But heading back to the OP - the notion of "More evolved" is a nonsense. — Banno

:100:

Evolution is not teleological, TiredThinker. — Banno

But heading back to the OP - the notion of "More evolved" is a nonsense. — Banno

A slight correction. What makes "more evolved" nonsense when addressing Darwinian evolution isn't its necessary being devoid of teleology - which, as you might guess, I find debatable - but simply that all living species are, by the very principles of Darwinian evolution, equally evolved from a common single-celled ancestor.

That we humans are more evolved than, say, bacteria can only be found valid in the "better than" sense of the word - but not in the sense of "evolution" as it is used in its proper scientific contexts.

That we humans are more evolved than, say, bacteria can only be found valid in the "better than" sense of the word — javra

Ok - but would you give any credence to that view?

Doing so must introduce a ranking, and hence a move from description to evaluation. Whence the "ought"?

Ok - but would you give any credence to that view? — Banno

Not one bit when I have my biological sciences hat on, no.

Doing so must introduce a ranking, and hence a move from description to evaluation. Whence the "ought"? — Banno

Very true. Nevertheless, going with the flow of culture, there is the use of "more evolved" in the sense of "better than". "Better" always stands in relation to that which is good; in some abstract sense, that which no better than can occur: a superlative. Here, the implicit ought - which is of course riddled with biases when analyzed in detail - is that things ought to be maximally proximate to this superlative good. So, if we deem intelligence or wisdom to so be more proximate to this ultimate good, then we deem ourselves as humans to be more evolved than bacteria.

Does such a superlative good exist? Seems like a different topic for a different thread. In short, though, without it there can only be moral relativism, this to state the obvious.

Everybody likes a tit in the mouth. — James Riley

:lol:

But heading back to the OP - the notion of "More evolved" is a nonsense. — Banno

If you mean "better" then I agree 100%. If you mean "more complex", I don't. By the way, people are the only beings that can cry with rears coming out. I think. Though I have to say that our puppy dog does a good job in whining when we eat. I expect her to secretely invent the weapon of tears...