Is the rise of intelligent life inevitable?

[Stonius (Markus)]

Just thinking about this. I read the other day that human sociability may have driven the evolution of intelligence. Social animals are able to accomplish things as a group that they could never achieve individually. The individual then benefits from division of labor and the efforts as a whole. Case in point - none of us could grow/hunt our own food from scratch, let alone make a smartphone.

So the sociability of animals is a survival strategy that began with the nurturing of the young by parents (which evolved at some point in our evolution from single celled organisms to complex multicellular life) and finds its apex in humans' incredibly complex webs of social interactions.

So if sociability evolves because it empowers the individual with greater resources, and this is, in turn, is a driver for intelligence, then intelligent life is inevitable, given enough time, right?

Just a thought.

-Markus

[xelasnave]

Hi Markus
It could be argued that being alone would drive a higher inteligence because that would be required if one person was to achieve high tech items.
So imagine how inteligent a species would have to become to build a space craft alone.

Alex

[xelasnave]

Probably drive the evolution of at least an extra set of hands.
Alex

[julianh72 (Julian)]

I think we need to define what we mean by "Intelligent Life".

If we simply mean one or more of the following attributes, then I think yes, the rise of intelligence is an almost inevitable consequence of evolution (given a planet with a reasonably stable environment for sufficient time - like a few billion years!), as these attributes clearly confer an advantage over others:

• The ability to think in abstract terms;
  Analyse a scenario which has not been encountered before;
  Draw inferences and make predictions based upon incomplete information;
  Make plans for future actions and expected consequences, including how others will respond to one's actions;
  Tool making;
  A sense of "self";
  Communicate one's thinking to others of the same species.

Creatures with at least some of the above attributes have arisen independently multiple times on Earth - octopus, crows, dolphins, great apes (including humans), etc.

However, if we mean ALL of the above attributes, plus "Culture" and "Technology", then I suspect "Technological Intelligent Life" is much rarer - it has only arisen once on Earth in over 4 billion years.

One factor is that while emerging intelligence can clearly be an advantage over other creatures that might be competing for the same ecological niche, it is not a guarantee of survival of the species - early humans could very easily have been wiped out by any number of less intelligent life forms, including another hominid (look at what happened to the Neanderthals - it is thought that they were at least as intelligent as early Homo Sapiens, if not more so), sabre-toothed tigers, or bacteria and viruses - or ecological catastrophe.

Conversely, if a species is successful in its niche (it may not have any competitors or predators, for example), then there is no "evolutionary pressure" to "advance" the species, and the species can remain essentially unchanged for very long periods of time. Lions have been around longer than humans - but they haven't developed language or tools (thankfully!)

Think of the Age of the Dinosaurs - there is plenty of evidence that some of the later dinosaurs were at least as intelligent as modern birds - and yet in tens of millions of years, none of them advanced beyond something akin to basic bird-like intelligence. We don't even know if any of them had the capability of basic tool-making, which the modern crow certainly does have.

[Stonius (Markus)]

True, more social doesn't necessarily mean more intelligent. Look at ants.

Intelligence is no guarantee of survival, but it is certainly an asset. Yes, people can be killed by the simplest of organisms in the form of viruses and diseases, by humans have also used their intelligence to reduce the effects and incidence of disease, even eradicating smallpox entirely.

But your question of why the dinosaurs didn't evolve intelligence in the 350MY they were around makes me think, well maybe they did. Who's to say that certain dinosaurs didn't posses dolphin like intelligence? Or that if an asteroid came and wiped out us humans that we would therefore be unintelligent?

There is no pressure to evolve if there is no competition, true, but I think there is another factor there. Sharks have not evolved much recently because they are pretty perfect at what they do, but also, I think because there is little improvement to be had. Say there was a mutation that made sharks more intelligent and able to strategise better about catching prey. It's possible they would out-compete all the other sharks as they swimm around happily gobbling up bondi surfers. Or, it's also possible that the metabolic cost of supplying energy to that big new brain would not be worth it (remember sharks are pretty low-energy animals, like a lot of predators). Even being smarter might not allow them to catch enough extra prey for it to be worth it, thus the evolution of the shark stays relatively static. There aren't many improvements that can be made that don't have a cost elsewhere.

And, they're not social animals. Come to think of it, all the 'living fossils' I can think of are not social animals - turtles, crocodiles, (not sure about the coelacanth?). Maybe there is something to that?

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Interesting question, to which I certainly don't know the answer. But that won't stop me commenting .

Intelligence is obviously a fraught concept. What is it? Can it be measured? Is there any truly intelligent life on Earth? Nailing down exactly what intelligence is probably akin to nailing jelly.

It is true that there are social creatures that we would consider intelligent (primates, dolphins) but what about ants and termites, perhaps they have a communal intelligence but the individuals are automations. Then there are communal creatures that don't work together, wildebeest for instance hang out together for mutual protection but individually all they do is eat grass - they have no group project like building nests.

Don't underestimate the role of labour and tool making in developing intelligence. It's true that other animals make tools but none of them are equipped with the human hand. A beak or tentacle is not able to perform all the actions of a hand. Even other primate's hands are less useful than the human hand. Could it be that the development of intelligence has gone hand-in-hand with the development of the hand (sorry, couldn't resist).

The better communication skills of humans is certainly a product of our intelligence but it is also a driver. Other animals have to learn by watching but we can also impart knowledge, including abstract concepts like morality and algebra, verbally. Also, all of human knowledge doesn't have to fit into one head. It can be spread around society or written down.

[Nath2099]

Say there was a mutation that made sharks more intelligent and able to strategise better about catching prey. It's possible they would out-compete all the other sharks as they swimm around happily gobbling up bondi surfers.

Crikey that's a scary thought. Although a mutation for Manly flavor surfers, and another for excellent red vision, and I wouldn't complain...

Interesting conversation, I'll let you get back to it!

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Probably not. The dominant life on earth is not mammals, and definitely not humans.
It is bacteria. From memory, the most common creature is the Tardigrade. They outnumber us by over a billion to one.
Intelligence is extremely expensive biologically, and those that have it tend to be far more sensitive to disasters or climate change.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Still waiting...

[julianh72 (Julian)]

Originally Posted by Nath2099

Crikey that's a scary thought. Although a mutation for Manly flavor surfers, and another for excellent red vision, and I wouldn't complain...

Interesting conversation, I'll let you get back to it!

And what if a random mutation meant they adapted to have frickin' lasers attached to their heads?!

[gigglebottom (Gavin)]

I was gazing at the Sculptor (Silver Dollar) Galaxy on Thursday night and was wondering whether anyone (anything?) was gazing back. I wondered whether that somebody (something) was as mesmerized at our Milky Way as I was at its Sculptor, teasing out every detail possible, waiting for the atmosphere to clear for that moment of clarity etc. I wondered what name it had given our Milky Way and how we would ever travel the 11.5 million light years separating us so that we could get to know each other and share notes on our observations. An hour passed by so quickly as I wondered....

I don't know whether the evolution of intelligent life is inevitable, but I like the idea that it could be.

Gav

[speach (Simon)]

The first question is what is intelligence? When we've worked that out maybe we can move on to more complex question.

[xelasnave]

Further you need further qualification perhaps along the lines of high, low, instinctual and of course to fit humans in some prefix that may denote tech ability.

I think research shows the most primative life shows a form of inteligence.

I would be surprised if someone has not done a paper that did not cover or at least touch upon the question raised in the op.

Alex