Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 10, 2009 9:24:00 GMT
Interesting conversation between Stephen Pinker and Robert Wright concerning his book 'Zero Sum' - this is from back in 2000 (he has a new book out on the evolution of religions which looks quite interesting). This is from back in 2000 so very much out of date but a lot of the ideas are fascinating.
www.slate.com/id/2000143/entry/1004510/
Pinker says that:
2. A species with humanlike intelligence was no more "in the cards" than a species with an elephantlike trunk--both are just handy biological gadgets. (Of course, given enough time, humanlike intelligence is near-certain to evolve; but given enough time, anything with nonzero probability is near-certain to evolve, including an elephantlike trunk.) A brain with the intelligence necessary for cooperation and specialization is metabolically expensive and biomechanically hazardous, and evolves only when the evolutionary precursor and current ecosystem make the benefits exceed the costs. Most lineages (e.g., of plants) never got smart, and all lineages of animals on earth except ours were stuck well beneath the subgenius level.
Perhaps (as I speculated in How the Mind Works) the outsize brain of Homo sapiens evolved because our ancestors lived in groups, hunted, had hands, and saw in color and stereo. Perhaps without that rare conjunction, big brains aren't worth the cost, and don't evolve.
The fact that a brain is expensive in evolutionary terms is important, but as Pinker points out, once you reach a sufficient societal complexity it becomes opportune to 'invest' in one (trunks also appear to have driven the emergence of intelligence because they allow elephants to manipulate different objects).
There is some interesting new research on how fire and cooking drove human evolution into new areas which sounds pretty convincing.
harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-society/articles/invention-cooking-drove-evolution-human-species-new-book-argues
Conway Morris's review is here; since writing this in 2000 he has helped assemble a vast array of evidence on convergence.
www.nytimes.com/books/00/01/30/reviews/000130.30conwayt.html
www.slate.com/id/2000143/entry/1004510/
Pinker says that:
2. A species with humanlike intelligence was no more "in the cards" than a species with an elephantlike trunk--both are just handy biological gadgets. (Of course, given enough time, humanlike intelligence is near-certain to evolve; but given enough time, anything with nonzero probability is near-certain to evolve, including an elephantlike trunk.) A brain with the intelligence necessary for cooperation and specialization is metabolically expensive and biomechanically hazardous, and evolves only when the evolutionary precursor and current ecosystem make the benefits exceed the costs. Most lineages (e.g., of plants) never got smart, and all lineages of animals on earth except ours were stuck well beneath the subgenius level.
Perhaps (as I speculated in How the Mind Works) the outsize brain of Homo sapiens evolved because our ancestors lived in groups, hunted, had hands, and saw in color and stereo. Perhaps without that rare conjunction, big brains aren't worth the cost, and don't evolve.
The fact that a brain is expensive in evolutionary terms is important, but as Pinker points out, once you reach a sufficient societal complexity it becomes opportune to 'invest' in one (trunks also appear to have driven the emergence of intelligence because they allow elephants to manipulate different objects).
There is some interesting new research on how fire and cooking drove human evolution into new areas which sounds pretty convincing.
harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-society/articles/invention-cooking-drove-evolution-human-species-new-book-argues
Conway Morris's review is here; since writing this in 2000 he has helped assemble a vast array of evidence on convergence.
www.nytimes.com/books/00/01/30/reviews/000130.30conwayt.html