Metanet Forums

The other day I had seen a program about the different societies of humans, which happened to briefly mention ant civilizations. Ants do not have very developed brains compared to the human's, and they definitely do not have such a fully developed conscious (if they even have one, it would be extremely limited). This lead me onto something more curious: Is a fully developed human consciousness really a good thing, and if so, does it only help the individual and hurt the society? Ant societies are extremely efficient and well maintained; if it is possible to achieve such a successful and thriving civilization that would sustain a species without the use of extraordinary perception and thought, what is its purpose in a human? From an evolutionary standpoint (although it's not like the human race is really restrained by evolution anymore), the negative aspects that come with a developed consciousness don't really seem all that great. Are there redeeming factors? Basically, is the human conscious a good thing overall, or just to an individual/society?

I'm sorry if this is a little unorganized or unclear; I don't usually participate in the Debate forum very much.

when you think about it, i dont know why we have a conciousness
i can imagine that it would help people work together much better, because if someone did something bad he would learn from it and not do it again, benfiting society, it would also help famiy groups and so on

Well, I think the point is that not everything evolves to fill the same niche. Not all species can work well with a high-level consciousness, but a hive mind doesn't always work either.

If the question is about the benefits / detriments of self-awareness, you can tell that I value being self-aware more highly than not because I haven't killed myself.
If it's about intelligence, then I most definitely think that human-level intelligence helps humans out more overall than any lesser intelligence might ("ignorance is bliss" being the supporting argument there). Even some of the dumbest of humans are so much more versatile and clever than the rest of the animal kingdom, and even our functional retards can outdo those of other species.

Well, comparing us to ants is always going to be a particularly weak analogy. Simply because the other variables make any real comparison beyond simplistic.

I think the most important thing to remember is that in most cases nature isn't just about strengthening your own civilisation, it is about passing surviving long enough to pass on your own genes, this has the side effect of strengthening society because the strongest are most likely to reproduce but this is not intentional. Consciousness or increased mental acumen is of course going to be a huge benefit to any creature's survival and so these creatures pass on their traits to their offspring, and modern humans evolve with greater intelligence.

Also, on a societal level consciousness is a huge bonus. An ant society is only so efficient because they are rather unconcerned about personal survival. This is because ants can reproduce so fast, humans reproduce very slowly and so of course each life is much more valuable and so while our society may seem less efficient in work, consciousness allows us to function in a way that preserves life very efficiently.

Just keep in mind that ever since human populations and capabilities have exploded, the name of the survival game has become Don't Piss Off The Humans.

The only reason we are dominate towards other creatures is the fact that we have opposable thumbs. Think about it.

all primates have opposable thumbs

We stand on two feet.

Some primates are also capable of walking and standing on two feet for extended periods.

Wikipedia "Brain", people. It's not about thumbs or walking upright.

Is consciousness a bad thing? Well... no. I mean, if you think about even if you weren't human you could still be a conscious animal.

Sentience may be what you were trying to get at. Because when you are sentient do you think in terms of protecting yourself. You could be conscious of the outside world, but have no reason to protect yourself, simply because you are just taking in information. Sentience causes you to realize yourself and your surroundings, causing you to make choices to ensure your survival. This still doesn't seem detrimental to "society" and doesn't really seem to be what you're getting at.

Then there is sapience. Sapience is the ability to think in abstract terms and ideas. Things like philosophy and math are available with sapience, because we can create hypothetical situations and then create hypothetical solutions. Sapience is why we as humans have an advantage over the lion or the ant. It allows us to say, "What if a lion were to attack me or my family? How would I prevent that?" and what would most likely follow is some sort of shelter against lions. The lion could have never attacked you or your family before but you could still think about preparing for the situation were it ever to occur.
Most animals seem to live in the present, that is they don't act until something tells them to act. Many species don't store food, but some do when it nears winter time. This seems more instinctive rather than forward thinking. Most animals live without shelter from other animals, and those that do have shelter maybe seek it out only to escape from weather conditions or to protect their young until their young is old enough to live on their own.
Sapience allowed us to think beyond the here and now and plan ahead. The storage of food and the creation of shelter were huge leaps in securing our survival from the elements and other species, or sometimes even our own species.

So is sapience detrimental to society overall? It depends on if you think humans have done more good or more bad, as it's all very subjective as to what you think is "good" and "bad."

Also, someone open this up, as I'm sure to have made some mistake somewhere...

Hmm... Not much can be said against your point Southpaw...

Personally I'd say the only reason sentience, and or sapience(I'm not exactly sure which) would be considered bad is the fact that because humans have these they are the only animal that can intentionally do evil, hurt others in their own interest, etcetera.
Other animals who lack these qualities simply do what they must to live and continue their species.

I hope I'm making sense.

Most everything has the natural reflex of defence (maybe EVERYTHING does).

By the way, consciousness--as it's being used in this topic--is synonymous with sentience. It proposes an awareness of self and situation.

Sapience is the ability for induction and deduction, which I think most sentient things can do on some level.



It's probably easiest to think of sentience as binary and sapience as magnitudinal.

a very good question...if we weren't conscious then there would likfely be a different species that is the top of the food chain. Though being concious and as blue_tetris said "sentient" then our international problems would be over right?

Read above for evolutionist point of view.

Read below for creationist point of view. (Disclaimer: may not extend past this post.)


God created us as intelligent beings with a sense of right and wrong and gave us dominion over all the creatures of the earth—that's why, although we are physically pathetic beings, we are at the top of the food chain, as it were, because of our heightened intelligence.

Yanni edit: Don't do that, 'specially not in Debate.

see below for evolutionist point of view

i wouldn't say our sense of right and wrong puts us at the top of the food chain. and how do you know that other animals don't have consciousness? I for one, am sure they do. take elephants for an example, they follow a leader and mourn their dead. they also have a developed social structure

notsteve wrote:I be dumb.

see above for creationist point of view

Don't slander others beliefs. It's not cool. There is a whole other thread for that.

i was joking :(
but it probably was a bit uncalledfor

incluye wrote:although we are physically pathetic beings, we are at the top of the food chain

I don't think it's fair to say pathetic; we're physically superior to the vast majority of animalia, considering the largest proportion of the animal kingdom is wacky variations in insects and stuff.

I don't think it really makes sense to describe humans as physically superior or inferior to other species in that manner. How do you define "physically superior" over such a broad range? Mosquitos are fragile, but they can fly and they're quite fast. Tortoises, on the other hand, are very sturdy, but rather slow. Dogs have teeth and claws and a better sense of smell, but they're not so good at climbing. Fish are really good at swimming but can't live on land. At best you can argue that humans perform better than a given species at a certain task or function.

Atilla wrote:I don't think it really makes sense to describe humans as physically superior or inferior to other species in that manner. [...] At best you can argue that humans perform better than a given species at a certain task or function.

You could say they are superior because they perform better at a wider range of tasks than any other species, and can perform tasks that no other species can in addition to that diversification.

Atilla wrote:I don't think it really makes sense to describe humans as physically superior or inferior to other species in that manner. How do you define "physically superior" over such a broad range? Mosquitos are fragile, but they can fly and they're quite fast. Tortoises, on the other hand, are very sturdy, but rather slow. Dogs have teeth and claws and a better sense of smell, but they're not so good at climbing. Fish are really good at swimming but can't live on land. At best you can argue that humans perform better than a given species at a certain task or function.

Humans can take 'em in a one-on-one battle, even if you grant a good number of them home field advantage, and we can individually accomplish a wider variety of tasks, and do it better, than the vast majority of the animal kingdom. I don't see how that's a far stretch at all, or why such an idea would even be contested; it seems so obvious to me.
I understand that this might seem "fair" or any other silly notions that presuppose that reality has anthropomorphized compassion, but last I checked, natural selection sort of relies on things not being fair.

Tsukatu wrote:Humans can take 'em in a one-on-one battle, even if you grant a good number of them home field advantage, and we can individually accomplish a wider variety of tasks, and do it better, than the vast majority of the animal kingdom. I don't see how that's a far stretch at all, or why such an idea would even be contested; it seems so obvious to me.

Firstly, I contest "being able to take them in one-on-one battle" as a good criteria for physical superiority. Life is not a gladiatorial area. If a species has physical capabilities which enhance its effectiveness in groups, that is clearly an advantage which should be acknowledged. If a species has physical capabilities which protect it from the environment, or allow it to acquire food more easily, or let it live in an area other cannot, that's a physical advantage, too. In other words, capacity for killing things is not the defining aspect of physical superiority, and capacity for killing things in single combat even less so. Ability to survive, given equal mental/social capabilities, would be a better definition.

I'd also dispute that the superiority of humans at many tasks is due to physical capabilities. Rather, I think it's primarily due to humans' capacity for learning, ability to use tools and manipulate the environment, and social nature. That is to say, mental or social capabilities rather than physical ones. Take a look at other apes - many of them have similar physical capabilities to humans, and they're not particularly dominant. Why? Because they don't use tools and language as well as us. Or let's go back to the one-on-one deathmatch scenario, between a mosquito and a human. If the mosquito had human intelligence, it would simply fly out of reach, resulting in a stalemate. In other words, the mosquito has the physical capacity to avoid being killed, but a real mosquito is too stupid to use it.