There's a problem recognizing intelligent species for what they are even if we can meet them face to face. Dolphins, crows, octopus, orangutans, ... Since they don't build civilization as we conceive it, asserting their intelligence is controversial.
> they tend to create more problems than they solve. The natural solution to natural problems is to evolve
Is dying of drought, while being survived by less thirsty mutants, really solving any problems?
I guess there's some genetic lineage that keeps on replicating. Then we humans decide whether it's similar enough to keep labelling it the same "species". If so, maybe we declare that the species solved the problem of the drought.
Meanwhile, I doubt there were any creatures happy to die of thirst for lack of an aqueduct.
If we ignore that unfortunate reality and measure success by DNA replication, then civilization might still being doing alright. We've had a bit of a population explosion in the last few hundred years.
"Whatever happens, we have got. The Maxim gun, and they have not."
It turns out that having 'true intelligence' probably doesn't matter if the tribe from the next valley over has bronze weapons and armour and would quite like to steal your stuff and enslave your people.
The natural solution to big changes is mostly to go extinct. Except sometimes a happy few that somehow manage to make it, and then their offspring is like them.
Reminds me of a stand up comedian who said about AI: “People are afraid that AI will take their jobs. But if it’s really that intelligent, it’s gonna let _us_ do the work”.
reply