I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

as well as taking advantage of your biological strengths, no?

Presumably, but the only real case we have, humans, eventually used intelligence so we avoid using our one clear biological strength.

Aside from our brains, humans only really do one thing better than anything else on the planet - cover large distances on foot. We respect so called "cursorial hunters" like wolves, without realizing that in the really long haul, we can cover more ground than anything else on the planet.

But then, we built cars...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Presumably, but the only real case we have, humans, eventually used intelligence so we avoid using our one clear biological strength.

Aside from our brains, humans only really do one thing better than anything else on the planet - cover large distances on foot. We respect so called "cursorial hunters" like wolves, without realizing that in the really long haul, we can cover more ground than anything else on the planet.

But then, we built cars...

Isn't the ability to cover really large distances also a function of our intelligence/adaptability, because it's hard to cover those distances without geography, climate, etc. also changing?
 

Quark said:
Let me tell you about humans, nephew. They're wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon.

I do like that as the years progressed Star Trek didn't just treat every member of a species as being exactly the same.
 


Presumably, but the only real case we have, humans, eventually used intelligence so we avoid using our one clear biological strength.

Aside from our brains, humans only really do one thing better than anything else on the planet - cover large distances on foot. We respect so called "cursorial hunters" like wolves, without realizing that in the really long haul, we can cover more ground than anything else on the planet.

But then, we built cars...
i mean, humans are pretty good tool users with our opposable thumbs and all, our intelligence took us pretty far taking advantage of that trait right? i never said it had to be an exclusive advantage.
 

I am not going to get into a nitpicking argument about the details of definitions. We don't have so much as a good definition of "intelligence", much less any related terms.

Perhaps, but "sapience" and "sentience" literally mean different things. If you want to differentiate the sort of intelligence humans have from that of most other animals, sentience is not the word for it, sapience is. Squirrels are sentient, as in having phenomenal sensory experiences. They are generally not considered being sapient though, as in having intelligence.
 
Last edited:

Perhaps, but "sapience" and "sentience" literally mean different things. If you want to differentiate the sort of intelligence humans have from that of most other animals, sentience is not the word for it sapience is. Squirrels are sentient, as in having phenomenal sensory experiences. They are generally not considered being sapient though, as in having intelligence.
i dunno, i wouldn't trust squirrels to not be pulling a long con on us.
 



i mean, humans are pretty good tool users with our opposable thumbs and all, our intelligence took us pretty far taking advantage of that trait right? i never said it had to be an exclusive advantage.

It isn't about exclusivity. It is about order of operations.

The brain may not be making the maximal use of opposable thumbs, but he thumb may be for making maximal use of the brain. In great apes, the order may be the latter - we developed opposable thumbs only after we started using stone tools.
 

Remove ads

Top