智慧物种在地球上仅出现过一次

Naval Ravikant 2021-11-03

智慧物种在地球上仅出现过一次


创造性智慧并非必然


布雷特:

这是一个论点,面对不确定性我们必须保持谦卑,因为没有人知道答案。但我想提出一个很少被讨论的论点。

这个论点就是我们人类是孤独的。

这个论点与天文学无关;它与生物学密切相关。论点如下:看看地球,看看不仅现存物种的数量——数百万种——还有地球上有史以来存在过的物种数量,这达到了数亿种。

生命大约在35亿年前出现,而在大约25亿年的时间里,除了细菌什么都没有。所以生命显然没有太多动力快速进化到细菌之外;它只是尽可能保持简单。

许多人有一个被达尔文真正推翻的错误观念——认为进化有既定方向。你在高中教科书里看到那些进化图片:猴子用四肢蹒跚行走;然后它弯着腰;最后它站起来拿着公文包,好像这就是进化的目标。这只是在回顾时看起来像是进化的目标。

美国学者查利·莱恩韦弗称之为”人猿星球”假说——意思是,如果你从一颗行星上移除人类,猿类自然会进化来填补智慧生态位。

他说你可以想象另一种情况:你是一只能思考自身的大象。它们反思自己鼻子的长度,回顾生物进化史,发现鼻子变得越来越短。于是它们得出结论:“啊,进化一直致力于制造更长的鼻子。这就是进化的全部意义。”

当然,我们知道这很荒谬。只是碰巧这种叫做大象的生物进化出了长鼻子,但鼻子长度似乎并不是进化的趋同特征。

进化的趋同特征是在生物实体中反复独立出现的特征。翅膀是我最喜欢的例子。鱼类有某种翅膀。有飞鱼。蝴蝶有翅膀,所以昆虫也有翅膀。它们也在哺乳动物中出现,比如狐蝠和某些负鼠。当然,鸟类和恐龙也有翅膀。

在这些物种中,翅膀独立地不断出现。眼睛也是如此,发声器官也是如此。

现在让我们思考进行数学运算或建造射电望远镜的能力——换句话说,成为智慧、有创造力的物种。这在地质历史中出现了多少次?只有一个物种,且仅此一个。

我们能否据此得出结论,智慧物种的出现是必然的?如果你重复这个实验,在宇宙中所有适宜生命的行星上撒播一些细菌,你能否保证会得到像我们这样的实体?


Intelligent Species Have Risen Only Once on Planet Earth


Creative intelligence wasn’t inevitable


Brett:

Now, that’s one argument, and we have to be humble in the face of uncertainty here because no one knows. But I want to give an argument that rarely gets any air time.

The argument is that we are alone.

The argument has nothing to do with astronomy; it has everything to do with biology. The argument goes like this: Look at planet Earth and look at the number of species not only that exist right now—millions of them—but also the number of species that have ever existed on planet Earth, which is hundreds of millions.

Life arose something like three and a half billion years ago, and for about two and a half billion years there was nothing but bacteria. So life apparently doesn’t have much impetus to evolve quickly beyond bacteria; it just remains as simple as possible.

A lot of people have this misconceived idea that Darwin really did away with—the idea that evolution has a direction in mind. You see these pictures of evolution that appear in high school textbooks of the monkey that’s hobbling around on all fours; then he’s hunched over; and then eventually he is standing up and holding a briefcase, as if this is what evolution had in mind. It only seems to be what evolution had in mind in retrospect, by looking backward.

There’s an American academic, Charley Lineweaver, who calls this the “Planet of the Apes” hypothesis—as in, if you remove the humans from a planet, the apes would naturally evolve to fill the intelligence niche.

He said you could imagine another situation where you’re an elephant that is able to think about themself. They reflect on the length of their trunk, and they look back through biological evolution and see that trunks get ever shorter. So what they conclude is, “Ah, evolution has been geared towards making ever-longer trunks. That’s what evolution is all about.”

Of course, we can see that that’s ridiculous. It just happens to be the case that this creature called the elephant has evolved and it’s got this long trunk, but the length of the trunk doesn’t appear to be a convergent feature of evolution.

A convergent feature of evolution is a feature that exists within biological entities that has arisen again and again, independently. Wings are my favorite example. Fish have wings of a certain kind. There are flying fish. Butterflies have wings, so we’ve got them in insects. They arose in mammals as well, with flying foxes and certain kinds of possums. And, of course, birds and dinosaurs had wings as well.

Independently, in all these species, the wings keep arising. So do eyes, and so do organs for sound.

Now let’s think about the capacity to do mathematics or to build radio telescopes—in other words, to be an intelligent, creative species. How many times has that arisen in the geological history of the Earth? In one species and one species alone.

Can we conclude on that basis that, therefore, it’s inevitable that intelligent species will arise? If you were to repeat the experiment by sprinkling a few bacteria around all the bio-friendly planets that exist throughout the universe, would you be guaranteed to get an entity like us?