philosophy, Paul Buckingham, chimps and habeas corpus, letter to Philosophy Now

Letters to the Editor of Philosophy Now

Published in Issue 165 - December/January 2024

The background to this is set out in this essay.

My three letters(!) sent in under different noms de plume reject the essence of what Mr Miles was saying.

Get Smarter

Dear Editor: In his article ‘We’re As Smart As The Universe Gets’ (Issue 164), James Miles tells us that “Natural groups are transcended at exactly the point brains reach the complexity to allow shared concepts, which catapults group size upwards and starts culture and civilisation; but everything comes to a grinding halt evolutionarily speaking. Because our behaviour is no longer an expression of natural selection in operation, after this point evolution cannot, and will not, make those beings any smarter. This means that we are, and must be, the smartest beings the universe can get to naturally.” Well, no doubt our group behaviour is partly determined by culture; but at an individual level natural selection can continue to have a significant effect, since the genes of the individual best able to attract a mate and provide for any resulting offspring will still be more likely to be passed on. Higher intelligence is more likely to succeed in an increasingly complex world, and will therefore be more attractive to a potential mate. And so higher intelligence can certainly be naturally (well, specifically, sexually) selected for. There’s also the Flynn effect: that average IQ scores have been rising over the decades, leading to an increase of at least thirty points on average over the last century. Also, in fact human intelligence varies a lot, with some having intelligence way above the average. If our intelligence covers such a wide range, what exactly does Mr Miles mean when he says that ‘our’ intelligence and that of any aliens out there is as good as it gets? The considerable spread in human intelligence make his core assertion meaningless.

Paul Buckingham, Annecy, France

Dear Editor: In Issue 164, James Miles tells us that our human intelligence is as good as it naturally gets. This is, he says, because we are no longer wholly dependent on family groups. Instead, “Groups of one hundred family members [have] become non-family groups of thousands or hundreds of thousands… this means that in our culture there’s now no longer anything for natural selection to operate on – which means no natural selection pressure to get smarter.” But there is something for natural selection to operate on. A person of higher intelligence is more likely to be successful in an increasingly complex world, and so be more attractive to a potential mate. Darwin says as much in The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, Chapter V, ‘Intellectual Facilities’. He is clearly of the view that intellect is as important a heritable and selectable trait as is physical strength.

As for our unexpectedly compassionate nature, I would suggest that the belief in an increasingly sophisticated legal system as the better means of settling differences has had the effect of reducing the perceived need to be antagonistic towards each other in order to achieve our goals in life.

Heather Waite, West Bromwich

Dear Editor: Where to start with Steven Jay Gould’s idea of humans as a ‘remarkably genial people’? With the long view. There is still a wish amongst some to think we should be more like Rousseau’s ‘noble savage’. But we have ‘modern savages’ – hunter gatherers in the rain forests of New Guinea and the Amazon, living in ways similar to their ancestors, in the same forests, with none of the trappings of modern life. Anthropologists have recorded the percentage of male deaths through intertribal warfare in eight different tribes here, as varying from between 15% to 55%. In contrast we see an average male death-rate in Europe and the USA by reason of war in the twentieth century of only 1% – a period that included two incredibly deadly world wars.

Why so much violence in the forest? According to the anthropologists, the answer is that, in a forest, you do not know when another tribe will attack you, and the best form of defence is attack, so it’s better to seek out the other tribe in order to take them by surprise before they can do the same to you. But by virtue of a justice system provided by the state, we have a culture which treats large-scale sociability as the norm and no longer allows us to act aggressively in order to survive. We’ve learned the benefit of acting differently from the other primates.

Thomas Jeffries, Coleshill

	Human Intelligence - as good as it gets?

	Letters to the Editor of Philosophy Now Published in Issue 165 - December/January 2024 The background to this is set out in this essay. My three letters(!) sent in under different noms de plume reject the essence of what Mr Miles was saying. Get Smarter Dear Editor: In his article ‘We’re As Smart As The Universe Gets’ (Issue 164), James Miles tells us that “Natural groups are transcended at exactly the point brains reach the complexity to allow shared concepts, which catapults group size upwards and starts culture and civilisation; but everything comes to a grinding halt evolutionarily speaking. Because our behaviour is no longer an expression of natural selection in operation, after this point evolution cannot, and will not, make those beings any smarter. This means that we are, and must be, the smartest beings the universe can get to naturally.” Well, no doubt our group behaviour is partly determined by culture; but at an individual level natural selection can continue to have a significant effect, since the genes of the individual best able to attract a mate and provide for any resulting offspring will still be more likely to be passed on. Higher intelligence is more likely to succeed in an increasingly complex world, and will therefore be more attractive to a potential mate. And so higher intelligence can certainly be naturally (well, specifically, sexually) selected for. There’s also the Flynn effect: that average IQ scores have been rising over the decades, leading to an increase of at least thirty points on average over the last century. Also, in fact human intelligence varies a lot, with some having intelligence way above the average. If our intelligence covers such a wide range, what exactly does Mr Miles mean when he says that ‘our’ intelligence and that of any aliens out there is as good as it gets? The considerable spread in human intelligence make his core assertion meaningless. Paul Buckingham, Annecy, France Dear Editor: In Issue 164, James Miles tells us that our human intelligence is as good as it naturally gets. This is, he says, because we are no longer wholly dependent on family groups. Instead, “Groups of one hundred family members [have] become non-family groups of thousands or hundreds of thousands… this means that in our culture there’s now no longer anything for natural selection to operate on – which means no natural selection pressure to get smarter.” But there is something for natural selection to operate on. A person of higher intelligence is more likely to be successful in an increasingly complex world, and so be more attractive to a potential mate. Darwin says as much in The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, Chapter V, ‘Intellectual Facilities’. He is clearly of the view that intellect is as important a heritable and selectable trait as is physical strength. As for our unexpectedly compassionate nature, I would suggest that the belief in an increasingly sophisticated legal system as the better means of settling differences has had the effect of reducing the perceived need to be antagonistic towards each other in order to achieve our goals in life. Heather Waite, West Bromwich Dear Editor: Where to start with Steven Jay Gould’s idea of humans as a ‘remarkably genial people’? With the long view. There is still a wish amongst some to think we should be more like Rousseau’s ‘noble savage’. But we have ‘modern savages’ – hunter gatherers in the rain forests of New Guinea and the Amazon, living in ways similar to their ancestors, in the same forests, with none of the trappings of modern life. Anthropologists have recorded the percentage of male deaths through intertribal warfare in eight different tribes here, as varying from between 15% to 55%. In contrast we see an average male death-rate in Europe and the USA by reason of war in the twentieth century of only 1% – a period that included two incredibly deadly world wars. Why so much violence in the forest? According to the anthropologists, the answer is that, in a forest, you do not know when another tribe will attack you, and the best form of defence is attack, so it’s better to seek out the other tribe in order to take them by surprise before they can do the same to you. But by virtue of a justice system provided by the state, we have a culture which treats large-scale sociability as the norm and no longer allows us to act aggressively in order to survive. We’ve learned the benefit of acting differently from the other primates. Thomas Jeffries, Coleshill
	Home A Point of View Philosophy Who am I? Links Photos of Annecy