If Humans Went Extinct, Could Another Species Evolve To Occupy Our Niche?

[Magic Poriferan]

I was just riffing off of the Douglas Adams framing. Of which what you said was near the center of the humor.

I know, and I've read the books. I was still pursuing the thought there, anyway.

If you ask me, an individual 'wanting' something and acting on it seems plausibility just as a fallacious way to describe motivating force in a person as it does in the 'progress' of evolution.

That becomes sort of a free will question, doesn't it?

Although, without having to get into the same old debate about whether or not free will exists, I think one can simply say that even if it did exist, it only makes sense as something an individual/organism, would have. Talking about what communities or successive generations will makes little sense even when the concept of free will is accepted.

I don't think evolutionary progresses in the sense of progress meaning getting better or getting more advanced in any objective way. It does progress in the sense of something simply continuing to change over time, and I think the when it comes to human beings developing technology and such, there is an excessively strict distinction between the so-called natural and civilized.

And I'm basically rambling.

 

[Qlip]

I know, and I've read the books. I will still pursuing the thought there, anyway.



That becomes sort of a free will question, doesn't it?

Although, without having to get into the same old debate about whether or not free will exists, I think one can simply say that even if it did exist, it only makes sense as something an individual/organism, would have. Talking about what communities or successive generations will makes little sense even when the concept of free will is accepted.

I don't think evolutionary progresses in the sense of progress meaning getting better or getting more advanced in any objective way. It does progress in the sense of something simply continuing to change over time, and I think the when it comes to human beings developing technology and such, there is an excessively strict distinction between the so-called natural and civilized.

And I'm basically rambling.

I personally have never sensed or been able to divine any absolute in the universe that would indicate 'progress' exists outside of our own preferences, which vary, obviously from person to person. The furthest I've ever been able to go with apprehending the nature of our agency in the universe, and its value is that no matter what IS, I personally have senses of value, and I act on them in a way I perceive as having agency. Basically, "playas gotta play". Though surprisingly, me being in the game means that prefer to embrace the ambivalence of the universe.

I guess I've never really thought about other current cultural views on free will. That'd be an interesting can of worms to open.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I vote for cockroaches. It would be like we never left.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

These guys.

Chimps not only murder

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13727.epdf?referrer_access_token=Lez6LhvPjJf 47uPri2SJDdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NpG5ubYJPB-kwLr549EZvXr0qiQs9XE93AzMrKn-LYbyvCUiU7mJURf40s8On4w1475QGMH7q-coWP1WYM1GYsmHyQqB7jt9F_RtjE1UbXnAaRbXYkI2xdrOA6Fd qxT9A7FBsfRtvHYKVa0KSGNMkT8yl_tK_yQO6_RFSWwMPCCA%3 D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com

they go on territorial patrols to do so, hit squads. Search you tube for chimp patrols. They move in single file relatively quietly and use hand signals. When the leader stops they all stop and listen attentively,
it's eerie how close it resembles human behavior. Chimpanzee Gangs Kill for Land More land = more food. The most brutal of these chimps are in Ngogo, Uganda. They live longer and are the largest known. Uganda's Ngogo chimps live twice as long as other groups | Daily Mail Online and the 'Thug Life' pays off.

Their tribe is thriving and quite large consequently and I think this increased social group size & by extension complexity, will drive further evolution in their brain size & capacity. The Ngogo Chimpanzee Project

The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to be Conscious

In this paper, I explore the idea that consciousness is something that the brain learns to do rather than an intrinsic property of certain neural states and not others. Starting from the idea that neural activity is inherently unconscious, the question thus becomes: How does the brain learn to be conscious? I suggest that consciousness arises as a result of the brain's continuous attempts at predicting not only the consequences of its actions on the world and on other agents, but also the consequences of activity in one cerebral region on activity in other regions. By this account, the brain continuously and unconsciously learns to redescribe its own activity to itself, so developing systems of meta-representations that characterize and qualify the target first-order representations. Such learned redescriptions, enriched by the emotional value associated with them, form the basis of conscious experience. Learning and plasticity are thus central to consciousness, to the extent that experiences only occur in experiencers that have learned to know they possess certain first-order states and that have learned to care more about certain states than about others. This is what I call the “Radical Plasticity Thesis.” In a sense thus, this is the enactive perspective, but turned both inwards and (further) outwards. Consciousness involves “signal detection on the mind”; the conscious mind is the brain's (non-conceptual, implicit) theory about itself. I illustrate these ideas through neural network models that simulate the relationships between performance and awareness in different tasks.


We already know that chimps are self aware, but they are also 'death' aware. https://www.livescience.com/6335-chimps-understand-mourn-death-research-suggests.html

P.S. [MENTION=19700]Anaximander[/MENTION] you might also like this: http://ngogochimpanzeeproject.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Muehlenbein-et-al.-2004.pdf

In an attempt to describe hormone–behavior interactions in a sample of wild male chimpanzees, we quantified testosterone in 67 fecal samples obtained from 22 adult male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. A mixed-model methodology that controlled for age-class identified a significant positive association between testosterone levels and dominance rank. The results are consistent with those reported from a separate, smaller chimpanzee community in the same population in a study that analyzed testosterone levels in urine [Muller & Wrangham, 2004]. As in that earlier study, our results held during a period of social stability, which is not consistent with predictions of the ‘‘challenge hypothesis.’’ We concur with Muller and Wrangham [2004] that the challenge hypothesis requires modification to explain the chimpanzee data, because fission-fusion sociality in chimpanzees makes challenges unpredictable. We also discuss the utility of fecal samples and a mixedmodel statistical method for behavioral endocrinology studies. Am. J. Primatol. 64:71–82, 2004. r 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Cliff notes version of last study: Correlations between dominance hierarchy, testosterone levels & reproductive success. Apparently female chimps like thugs. Go figure.

 

[á´…eparted]

Here, here. I throw Bears into the hat for candicacy to inherit the civilized world.

Because Bears.

...what are you smoking (and can I have some)?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

These guys.

Chimps not only murder

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13727.epdf?referrer_access_token=Lez6LhvPjJf 47uPri2SJDdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NpG5ubYJPB-kwLr549EZvXr0qiQs9XE93AzMrKn-LYbyvCUiU7mJURf40s8On4w1475QGMH7q-coWP1WYM1GYsmHyQqB7jt9F_RtjE1UbXnAaRbXYkI2xdrOA6Fd qxT9A7FBsfRtvHYKVa0KSGNMkT8yl_tK_yQO6_RFSWwMPCCA%3 D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com

they go on territorial patrols to do so, hit squads. Search you tube for chimp patrols. They move in single file relatively quietly and use hand signals. When the leader stops they all stop and listen attentively,
it's eerie how close it resembles human behavior. Chimpanzee Gangs Kill for Land More land = more food. The most brutal of these chimps are in Ngogo, Uganda. They live longer and are the largest known. Uganda's Ngogo chimps live twice as long as other groups | Daily Mail Online and the 'Thug Life' pays off.

Their tribe is thriving and quite large consequently and I think this increased social group size & by extension complexity, will drive further evolution in their brain size & capacity. The Ngogo Chimpanzee Project

The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to be Conscious

In this paper, I explore the idea that consciousness is something that the brain learns to do rather than an intrinsic property of certain neural states and not others. Starting from the idea that neural activity is inherently unconscious, the question thus becomes: How does the brain learn to be conscious? I suggest that consciousness arises as a result of the brain's continuous attempts at predicting not only the consequences of its actions on the world and on other agents, but also the consequences of activity in one cerebral region on activity in other regions. By this account, the brain continuously and unconsciously learns to redescribe its own activity to itself, so developing systems of meta-representations that characterize and qualify the target first-order representations. Such learned redescriptions, enriched by the emotional value associated with them, form the basis of conscious experience. Learning and plasticity are thus central to consciousness, to the extent that experiences only occur in experiencers that have learned to know they possess certain first-order states and that have learned to care more about certain states than about others. This is what I call the “Radical Plasticity Thesis.” In a sense thus, this is the enactive perspective, but turned both inwards and (further) outwards. Consciousness involves “signal detection on the mind”; the conscious mind is the brain's (non-conceptual, implicit) theory about itself. I illustrate these ideas through neural network models that simulate the relationships between performance and awareness in different tasks.


We already know that chimps are self aware, but they are also 'death' aware. https://www.livescience.com/6335-chimps-understand-mourn-death-research-suggests.html

P.S. [MENTION=19700]Anaximander[/MENTION] you might also like this: http://ngogochimpanzeeproject.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Muehlenbein-et-al.-2004.pdf

In an attempt to describe hormone–behavior interactions in a sample of wild male chimpanzees, we quantified testosterone in 67 fecal samples obtained from 22 adult male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. A mixed-model methodology that controlled for age-class identified a significant positive association between testosterone levels and dominance rank. The results are consistent with those reported from a separate, smaller chimpanzee community in the same population in a study that analyzed testosterone levels in urine [Muller & Wrangham, 2004]. As in that earlier study, our results held during a period of social stability, which is not consistent with predictions of the ‘‘challenge hypothesis.’’ We concur with Muller and Wrangham [2004] that the challenge hypothesis requires modification to explain the chimpanzee data, because fission-fusion sociality in chimpanzees makes challenges unpredictable. We also discuss the utility of fecal samples and a mixedmodel statistical method for behavioral endocrinology studies. Am. J. Primatol. 64:71–82, 2004. r 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Cliff notes version of last study: Correlations between dominance hierarchy, testosterone levels & reproductive success. Apparently female chimps like thugs. Go figure.

Chimp thug life! Love it.

Chimpanzees have basically entered their own Stone Age. It's just humans stemming further development at this point. Thanks for the links

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Chimpanzees have basically entered their own Stone Age. It's just humans stemming further development at this point. Thanks for the links

The same may actually be true for African elephants.

 

[rav3n]

Since the majority of intelligent species are seasonal breeders, not likely unless they mutate to become fertile year round.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Actually humans don't even have to go extinct for other species to become fully intelligent. As a metter of fact that is probably unavoidable in the upcoming milions of years if humans don't destroy everything, since life came to the point that various species can develope advanced intelligence. (humans were simply the first to do so)

 

[Atomic Fiend]

...what are you smoking (and can I have some)?

Not even tangentially the strangest thing I've said.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The same may actually be true for African elephants.

Aha! Elephants Can Use Insight to Solve Problems | Science | AAAS

I think we downplay intelligence in some other species, because we use ourselves as a reference point or example, and I've seen people chalk animal tool use and problem solving up to instinct, as though humans were a unique and special driven by some magical super-instinct not possessed by other animals. I don't mean to sell humans short, but I don't think we're particularly remarkable compared to other animals; we're just hairless apes who've been good at adapting to different conditions and exploiting our environments to ensure maximum comfort and survival.

Launching rockets to the moon...driven by the same impulse as a stone-age hominid lobbing rocks at the top of a tree.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Aha! Elephants Can Use Insight to Solve Problems | Science | AAAS

Did you know they also display death rituals? Amazing creature the African elephant. Beautiful plumage.

I think we downplay intelligence in some other species, because we use ourselves as a reference point or example, and I've seen people chalk animal tool use and problem solving up to instinct, as though humans were a unique and special driven by some magical super-instinct not possessed by other animals. I don't mean to sell humans short, but I don't think we're particularly remarkable compared to other animals; we're just hairless apes who've been good at adapting to different conditions and exploiting our environments to ensure maximum comfort and survival.

Launching rockets to the moon...driven by the same impulse as a stone-age hominid lobbing rocks at the top of a tree.

Well, I mean, I have something of an axe to grind against chimps. I've been saying for years that I think they receive an excessive amount of focus and may not really be the best subjects. Other animals have not only equaled them, some species have veritably surpassed chimps in various measures of intelligence. Even some monkeys, which we rather crudely think of as more primitive versions of the same kind of thing (but of course that's a very wrong way to think about this). And it's not just intelligence, it's temperament. If you're going to work with an ape, why not an orangutan? Those things are actually nice. Chimps are bastards. And there are so many other things to consider, like how parrots can actually speak while chimps can't. And I definitely think you're right that all of this is driven by a simplistic assumption, that because we are the supposed paragon of intelligence, and chimps are our closest relatives on earth, then chimps must be the best candidate for intelligence in another species. But that's just not how evolution works.

And I do think humans definitely latch onto an excessive belief in their own exceptionalism. But knowing exactly how to negotiate that can be harder than it looks. I hate to bring another, often fraught, topic into this, but it comes to the subject of instinctual behavior in humans. As many may know, I belief a lot in human plasticity, and acquired traits. I'm not very impressed with genetically deterministic explanations about human psychology. Sadly, sometimes the argument that humans aren't really that special is used as step toward promoting genetically deterministic psychology. I could see that causing other people who believe similarly as me to hesitate, and maybe give them another incentive to cling to human exceptionalism. I solve this by doing it the other way around. Maybe other species are a lot more psychologically plastic than we give them credit for. I'm sure of it, really. Not to over-generalize. Clearly there are a ton of species who really do just sort of gestate with a brain (or a brainless nervous system) that pretty much remains unchanged for the rest of its life, and only adjusts through multi-generational mutations. We could even generalize about what those tend to be like (say, a lot of arthropods). But I think a lot of species are quite plastic. And it stands to reason that the human degree of plasticity could not have come out of no where, just emerged in its entirety somewhere between homo erectus and homo sapien or some crap like that. That's unrealistic.

But all of that human plasticity stuff aside, there is a point about humans doing something no other organism on earth has ever done. It's really hard to deny that. What can be denied is that it says something is fundamentally unique, no less superior, about our minds. It's possible that many organisms have and do have the mind necessary for these achievements, but by luck alone, were simply never struck with the circumstantial catalysts that made us the ones to do it. In that case, it's not so much about what we are like as it is about being in the right time and place. It could also have to do with some things about us, but not our mind. As I said earlier in the thread, I think free manipulators are important for a species to develop technology, and we have those thanks to our ancestral monkey hands and our newer feature of being bipedal. So that's something about us, but not our minds. Here's yet another thought, what if fire is so important for developing at least to a neolithic level that no marine animals can ever do it? What if, no matter how smart a dolphin or an octopus becomes, the water is just not a good place for developing technology?

Suffice to say, there are so many plausible factors, but people zero in with great confidence on the one that makes them feel best about themselves. As usual.

 

[Ashtart]

I find quite fascinating how people can deviate quickly from the original topic of the thread. lol.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Did you know they also display death rituals? Amazing creature the African elephant. Beautiful plumage.



Well, I mean, I have something of an axe to grind against chimps. I've been saying for years that I think they receive an excessive amount of focus and may not really be the best subjects. Other animals have not only equaled them, some species have veritably surpassed chimps in various measures of intelligence. Even some monkeys, which we rather crudely think of as more primitive versions of the same kind of thing (but of course that's a very wrong way to think about this). And it's not just intelligence, it's temperament. If you're going to work with an ape, why not an orangutan? Those things are actually nice. Chimps are bastards. And there are so many other things to consider, like how parrots can actually speak while chimps can't. And I definitely think you're right that all of this is driven by a simplistic assumption, that because we are the supposed paragon of intelligence, and chimps are our closest relatives on earth, then chimps must be the best candidate for intelligence in another species. But that's just not how evolution works.

And I do think humans definitely latch onto an excessive belief in their own exceptionalism. But knowing exactly how to negotiate that can be harder than it looks. I hate to bring another, often fraught, topic into this, but it comes to the subject of instinctual behavior in humans. As many may know, I belief a lot in human plasticity, and acquired traits. I'm not very impressed with genetically deterministic explanations about human psychology. Sadly, sometimes the argument that humans aren't really that special is used as step toward promoting genetically deterministic psychology. I could see that causing other people who believe similarly as me to hesitate, and maybe give them another incentive to cling to human exceptionalism. I solve this by doing it the other way around. Maybe other species are a lot more psychologically plastic than we give them credit for. I'm sure of it, really. Not to over-generalize. Clearly there are a ton of species who really do just sort of gestate with a brain (or a brainless nervous system) that pretty much remains unchanged for the rest of its life, and only adjusts through multi-generational mutations. We could even generalize about what those tend to be like (say, a lot of arthropods). But I think a lot of species are quite plastic. And it stands to reason that the human degree of plasticity could not have come out of no where, just emerged in its entirety somewhere between homo erectus and homo sapien or some crap like that. That's unrealistic.

But all of that human plasticity stuff aside, there is a point about humans doing something no other organism on earth has ever done. It's really hard to deny that. What can be denied is that it says something is fundamentally unique, no less superior, about our minds. It's possible that many organisms have and do have the mind necessary for these achievements, but by luck alone, were simply never struck with the circumstantial catalysts that made us the ones to do it. In that case, it's not so much about what we are like as it is about being in the right time and place. It could also have to do with some things about us, but not our mind. As I said earlier in the thread, I think free manipulators are important for a species to develop technology, and we have those thanks to our ancestral monkey hands and our newer feature of being bipedal. So that's something about us, but not our minds. Here's yet another thought, what if fire is so important for developing at least to a neolithic level that no marine animals can ever do it? What if, no matter how smart a dolphin or an octopus becomes, the water is just not a good place for developing technology?

Suffice to say, there are so many plausible factors, but people zero in with great confidence on the one that makes them feel best about themselves. As usual.

You know I was going to mention elephants possible displaying religious impulses but I wasn't sure if that had been confirmed. I'd read about elephant graveyards and elephants showing an interest in paying some sort of tribute to their deceased family members. I don't see why spiritualism or some basic form of it couldn't be exhibited in other mammals though.

Agree on chimps, but I suppose people pay extra close attention to them given how much we share in common with their DNA.

Personally, I have always been more partial to Gorillas and Orangutans. Gorillas are insanely intelligent and can be quite gentle for their size. I think the old school Planet of the Apes films had it backwards..Chimpanzees were the scientific/rational minded ones in that society and Gorillas the militant, aggressive ones, but in real life I see it more of the reverse if we're comparing them to human nature.

Orangutans are goofballs, I took my son to the DC zoo and we were cracking up watching an older one cover himself in hay and place a newspaper over his head.

I agree circumstance and the right conditions are pretty influential in any species development. Change any number of conditions for our hominid ancestors and things could have progressed along a number of different paths.

- - - Updated - - -

I find quite fascinating how people can deviate quickly from the original topic of the thread. lol.

I think that's part of the fun in these type of discussions.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

You know I was going to mention elephants possible displaying religious impulses but I wasn't sure if that had been confirmed. I'd read about elephant graveyards and elephants showing an interest in paying some sort of tribute to their deceased family members. I don't see why spiritualism or some basic form of it couldn't be exhibited in other mammals though.

The also seem to greet elephant skulls like they do living elephants, by putting the trunk in the mouth.

Agree on chimps, but I suppose people pay extra close attention to them given how much we share in common with their DNA.

Indeed. That's exactly it. But I'm thinking it's actually not a very valid indicator.

Personally, I have always been more partial to Gorillas and Orangutans. Gorillas are insanely intelligent and can be quite gentle for their size. I think the old school Planet of the Apes films had it backwards..Chimpanzees were the scientific/rational minded ones in that society and Gorillas the militant, aggressive ones, but in real life I see it more of the reverse if we're comparing them to human nature.

Oh, absolutely. Chimps are by far the most violent and aggressive of the family. They are also the only ones (other than humans) to hunt animals and eat meat sometimes. There is an interesting exception, of course, with the pygmy chimp, aka, the bonobo, which is considerably less violent than the common chimp and has way more sex.

Orangutans are goofballs, I took my son to the DC zoo and we were cracking up watching an older one cover himself in hay and place a newspaper over his head.

Too bad they are the nearest to exctinction.

I agree circumstance and the right conditions are pretty influential in any species development. Change any number of conditions for our hominid ancestors and things could have progressed along a number of different paths.

Ain't that always the way? I think, whether it be evolution, or recent human history, our tendency is to retroactively create a deterministic narrative for something that was a lot of dumb luck.

I think that's part of the fun in these type of discussions.

I also have to say that the transition is quite coherent. I think anyone that looks at the first post and the last post could still see how they are related, and our current conversation still speaks to the question in the OP. What does it mean to be advanced and how does on get there?

Also, this is way better than most digressions on this forum. Usually they happen because someone has a stake in an argument, and then says some dumb non-sequitur to score rhetorical points, and then the discussion ends up being about that.

 

[Korvinagor]

And thus, the world of Furries, once only imagined by the downtrodden and dejected of the internet, was fully realised...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

(I kid, I kid.)
​

It's an interesting thought at least.

 

[MyCupOfTea]

I'm voting bacteria which takes over the brains and minds of other living creatures.

 

[rav3n]

I'm voting bacteria which takes over the brains and minds of other living creatures.

They already control their environment which includes people and animals so there's really no benefit to upping their control.

There's a study from 2016 which proved an absence of a specific species of gut bacteria can lead to ASD-like behavioural deficits in mice. They're looking into its potential for treating people with ASD. A mucho exciting discovery!

A single species of gut bacteria can reverse autism-related social behavior in mice -- ScienceDaily

Also, scientists are theorising that our food cravings have nothing to do with a deficit in our body. It's what our gut bacteria are craving/wish to consume.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

And thus, the world of Furries, once only imagined by the downtrodden and dejected of the internet, was fully realised...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

(I kid, I kid.)
​

It's an interesting thought at least.

It's like seeing the Argonian females with breast in Skyrim

I used to play as an Argonian female

 

[Typh0n]

If humans were suddenly wiped out but all other species on Earth survived, do you think another would eventually evolve to a similar state and take over our niche? Could one of the apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, etc) evolve over several million years to a level comparable to our current development, and if so, would they look similar to modern Humans and have similar civilizations? If not apes, could birds or another species evolve to occupy the niche left open by extinct humans? What would an advanced birdrace civilization look like; would they even build a civilization comparable to ours without opposable thumbs? What about sealife, do you think there are any ocean-dwelling species that could potentially evolve to build underwater civilizations? Could another mammalian branch eventually evolve to our level of sentience and beyond? Superadvanced cat people? Dog people? Etc? What about rats or raccoons? Could they evolve to an intelligent bipedal species?

I realize technically species don't evolve into more advanced versions of themselves but rather deveop and adapt over time to the point that branchoffs aren't even the same species, but humor me. I want to know if super-intelligent Cat people and reptilians and etc. is a possibility.Vould any species follow a path, via convergent evolution, to develop into intelligent bidedal organisms?

Also do you think it's possible on Earth or a hypothetical life-supporting planet for multiple super-intelligent species to evolve at the same time? Our own evidence would suggest no, as there were several species oh intelligent hominids at one point, but homo sapiens won out, but could it be possible, like the Xindi from Star Trek Enterprise? If they developed in relative isolation from one another, I don't see why not. Imagine for example an advanced bird-like race and an advanced cat-like race occupying separate continents.

This may sound nuts, however I personally do not believe civilization is a result of evolution and natural selection. It is caused by something non-natural, as is our capacity to build civilizations. I agree with Mole here (almost) in that natural selection is not teleological, it does not tend towards consciousness. I think Mole was saying that to mean that there is no reason to suspect any species would replace us, but the logical conclusion we should draw from Mole's statement is that since consciousness is not a result of evolution, it must be the result of something else. I don't know what, though, there are varying theories and models concerning the non-natural theory of consciousness. If we see consciousness as a non-natural experience in itself, it must have been caused by something non-natural. The problem with this theory, and the reason it sounds nuts, is because don't know what this cause is, and thus have to fill in the blanks with our imagination.

If a birdrace were to replace us, which I don't see as impossible, I don't think they would need oppossable thumbs necessarily, they can do other things which their morphology allows them to, but they would have to acquire the level of sapience we currently have (and don't always use very well btw).