Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Edwin Canizalez's avatar

I decided to engage with this thought experiment out of curiosity. I encourage anyone reading this to go ahead and actually read the essay.

I’m sharing my reflections for two reasons: I hope those with deeper expertise can challenge or expand my thinking. I wanted to approach the question from a humanities perspective, and to see how the lens of culture, behavior, and narrative might differ from the point of view of a science SME (something I am not).

The original conclusion asks: Did humans evolve and adapt? Did natural selection still apply?

The answer given is "yes" humans adapted, survived, and passed on their genes. Case closed.

But when I presented this to my imaginary alien, the response shifted. My alien would agree that humans are adaptable. But it would also point to other species, like tardigrades, which survive the vacuum of space, and the immortal jellyfish (Turritopsis dohrnii), which can revert to its juvenile state. These creatures don’t innovate. They endure. And eventually this will become a more influential conditional.

My alien would argue that culture only goes so far. That human intelligence, while impressive, may become a double-edged sword. We don’t mutate: when it gets cold, we manufacture coats from PET turned polyester, wasting water and releasing toxins and heat in the process. We solve problems by creating new ones. Eventually (my alien might predict),  humans will distress the planet beyond repair. And when that happens, it won’t be the most intelligent species that survives. It’ll be the most physically pragmatic. The tardigrade. The smaller parasite outlasting the larger one.

We call it adaptation. My alien calls it survival of the fittest parasite. 

PS: Kudos to roaches, rats and pigeons for their runner up placement. lol 

Thoughts? 

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?