We also need to understand the different roles played by different people in society. The democratic system helps to prevent policy from getting too far out ahead of the public. The immediate implementation of Bryan's open borders proposal might lead to a backlash against immigration, whereas this sort of backlash is less likely from a more cautious proposal that advances through both houses and is signed by the President. The role of intellectuals is (and should be) very different from the role of policymakers. Broad policy goals (not details) should reflect the wisdom of voters, even if the average voter is not very smart. Intellectuals should try to shape public opinion (although they will always be less influential than filmmakers.) - Scott Sumner, How much idealism is ideal?
The wisdom of voters? Is there such a thing? Here's a list of books...
The Origin Of Species
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
The Handmaid’s Tale
A Tale of Two Cities
50 Shades of Grey
Principia
The Bible
War and Peace
A Theory of Justice
The Cat in the Hat
The Wealth of Nations
The Hunger Games
Imagine if this list was sorted by a bunch of college students. One group of students would use voting to rank the books while another group would use spending. To be clear, the spenders wouldn’t be buying the books, they would simply be using their money to express and quantify their love for each book. All the money they spent would be used to crowdfund this experiment.
How differently would the voters and the spenders sort the books? In theory, the voters would elevate the trash while the spenders would elevate the treasure. This would perfectly explain the exact problem with Google, Youtube, Netflix, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, Medium and all the other sites where content is ranked by voting. Democracy is a major obstacle to the maximally beneficial evolution of society and its creations. Of course I might be wrong.
You're overlooking the smoking gun. Why, exactly, are humans exceptionally intelligent? It has to do with our bodies. Unlike wolves, our bodies aren't optimized for running. Unlike dolphins, our bodies aren't optimized for swimming. Unlike hawks, our bodies aren't optimized for flying. Our bodies are optimized for carrying. We're physically the best, by far, at simultaneously allocating a wide variety of resources over greater distances. This is the smoking gun.
When other animals decide to migrate they aren't confronted with a very complicated carrying problem. It was a very different story with our ancestors. Successful migration was a function of solving hard allocation problems. Figuring out the optimal combination of resources... getting the balance right... correctly calculating the (opportunity) costs and benefits... all this depended on processing a lot of information. Smarter allocators were more reproductively successful. Exceptionally intelligent individuals exerted exceptional influence on the gene pool.
The invention of bags greatly increased the difficulty of the allocation problem, which put even greater selection pressure on intelligence. Same thing with the discovery that animals could be used for transportation. The invention of carts put even more selection pressure on intelligence.
These innovations were very unequally distributed across continents. Therefore it's a given that the same is true of intelligence. However, to be clear, the type of intelligence that survival depends on, or used to depend on, really isn't measured by IQ tests. Well yeah, of course... IQ tests weren't created by economists.
Nowadays we can use trucks, trains, planes and ships to simultaneously allocate huge amounts of resources. But it's no longer the case that the goodness of allocation decisions will determine reproductive success. We've reached peak intelligence. This could potentially change once we start seriously colonizing the stars. I love that video.
Imagine you decide to join the first group of colonists to Mars. What would you take with you? What if you knew, for a fact, that the Earth was about to be destroyed by an asteroid? Would you take more seeds? If you took one coconut, you'd forgo the opportunity to take millions and millions of different orchid seeds. Just how useful are orchids anyways? It's not like you can eat them.
The point of trade is to correctly discern the social usefulness of things. There's a difference between how useful orchids are to you, and how useful they are to us. Gold isn't at all useful to me personally, I can't eat it and I have absolutely no interest in wearing it, but if I randomly happened to find a huge nugget while hiking, then I'd definitely decide to carry it because, thanks to the market, I know that it is very useful to us.
The social usefulness of academic papers is currently determined by voting. Each citation counts as a vote. But where's the paper that proves that voting is more useful than spending at determining the social usefulness of things? It doesn't exist. If it isn't the case that voting is more useful than spending, then it is the case that academics are currently far less useful to humanity than they could, and should, be.
To be clear, spending doesn't have to mean buying. Academic papers could be ranked by using donations. Alternatively, there could be a Netflix for academic papers where subscribers could earmark their subscription dollars to the most useful papers. Each subscriber would essentially use their money to say, "This paper is worth carrying, and I'll prove it by spending my money on it." Costly signals are credible signals.
Imagine if people had to perform 100 push-ups before they purchased anything. What impact would this have? It would greatly increase the cost of trade. In other words, it would greatly increase the cost of communicating the usefulness of things. People would far less frequently communicate the usefulness of things, so everybody would be far less informed about the usefulness of things, and everybody would make far less useful decisions. The result would be far less progress.
Walking upright is kinda like doing less pushups before trading.
Using horses is kinda like doing even less pushups before trading. The earliest native Americans didn’t have horses. Therefore… ?
Taxpayers are prevented from using their own tax dollars to signal the usefulness of goods supplied by the government. Therefore… ?
Life is synonymous with colonization. Colonization is nature’s mandate. Because, species that aren’t adequately diversified generally don’t stick around very long. The sooner people recognize the correlation between trade and progress, the faster we’ll colonize the stars.
********************************
This is relevant...
Alipay turned out to be so convenient that Liu began using it multiple times a day, starting first thing in the morning, when he ordered breakfast through a food delivery app. He realized that he could pay for parking through Alipay’s My Car feature, so he added his driver’s license and license plate numbers, as well as the engine number of his Audi. He started making his car insurance payments with the app. He booked doctors’ appointments there, skipping the chaotic lines for which Chinese hospitals are famous. He added friends in Alipay’s built-in social network. When Liu went on vacation with his fiancée (now his wife) to Thailand, they paid at restaurants and bought trinkets with Alipay. He stored whatever money was left over, which wasn’t much once the vacation and car were paid for, in an Alipay money market account. He could have paid his electricity, gas, and internet bills in Alipay’s City Service section. Like many young Chinese who had become enamored of the mobile payment services offered by Alipay and WeChat, Liu stopped bringing his wallet when he left the house. - Mara Hvistendah, Inside China's Vast New Experiment in Social Ranking
Have you read Adam Smith's book of essays? I was surprised that he wrote a 100 page essay on the history of astronomy. Especially since he is largely responsible for the idea of the division of labor. I think it's possible for labor to be overly divided. Take the handicap principle for example. Nowhere in the Wikipedia entry does it mention the fact that spending money is a costly signal. Smith also shared some enjoyable thoughts on music. Basically the main theme is on how things are ordered.
In the book's intro is this interesting bit...
The change in his habits which his removal to Edinburgh produced, was not equally favourable to his literary pursuits. The duties of his office, though they required but little exertion of thought, were yet sufficient to waste his spirits and to dissipate his attention; and now that his career is closed, it is impossible to reflect on the time they consumed, without lamenting, that it had not been employed in labours more profitable to the world, and more equal to his mind. - Dugald Stewart, An Account of the Life and Writings of Adam Smith
Imagine seeing Smith or Newton waiting in a line. You'd think, "Yikes! The opportunity cost is too high!" Or, "Something is really preventing the Invisible Hand from doing its job!"
While I'm here, I hope you don't mind if I share some ideas that I'd appreciate your thoughts on.
1. What if everybody had to do 100 push-ups before they purchased anything? The cost of trade would increase, so the quantity of trade would decrease, and so would the rate of progress. The reverse is true if the earliest native Americans had used horses. Horses would have reduced the cost of allocating resources, trading would have been less costly, the quantity of trade would have increased, and more progress would have been made.
2. Becoming bipedal reduced our ancestors' allocation costs. This increased the frequency of allocation, but it also meant having to more frequently solve allocation problems, which meant greater selection pressure on intelligence. The invention of bags and using other animals to carry things made the allocation problems even harder. Nowadays the allocation problems are even harder still, but good or bad allocation decisions rarely impact our reproduction. Therefore, we've reached peak intelligence.
3. Markets with prices work much better than socialism because prices transmit at least some information about people’s perception of importance. This would mean that the efficiency of allocation depends on the quantity of information about importance. Prices can never be optimal because they almost always fail to transmit all the information about importance. The economic term for the hidden information is of course “consumer surplus”. In theory, pragma-socialism would be the optimal economic system because it would entirely eliminate consumer surplus.
The term “political market” is an oxymoron. I prefer “public sector market”. You’re right about local knowledge… but it’s equally relevant to markets in both the private and public sectors. You’re going to know where potholes are and where it’s not safe to walk at night. Politicians can only have access to a vanishingly small fraction of all the local knowledge concerning public goods.
Regarding specificity… I don’t know what necessarily prevents the same level of specificity in both sector markets. In the private sector market you can spend your money on a specific brand of cereal. But in the public sector market you could theoretically spend your taxes on a specific type of education… for example… public finance economics. I don’t see why you couldn’t give your taxes to a specific professor of economics.
Regarding free-riding… a few days ago I addressed it in a reply to Koen Smets. Your example of people funding pet projects in the non-profit sector while neglecting important and effective things like vaccinations is only an example of free-riding if people truly want more vaccinations. But how can we be certain that people truly want more vaccinations? We obviously can’t ask them. If they know their answer will determine their personal payment then they’ll have a clear incentive to pretend to value vaccinations less than they truly do. And if they know that their answer will not determine their personal payment then they’ll have an incentive to pretend to value vaccinations more than they truly do.
It’s certainly the case though that we would expect to see free-rider problems in the non-profit sector. If people voluntarily contributed their true valuations to public goods then taxation wouldn’t need to be compulsory. Since people are paying taxes anyways, if they could choose where they go, they wouldn’t have an incentive to contribute less than their valuations to vaccinations.
To be clear, it’s entirely possible that everybody incorrectly values vaccinations. Nobody is omniscient. Nobody has a crystal ball. But let’s say that there are a few people who do correctly value vaccinations. Evidently they have better information than everybody else. In a public sector market these better informed people would have the maximum incentive to share their better information with everybody else. This is because anybody they shared this better information with would have the freedom to allocate their own tax dollars accordingly.
The problem with the current system can be illustrated like so. A door to door salesman generally isn’t going to bother giving his sales pitch to little Timmy if he answers the door. Instead the salesman is going to ask to speak to whoever controls the household budget. Right now politicians control the country’s budget. This means that all the better informed citizens have an incentive to share their better information with politicians. But this is an incredibly stupid system. It would be infinitely more intelligent if better informed citizens had an incentive to share their better information with each and every taxpayer. This would allow far more brains to evaluate and process far more information in far less time. As a result, better information would be far more quickly disseminated.
Regarding wild swings… first of all there wouldn’t be a set time for people to allocate their taxes. If Godzilla attacks in June we wouldn’t want taxpayers to have to wait until April to respond to the threat. When there is an earthquake or other natural disaster in some part of the world it’s very beneficial that donors have the freedom to immediately respond.
A market in the public sector should respond faster and better than politicians to significant changes. If not, then we should replace the Invisible Hand in the private sector with the Visible Hand.
Life changes fast so we should expect organizations to quickly and correctly adjust and adapt. Those that fail to do so should be allowed to go extinct. We want organizations to quickly evolve. We want organizations to be better and faster at meeting the ever-changing needs of society. This is why it’s essential for all organizations to be directly subject to market forces. This is why it’s just as necessary to have a market in the public sector as it is to have a market in the private sector.
Besides people being free to spend their taxes whenever they want… they should also be free to shop in any country’s public sector. No country is going to have a monopoly on the best public goods. Just like no country is going to have a monopoly on the best private goods. All countries are going to be better at supplying certain public goods… just like they are better at supplying certain private goods.
American taxpayers should be free to give their taxes to Brazil’s EPA and/or Israel’s DoD and/or China’s NASA and/or Zimbabwe’s IRS. Then everyone will clearly see, and be able to support, the world’s best suppliers of public goods. With a global market for public goods the best suppliers are going to receive a lot more money. The NASAs of the world are going to be competing over a much larger pool of money. Whichever NASA is best will be able to spend a bigger portion of this much larger pool of money. So we should expect to make much faster progress with space exploration, cancer research and every other public good. Nobody is going to care which country finds the cure to cancer first. Everybody just wants it found sooner rather than later. This depends on everyone having the freedom to give their taxes to whichever organization in the world is conducting the best cancer research. In all cases we want to empower the most effective organizations to compete the best brains away from less effective organizations.
Human bodies aren't optimized for speed (ie cheetahs), or propulsion (ie dolphins), or flying (ie birds), or climbing (ie squirrels), or strength (ie guerrilla). Our bodies are optimized for allocation. We're the best at simultaneously moving multiple different resources from point A to point B. We can carry different combinations of water, food, tools, weapons and offspring over long distances. Is it a coincidence that we're also the smartest species?
Being able to physically carry a lot of different things selected for individuals who were the best at being able to mentally carry a lot of different things. Being able to store and process a wider variety of information facilitated better physical carrying decisions.
Kevin Laland carries a lot of different information in his head. But his combination of information hasn't led him to the conclusion that our intelligence is a function of our body type. I don't think that he carries enough economics. Then again, I don't know of any economists who've argued that our big brains are the result of deciding what to physically carry. Simply carrying around a lot of economics isn't adequate to solve the puzzle of human intelligence.
The fact that Laland and economists haven't figured out the root cause of our intelligence proves that he's correct about the importance of pooling insights and knowledge. Groups can physically and mentally carry more than individuals can. But this is only useful to the extent that trade is facilitated.
Right now Netflix isn't a market. There are around 100 million subscribers who don't have the opportunity to divide their limited fees among Netflix's unlimited content. They can't use their money to help Netflix decide what to carry. Do you know of any economists who've argued that Netflix should be a market?
Imagine a Netflix that was a market but with academic papers. Subscribers could freely read all the papers, but they'd have the opportunity to divide their limited fees among the unlimited papers. This specific, and substantial, prioritization process would highlight the most valuable papers in each field, which would facilitate the most profitable cross-pollination.
There's a limit to how much we can physically and mentally carry. We have to prioritize. We should only carry the most valuable stuff. But this is only possible when we know the value of stuff. Hence the importance of markets.
"Except by your logic all primates should have ended up in the same place."
Bats are mammals that are exceptionally good at flying. Humans are mammals that are exceptionally good at walking upright. Walking upright makes us exceptionally good at allocating resources. Being exceptionally good at allocating resources puts an exceptional amount of selection pressure on intelligence. Therefore, humans are exceptionally intelligent.
If all the humans left this planet and colonized mars... then it's a given that, in the absence of any sort of massive natural disaster, some other primate would evolve to become exceptionally good at walking upright. As a result, they would also become exceptionally intelligent.
On Netflix I was watching some nature show and they were showing those wonderfully bizarre creatures that live near the underwater thermal vents. The narrator said that at anytime the vents can simply cease to function. When that happens it spells disaster for the creatures that depend on its existence.
This means that life is synonymous with colonization. Flying sure facilitates colonization. So does walking upright. But walking upright and having arms and hands also facilitates the allocation of resources... which facilitates the development of the intelligence needed to colonize other planets. Nature created us humans so that she wouldn't have all her eggs in the same basket (Earth).
Unfortunately, humans don't quite grasp that progress is a function of difference. So we allow a small group of government planners to spend all our taxes for us. This results in too many eggs in too few baskets... which hinders progress... which greatly increases the time it will take before we can successfully colonize other planets. And the longer it takes to colonize other planets... the greater the chances that we'll be wiped out by some massive disaster.
There you go... evolution and economics in a nutshell.
How's it going? So... you wrote a new book... congratulations... kudos. But, I'm probably not going to buy it. In my previous entry I wrote that I definitely plan on purchasing John Quiggin's book about opportunity cost when it's published. He's a liberal writing a book about opportunity cost. You're not a liberal and your book is about...? What's your book about?
Here's a clue that I found in my twitter feed today...
Zoe Williams quoting me: "people [must] understand how urgent it is, when this thing shows up, to have made a plan” https://t.co/hWnVhcJvbT
To be completely honest, pretty much everything about that article is horrible and terrible. You had a wonderful opportunity to shed lots of light on an extremely important and fascinating topic but, instead, you did the opposite. You delonged it.
So it will potentially be bad for the economy if robots become smarter? Would it also be bad for the economy if you become smarter? Would it also be bad for the economy if I became smarter?
What if the US imported a bunch of geniuses? Would this also be bad for the economy? If so, then brain drain would be good for the US economy. But I’m pretty sure that you’re not going to argue that brain drain is good for any economy. Yet, here you are, arguing that we should be worried about robots getting smarter. Increasing the total amount of intelligence in an economy is the opposite of brain drain.
What if a bunch of aliens landed in a spaceship? Would your preference be for them to be dumber or smarter than us?
Let’s say that you were stranded on an island with a bunch of people. Would your preference be for them to be dumber or smarter than you?
**************************************
Spoiler alert... DeLong didn't reply.
Check out this photo that I recently took...
On the left is Charlemange and on the right is Tiger. Tiger is the very old neighborhood tom cat that my girlfriend decided to feed. As a result... we now have possums, skunks and raccoons that regularly visit. It's pretty impressive given that we really don't live in the country.
One of the raccoons, Crookedear, is surprisingly tame...
So what does all this nature have to do with smarter robots? Well... it has to do with communication. I know what the animals want... food... but they don't know what I want. What do I want? I'd love to have less weeds! And it would be awesome if I was able to communicate the intensity of this preference to the raccoons. They would pull my weeds... and I would give them food.
Can you handle some more nature? Yeah? Here you go... photos of plants. The photos were taken by a fellow in India... Anurag Sharma. I told my friend Michelle, who recently joined Flickr, to check out Anurag's photos and *favorite* the ones she really likes. This was her response...
The problem is that Anurag can't even take all the *favorites* that Michelle gave to him and use them to buy anything... not even a single grain of rice. But I'm pretty sure that Michelle would be willing to give Anurag more than a few grains of rice in exchange for all the enjoyment that he provided her.
The website Medium is currently exploring ways to help certain writers to get paid via advertising... Revenue on Medium.
Right now it’s really easy to like a story. Why not make it just as easy to value a story?
If you value this story between 0 cents and 1 cent… then you would click the first heart button. If you value this story at 1 cent… then you would click the second button. Doing so would transfer a penny from your digital wallet to my digital wallet.
Once valuing a story is as easy as liking it… then I’m sure lots of people will be happy to contribute.
**************************************
How diverse is demand? The doorbell just rang. Went outside and found a box with an orchid inside...
More nature! It's a hybrid... Dendrobium (Haleahi Twist x canaliculatum) x canaliculatum
I recently purchased it on eBay from ella-vate. The thing is... I already have this hybrid! I purchased it a couple years ago from The Orchid Trail. Do I really need another one? Here's a picture of the two hybrids...
They are different! The one I recently purchased has a keiki on it. Maybe I can try and trade it with shavedmonkey for his variety.
So how diverse is demand?
One would think that man could find enough variation in the orchid family, as it occurs in nature, to more than satiate his taste for variety. Yet man's appetite for variety is never appeased. He has produced over two times as many hybrids, in the past 100 years that he has been engaged in orchid breeding, as nature has created species in her eons of evolutionary effort. - Calaway H. Dodson, Robert J. Gillespie, The Botany of Orchids
There are around 30,000 species of orchids. That's a huge amount of variety! Yet, clearly it's not nearly enough variety!
Are you going to *favorite* any of Anurag's photos on Flickr? Are you going to buy any orchid hybrids from ella-vate? Well... she doesn't have any more for sale but The Orchid Trail still does! I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that these activities don't match your preferences.
When robots are as smart as we are... are they all going to be the same? Probably not. Which means that they probably aren't all going to do the same things with society's limited resources. Some robots are going to do more valuable things with society's limited resources than other robots. As a result, some robots are going to have more money/influence than other robots.
The heart of the issue is the clear communication of demand. People don't understand how important demand clarity is. If they did, then we would be able to choose where our taxes go. So the problem isn't smarter robots... just like the problem isn't more or less immigration. The problem is that people don't understand the importance of facilitating trade.
You really did the theory of evolution justice! I, on the other hand, really suck at doing theories justice. Watch...
So... humans are exceptionally intelligent. What is exceptional intelligence good for? It's good for solving exceptionally hard problems. But why did early humans, out of all the animals, need to solve exceptionally hard problems? It's because out of all the animals, early humans had the greatest ability to (simultaneously) allocate the widest variety of resources. This exceptional ability was the result of having hands, arms and... walking upright.
With quadrupeds... all four limbs are primarily dedicated to allocating a single resource... the animal itself. But this specialization is a continuum that ranges from horses to raccoons to chimps. Horses obviously have four legs. All their limbs are quite specialized to allocating only the horse itself. None of the horse's limbs are remotely capable of allocating other resources. What about raccoons? Do they have four legs? Well, their front limbs are reasonably capable of allocating other resources. Chimps definitely do not have four legs. They have two legs and feet and two arms and hands. They are quite capable of allocating other resources with their arms and hands.
As front limbs become less dedicated to only allocating the animal itself and more generalized to allocating other resources... there's an increase in the total variety of resources that can be (simultaneously) allocated. This creates a more difficult/complex allocation problem.... which requires more brain power/storage to optimally solve. Well... a distinct advantage is given to exceptionally intelligent individuals.
Since you're fond of using lions as an example... let's compare them to zebras. It would seem that the front limbs of the lion aren't as specialized to self-allocation as the front limbs of the zebra are. Lions certainly use their front limbs to allocate themselves... but they also use their front limbs to allocate their prey. But perhaps the biggest difference is that the mouths of lions are quite capable of carrying/allocating resources (food, cubs, other?). Do zebras use their mouths to carry anything? Not so much? Therefore, lions are faced with more complex (allocation) problems than zebras.... and we should suspect that lions are more intelligent as a result.
So.... for lack of a better word... more "resourceful" body types put greater selection pressure on intelligence. Humans are the most intelligent animals because our body types are the most "resourceful".
**************************************
Can we deliberately create truly intelligent beings without truly understanding the origins of our own intelligence? If you have a better explanation for human intelligence then I'm all ears.
If we do manage to somehow create truly intelligent robots... and we do somehow end up with a bunch of unemployed humans.... then the superficial problem will be smarter robots. But the substantial problem will be that we failed to effectively clarify the diversity of demand. Except, this problem is hardly a new problem!
Based on the available evidence, it really doesn't seem like your book strikes anywhere near the root of the problem. Which is why I don't plan on buying it. And maybe you couldn't care less why I don't plan on buying your book. No worries, don't mind me, this is just another prayer to Seldon.
TomFoolery, do cats look both ways before they cross a street? Cars certainly put a selection pressure on cats. This pressure shifts the population of cats to some degree in some specific direction. To what degree? And in what direction? (see... Evolution via Roadkill).
Each year a flock of introduced parrots eats the figs on my neighbor's tree here in Southern California. These parrots then fly around and poop the fig seeds out. Some of these seeds germinate... and a few of the seedlings mature and bear fruit. Parrots put a selection pressure on fig trees in California. This pressure shifts the population of fig trees to some degree in some specific direction. To what degree? And in what direction?
Hummingbirds are only native to the Americas. What would happen if they were introduced to Africa? The hummingbirds would pollinate some flowers and not others. Hummingbirds would put a selection pressure on plants in Africa. This pressure would shift the population of plants in Africa to some degree in some specific direction. To what degree? And in what direction?
Honey bees are not native to the Americas. They have pollinated some flowers and not others. The honey bees put a selection pressure on plants in America. This pressure has shifted the population of plants in America to some degree in some specific direction. To what degree? And in what direction?
Consumers are allowed to shop in the private sector. They give their money to some producers and not others. Consumers put a selection pressure on producers in the private sector. This pressure has shifted producers in the private sector to some degree in some specific direction. To what degree? And in what direction?
Consumers are not allowed to shop in the public sector. What would happen if they were allowed to shop in the public sector (aka pragmatarianism)? Consumers would give their money to some producers and not others. Consumers would put a selection pressure on producers in the public sector. This pressure would shift producers in the public sector to some degree in some specific direction. To what degree? And in what direction?
For humans... I argued that complex carrying put a significant degree of pressure on our ancestors in the direction of greater intelligence. I can see this same pressure possibly eventually resulting in raccoons and monkeys being as intelligent as we are. But this same pressure isn't relevant to the other animals that you mentioned. I've shared a few thoughts on octopuses here.
Every species has individuals that are exceptional in different ways. Some individuals are exceptionally fast/slow, tall/short, weak/strong, colorful/drab, intelligent/dumb and so on. In order for these exceptions to become the rule... there has to be some pressure that makes them the rule.
You really did the theory of evolution justice! I, on the other hand, really suck at doing theories justice. Watch...
So... humans are exceptionally intelligent. What is exceptional intelligence good for? It's good for solving exceptionally hard problems. But why did early humans, out of all the animals, need to solve exceptionally hard problems? It's because out of all the animals, early humans had the greatest ability to (simultaneously) allocate the widest variety of resources. This exceptional ability was the result of having hands, arms and... walking upright.
With quadrupeds... all four limbs are primarily dedicated to allocating a single resource... the animal itself. But this specialization is a continuum that ranges from horses to raccoons to chimps. Horses obviously have four legs. All their limbs are quite specialized to allocating only the horse itself. None of the horse's limbs are remotely capable of allocating other resources. What about raccoons? Do they have four legs? Well, their front limbs are reasonably capable of allocating other resources. Chimps definitely do not have four legs. They have two legs and feet and two arms and hands. They are quite capable of allocating other resources with their arms and hands.
As front limbs become less dedicated to only allocating the animal itself and more generalized to allocating other resources... there's an increase in the total variety of resources that can be (simultaneously) allocated. This creates a more difficult/complex allocation problem.... which requires more brain power/storage to optimally solve. Well... a distinct advantage is given to exceptionally intelligent individuals.
Since you're fond of using lions as an example... let's compare them to zebras. It would seem that the front limbs of the lion aren't as specialized to self-allocation as the front limbs of the zebra are. Lions certainly use their front limbs to allocate themselves... but they also use their front limbs to allocate their prey. But perhaps the biggest difference is that the mouths of lions are quite capable of carrying/allocating resources (food, cubs, other?). Do zebras use their mouths to carry anything? Not so much? Therefore, lions are faced with more complex (allocation) problems than zebras.... and we should suspect that lions are more intelligent as a result.
So.... for lack of a better word... more "resourceful" body types put greater selection pressure on intelligence. Humans are the most intelligent animals because our body types are the most "resourceful".
I really like this theory! It’s very thoughtful and interesting.
One question I have: how can this approach explain why octopods don’t have as advanced symbol manipulation and culture as humans. Surely more of their bodies is able to allocate resources more flexibly and in a greater number of ways, yes? - Greg Stevens
According to Wikipedia... octopuses are "highly" intelligent. But why aren't they even more intelligent? One explanation might be that they die after reproduction. No matter how exceptionally intelligent an individual is... it's not going to exert significantly more influence on the gene pool than any other individuals.
With early humans... exceptionally intelligent individuals were more likely to optimally solve complex carrying problems... which meant that they were more likely to live to produce many more offspring than other individuals. This shifted the gene pool in a more intelligent direction. With modern humans though it's a different story. Survival/reproduction is far less dependent on successfully solving complex carrying problems. Therefore, exceptionally intelligent individuals are not going to shift the gene pool in a more intelligent direction.
We've reached peak intelligence! Of course this might change if we start seriously colonizing space.
With octopuses there's also the issue that they don't seem to have 100% control over their limbs! We have far less "carrying parts"... but we do have 100% control over them.
Perhaps another issue is that carrying things in water is easier than carrying things on land. This means that there's less of an energy cost when the wrong things are carried in water. Of course in both land and water the opportunity cost is equally high when the wrong things are carried.
Also, octopuses don't have a very distinct division of labor between carrying limbs and locomotion limbs. As the saying goes, a jack of all trades is a master of none. As humans we have legs for walking and arms/hands for carrying. So we maximize two factors... distance and difference. We can carry the widest variety of different resources over the greatest distances. I'd bet that any aliens that visited our planet would have, or used to have, a similarly distinct division of limb labor.
To be honest, this was the last thing I read before I fell asleep last night and I'm not exactly sure whether or not I unearthed your point.
From my perspective, there's nothing inherently wrong with traditions. The only issue is how easy it is to exit from nonsensical traditions. Easy exit facilitates evolution. Hard exit fosters stagnation.
Adam Smith provides the best example that I can think of...
But if politics had never called in the aid of religion, had the conquering party never adopted the tenets of one sect more than those of another, when it had gained the victory, it would probably have dealt equally and impartially with all the different sects, and have allowed every man to chuse his own priest and his own religion as he thought proper. There would in this case, no doubt, have been a great multitude of religious sects. Almost every different congregation might probably have made a little sect by itself, or have entertained some peculiar tenets of its own. Each teacher would no doubt have felt himself under the necessity of making the utmost exertion, and of using every art both to preserve and to increase the number of his disciples. But as every other teacher would have felt himself under the same necessity, the success of no one teacher, or sect of teachers, could have been very great. The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is, either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or perhaps into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which is so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects, whose tenets, being supported by the civil magistrate, are held in veneration by almost all the inhabitants of extensive kingdoms and empires, and who therefore see nothing round them but followers, disciples, and humble admirers. The teachers of each little sect, finding themselves almost alone, would be obliged to respect those of almost every other sect, and the concessions which they would mutually find it both convenient and agreeable to make to one another, might in time probably reduce the doctrine of the greater part of them to that pure and rational religion, free from every mixture of absurdity, imposture, and fanaticism, such as wise men have in all ages of the world wished to see established; but such as positive law has perhaps never yet established, and probably never will establish in any country: because, with regard to religion, positive law always has been, and probably always will be, more or less influenced by popular superstition and enthusiasm.
Right now it's "our" tradition to allow representatives to spend our taxes for us. But I think this tradition is entirely absurd and extremely harmful. Unfortunately, it's not easy for me, or anyone else, to exit from this absurd tradition.
And maybe I'm not correctly understanding or seeing the true importance of this tradition. Yes, for sure, this is entirely possible. But who's going to argue that fallibilism is a one way street? If we gave people the option to exit from this tradition then we'd see how many other people are in the same boat as me. If there are only a few other people in the same boat then this theoretically important tradition isn't going to be harmed. If there are lots of other people in the same boat then the nation would have a vigorous debate about whether this tradition's importance is real or imagined. Immense amounts of information would be exchanged and, as a result, our citizens would be that much more informed about the importance, or lack thereof, of this prominent tradition.
The fact of the matter is that we don't have impersonal shoppers in the private sector. Nobody in their right mind is going to voluntarily give their hard-earned money to somebody in exchange for goods or services that really don't match their preferences. So I'm pretty sure that the only reason that this absurd and detrimental tradition continues to exist in the public sector is because exiting from it isn't easy.
