Good points. I think I agree with everything you said, so I’m confused as to why we disagree. I guess your model is that we got intelligence + rationality first, and then civilization came later when we had population density, and therefore we might have more intelligence + rationality than we need to sustain civilization. The fact that brain size has been shrinking supports this; maybe we were more rational 15,000 years ago, or at least more intelligent.
I think my claim is still true though—it does seem like civilization would collapse if we got significantly dumber or less rational. I guess I had been meaning “hovering around bare minimum level” more loosely than you.
I think I concede that my argument was shaky and that we probably aren’t at the bare minimum level for reasons you mention. But I still think we are close, for a loose definition of close.
Good points. I think I agree with everything you said, so I’m confused as to why we disagree. I guess your model is that we got intelligence + rationality first, and then civilization came later when we had population density, and therefore we might have more intelligence + rationality than we need to sustain civilization. The fact that brain size has been shrinking supports this; maybe we were more rational 15,000 years ago, or at least more intelligent.
I think my claim is still true though—it does seem like civilization would collapse if we got significantly dumber or less rational. I guess I had been meaning “hovering around bare minimum level” more loosely than you.
I think I concede that my argument was shaky and that we probably aren’t at the bare minimum level for reasons you mention. But I still think we are close, for a loose definition of close.