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
One topic I've been discussing with friends and family is related to the other thread about existence of good and evil.

Imagine if other animals were "uplifted" by scientific breakthroughs and attain human-level intelligence. Do you think they would behave similar to humans and draw distinctions between good and evil? Would they more likely be selfish and greedy, or altruistic and peaceful? Would the civilization they build go through similar patterns as human civilizations? In what aspects would they likely divert from human tendencies? Would their current social behavior remain and they're simply smarter, or does higher intelligence naturally plant the seed for selfishness and greed, leading to war and destruction? Or perhaps it'll differ depending on the type of animal?

(Before anyone brings up David Brin's Uplift serious, let me just say that I've tried reading a couple of the books in that series, and he really doesn't get into the philosophical aspect--they're more like action/adventure/mystery books)
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I suspect it would help us distinguish the difference between "like humans" and "like any breakthrough sentient species". Something we are not currently really able to do.
 

Cathy C

Ooo! Shiny new cover!
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
9,907
Reaction score
1,834
Location
Hiding in my writing cave
Website
www.cathyclamp.com
What about Animal Farm? It wouldn't surprise me if it's exactly what happened if all animals simultaneously gained intelligence. That would be the trick, though: it would all have to happen at once. If it was done a few species at a time, it would never get beyond the first few species before people would see the reasons why it was a bad idea.
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
I suspect it would help us distinguish the difference between "like humans" and "like any breakthrough sentient species". Something we are not currently really able to do.

I suppose the ability to form the foundations of civilizations would be the criteria. But is it possible that high intelligence won't naturally lead to formation of a sophisticated civilization? What if really intelligent lions choose to live in exactly the same way it always had, just more efficiently? They'd just hunt and breed and play as usual, with no motivation to create an economy, more complex methods of communication, art, political system, religion, etc.
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
What about Animal Farm? It wouldn't surprise me if it's exactly what happened if all animals simultaneously gained intelligence. That would be the trick, though: it would all have to happen at once. If it was done a few species at a time, it would never get beyond the first few species before people would see the reasons why it was a bad idea.

The thing with Animal Farm, is that it's meant as a satire of communism and human nature, and doesn't really try to be realistic in any kind of speculative manner based on science.

As for whether they're all uplifted at once, or one species at a time, I guess we can speculate about both possibilities.
 
Last edited:

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
One topic I've been discussing with friends and family is related to the other thread about existence of good and evil.

Imagine if other animals were "uplifted" by scientific breakthroughs and attain human-level intelligence. Do you think they would behave similar to humans and draw distinctions between good and evil? Would they more likely be selfish and greedy, or altruistic and peaceful? Would the civilization they build go through similar patterns as human civilizations? In what aspects would they likely divert from human tendencies? Would their current social behavior remain and they're simply smarter, or does higher intelligence naturally plant the seed for selfishness and greed, leading to war and destruction? Or perhaps it'll differ depending on the type of animal?

(Before anyone brings up David Brin's Uplift serious, let me just say that I've tried reading a couple of the books in that series, and he really doesn't get into the philosophical aspect--they're more like action/adventure/mystery books)

I'm sort of confused as to how you're distinguishing human intelligence from that of other animals currently.
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
I'm sort of confused as to how you're distinguishing human intelligence from that of other animals currently.

I would say the foundations of a sophisticated civilization would be the criteria for advanced intelligence. Complex method of communication and use of advanced tools/technology would be the most basic aspects. Then beyond those, it wouldn't be as relevant, but might still be used as a gauge--for example, economy, political system, art, entertainment, architecture, etc. Some animals might not need those, but I think advanced communication to convey abstract reasoning and use of tools to make life more efficient would be the basis.
 

AHunter3

Author-Curmudgeon
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
375
Reaction score
31
Location
New York City [Manhattan], NY, USA
Website
www.genderkitten.com
Human beings have an unusual nature: we are individually intelligent and, at the same time, we are social in a sense that only insects approximate.

"Uplifting" some other species to our (individual) high level of intelligence would not (necessarily) change them into a social species in the same sense.

Dolphins and gorillas and pigs are pretty smart, individually, but they don't spend their lives with their minds interwoven into the "hive mind" the way we do; although they certainly have some social behavior, you can understand a lot about those species by studying one individual by itself in a natural habitat. Not true of us at all. What we think of as human nature is 99% human social nature. For that matter, the majority of our thoughs opinions beliefs and the rest of what we think of first when we think of ourselves as intelligent comprises input from not merely other people in addition to us but generations upon generations of humans that lived before us, to which our own individual contributions are minor little edits and clarifications.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
I would say the foundations of a sophisticated civilization would be the criteria for advanced intelligence. Complex method of communication and use of advanced tools/technology would be the most basic aspects. Then beyond those, it wouldn't be as relevant, but might still be used as a gauge--for example, economy, political system, art, entertainment, architecture, etc. Some animals might not need those, but I think advanced communication to convey abstract reasoning and use of tools to make life more efficient would be the basis.

We have a hard time understanding other animals' communication, beyond the animals that have learned to communicate in a language we understand. I don't know how the communication of ones that don't do that could be quantified.

Lots of animals use tools to make life more efficient.

Are you defining sophisticated civilization as human civilization? I mean no, parrots haven't built buildings. I don't know they'd want to even if they had thumbs, if you see what I'm saying.
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
We have a hard time understanding other animals' communication, beyond the animals that have learned to communicate in a language we understand. I don't know how the communication of ones that don't do that could be quantified.

Lots of animals use tools to make life more efficient.

Are you defining sophisticated civilization as human civilization? I mean no, parrots haven't built buildings. I don't know they'd want to even if they had thumbs, if you see what I'm saying.

Exactly. Each species might have different needs that higher intelligence would be able to satisfy, or maybe being more intelligent wouldn't change a thing for some species (thus the example I used of lions not changing their behavior despite increased intelligence).

I wouldn't say there are any animals who an use tools to the level that humans can, regardless if they have thumb. It's the complexity of reasoning/logic that divides how we use tools and the primitive way that other animals use tools. But if other animals reach the same intelligence as humans, that would likely change.

it's entirely possible that an "uplifted" species would not form any kind of what we'd consider "civilization," and other than more efficient hunting and maybe usage of tools, we won't see significant changes.

But what about species that could potentially develop civilizations? How would they differ from human civilizations? Would they draw distinction between good and evil like we do? Would they develop religions? Would they have full-scale wars? Would they develop art and entertainment? Traditions? Economic systems?
 
Last edited:

Friendly Frog

Snarkenfaugister
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
4,067
Reaction score
4,865
Location
Belgium
Animals already behave like humans in many ways, and visa versa. I don't think higher intelligence will change that much, it will probably just provide more ways and methods to engage in the same desired behaviour.

'Higher' intelligence doesn't automatically leads to more moral behaviour, humans are an excellent example. Also, think of dolphins whom humans always love to compare to us. They're smart, playful, communicative, social and utter jerks all at the same time.

But all the same, I think it's misleading to think humans have higher intelligence than animals, or to consider us as the benchmark. Some animals already have cultures or structures already more advanced than ours, depending on how you look at it.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
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.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I suppose the ability to form the foundations of civilizations would be the criteria. But is it possible that high intelligence won't naturally lead to formation of a sophisticated civilization? What if really intelligent lions choose to live in exactly the same way it always had, just more efficiently? They'd just hunt and breed and play as usual, with no motivation to create an economy, more complex methods of communication, art, political system, religion, etc.

Again, that just shows that we have no idea what traits humans have that are not generic to all breakthrough sentient beings. Until we meet or make another such race.... we won't know which of our traits are "human" and which are just "very smart species that likes to make things".
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Exactly. Each species might have different needs that higher intelligence would be able to satisfy, or maybe being more intelligent wouldn't change a thing for some species (thus the example I used of lions not changing their behavior despite increased intelligence).

I wouldn't say there are any animals who an use tools to the level that humans can, regardless if they have thumb. It's the complexity of reasoning/logic that divides how we use tools and the primitive way that other animals use tools. But if other animals reach the same intelligence as humans, that would likely change.

it's entirely possible that an "uplifted" species would not form any kind of what we'd consider "civilization," and other than more efficient hunting and maybe usage of tools, we won't see significant changes.

But what about species that could potentially develop civilizations? How would they differ from human civilizations? Would they draw distinction between good and evil like we do? Would they develop religions? Would they have full-scale wars? Would they develop art and entertainment? Traditions? Economic systems?

I think you're missing my point kind of - I'm questioning the idea that other animals would or could be 'uplifted' to a 'higher intelligence' in the first place. Not that they can't be 'more intelligent,' but that we're necessarily more intelligent than every other animal, when we're not able to measure that for most and would be using a strictly human-based measure (that people criticize as culturally-biased among humans even) to begin with.

Also that having greater intellect, if that were the case, would somehow result in human-like things.

How do you know other animals don't draw those distinctions? What do you mean by art and entertainment? They certainly entertain themselves, play, tease, etc. When given human art tools, many animals create human-like art.

I'm not sure how you're dividing primitive tool use from non either. I mean I can't get out of a locked thing the way I've seen an octopus do. If I only had access to twigs or a kitchen (hi, bowerbird), I don't think I could build a sturdy nest in a tree; nor do I think I could do lots of what other animals do with natural tools. Who's primitive?
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
And how about the average dog's ability to read human body language and the average human's inability to read a dog's? They know a lot more about it than us.

And to say that human civilisation is the measure of intelligence and worth is a very human way of looking at it.
 

NinjaFingers

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
572
Reaction score
52
Location
Northern Virginia
Website
jennpovey.imagination-evolution.net
Every species would be different.

Dogs would be the closest to humans - their social structure is already very close to ours.

But let's take horses. Horses are harem breeders who otherwise live in sex segregated groups (and I have personally observed an increase in "herd" injuries, i.e. fights, when you mix the sexes) and who do not have relatives. Young horses of both sexes are thrown out of the breeding herd when their next sibling is born, at about a year old. Colts join bachelor herds and fillies join different breeding herds. A horse's strongest bond is not with a blood relative but with the individual they've chosen to form such a bond with. I.e., their friends. Can you imagine a society in which the family bonds are very weak, and perhaps only tracked for genetic and medical reason, in which people live with their friends and have sex for breeding purposes with carefully chosen strangers? That's the kind of society you would be looking at. (I've honestly considered taking that one step further to design an alien off of).
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Every species would be different.

Dogs would be the closest to humans - their social structure is already very close to ours.

But let's take horses. Horses are harem breeders who otherwise live in sex segregated groups (and I have personally observed an increase in "herd" injuries, i.e. fights, when you mix the sexes) and who do not have relatives. Young horses of both sexes are thrown out of the breeding herd when their next sibling is born, at about a year old. Colts join bachelor herds and fillies join different breeding herds. A horse's strongest bond is not with a blood relative but with the individual they've chosen to form such a bond with. I.e., their friends. Can you imagine a society in which the family bonds are very weak, and perhaps only tracked for genetic and medical reason, in which people live with their friends and have sex for breeding purposes with carefully chosen strangers? That's the kind of society you would be looking at. (I've honestly considered taking that one step further to design an alien off of).

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.
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
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.

Dog packs are sexually mixed, like us.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
I suppose the ability to form the foundations of civilizations would be the criteria. But is it possible that high intelligence won't naturally lead to formation of a sophisticated civilization?
Higher intelligence may be necessary, but not sufficient, for a "sophisticated civilization" (these terms are really need some hard definitions, but I'm trying not to get into that in this post). Language is also needed, and humans are uniquely able to create a wide range of vocalizations that are easily recognized by other humans, and so spoken language developed. 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.

And then there's other features that most other animals don't have - the opposable thumb comes to mind.
What if really intelligent lions choose to live in exactly the same way it always had, just more efficiently? They'd just hunt and breed and play as usual, with no motivation to create an economy, more complex methods of communication, art, political system, religion, etc.
I suppose that's part of the point of the question - we don't KNOW that they won't do these things.
Dogs are pack animals with alpha males running the pack...
True, but it seems to me that's a trait that came from wolves, and as dogs are basically wolves from thousands of years ago that were domesticated, it might have been bred out of dogs if it were easy to do so.
I don't think they're particularly human-like, societally.
Hmm. I'm not so sure I agree.

Perhaps as a species becomes more socially intelligent, a pack becomes a neighborhood, then a city, then a nation.
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
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.

But that is on the assumption that vocalization is the only way language develops. For all we know, it's not. We just use it as the standard because it's the way we do it.
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
Okay, let's take a different approach. One of the more recent and modern methods of determining intelligence is synaptic density, and human being have highest density. It's now known that the reason human beings are the most intelligent (you don't have to agree) is not because of the size of the brain, but the density of the synapses.

Now, let's say the "uplift" process simply means the synaptic density in the animals would be increased to at least human levels. And then we just wait and see how the change will cause the animals to behave differently.

But there could be two different approaches after the increase in synaptic density. First approach is that we don't interfere with the subsequent development after the increase, and let the animals do as they would naturally.

The second approach, is we try and teach them the things we think are important to the advancement of a species (complex language, abstract reasoning, science/technology, political system, art, etc). Animals without the ability to vocalize a wide range of sounds can be taught sign-language (adapted for their physiology, such as including use of tails, ears, wings, eye-blinks, etc).

I would assume the two different approaches will end up with drastically different results. The second approach will likely make the animals much more human-like because we've introduced and taught our system of civilization to them. Some might not take to our system and completely reject our influences and then develop their own based on their own inherent behavior and social structure, while some will take to it and adopt our system (to what degree depends on the animal). Some might even adopt human's concept of good and evil, and possibly religious beliefs too.

With the first approach, it feels like a much more unknown possibility, because it's very hard to predict how much the animals' behaviors will change with increased synaptic density, while left alone without human influences. But at the same time, it's possible the animals that currently do survive in human environemtns will adapt in more complex ways than before, since they'd start to understand more of what happens in our technological environment. Birds might learn to use found coins and operate vending machines to get the exact brand of chips they like, or simply enter supermarkets and feast away. They'd be able to decipher our language eventually and listen in on our conversations, and then use what they hear to their advantage. Maybe take your car keys ransom in exchange for food? :D Animals that don't need to survive in human environments will likely not change as much in their behavior.

I think regardless of which approach, it's just a really interesting thought experiment (to me, at least), to think about something like this (guess that's why I write speculative fiction). The exploration of this idea can be an entire series of books, and how each writer would approach the subject will differ dramatically. Writers have explored this subject in the past, although not quite in the context I've presented here (as far as I know). The most well-known example is probably Planet of the Apes (with the recent two movies being much more realistic compared to the original pulp roots).
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
Can I ask why you assume we would still be Alpha species? Most animals can do physical things much better than we can so why wouldn't they just kill us as soon as they recognised what a horrible species we actually are?
 

Lunatique

Fluffy Wolf
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
23
Location
Lincoln, CA
Website
www.ethereality.info
Can I ask why you assume we would still be Alpha species? Most animals can do physical things much better than we can so why wouldn't they just kill us as soon as they recognised what a horrible species we actually are?

That's a possible outcome, but I think the chances of them succeeding would be slim, considering the head-start humans have (ability to operate extremely powerful weapons, computer networks, satellite, GPS, radio communication, thousands of years of accumulated war strategies on massive scale as well as guerrilla warfare, knowledge of science--including animal biology and social behavior, etc).

Also, unless many animal species cooperate against humans, any single species or even a few allied species wouldn't stand a chance.

But assuming they do cooperate, and they secretly study all the knowledge humans have accumulated for many years, and then suddenly strike, it would definitely be possible if they cripple our most important resources.

That's a great premise for a book right there. Will require expertise in zoology and other related areas though (this type of story to me, screams hard science-fiction).
 

AVS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
529
Reaction score
73
Location
Beacon and mountain, river and road.
It has been done already to an extent; Planet of the Apes and its sequels, assumes an uplifted society. I'm not sure I buy it.

Thinking about how another sentient non-human might think, is a little like trying to imagine colours outside our visual spectrum. We know they exist but no matter how hard we try we can never actually visualize them.

We can extrapolate of course, animals need mates, food, territory, tribe/herd much the same as we do. There are similarities in Earth based animal behaviours, especially mammals, so perhaps we could behaviourally expect certain things.

Interesting question which I'm not really answering to my own satisfaction.
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
That's a possible outcome, but I think the chances of them succeeding would be slim, considering the head-start humans have (ability to operate extremely powerful weapons, computer networks, satellite, GPS, radio communication, thousands of years of accumulated war strategies on massive scale as well as guerrilla warfare, knowledge of science--including animal biology and social behavior, etc).
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.
 
Last edited: