If animals were "uplifted" to high intelligence, would they behave like humans?

How would increased intelligence change the behavior of other animals?

  • Higher intelligence will likely lead to selfishness and greed and destruction

    Votes: 4 6.6%
  • Higher intelligence will not change the animals' behaviors significantly

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • Each species of animal would be affected differently by increased intelligence

    Votes: 42 68.9%
  • They'll end up repeating what humans went though in our civilization's progression

    Votes: 6 9.8%
  • Something else (please explain)

    Votes: 6 9.8%

  • Total voters
    61

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
I don't agree. How many insects are there on the planet that can kill us? How many of us own dogs big enough to kill us? Horses can kill us. Cows can kill us. Most predators can kill us. And we know that if we wipe out all the animals we will die anyway cos the ecosystem will collapse. We're already facing loss of pollinators. Imagine if all insects were as smart as us. We'd be fucked in five minutes.

Insects weren't part of the discussions though. But if we count insects, they would certainly be hard to defend against (if they were intent on killing us). But at the same time, we have facilities that are protected from all outside air pollution and insects (lab-like environments and military bunkers). We also have insect killing chemicals. But that's a mutually assured destruction, as you pointed out, so I don't think it's a good idea for either side, and if the insects are indeed that smart, they'd know it too.

As for other mammals capable of killing us, you're thinking about individual cases and not full-scale war, and you're also not considering the entire range of human arsenal--from blades, power tools, firearms, grenades, gases, missiles, nuclear bomb, jet fighters, tanks, etc. Also, we have extensive experience in war/combat strategies, whereas other animals only have experience in small-scale hunts. There's no way other animals can win if we actually turn our deadly weapons on them. But again, we'd screw up the entire ecosystem, so it's a lose-lose situation if they choose to attack us. If they are that smart, they must realize if they wage full-scale war on humans, they'd likely destroy the planet too. Untended or damaged nuclear and oil facilities, use of weapons of mass destruction, uncontrolled forest fires, etc. It'd be destruction for them too.
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
So picking us off a few at a time wouldn't work? And as for mutual destruction, human civilisation has been around for the blink of a eye in terms of the life of the planet and animals survived then. They survived the extinction of the dinosaurs, they will survive the extinction of us.

And forest fires happened in prehistory as well.
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
So picking us off a few at a time wouldn't work? And as for mutual destruction, human civilisation has been around for the blink of a eye in terms of the life of the planet and animals survived then. They survived the extinction of the dinosaurs, they will survive the extinction of us.

And forest fires happened in prehistory as well.

Picking us off a few at a time--that cannot go on for long enough to do significant damage to our population, because as soon as the first wave of cases are reported, humans will be on guard and we'll turn our weapons against the animals.

Earth's history has never seen the likes of our current advanced technology and weapons of mass destruction. Whatever happened in the past is not a good indicator of what will happen next because modern human civilization is whole new ball of wax. We are altering the planet in ways that's beyond the natural progression of nature.

As for the animals surviving all the nuclear disasters (and whatever other disasters) from an all-out war with humans, why would animals even want to go to that length and risk their own survival, if they are intelligent enough to weigh the consequences? Wouldn't it be much better to simply work with the humans to make the planet a better place?
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
4.4 trillion cockroaches won't care that we killed a billion of them. Or ten billion.
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
So is that what you guys think--that if other animals were uplifted to be more intelligent, the only outcome is full-scale war where they try to eliminate human beings?
 

Friendly Frog

Snarkenfaugister
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
4,067
Reaction score
4,865
Location
Belgium
But aren't elephant groups also sexually segregated? The females stick together to raise the young ones and only really have contact with the males at breeding time. Like horses.
It's a bit more varied. While most females stay together with friends or relatives to rear their young, they may meet males in an out of breeding season. The matriarch often regulates contact. The males are not always strictly solitary and can form bands too although this is more common for younger males. That said, with the vast distances elephants can communicate being physically together is only one aspect of the contact they have.

Other animals may communicate, but only with a VERY limited language, if you can call it that. More intelligent animals may well maximize their vocalizations and create a language, but as they can't create as many distinct sound symbols as humans, they won't be able to communicate as fast.
As far as we've been able to tell while studying animal languages. Some have proven surprisingly complex. It's not distinct sounds that is the defining factor, IMO, but whether their language is able to express abstract ideas like ours. If so, learning and the spread of ideas and culture can progress faster in a population.

So is that what you guys think--that if other animals were uplifted to be more intelligent, the only outcome is full-scale war where they try to eliminate human beings?
I don't think they'd particularly like us, considering our track record. Whether it'll be a full-scale war is something entirely different. Higher intelligence doesn't mean higher agression. I don't see our military technology necessarily making much of a dent, depending on which species we're talking. But our sheer numbers and the way we've adapted the world to suit our own needs on a massive scale would probably give any intelligence pause to consider whether a war is the way forward.

Frankly, it might be more interesting to see how humanity would cope with another sapient species on the planet. Will we be willing to share?
 
Last edited:

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
Frankly, it might be more interesting to see how humanity would cope with another sapient species on the planet. Will we be willing to share?

Sadly, I think it's more likely that if we have the ability to uplift other species, we'd only make them smart enough to be more useful for our own gains, but subjugating them to a life of servitude. I see no incentive for the powers-that-be to want to share equal footing with other species. As it is right now, we're already robbing other species of their resources for our own gain, and making them more intelligent will only make it harder to continue doing the same. Also, supporters of animal rights will have a field day if other species were to be uplifted but only for the purpose of serving humans.

The one plausible scenario I can think of, is if the ecosystem is so screwed that we would uplift the other species in order to give them a better chance at survival, just to save our own ass.
 

Friendly Frog

Snarkenfaugister
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
4,067
Reaction score
4,865
Location
Belgium
But that's only assuming humans will be the uplifting factor. That not only narrows the field of speculation, but also automatically imposes certain limits on the uplifting itself. We'd be talking individuals, not whole species. No lab would be capable/allowed to uplift an entire species to a level comparable to humans without a vast change in our own society. And the time scale would be long as well if breeding needs to be taken into account. The uplifted species would be so inmersed in humanity that there would be little space to develop any civilisation on their own. Any new learned behaviour would have an origin in humanity.
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
But that's only assuming humans will be the uplifting factor. That not only narrows the field of speculation, but also automatically imposes certain limits on the uplifting itself. We'd be talking individuals, not whole species. No lab would be capable/allowed to uplift an entire species to a level comparable to humans without a vast change in our own society. And the time scale would be long as well if breeding needs to be taken into account. The uplifted species would be so inmersed in humanity that there would be little space to develop any civilisation on their own. Any new learned behaviour would have an origin in humanity.

You're right. I was only considering the uplift as human-induced. If let's say, an alien race came and uplifted various animal species (or maybe the source is supernatural, or caused by a meteor), that would be a very different scenario. In that context, I think human beings will get really defensive very quickly, because we know how much we've subjugated other species in the thousands of years of recorded history alone. All governments would worry about retribution or reclamation of resources by the uplifted species. It's likely it'll be the humans that start a war. (Man, I'm such a misanthrope.)
 

C.bronco

I have plans...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
8,015
Reaction score
3,137
Location
Junior Nation
Website
cynthia-bronco.blogspot.com
Interesting question and interesting poll result so far: I do belive that animals, like people, are wired differently. What would a smart hamster do vs. what would a smart hyena do?I hope the hamsters would be smarter.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
So is that what you guys think--that if other animals were uplifted to be more intelligent, the only outcome is full-scale war where they try to eliminate human beings?

We humans have gone to war over whether our women should be completely covered, or allow their eyes to be visible.

Do you *really* believe that we won't see that intelligent animals won't give the least damn about our religion, and we *won't* go to war to convert them?
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
We humans have gone to war over whether our women should be completely covered, or allow their eyes to be visible.

Do you *really* believe that we won't see that intelligent animals won't give the least damn about our religion, and we *won't* go to war to convert them?

Well, that's only some cultures, and the current state of world power struggles isn't about religion but about controlling resources. In most of the top powers around the world, religion is no longer a driving factor. It is far more likely that if wars are fought between other species and humans, it's going to be about controlling resources and basic rights.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
Well, that's only some cultures, and the current state of world power struggles isn't about religion but about controlling resources. In most of the top powers around the world, religion is no longer a driving factor. It is far more likely that if wars are fought between other species and humans, it's going to be about controlling resources and basic rights.

Islamic State. Caliphate.

We could argue back and forth about which is more, but religious intolerance *is* driving violence.
 

SampleGuy

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
269
Reaction score
2
The animals might probably evolve the same way we did with higher learning abilities. But they would behave more alien to humans because of their different traits and communications. Social animals would build their own civilizations while the antisocial ones will remain in the wild on their own. If they live among humans, they might learn from us and try to share our knowledge to become like us.
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
Islamic State. Caliphate.

We could argue back and forth about which is more, but religious intolerance *is* driving violence.

But that's not the entire planet. Those conflicts are not coming from the biggest world powers. Look at the list of the most powerful countries in the world--they're not the ones waging religious wars.
 

Tazlima

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
1,492
I don't believe increased intelligence would create any inherent change in animal behavior. Social animals would remain social; solitary animals would remain solitary. Enhanced intelligence wouldn't change their goals, it would simply improve their ability to obtain those goals.

If you look at human history, the technology around us has changed drastically, but the end goals of that technology haven't changed in any meaningful manner. We seek good food, safe shelter, protection from predators, control of resources, mental stimulation, etc. A modern 5-star hotel may provide fancier amenities than an inn in the 1600's, but they're both designed to provide a comfortable place to rest, eat, and screw.

Whether and how much humans would interact with another species which suddenly increased in intelligence would depend on the species. As a general rule, species don't enforce their own social restrictions on other species. A fox may protect its turf from other foxes, but will have little interest in the activity of deer on that land, just as I barely notice the lizards that live in my yard.

Significant species interaction typically occurs when there's a conflict of interest. The lizards don't bother me (in fact, I welcome their mosquito and fly-eating presence), but if a raccoon tried to set up residence in my attic, there'd be a problem. If a deer ate my crops so that I risked starvation, there'd be a bigger problem. If a lion ate my kid, there'd be a HUGE problem.

Alternately, there could be a symbiotic relationship between the species. If my dogs were suddenly gifted with crazy levels of intelligence, that'd be neat!
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Dogs are pack animals with alpha males running the pack... I don't think they're particularly human-like, societally.

I think there are plenty closer, or 'more advanced' than us, like, say, elephants.

Actually, there's a lot of debate over whether domestic dogs are really pack animals. This may be because feral and pariah dogs (the state domestic dogs revert to when not maintained directly by humans) get most of their food from scavenging (a more individual activity), not hunting (which is a cooperative activity). There is evidence that suggests that when they are feral, they tend to form loose, temporary packs, but they have fairly fluid and situational social hierarchies.

http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html

http://www.caninemind.co.uk/pack.html

http://www.streetdogrescue.com/aboutus/Pack_theory.pdf

http://www.tarynblyth.co.za/articles/pack-theory-fact-or-fiction/

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=press_ebooks


This makes sense, actually, or they'd be darned hard for us to manage.

But there have also been some researchers who have found evidence for stability in feral dog social structures in at least some situations

http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/0168-1591%2887%2990155-9/abstract

So it's very possible that domestic dogs are very plastic indeed in terms of social behavior (not unlike us).

Gray wolves are more complex than they're often portrayed as being also. A typical wolf pack has a breeding pair of adults (what once was referred to as the alpha pair, but wolf biologists are shifting to calling them the breeding pair), along with their cubs and subadult offspring from earlier litters. The adults are leaders in the sense that parents are the leaders in their families. When there is room to disperse, young wolves leave their natal packs and become the parents of a new pack sometime between the age of 2-3. In captivity, wolves tend to form gender-specific dominance hierarchies, but the situation where a bunch of unrelated wolves are thrust together is pretty rare in natural situations. But even in captive, or cobbled together packs, or packs in very "full" habitats where subadults can't disperse, individuals that use aggression and violence to climb in the ranks do not tend to hold their position for very long.

https://www.4pawsu.com/alphawolf.pdf

Unlike domestic dogs, wolves are extremely aggressive to members of other family units that intrude into their territory, which makes sense when you realize it's a hunting territory with limited game. There is even some speculation that wolves show a primitive form of warlike behavior. Domestic dogs are far less aggressive to unrelated individuals as a rule (though early socialization plays a role here), and you can see why decreased aggression towards unrelated conspecifics would be an essential trait in a species that was being domesticated.

http://socialevolutionforum.com/2014/08/18/the-war-over-war-part-ii/

But our evolving understanding of dogs and wolves, two relatively well studied species, illustrates the difficulties that would stem from trying to project what might happen to another species whose brain was enhanced to allow greater cognition.

One thing to think of in terms of canines (and many other mammals) would be that the areas that allow a human level of cognition would have to be co-opted from somewhere in the existing brain. With primates, there was a loss in olfactory areas. It's not entirely clear which came first, the lost of olfaction or the development of greater problem solving abilities and social intelligence.

So what would the development of higher canine intelligence require them to reassign some of their sense of smell?
 
Last edited:

KarmaPolice

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
203
Reaction score
20
Back to the original question - yes, I think a uplifted species would think somewhat like us. But not for the 'typical' reason, but for another, which I'll call 'cross-species bootstrapping'. In this example, I'll use wolves, mainly because I believe they're one of the 'runners-up' in the race to 'breakthrough sentience'.

Human civilisation is the net result of hundreds of thousands of years of human development; uplifted wolves would be starting at year 0 in this long, long trek. While they'd think much of what we do was stupid and pointless, they'd see the obvious benefits of say, prey-herd management. They'd either copy us (to the best of their ability) or we'd teach them. Why would they work it out from scratch? - humanity's been there, done that. If a piss-poor nation wants to build an oil refinery, they don't get their 'best and brightest' to go off and learn how to make it all from scratch - they get the kit and books from abroad.

One of the main reasons for the triumph of 'European culture' is due to this; for two centuries, we dominated the world scientifically and industrially - our culture followed in the wake of steam-trains, factories and electricity. They became more like us, because we were giving them our 'map to the future'. And over generations, this made the locals think, act and (often) talk increasingly like us Europeans. Case in point - what clothes does the Chinese president wear? A nice tailored suit, not traditional silk garb.

But back to my uplifted wolves. Over generations they'd develop, and though the language / species barrier would protect them somewhat, they would slowly pick up 'human ways' as they adapted what we had already done to their needs. And as they borrow more from us, they'll start thinking more like us. Then they're on the treadmill I outlined earlier. It'll be quicker than you'd expect, too - we've managed to utterly destroy 'backwards' cultures within three generations in the past. And that's not even taking into account how many human researchers would go nuts attempting to interact with these suddenly 'wise wolves' and teaching loads of human habits in the process...
 
Last edited:

regdog

The Scavengers
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
58,075
Reaction score
21,013
Location
She/Her
Many animals have complex communication, tool using, and social interactions.

Just because a human can use a hammer doesn't make it any more intelligent than other animals. Just different.

Are humans considered more intelligent because we are self aware?

Dolphins, whales and primates have shown this as well.

Killer whales have language unique to each family pod, just as we have different languages.

Elephants have generational memory. Matriarchs have brought their families to feeding and watering grounds that they themselves have never been to but great great mothers had used.

Human kill because we can. Dolphins kill because they can. It is well documented that bottle nosed dolphins hunt down and kill smaller porpoise just because they can. There is no competition for food or threat from the smaller porpoise, some bottle nose just kill them.

Killer whales will hunt down and kill smaller whales, dolphins and sharks, and by smaller sharks I do mean large great white. They don't eat what they kill, just kill it and move it.

In essence we are no different or rate any higher on the evolution and intelligence chain than any other creature on the planet. We just think we do.
 

DavidMivshek

is hacking God's mind for fun :)
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
58
Reaction score
3
Location
Racine, WI
Website
www.davidmivshek.com
1. If animals gained "higher intelligence" I hope they'd be smart enough to not copy clothing trends like "sagging pants." That's got to be the most stupid trend yet. Now, I think about it, nonhuman animals probably wonder why we just don't go bare and lift our tails to show our bunghole.

2. If nonhuman animals gained our type of intelligence, like making tools like the ones we do, forming societies like ours, etc., basically there'd be just more wars. More competition of resources. More junk made to pass away leisure time. More societal belief systems which would lead to a dystopic future faster than what we're currently experiencing. Etc.

3. Now, most people I think view nonhuman animals killing/eating nonhuman animals as just how nature is. But if nonhuman animals achieved this "higher intelligence" I think humans would think there's more evil in the world because of all the killing/eating.

4. If we took the position that we could kill off nonhuman animals on a whim because we're big and mighty then we'd soon realize how important all the pieces in life's puzzle really are for our own survival.

5. Generally, we'd probably think nonhuman animals were still pretty dumb if we still couldn't speak their languages. You know like, dogs bark just to be annoying, etc. Which is a moronic idea.

6. Humans would probably learn how to make nests while hanging out with birds, right after playing xbox with them or some other important human endeavor.
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
A dog doesn't see the world the way we do. A dolphin doesn't even experience the same world we experience. Why would a tiger develop weapons when it's very biology *is* a weapon?

Larry Niven's kzinti make for interesting characters. I imagine intelligent tigers being pacifists when it comes to war. Violence is for feeding. Not all these petty squabbles a weak creature like human invents for it.

The only way for a species to develop like a human is for the species to *be* human.

I don't think so. Intelligence breeds all sorts of things. An intelligent tiger would need weapons just as much as humans because claws are no match for guns, and with intelligence, tigers, which are predators by nature, would almost certainly realize there more out there than just sex and eating, and those tigers would want it.

A rabbit might be a pacifist, but not a tiger.

It's not about developing, it's about getting intelligence all at once, suddenly being able to imagine, to want, to desire, to think, to plan, to steal, and to kill for reasons other than food, all in a world run by humans.

Not that tigers don't already kill for reasons other than food. They do. Almost all predators kill for some very human like reasons, including territory, sex, and even pleasure.

I'm a meat eating predator, but not a true carnivore. Tigers eat some vegetation to get dietary fiber, but they are carnivores, and I don't see their nature changing because of intelligence. With intelligence, they would just become very, very smart, and far more deadly, predators.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
I don't think so. Intelligence breeds all sorts of things. An intelligent tiger would need weapons just as much as humans because claws are no match for guns, and with intelligence, tigers, which are predators by nature, would almost certainly realize there more out there than just sex and eating, and those tigers would want it.

A rabbit might be a pacifist, but not a tiger.

It's not about developing, it's about getting intelligence all at once, suddenly being able to imagine, to want, to desire, to think, to plan, to steal, and to kill for reasons other than food, all in a world run by humans.

Not that tigers don't already kill for reasons other than food. They do. Almost all predators kill for some very human like reasons, including territory, sex, and even pleasure.

I'm a meat eating predator, but not a true carnivore. Tigers eat some vegetation to get dietary fiber, but they are carnivores, and I don't see their nature changing because of intelligence. With intelligence, they would just become very, very smart, and far more deadly, predators.

Why do you assume other animals don't do this currently?

They certainly steal (I've known more than one house pet who steals non-food items from the people in the house and sometimes neighbours, and secretes the items in a safe place - sometimes toy-like items, sometimes things they seem to just enjoy), stealing and saving items strongly implies thinking and planning, if not wanting and desiring, though anyone who spends any time around animals can offer examples of what seem obvious demonstrations of those as well.

No, we don't know what they're thinking, but I don't really know what other humans are thinking either. I know what some of them say, but I can have a conversation with Koko or Michael or Alex the parrot too so...
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
I don't think so. Intelligence breeds all sorts of things. An intelligent tiger would need weapons just as much as humans because claws are no match for guns, and with intelligence, tigers, which are predators by nature, would almost certainly realize there more out there than just sex and eating, and those tigers would want it.

A tiger in its home territory against a human with a gun... that's an even fight.

We developed according to our abilities *and* our limitations. Humans, in general, don't have a "killing physiology," so weapons were necessary to enhance that limitation.

I'm not saying there would be no similarities to humans. But tigers, dogs, dolphins, they don't live in that same world (so to speak) that wrought our intelligence. So why would they develop it in the same fashion we did?

Some of the speculation about the Alien xenomorphs is that the tail is both a weapon and a means of communication. Interesting thought. Their biting tongue certainly doesn't support speech as we know it. I think we forget that, biologically, we in North American are not really all that different from some isolated tribe in the Amazon Basin. If one of those people were raised in a North American culture, they'd be just as capable of what we consider "intelligence" as any of the animals we're discussing. Yet they developed a completely different culture, different beliefs, whole different attitudes about their world and the people around them.

Why would animals, some of whom see this world in entirely different ways than we do, not be even more radically differentiated from whatever it is that we think of as "intelligent"? Would wolf packs cease to exist just because wolves gained a new level of mental acuity/understanding?