Creation vs. Evolution

[Dotini]

The idea is that human sympathy and fairness for other humans often takes a distant last place to considerations of politics, economics, religious and tribal rivalry, etc. In effect, Syrians and Yemenis are treated as sub-humans, mere pawns on a chessboard.

 

[TexRex]

Syrians and Yemenis are treated as sub-humans

And breading and frying steak as though it is chicken does not make it chicken. Treating something as something it is not does not make it something it is not.

 

[Dotini]

And breading and frying steak as though it is chicken does not make it chicken. Treating something as something it is not does not make it something it is not.

Are you hungry? The highly credible Sun reports cannibalism practiced today in 9 places around the world.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/146...ld-where-cannibalism-is-still-alive-and-well/


GETTY IMAGES
10
Aghori monks, like this one, live only on the cremated remains of others

 

[Joey D]

Is morality or consciousness a result of evolution?

Morality is probably more of a result of cultural evolution than biological evolution. I pointed this out in the God thread already, but at least from an anthropological thought, morals arose to ensure the survival of a group.

Consciousness though is probably a result of biological evolution since it fits in with natural selection. If a species isn't aware of its surroundings, chances are it's either going to get itself into a dangerous situation or get eaten, thus not passing on its genetic makeup. Although given the amount of absolutely stupid people in the world, the human species might have a ways to go.

And breading and frying steak as though it is chicken does not make it chicken. Treating something as something it is not does not make it something it is not.

You just offended the entire South by calling out chicken fried steak

 

[TheCracker]

Consciousness though is probably a result of biological evolution since it fits in with natural selection. If a species isn't aware of its surroundings, chances are it's either going to get itself into a dangerous situation or get eaten, thus not passing on its genetic makeup. Although given the amount of absolutely stupid people in the world, the human species might have a ways to go.

I was reading earlier that the human brain has actually shrunk in size by 5-10% over the past 20,000 years. Collective intelligence - living and interacting in a close-knit group is said to have allowed this because bigger brains mean more energy is used up. We can be more productive if we don't waste time eating - or searching for that food to eat or sleeping to conserve energy. We've evolved or are evolving smaller brains.

 

[Mr Tree]

Yes, since now we are considering morality to be the sense of sympathy and fairness, which is something more than programming a value system. Morality does appear to evolve, somewhat, but be sure to ask again after the next nuclear war. Probably Syrians, Yemenis, fish, animals and other species going extinct at our hands can hardly wait for it to evolve a bit more.

On the other hand, it may be that consciousness has devolved, or at least has a long way to go.

I think we're (I'm) getting into semantics.
I make a distinction between being moral (a moral agent) and acting moral (the act of doing moral things). I think this is a very important distinction
A machine with rules can't re-evaluate it's morality. I believe a machine should not be called moral if it can't re-evaluate it's moral rules. This being said it wouldn't mean that machine would do immoral things I'd just consider it being amoral as it doesn't care about the morality but about the rules written in it's code.

Hypothetically if 2000years ago a machine was build adhering to all moral codes of it's region and time period, we'd probably not consider it moral today. Thus the ability to re-evaluate a moral code is in my opinion is a vital part of morality. You're not being moral when you're just following the rules, you're acting moral. Or at least this is my current opinion.

You don't seem to share that opinion as you wonder if a programmed machine would be moral (which is fine!). I do wonder why you question the importance of that part of morality.
I question this out of intellectual curiosity and with an open mind as I love morality as a subject.

As a side note I believe in objective morality, but not in a religious way. I'm more in line with Sam Harris' take on objective morality.

edit: if anything is confusing due to grammar or syntax please point out the part as I then might understand what is confusing.
I changed the text a little as to more clearly show what I meant to say.

 

[Danoff]

I was reading earlier that the human brain has actually shrunk in size by 5-10% over the past 20,000 years. Collective intelligence - living and interacting in a close-knit group is said to have allowed this because bigger brains mean more energy is used up. We can be more productive if we don't waste time eating - or searching for that food to eat or sleeping to conserve energy. We've evolved or are evolving smaller brains.

...only if the people with larger brains are not reproducing. Maybe that was happening 20,000 years ago, but I don't see it happening now.

 

[TheCracker]

...only if the people with larger brains are not reproducing. Maybe that was happening 20,000 years ago, but I don't see it happening now.

It was an article quoting anthropologist professor Chris Stringer, from the Natural History Museum, so i'm assuming it was based on the actual measurement of skull cavities and other evidence, not just some hyperbole to suit someone's wild evolutionary theory agenda.

 

[Danoff]

It was an article quoting anthropologist professor Chris Stringer, from the Natural History Museum, so i'm assuming it was based on the actual measurement of skull cavities and other evidence, not just some hyperbole to suit someone's wild evolutionary theory agenda.

Yea, 20,000 years ago natural selection would have been alive and well among humans. There are portions of the globe that still probably live today like they did 20,000 years ago. There are protected tribes in the amazon that have had no recorded outside human contact. But in many countries today, saving a little energy by having a smaller brain isn't likely to be highly correlated with reproduction.

 

[Dotini]

The largest hominid skull I've ever heard of was was ~2000cc.

The chart below is probably for males, with females a few hundred cc less.




click on chart for more info...

 

[BobK]

The fact that average brain size has decreased a bit doesn't mean much; as I understand it, intelligence is more related to brain surface area than volume; and brains today are more convoluted than they were in the past.

If volume were the determinant factor then whales would be by far the most intelligent animals on the planet.

 

[Rallywagon]

Who's to say whales arent the most intellegent

Is morality or consciousness a result of evolution?

Just to put in a couple of different ideas. If you are one to follow the theory of evolution, morality and consciousness resulted from evolution. Unlike others here, I don't think you need complete self awareness to display morality. At least not to the extent that we humans perhaps have. I think many other animals in the great animal kingdom show evidence of this. Dolphins, primates, even lions and wolves. All of which are also capable of showing great malice as well. Understanding the implications may require a higher intelligence, but I dont think that is the case in order to act moral or immoral.
As for consciousness. As has been said, figuring out when exactly our primate descendants moved into a higher intelligence and expanded consciousness is a chore of futility, however, there are theories as to why we ended up gaining consciousness. The one that I feel that holds the most credibility (sorry Dontini, its not aliens...) is called the stoned ape theory. basically, the idea holds that somewhere in the evolutionary tree, not very far removed from homo sapiens and neanderthals, our "ancestors" began, or perhaps continued, to consume hallucinogenic plants such as the good ol' magic mushrooms. The continued consumption of such plants and fungi allowed for the evolutionary change that created consciousness.

 

[Imari]

I was reading earlier that the human brain has actually shrunk in size by 5-10% over the past 20,000 years. Collective intelligence - living and interacting in a close-knit group is said to have allowed this because bigger brains mean more energy is used up. We can be more productive if we don't waste time eating - or searching for that food to eat or sleeping to conserve energy. We've evolved or are evolving smaller brains.

Interestingly, in humans at least brain size doesn't seem to be particularly strongly correlated with intelligence or creativity. Certainly animals with significantly larger brains than humans aren't out there designing hyperdrive spaceships with fully capable AI, and so it's a fairly safe bet that it's a lot more about structure than it is about pure size.

Who's to say whales arent the most intellegent

The people who try to measure intelligence in animals, I'd imagine.

 

[Rallywagon]

Interestingly, in humans at least brain size doesn't seem to be particularly strongly correlated with intelligence or creativity. Certainly animals with significantly larger brains than humans aren't out there designing hyperdrive spaceships with fully capable AI, and so it's a fairly safe bet that it's a lot more about structure than it is about pure size.



The people who try to measure intelligence in animals, I'd imagine.

There are quite a few scientists that are beginning to question that notion. Take primatologist Frans de Waal for example. He argues that humans arent even smart enough to measure other species of intellegence, and lays out the ground work for that notion, and that humans may not be the smartest in a book called, as you might expect "Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are?"
Of course De Waal is not the first, nor the only scientist to raise the question. Thanks to the creation of ethology in the 30s and the subsequent works by biologist such as Konrad Lorenz, Karl von Frisch, and even further back to Darwin, Wallace Craig, Charles Whitman and others, the measures of intellegence, especially those attributed to the animal kingdom are being questioned.

 

[Imari]

There are quite a few scientists that are beginning to question that notion. Take primatologist Frans de Waal for example. He argues that humans arent even smart enough to measure other species of intellegence, and lays out the ground work for that notion, and that humans may not be the smartest in a book called, as you might expect "Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are?"
Of course De Waal is not the first, nor the only scientist to raise the question. Thanks to the creation of ethology in the 30s and the subsequent works by biologist such as Konrad Lorenz, Karl von Frisch, and even further back to Darwin, Wallace Craig, Charles Whitman and others, the measures of intellegence, especially those attributed to the animal kingdom are being questioned.

Don't get me wrong, measuring intelligence in a sensible way even amongst humans is fraught with difficulty. Trying to apply some sort of test to another species in a meaningful way only magnifies that.

Even defining exactly what intelligence entails is actually pretty hard, and essentially it comes down to making a relatively arbitrary description and then trying to figure out a way to measure that without too much error, bias or inconsistency. None of which is particularly a surprise because psychology and neuroscience and the like are pretty much in their infancy compared to stuff like chemistry and physics that have literally hundreds of years of work behind them. Medical science only really got out of the leeches and quackery stage not that long ago, and honestly in many ways I feel like there's still a lot of basic stuff to be learned. Even with "established" sciences like chemistry and physics there's a laundry list a mile long of things we know that we don't know, and that's before we get to the things that we have no idea we should even be asking about yet.

Still, in the face of evidence to the contrary I'd say that the complexity of human society, culture and technology is a pretty strong argument for us either being significantly ahead on intelligence or much, much, MUCH more motivated than other species.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There are quite a few scientists that are beginning to question that notion. Take primatologist Frans de Waal for example. He argues that humans arent even smart enough to measure other species of intellegence, and lays out the ground work for that notion, and that humans may not be the smartest in a book called, as you might expect "Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are?"
Of course De Waal is not the first, nor the only scientist to raise the question. Thanks to the creation of ethology in the 30s and the subsequent works by biologist such as Konrad Lorenz, Karl von Frisch, and even further back to Darwin, Wallace Craig, Charles Whitman and others, the measures of intellegence, especially those attributed to the animal kingdom are being questioned.

When Moby Dick writes a book entitled, "Captain Ahab: One Whale's Story" be sure to post a link, I'd love to read it. Hopefully it's translated into English I hear Apple is working on the Blowhole to Text software as we speak.

 

[Rallywagon]

Perhaps the issue is that we try to put all intellegence into a single box. Which i believe is why people like de Waal are trying to reestablish the way we measure intellegence. Lions may not be building the empire state building, but then, the occupants of said building would likely die in short order if they were put out on the plains of Africa to survive as a lion. Lions have no need for a city, so why build it? Just the same, most humans in industrialized cities have no need to worry about survival in the wilds. As such trying to use the same variables to test either intellegence doesnt really work.
Johnny, that example is beyond assinine. I mean, the whole they dont have hands to write with thing ignored, we cant even begin to comprehend the songs of whales. We can show that without a doubt they are speaking in a language, that they even have "accents" and dialects. Until we can decipher what they are squeeking, chirping, clicking and, ehm, waling away about, how can we know if some of them are not musical geniuses beyond Mozart?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Perhaps the issue is that we try to put all intellegence into a single box. Which i believe is why people like de Waal are trying to reestablish the way we measure intellegence. Lions may not be building the empire state building, but then, the occupants of said building would likely die in short order if they were put out on the plains of Africa to survive as a lion. Lions have no need for a city, so why build it? Just the same, most humans in industrialized cities have no need to worry about survival in the wilds. As such trying to use the same variables to test either intellegence doesnt really work.
Johnny, that example is beyond assinine. I mean, the whole they dont have hands to write with thing ignored, we cant even begin to comprehend the songs of whales. We can show that without a doubt they are speaking in a language, that they even have "accents" and dialects. Until we can decipher what they are squeeking, chirping, clicking and, ehm, waling away about, how can we know if some of them are not musical geniuses beyond Mozart?

Speaking of accents and dialects, I believe that's the major hurdle for Apple. They programmed the Blowhole to Text feature based on blue whales and, as we all know, Mr. Dick is white whale. In this age of cultural sensitivity the white whale must be respected. All whales aren't the same after all.

 

[TexRex]

Who's to say whales arent the most intellegent

Those with great ego.

As has been touched upon, it's difficult enough to test true intelligence of those with whom the tester can easily communicate. Whales haven't managed to accomplish what man has--of course they don't have opposable thumbs either--but as far as I'm aware, they haven't demonstrated tremendous stupidity that man has either.

Consider, also, the depths that whales are capable of occupying. Given the difficulty for man to reach those depths, and then the added difficulty to see once down there--until a species can be observed in all areas of life, I don't believe significant insight into its existence can be claimed.

Dolphins, primates, even lions and wolves.

But do they really demonstrate morality? Sure, they don't kill fellow members of their specieseseseseses in the way that man does, but is it because they acknowledge the right to an existence or is it simply that it's not necessary? I'm not convinced that they're even aware that doing so is unnecessary, as I'm of the belief that they operate purely as instinct dictates.

All of which are also capable of showing great malice as well.

What malice have dolphins or wolves demonstrated? I'm unaware of any, though that obviously doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I seem to recall mention of malicious acts being perpetrated by primates, so I've left them out.

 

[Rallywagon]

Those with great ego.

As has been touched upon, it's difficult enough to test true intelligence of those with whom the tester can easily communicate. Whales haven't managed to accomplish what man has--of course they don't have opposable thumbs either--but as far as I'm aware, they haven't demonstrated tremendous stupidity that man has either.

Consider, also, the depths that whales are capable of occupying. Given the difficulty for man to reach those depths, and then the added difficulty to see once down there--until a species can be observed in all areas of life, I don't believe significant insight into its existence can be claimed.


But do they really demonstrate morality? Sure, they don't kill fellow members of their specieseseseseses in the way that man does, but is it because they acknowledge the right to an existence or is it simply that it's not necessary? I'm not convinced that they're even aware that doing so is unnecessary, as I'm of the belief that they operate purely as instinct dictates.


What malice have dolphins or wolves demonstrated? I'm unaware of any, though that obviously doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I seem to recall mention of malicious acts being perpetrated by primates, so I've left them out.

You should look into the mating behaviors of dolphins... as for wolves, there is quite a bit of debate about their "surplus" killings. Some want to argue that they are hunting for sport, which would certainly be malicious.

 

[Scaff]

But do they really demonstrate morality? Sure, they don't kill fellow members of their specieseseseseses in the way that man does, but is it because they acknowledge the right to an existence or is it simply that it's not necessary? I'm not convinced that they're even aware that doing so is unnecessary, as I'm of the belief that they operate purely as instinct dictates.

Chimps have waged 'war' following a community split in the past, and extensive studies have shown that they will wage war on other groups....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917131816.htm

...so the behavior is certainly present, what drives it however is far harder to pin down.

 

[Exorcet]

Lions may not be building the empire state building, but then, the occupants of said building would likely die in short order if they were put out on the plains of Africa to survive as a lion.

However the original humans in the plains of Africa did go on to build the Empire State Building.

Lions have no need for a city, so why build it?

I disagree. A city would be as useful for lions as it is for humans. Lions need to compete for resources just like we use to. If they could domesticate their food sources and have them live on controlled farms, it would help them immensely.

Just the same, most humans in industrialized cities have no need to worry about survival in the wilds.

Building cities is how humans survive in the wild.

Whales haven't managed to accomplish what man has--of course they don't have opposable thumbs either

I wonder how much of a stumbling block that is. You wouldn't expect human like tools without hands, but tool use itself shouldn't be off the table completely. Octopi are pretty smart and do make use of their environment, but they don't really build anything "complex" either.

 

[LennyB]

continued, to consume hallucinogenic plants such as the good ol' magic mushrooms.

Well I'm all for that lol, seriously though, what an interesting take.

 

[TexRex]

Chimps have waged 'war' following a community split in the past, and extensive studies have shown that they will wage war on other groups...

What malice have dolphins or wolves demonstrated?...I seem to recall mention of malicious acts being perpetrated by primates, so I've left them out.

Yep, I addressed that.

I wonder how much of a stumbling block that is. You wouldn't expect human like tools without hands, but tool use itself shouldn't be off the table completely. Octopi are pretty smart and do make use of their environment, but they don't really build anything "complex" either.

Of course the use of tools is indicative of intelligence, as it demonstrates an ability to process simpler or more efficient methods of accomplishing tasks, but the lack of tool use in a species surely isn't indicative of a lack of intelligence. I only bring up the "what have they done" argument because it seems to be popular among those wanting to lift human intelligence above that of other species. We don't know what whales have done, though--hence the "ego" remark.

You should look into the mating behaviors of dolphins... as for wolves, there is quite a bit of debate about their "surplus" killings. Some want to argue that they are hunting for sport, which would certainly be malicious.

I think I'll do that. As for wolves and what I'd consider a sliding scale of maliciousness when it comes to sport-hunting...well, look at what humans do; hunting with the purpose of adorning walls and floors with remains of animals one has killed with disregard for how the act affects the entirety of the targeted species is far more malicious than observing an abundant--even disproportionate--population and taking action to control it while finding enjoyment in doing so. I think if we're going to attribute one aspect of human behavior, others should at least be considered.

Of course that's looking at malice under the dome of morality. I believe (and feel free to read into the use of that word--I simply find this far more logical than explanations proffered by believers of various theologies, despite a lack of evidence) the moral compass has developed as humankind has evolved, and belief systems have been formed around that construct rather than being applied to us from the start.

Edit: Of course, I use "of course" far too frequently.

 

[Rallywagon]

Yep, I addressed that.


Of course the use of tools is indicative of intelligence, as it demonstrates an ability to process simpler or more efficient methods of accomplishing tasks, but the lack of tool use in a species surely isn't indicative of a lack of intelligence. I only bring up the "what have they done" argument because it seems to be popular among those wanting to lift human intelligence above that of other species. We don't know what whales have done, though--hence the "ego" remark.


I think I'll do that. As for wolves and what I'd consider a sliding scale of maliciousness when it comes to sport-hunting...well, look at what humans do; hunting with the purpose of adorning walls and floors with remains of animals one has killed with disregard for how the act affects the entirety of the targeted species is far more malicious than observing an abundant--even disproportionate--population and taking action to control it while finding enjoyment in doing so. I think if we're going to attribute one aspect of human behavior, others should at least be considered.

Of course that's looking at malice under the dome of morality. I believe (and feel free to read into the use of that word--I simply find this far more logical than explanations proffered by believers of various theologies, despite a lack of evidence) the moral compass has developed as humankind has evolved, and belief systems have been formed around that construct rather than being applied to us from the start.

Edit: Of course, I use "of course" far too frequently.

Personally I think sport/trophy hunting is among the worst acts humans perpetrate. While I am not against hunting when it comes to both conservation and to getting food on the table, in fact I advocate for hunting over factory farming practices (another one of those terrible human acts) hunting for the thrill of killing is gross. I find it no less gross for wolves to do it over humans.

However the original humans in the plains of Africa did go on to build the Empire State Building.

Wow, I mean, the original humans? How did they survive all those years? I mean, jeez, that was what, like 2 million+ years ago? I really need to get on that diet!

I disagree. A city would be as useful for lions as it is for humans. Lions need to compete for resources just like we use to. If they could domesticate their food sources and have them live on controlled farms, it would help them immensely.


Building cities is how humans survive in the wild.




I wonder how much of a stumbling block that is. You wouldn't expect human like tools without hands, but tool use itself shouldn't be off the table completely. Octopi are pretty smart and do make use of their environment, but they don't really build anything "complex" either.

And I will disagree as well. First, building cities isnt how we survive the wild. It nearly completely removes us from the wild. I think it more an evolution from tribalism. Back in the hunter gatherer days, living as a community certainly was something we used to survive the wilds, but we are very far removed at this point, and likely were at the point we began building cities proper. that said forming settlements with huts or tepees or what have you, grew from a number of needs we have. Shelter and protection likely the strongest two reasons. Most of these reasons apex animals, be it wolves, lions, whales, what have you, they don't have a need for these as they evolved to thrive in these conditions. They have fur, or blubber to protect from cold, with special oils to protect from water. They are born with the instincts and tools (ie claws and jaws) to feed themselves. They have what they need to survive. Even primates have these things to include incredible strength. We on the other hand were not. instead we evolved with an abstract intellect and lucky for us, opposable thumbs that allowed us to make up for what we lacked.
So, does that abstract thinking what makes us "smarter?" As we annihilate the world around us with our abstract inventions, I am not so sure.

Speaking of accents and dialects, I believe that's the major hurdle for Apple. They programmed the Blowhole to Text feature based on blue whales and, as we all know, Mr. Dick is white whale. In this age of cultural sensitivity the white whale must be respected. All whales aren't the same after all.

Boy Johnny, I have to say, I dont think I have ever seen you add so little to a discussion before. Seriously.

 

[TexRex]

Personally I think sport/trophy hunting is among the worst acts humans perpetrate. While I am not against hunting when it comes to both conservation and to getting food on the table, in fact I advocate for hunting over factory farming practices (another one of those terrible human acts) hunting for the thrill of killing is gross. I find it no less gross for wolves to do it over humans.

Of course () that's a fair position, and I think that's where the sliding scale comes in.

I just went pheasant hunting last month, and everything I downed has either been prepared and consumed, was processed and currently resides in my garage freezer, or went to my local food co-op. I'm a firm believer in using everything, too, so carcasses became stock, after which the bones went into the chipper along with pomegranate tree suckers, and then into compost with the feathers.

Having said that, I did derive enjoyment from the hunt, but because it was fun as a sport and I was in the company of friends.

 

[Danoff]

how can we know if some of them are not musical geniuses beyond Mozart?

Because we managed to kill so many of them that that they nearly went extinct. If they were smart (like we are, or smarter) they wouldn't be dumb enough to trust their existence to the likes of us.

 

[TexRex]

Because we managed to kill so many of them that that they nearly went extinct.

They might have tried harder to warn us of our impending doom at the hands of the Vogons had we not been such...well...

Spoiler

...dicks.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...only if the people with larger brains are not reproducing. Maybe that was happening 20,000 years ago, but I don't see it happening now.

There have been some interesting studies (reproduced by some researchers but considered erroneous by others) that suggest that the massive modern rise in the number of C-sections is leading to larger crania and/or smaller pelvises amongst some parts of society. Those babies and/or their mothers would not have survived childbirth before C-sections were a common, survivable practice.

 

[Exorcet]

Of course the use of tools is indicative of intelligence, as it demonstrates an ability to process simpler or more efficient methods of accomplishing tasks, but the lack of tool use in a species surely isn't indicative of a lack of intelligence.

Of c Yeah, that is a case where human bias can creep in, as not some of our behaviors and even survival tactics don't revolve around intelligence, but other quirks we have. I've heard it said that Neanderthals might have actually been smarter than us (not sure if this well supported) but our willingness to explore, sometimes recklessly, helped us to spread further than them. I suppose that it's possible that a high intelligence could evolve without much concern for exploration, communication, record keeping, etc. That could disguise their mental capability.

Wow, I mean, the original humans? How did they survive all those years? I mean, jeez, that was what, like 2 million+ years ago? I really need to get on that diet!

No GMO's back then.

I might have not used the best words, but what I wanted to point out was that humans evolved to survive in the roughly the same place as the lions. We were so successful at it that we ended up building cities and even leaving the planet. Lions surviving as they do today isn't really an advantage that they can claim over humans.

And I will disagree as well. First, building cities isnt how we survive the wild. It nearly completely removes us from the wild.

I see where you're coming from, but I find it hard to separate cities from bird nests and ant hills. They're just more complex and built by humans. If you put humans in the wild, you will probably end up with cities. Pre civilization/history humans were still as human as we are today.

Back in the hunter gatherer days, living as a community certainly was something we used to survive the wilds, but we are very far removed at this point, and likely were at the point we began building cities proper. that said forming settlements with huts or tepees or what have you, grew from a number of needs we have. Shelter and protection likely the strongest two reasons. Most of these reasons apex animals, be it wolves, lions, whales, what have you, they don't have a need for these as they evolved to thrive in these conditions.

I don't think the differences are as big as you're making them out to be. Some wolves, lions, whales, etc survived (for now) but some didn't. The same goes for human relatives. Those organisms that died out certainly would have benefited from some form of technology to make up for whatever it was that caused them to die out. For that matter, Earth itself isn't static. In the long run, any given species is probably poorly suited to live on Earth. On average a species may do well for a time but then fail to keep up with their changing environment for one reason or another. The ability to change your environment, or create artificial ones could be argues as a necessity for long term evolutionary fitness.

They have fur, or blubber to protect from cold, with special oils to protect from water. They are born with the instincts and tools (ie claws and jaws) to feed themselves. They have what they need to survive. Even primates have these things to include incredible strength. We on the other hand were not. instead we evolved with an abstract intellect and lucky for us, opposable thumbs that allowed us to make up for what we lacked.
So, does that abstract thinking what makes us "smarter?" As we annihilate the world around us with our abstract inventions, I am not so sure.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If we involved an intellect that other animals don't have, then we're smarter. We're still smarter if we blow ourselves up using that intellect that no other organisms have. On the other hand, having cities, tools, and thumbs isn't necessarily proof that we're smarter, but I wonder consider it strong evidence. Separating intelligence from human psychology can be difficult, but at the end of the day all life is related and all life is shaped by the need to survive. Our abstract thinking has put us in a better place than any other form of life than we know of when it comes to survival. We're also the only species we know of to contemplate making ourselves extinct. Let's also be honest, people are pretty concerned over the health of the world too. No other species seems to be.