Could we survive without our minds?

[The Tactical Strategist]

Could modern humans like you and me survive without our intelligence. We don't have many natural defenses. No teeth to fight, just to eat. Not made to rip and tear. We don't have speed. Normal people are slow compared to most animals. No claws. Can't swim like a fish. What are your thoughts. Mind you, I'm not saying we are ill suited for survival, but just a thought.

[Ten oz]

@ The Tactical Strategist, humans can actually traverse a lot of terrian and swim very well. Humans have good dexterity and can climb, dig, crawl, run, jump, lift, push, etc. So compared to many other animals we actual have many advantages. We also can survive of a variety of diets. Fruits and insects or seeweed and mussels if need be.

When you say without our intelligence to what degree are you referencing?

[Delta1212]

Well, how much intelligence are we losing here? As smart as apes? Dogs? Sheep? Cockroaches? Nothing going on between our ears whatsoever?

 

Humanity's primary advantage in adapting to new is our intelligence. If we lose it to any significant degree, there is a large swathe of the globe that humanity currently occupies that becomes largely uninhabitable to us.

 

Another major advantage is our ability to communicate with each other effectively and coordinate our actions far better than most other animals are capable of. If that is taken out by the degree of intelligence loss you're looking for, that's going to hurt us badly.

 

Our one really big advantage that doesn't rely on our intelligence (although our intelligence certainly allows us to make better use of it) is our stamina. Humans are the Terminators of the animal kingdom. You might be able to outrun them for a while, but they'll just keep coming. A lot of animals might be faster than us, but that's if you're talking short sprints. Over marathon distances, humans beat most things they'd care to chase.

[The Tactical Strategist]

All good points I have thought about. Let's say something like a tiger for intelligence. I know about our endurance. But not all races of people are built for the stamina as well as others. I'm into track and field, and from Jamaican descent, so I found an article/study of why jamaicansproduce such fast runners. Their descendants from west Africa were naturally built for "speed". Eastern Afrjcans are built for the endurance, hence two totally different body types. Caucasian are built more for throwing, and lifting, swimming, etc. So anyway, I know endurance would really help, hunting wise. But could we kill without our tools? And would top predators kill us off with their quick bursts of speed in an ambush. We don't have armor like reptiles do defend ourselves, and no claws or teeth to fight. Most animals can do what Ten OZ said, but can we to do it well enough. We can't swim like reptiles, some mammals, and obviously fish. We are terribly slow in the water, at least wading. Digging? Could we really build burrows? I don't know. We don't have as many muscles as some animals. A tiger could kill us with the swipe of a paw easily. Elephants have more muscle in the tip of their trunks than we have in our entire body. Lions have smaller muscles than us, with allows more muscles, and faster twitch reflex, making them faster and stronger.

[Phi for All]

We didn't start out smart and develop tools and processes for adaptation. Our brains grew a little bit more each generation along with more flexible fingers, a more upright posture, better communication and cooperative skills, and a whole host of other small improvements that, when taken all together, form the animals we are today. Removing a linchpin concept like intelligence makes the whole Jenga tower fall.

 

If we aren't smart enough to figure out what to do with fire, our guts don't develop in a way that would let us run fast, jump, and swim. I'm not sure I see the point of removing a single attribute like this. They're all important to our development.

[Ten oz]

All good points I have thought about. Let's say something like a tiger for intelligence. I know about our endurance. But not all races of people are built for the stamina as well as others. I'm into track and field, and from Jamaican descent, so I found an article/study of why jamaicansproduce such fast runners. Their descendants from west Africa were naturally built for "speed". Eastern Afrjcans are built for the endurance, hence two totally different body types. Caucasian are built more for throwing, and lifting, swimming, etc.

This is an entirely seperate conversation. I will simply say I completely disagree and leave it at that.

 

So anyway, I know endurance would really help, hunting wise. But could we kill without our tools? And would top predators kill us off with their quick bursts of speed in an ambush. We don't have armor like reptiles do defend ourselves, and no claws or teeth to fight. Most animals can do what Ten OZ said, but can we to do it well enough. We can't swim like reptiles, some mammals, and obviously fish. We are terribly slow in the water, at least wading. Digging? Could we really build burrows? I don't know. We don't have as many muscles as some animals. A tiger could kill us with the swipe of a paw easily. Elephants have more muscle in the tip of their trunks than we have in our entire body. Lions have smaller muscles than us, with allows more muscles, and faster twitch reflex, making them faster and stronger.

Could we kill without tools, of course. Humans do not require large game to survive. There are people in this world today whose many diet consists of things like rice and grasshopper. Things like crabs and small reptiles can be killed with our hands. Referencing back to our (human) dexterity we can do things many predators can not. For example a tiger can not swim out in to a lake or river, dive down several feel to the bottom, and stick its paw into a hole and put out a fish or crab. Humans can. Having arms and hands allows humans to do things that can not be done with legs and paws.

Would predators just kill us with their superior speed, depends. Wolves and bears can't climb. So a tree or steep hill face would be enough to successfully escape their them. They also don't swim well as humans so a water escape would be another option. Large cats would be the most dangerous. So I guess where your theoretical less intelligent human is attempting to live matters. Different areas of the world have different apex predators.

Consider this; humans evolved from smaller less intelligent hominids. So the answer to your question in many ways is self evident.

[The Tactical Strategist]

Ok. This is what I wanted. I know there are many different things that go along with this, so thank you all. I'm finding this conversation interesting.

 

@ten oz, with the track and races thing, I just mentioned that to show that not all humans are built for long distance

 

Also it's very true about your statements with finding food and apex predators. Cats would be the most difficult. They are, perhaps, some of the most dangerous animals in the natural world. No wonder they have lived so long. In fact, they preyed on us for a long time, and occasionally still do.

 

@phil for all, I know there are many factors going into survival. All these are just hypothetical questions.

 

Thank you all. I did happen to ask this on another website and everyone attacked me and gave stupid answers. So I appreciate you all

[Phi for All]

@phil for all, I know there are many factors going into survival. All these are just hypothetical questions.

Thank you all. I did happen to ask this on another website and everyone attacked me and gave stupid answers.

 

Stick around here long enough, and you'll stop using the word "just" in relation to hypotheses and theories. Scientific methodology turns these into the most powerful predictive tools known to man. Theory is the best you can get in science, and theory starts with an hypothesis.

 

You're asking the wrong questions, but that doesn't necessarily mean you won't get some informative answers. I'm also very pleased that you're asking questions at all. So many people come here to overthrow science and tell us how wrong we all are.

 

You personally are immune to attack here (it's against the rules), but we attack ideas all the time. It's what science does. We try to Big Bad Wolf your house down. If we can, it's a wrong idea. If we can't, you may have something.

[John Cuthber]

The sad truth is that we know the answer to the question

"Could modern humans like you and me survive without our intelligence?"

Ask anyone who is caring for someone with a degenerative disease like Alzheimer's how well they would get on without a lot of help.

 

You can play games with the definition of "intelligence"but the outcome is pretty much the same; without it we'd be dead in a day or two from dehydration.

 

Of course, the same is true for practically any animal.

[The Tactical Strategist]

Well thank you all.

 

@Phil for all, I'll try and get better. I'm 14 and still kinda new to everything, and have lots to learn. I'll be happy to learn from everyone here. I'm sure I might be able to hold my own on attacked ideas. It's ok. Thank you.

[Phi for All]

Well thank you all.

 

@Phil for all, I'll try and get better. I'm 14 and still kinda new to everything, and have lots to learn. I'll be happy to learn from everyone here. I'm sure I might be able to hold my own on attacked ideas. It's ok. Thank you.

 

Awesome.

 

Your age is irrelevant, since that's personal and has no bearing on good science (our current Administrator joined when he was 11, and now he runs the whole place -- I think he's 14 also now*). I predict you'll do very well.

 

 

 

 

* I can joke like this because he's way too busy with world domination grad school to ever read this.

[The Tactical Strategist]

Hah. That's extremely interesting. Then he must be like ridiculously smart.