= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
moridinamael comments on Stupid Questions September 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (174)
How does it change your view of "the ascent of man" when you realize that only some human populations in the northern latitudes of Eurasia evolved enough intelligence to make way more than their share of contributions to the body of knowledge and the stock of high-value capital?
The fallacy is in the use of the word "evolved."
If you take a random sampling of ten thousand modern humans and scatter them across an undeveloped planet, what will happen is basically:
The ones who live in horrific environments will barely manage to survive and fail to develop technologically.
The ones who live in environments with plentiful game and foraging availability but with minimal agricultural potential will not perceive any pressure to drive innovation.
The ones who live in environments most conducive to agriculture, with a harsh enough climate that saving food for the winter is a good idea, will eventually develop agriculture.
The selection pressures on technological development work orders of magnitude faster than the selection pressures on intelligence.