[ExI] Technology, specialization, and diebacks...Re: I love the world. =)

[lists1 at evil-genius.com]

>> >  McDaniel, M.A. (2005) Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the
>> >  relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence. Intelligence,
>> >  33, 337-346
>> >  http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained%20article.pdf
>> >  Even if you don't buy that argument, it will be difficult to claim that a
>> >  slightly bigger brain made our immediate ancestors*dumber*.
> I think the margin of error in measuring intelligence is far higher
> than the performance differences between the various models.  Even
> with some magical means of copying the structural bits of a brain, the
> fuel going into it probably has similar performance impact as any
> other machine.   ex:  High octane fuel&  perfect maintenance regimen
 > a racecar yields significantly better output than lower quality
 > fuel/care on an engine identically machined to within five-nines
 > tolerance.  Given the range of energy metabolism, food quality, brain
 > usage training, etc. it's almost impossible to compare two modern
 > brains let alone distant time period brains.

It is well established that the hunter-forager diet is superior to the 
post-agricultural diet in all respects:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/341

...as corroborated by the fact that all available indicators of health 
(height, weight, lifespan) crash immediately when a culture takes up 
farming -- and skeletal disease markers increase dramatically.
http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

And it wasn't until the year 1800 that residents of the richest 
countries of Europe reached the same caloric intake as the average tribe 
of hunter-gatherers.
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf

Which brings me back to my original point: it takes substantial 
intelligence to make stone tools and weapons, memorize a territory of 
tens (if not hundreds) of square miles, know where prey and edibles will 
live and grow throughout the seasons, find them, perhaps chase and kill 
them, butcher them, start fires with nothing but a couple pieces of 
wood, etc., etc.  If it didn't, intelligence would not have been 
selected for, and we'd still be little 3-foot Ardipithecuses with 350cc 
brains.

I'm genuinely not sure whether you're objecting to my point, or just 
throwing up objections with no supporting evidence because you like 
messing with people.  I'm going to start asking you to provide evidence, 
instead of just casting a bunch of doubts with no basis and no theory to 
replace what you're attacking.  That's a creationist tactic.

>> >  The anatomically modern human was selected for by millions of years of
>> >  hunting and foraging. ?(Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, and Ardipithecus ->  Homo
>> >  sapiens sapiens) ?Any subsequent change due to a few thousand years of
>> >  agricultural practices is sufficiently subtle that it hasn't affected our
>> >  morphology -- and, in fact, we're still arguing over whether it exists.
>> >
>> >  My point stands: intelligence must have been not just valuable, but
>> >  *absolutely necessary*  for hunter-foragers -- otherwise we wouldn't have
>> >  been selected for it. ?(Brain size of common human/chimp/bonobo ancestors:
>> >  ~350cc. ?Brain size of anatomically modern humans: ~1300cc.)
> Modern human was also selected for running away from things that we
> couldn't kill first.  Probably a considerable amount of our
> cooperative behaviors came from the discovery that many small animals
> are able to overpower a large threat when they work together -
> utilizing that prized possession: intelligence.

Everything is selected for running away from things we can't kill first. 
  Even lions and crocodiles run away from hippos.

> Have you considered that perhaps intelligence is only secondarily
> selected for?  Perhaps the more general governing rule is energy
> efficiency.

Everything is secondarily selected for, relative to survival through at 
least one successful reproduction.  I'm not sure that's a useful 
distinction.

And I refuse to enter into a "define intelligence" clusterf**k, because 
it's all completely ancillary to my original point.