What would you have accomplished?

[Lestat]

If I were the only person on earth since the beginning of man, I wonder what I would've come up with by now. Say the population growth remained the same, but everyone was just like me.. No more or less intelligent.

I'd like to think I would've come up with the wheel by now. Maybe a few other things, but you definitely wouldn't be reading this on the internet right now! I don't think you'd be riding in a car or an airplane either. Maybe a bicycle though.

What about you? If every human from the beginning of time had exactly your intellect, what would the world look like now? What would our lives be like?

On second thought, I remember a post just like this. I apologize if this is too similar. I'm just reflecting out loud. Sorry. How important have the SUPER genuises been in the lives we lead today?

[madnak]

People would just sit around having sex and stuff.

I'm way too lazy to actually get anything done.

[surftheiop]

I think it would be pretty imposible to make progress by yourself. It seems most progress comes from people disagreeing on the best/most efficient way to do something. It also would be tough because there would be no competition between people.
Who knows though im sure eventually id get lucky and stumble on something usefull.
-Good topic for discussion i think

[bunny]

I think you would have accomplished much more than you give yourselves credit for. If there were millions of you, they would diversify and specialise in different areas - I doubt your mindset limits you to only being suited to one job.

I also think that the "great leaps" of geniuses are often just great because they are early - it is very common that when the great ideas eventuate there are plenty of people around at the time working on similar stuff (some examples - Newton's (?) calculus, Einstein's relativity, Darwin's evolution). So even if you are a non-genius (I'm accepting the existence of geniuses for this post but dont think it's a meaningful term in actuality) I think a world of yous will make the discoveries eventually - just a little slower perhaps.

[guesswest]

I'd suggest that the idea of multiple 'you's doesn't make sense. They'd all become different people as a result of their different experiences.

To that end, since we know you definitely have well above average intelligence based on your posts here, I suspect we'd be going to work in hovercars.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd suggest that the idea of multiple 'you's doesn't make sense. They'd all become different people as a result of their different experiences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood - as I read Lestat's post they wouldnt all be identical personality-wise but would all be "identical" in intellectual potential or something...?

[ QUOTE ]
To that end, since we know you definitely have well above average intelligence based on your posts here, I suspect we'd be going to work in hovercars.

[/ QUOTE ]
And thankyou for the compliment but I can assure you my capacity for dumbness is astonishing....

[guesswest]

Well, I'd say this question comes down to whether greater progress is achieved by the sporadic genius, or the highest common demoninator in terms of intellect. I'd suggest the latter, since we all understand concepts that were formulated at some point in time by 'geniuses'. I think a society that boasts the odd Newton mixed with a great many idiots would progress slower than one populated exclusively by reasonably intelligent people.

And you can't impress me with your dumbness - you're talking to a guy who killed his petrol engine car by filling it with diesel.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd say this question comes down to whether greater progress is achieved by the sporadic genius, or the highest commpn demoninator in terms of intellect. I'd suggest the latter, since we all understand concepts that were formulated at some point in time by 'geniuses'. I think a society that boasts the odd Newton mixed with a great many idiots would progress slower than one populated exclusively by reasonably intelligent people.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.


[ QUOTE ]
And you can't impress me with your dumbness - you're talking to a guy who killed his petrol engine car by filling it with diesel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hah! I did that first! Except mine was a Government car borrowed on the sly to help out the community group I was working for. So we had to go back to the friendly public servant who had lent it to us and tell him it had collapsed 1000km away in the middle of the Australian Outback - that was an enjoyable conversation /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
What about you? If every human from the beginning of time had exactly your intellect, what would the world look like now? What would our lives be like?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://crash.neotope.com/images/jennifergovernment.jpg

[madnak]

Even if I got off my ass, all the mes would just start arguing about who has to do the menial labor.

[Lestat]

I should also have specified personality. I am (or was?), a very ambitious person. I think ambition accomplishes some things that intellect can't.

You might be right that I'm not giving myself enough credit, but honestly... I can look around and there are things I don't think I'd have thought of in a million years! How long has man been around?




[ QUOTE ]
I think you would have accomplished much more than you give yourselves credit for. If there were millions of you, they would diversify and specialise in different areas - I doubt your mindset limits you to only being suited to one job.

I also think that the "great leaps" of geniuses are often just great because they are early - it is very common that when the great ideas eventuate there are plenty of people around at the time working on similar stuff (some examples - Newton's (?) calculus, Einstein's relativity, Darwin's evolution). So even if you are a non-genius (I'm accepting the existence of geniuses for this post but dont think it's a meaningful term in actuality) I think a world of yous will make the discoveries eventually - just a little slower perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd suggest that the idea of multiple 'you's doesn't make sense. They'd all become different people as a result of their different experiences.

To that end, since we know you definitely have well above average intelligence based on your posts here, I suspect we'd be going to work in hovercars.

[/ QUOTE ]

-lol

As I told Bunny I left out a very important specification. I should've included personality along with intellect. I used to consider myself an extremely ambitious person. Some people are not prone to motivation. So I take your point, but if I specify personality and consider the different you's (or me's) might develop different cultures and beliefs, can we at least make a guess at what the world would be like?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd suggest that the idea of multiple 'you's doesn't make sense. They'd all become different people as a result of their different experiences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood - as I read Lestat's post they wouldnt all be identical personality-wise but would all be "identical" in intellectual potential or something...?

[ QUOTE ]
To that end, since we know you definitely have well above average intelligence based on your posts here, I suspect we'd be going to work in hovercars.

[/ QUOTE ]
And thankyou for the compliment but I can assure you my capacity for dumbness is astonishing....

[/ QUOTE ]


Well I was thinking that personality wouldn't change or maybe I'm not terming it right. I suppose culture and environment would effect personality. But then I'd ask you to extrapolate and take that into consideration. So...

If one Bunny were made a slave laborer then he would have accomplished _____. And if another Bunny were born into royality, he would've accomplished _____.

Then again, would there ever have been slavery if everyone was a Bunny? I suppose it all gets very complicated. What I was basically referring to was everyone having the same intellect AND mental make up of myself or whoever is contemplating the question for themselves.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I should also have specified personality. I am (or was?), a very ambitious person. I think ambition accomplishes some things that intellect can't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree it is necessary - but laziness seems much easier nowadays than it used to (especially in very primitive societies) so I dont think a culture which didnt progress very far would have the time to lounge around being lazy.

[ QUOTE ]
You might be right that I'm not giving myself enough credit, but honestly... I can look around and there are things I don't think I'd have thought of in a million years! How long has man been around?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is something I believe with a shred of evidence (I've done a fair amount of teaching) but not much - anyone can understand anything. I think ambition crops up here again, in that if you dont want to you will never grasp complex ideas, but nonetheless I dont think we have thought of anything that anyone cannot understand with enough time and passion.

[bunny]

Surely a market would evolve, there'd be a gleam in your collective eyes and .... paradise!

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be pretty imposible to make progress by yourself. It seems most progress comes from people disagreeing on the best/most efficient way to do something. It also would be tough because there would be no competition between people.
Who knows though im sure eventually id get lucky and stumble on something usefull.
-Good topic for discussion i think

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a very good point! When I used to have heated arguments with my business partner I used to say it was a good thing. If we never argued then it meant one of us was unnecessary! -lol

I should've put more thought into how I meant this. Do I mean clones? If so, I agree with you. It would be very difficult to make progress. But what if I said, same intellect and mental make up, but different people? Does that change things enough for progress to be made?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
People would just sit around having sex and stuff.

I'm way too lazy to actually get anything done.

[/ QUOTE ]

-lol. Nice.

But take a serious stab. Do you honestly think the human race would've became extinct if all people had your intellect and mental make up? I seriously wonder if that would be the case with me. I certainly can't say for sure that it's not. A disturbing thought about me I guess.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I was thinking that personality wouldn't change or maybe I'm not terming it right. I suppose culture and environment would effect personality. But then I'd ask you to extrapolate and take that into consideration. So...

If one Bunny were made a slave laborer then he would have accomplished _____. And if another Bunny were born into royality, he would've accomplished _____.

Then again, would there ever have been slavery if everyone was a Bunny? I suppose it all gets very complicated. What I was basically referring to was everyone having the same intellect AND mental make up of myself or whoever is contemplating the question for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find this hard since I am so unmotivated by physical comfort and enjoy intellectual challenges - so I imagine some sparse, functional, scientifically adventurous society....Yet I think so much of my makeup is social - if I were a tribesman I bet I'd prefer to think of a clever way to catch a mammoth than whether 2 rocks and 2 rocks always equals 4 rocks....So probably the society would evolve along similar lines to the way our current one did....I'm thinking in circles now.

Basically though I dont think geniuses are particularly necessary - I think they exist largely because we like celebrities and a good story, not because they were particularly better than the rest of us.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely a market would evolve, there'd be a gleam in your collective eyes and .... paradise!

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, I'm only an ACer so I can take advantage of the freeloader problem.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Surely a market would evolve, there'd be a gleam in your collective eyes and .... paradise!

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, I'm only an ACer so I can take advantage of the freeloader problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
But take a serious stab. Do you honestly think the human race would've became extinct if all people had your intellect and mental make up? I seriously wonder if that would be the case with me. I certainly can't say for sure that it's not. A disturbing thought about me I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really know how to begin speculating. A million years of me? I think probably we would be far more advanced than current society. This is for a variety of reasons.

I'm pretty smart, and have a good grasp of technology, so I could probably have invented most things - eventually. I'm pretty peaceful, so wars wouldn't have taken up so many resources. We'd have "all just gotten along" from the start. Finally, all the uncertainty of human nature would be eliminated. We would be able to rely on each other and predict each other's action, since all of our personalities would be the same! That would make for some damn good teamwork. I've often said that if I could work together with a couple of "me-clones" I could get a lot done.

But while I think it might be more advanced, I also think it would be very different. Alien to the point that it would horrify me if I saw it. A world modeled around me? Didn't you ever watch that episode of Seinfeld?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Didn't you ever watch that episode of Seinfeld? </font>

No! And I'm a big Seinfeld fan. ??

But this is where it gets interesting. Aren't wars necessary in an evolutionary kind of way? Without wars, might not the Neanderthals have prevailed?

I hate war, but wonder if it's not necessary. Also, are you saying you have zero greed? I think everyone holding the exact same values might make war MORE common, not less. This is because resources can never be exactly matched or equaled all over the globe.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
But this is where it gets interesting. Aren't wars necessary in an evolutionary kind of way? Without wars, might not the Neanderthals have prevailed?


[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a misconception (speaking outside my specialty though - again! so beware) I think neanderthals may have "prevailed" in the same sense that lions have. There may be different species around but that doesnt detract from our existence.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Didn't you ever watch that episode of Seinfeld? </font>

No! And I'm a big Seinfeld fan. ??

[/ QUOTE ]

"I can't date someone like me! I hate me!"

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But this is where it gets interesting. Aren't wars necessary in an evolutionary kind of way? Without wars, might not the Neanderthals have prevailed?


[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a misconception (speaking outside my specialty though - again! so beware) I think neanderthals may have "prevailed" in the same sense that lions have. There may be different species around but that doesnt detract from our existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm no expert either, but I think we were surely in competition for the same resources. Living on the same planet as monkeys is one thing, but can you imagine living next door to a Neanderthal? We are talking about the 2nd most intelligent species to ever have existed in the known universe (as far as we know). They had tools, could build fires, etc.

No... They had to go! It was either them or us. Maybe it was our greed, but either way I don't think the world was big enough to co-exist side by side with Neanderthals for very long. But again, I'm not an expert either and could easily be wrong.

[Copernicus]

I dont think things would be very different, at least with regard to day to day life.

Most advances in science/math/technology have been incremental, not great intuitive leaps, and those that have been great intuitive leaps (that may require some sort of "genius") tend to be more theoretical than practical.

Eg, other than the socio-political impact of the bomb, we would function quite well using Lestat's Laws of Motion and without special relativity.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think things would be very different, at least with regard to day to day life.

Most advances in science/math/technology have been incremental, not great intuitive leaps, and those that have been great intuitive leaps (that may require some sort of "genius") tend to be more theoretical than practical.

Eg, other than the socio-political impact of the bomb, we would function quite well using Lestat's Laws of Motion and without special relativity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think most people given enough time, would eventually have came up with a workable design for the cumbustion engine? I'm not sure I'd have come up with that for another million years! Of course, as Bunny pointed out I could be underestimating the power of multiple me's.

[Copernicus]

Yes. I think "you" would have. The ICE is incremental to the recognition that controlled explosions move objects a predictable amount. Controlled explosions are incremental to uncontrolled explosions etc.

[madnak]

A million years is a long, long, long time. Especially if there are a bunch of you. The internal combustion engine isn't so dramatic, really. I don't think you can imagine what you'd think of given a million years to do it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
A million years is a long, long, long time. Especially if there are a bunch of you. The internal combustion engine isn't so dramatic, really. I don't think you can imagine what you'd think of given a million years to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But don't you think you'd at least have to have an inquisitive mind? I understand that surroundings and cultures effect personality, but you either have a curious mind or you don't. I happen to have one, but some do not. For instance, I can think of people who I would almost guarantee would have us back in the stone ages if all human devolpement were up to them.

I've got a buddy of mine and I love the guy, but he couldn't figure out how a hammer and nail work together if he wasn't shown.

I know a girl who's incredibly sweet, but also very shallow in an existential sense. You can't talk to her about religion, the universe, etc. She just doesn't see past her own nose. If it's not in front of her, it may as well not exist.

I seriously wonder how far advanced we'd be if our developement were up to them.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A million years is a long, long, long time. Especially if there are a bunch of you. The internal combustion engine isn't so dramatic, really. I don't think you can imagine what you'd think of given a million years to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But don't you think you'd at least have to have an inquisitive mind? I understand that surroundings and cultures effect personality, but you either have a curious mind or you don't. I happen to have one, but some do not. For instance, I can think of people who I would almost guarantee would have us back in the stone ages if all human devolpement were up to them.

I've got a buddy of mine and I love the guy, but he couldn't figure out how a hammer and nail work together if he wasn't shown.

I know a girl who's incredibly sweet, but also very shallow in an existential sense. You can't talk to her about religion, the universe, etc. She just doesn't see past her own nose. If it's not in front of her, it may as well not exist.

I seriously wonder how far advanced we'd be if our developement were up to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hesistate to initiate a hijack, since I've been enjoying the break, but I think evolutionary pressures will operate to encourage curiousity and innovation.

[guesswest]

Don't forget you can also positively influence society by not inventing certain things - car bras, elevator music, urinal advertising, jaywalking, cat clothes etc.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]


I know a girl who's incredibly sweet, but also very shallow in an existential sense. You can't talk to her about religion, the universe, etc. She just doesn't see past her own nose. If it's not in front of her, it may as well not exist.

I seriously wonder how far advanced we'd be if our developement were up to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds perfect..is she cute?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I hesistate to initiate a hijack, since I've been enjoying the break, but I think evolutionary pressures will operate to encourage curiousity and innovation. </font>

Well that brings up a good point. I'm sure there are people who's intellect, curiosity, or motivation, would've left the human race extinct.

As I said earlier, I have doubts we'd have made it under my intellect.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I know a girl who's incredibly sweet, but also very shallow in an existential sense. You can't talk to her about religion, the universe, etc. She just doesn't see past her own nose. If it's not in front of her, it may as well not exist.

I seriously wonder how far advanced we'd be if our developement were up to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds perfect..is she cute?

[/ QUOTE ]

She's smokin! And I think that contributes to the shallowness. It's ok to put up with for while, but have you ever tried dealing with such a girl long term? It's frustrating to say the least. I couldn't handle it, but we're at least still friends. Sort of...

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A million years is a long, long, long time. Especially if there are a bunch of you. The internal combustion engine isn't so dramatic, really. I don't think you can imagine what you'd think of given a million years to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But don't you think you'd at least have to have an inquisitive mind? I understand that surroundings and cultures effect personality, but you either have a curious mind or you don't. I happen to have one, but some do not. For instance, I can think of people who I would almost guarantee would have us back in the stone ages if all human devolpement were up to them.

I've got a buddy of mine and I love the guy, but he couldn't figure out how a hammer and nail work together if he wasn't shown.

I know a girl who's incredibly sweet, but also very shallow in an existential sense. You can't talk to her about religion, the universe, etc. She just doesn't see past her own nose. If it's not in front of her, it may as well not exist.

I seriously wonder how far advanced we'd be if our developement were up to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hesistate to initiate a hijack, since I've been enjoying the break, but I think evolutionary pressures will operate to encourage curiousity and innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where would the selective advantage come from? Unless there were competition for resources between the "innovative" and the "dull" where innovation were more imporant than brute force Im not seeing much evolutionary push/pull.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A million years is a long, long, long time. Especially if there are a bunch of you. The internal combustion engine isn't so dramatic, really. I don't think you can imagine what you'd think of given a million years to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But don't you think you'd at least have to have an inquisitive mind? I understand that surroundings and cultures effect personality, but you either have a curious mind or you don't. I happen to have one, but some do not. For instance, I can think of people who I would almost guarantee would have us back in the stone ages if all human devolpement were up to them.

I've got a buddy of mine and I love the guy, but he couldn't figure out how a hammer and nail work together if he wasn't shown.

I know a girl who's incredibly sweet, but also very shallow in an existential sense. You can't talk to her about religion, the universe, etc. She just doesn't see past her own nose. If it's not in front of her, it may as well not exist.

I seriously wonder how far advanced we'd be if our developement were up to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hesistate to initiate a hijack, since I've been enjoying the break, but I think evolutionary pressures will operate to encourage curiousity and innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where would the selective advantage come from? Unless there were competition for resources between the "innovative" and the "dull" where innovation were more imporant than brute force Im not seeing much evolutionary push/pull.

[/ QUOTE ]

At some point [censored]-erectus had to stop being nomadic and start settling. This naturally means exhausting available resources.

As population grows, you need to become more adaptable to your environment. Make better use of resources and even create new ones. You need leaders, laborers and inventors.

Of course, I'm sure you've thought about this, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hesistate to initiate a hijack, since I've been enjoying the break, but I think evolutionary pressures will operate to encourage curiousity and innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where would the selective advantage come from? Unless there were competition for resources between the "innovative" and the "dull" where innovation were more imporant than brute force Im not seeing much evolutionary push/pull.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am talking way, way prehistory - I think there is evolutionary advantage to being innovative and looking for alternative solutions to problems as you will be able to survive better if your standard solution fails due to some new development or rapidly changing situations. It seems to me a faculty like this would be selected over a tendency to stubbornly stick to tried and true methods. (I'm starting to sound like Pinker /images/graemlins/frown.gif)

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A million years is a long, long, long time. Especially if there are a bunch of you. The internal combustion engine isn't so dramatic, really. I don't think you can imagine what you'd think of given a million years to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But don't you think you'd at least have to have an inquisitive mind? I understand that surroundings and cultures effect personality, but you either have a curious mind or you don't. I happen to have one, but some do not. For instance, I can think of people who I would almost guarantee would have us back in the stone ages if all human devolpement were up to them.

I've got a buddy of mine and I love the guy, but he couldn't figure out how a hammer and nail work together if he wasn't shown.

I know a girl who's incredibly sweet, but also very shallow in an existential sense. You can't talk to her about religion, the universe, etc. She just doesn't see past her own nose. If it's not in front of her, it may as well not exist.

I seriously wonder how far advanced we'd be if our developement were up to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hesistate to initiate a hijack, since I've been enjoying the break, but I think evolutionary pressures will operate to encourage curiousity and innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where would the selective advantage come from? Unless there were competition for resources between the "innovative" and the "dull" where innovation were more imporant than brute force Im not seeing much evolutionary push/pull.

[/ QUOTE ]

At some point [censored]-erectus had to stop being nomadic and start settling. This naturally means exhausting available resources.

As population grows, you need to become more adaptable to your environment. Make better use of resources and even create new ones. You need leaders, laborers and inventors.

Of course, I'm sure you've thought about this, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No your not misunderstanding me. To both yours and bunny's responses, I agree that innovation and curiosity (if they are genetic to begin with) would give some advantage in gathering or creating resources, I think its a matter of whether the degree of advantage would be enough to result in selection pressure, plus there needs to be no offsetting disadvantage. Ie did the mutation of genes that led to innovation and curiosity act negatively in some other area.

An extreme example would be nerds vs jocks..if those are genetic phenotypes and the innovation gene is a mutation of the jock gene, the innovation of the nerds might not be any more successful than the brawn of the jocks, who can steal whatever is produced by the nerds.

I think the question is important to the extent that it leads to any input to the question "Is man still evolving". (My answer to that would be no. I dont think there is any selection pressure strong enough to give competitive advantage to any particular allele.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
the innovation of the nerds might not be any more successful than the brawn of the jocks, who can steal whatever is produced by the nerds.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can try it /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Ie did the mutation of genes that led to innovation and curiosity act negatively in some other area. </font>

It depends on how far back you want to push it, but our intellect came at a huge expense. Due to our large craniums we are born completely helpless unlike most animals who can stand, walk, and see, sometimes on day 1 of life and usually within a few days tops. We must spend years caring for our helpless offspring, which robs us of valuable time and decreases the number of offspring we can produce and genes we can pass on.

<font color="blue">if those are genetic phenotypes and the innovation gene is a mutation of the jock gene, the innovation of the nerds might not be any more successful than the brawn of the jocks, who can steal whatever is produced by the nerds. </font>

Point taken, but I'm not so sure this is true. While I'm sure brawn was and still is in some cases an advantage, so is intellect. Look no further than our current wars or even economic statuses. I'll bet there are more nerdy millionaires than brawny ones (save for athletes). And they have more resources available to them than the poor brawny's do, would you agree? So in a way, we have come full circle. Many say that Americans have become physically soft, yet we are the mightiest country on the planet.

I'm sure the same principles applied long ago, if not more subtley. Those who could come up with advanced weaponery to defend their turf triumphed over brawn. Hate to get biblical, but David's sling-shot beat Goliath's brawn.

But I do agree brawn was very important. But I think we have evolved to placing greater importance on intellect.

<font color="blue">I think the question is important to the extent that it leads to any input to the question "Is man still evolving". (My answer to that would be no. I dont think there is any selection pressure strong enough to give competitive advantage to any particular allele. </font>

I was repsoning as I read, but had I read this first I would have gathered that my previous responses make little sense to you. I'm surprised you feel this way. You really think man has stopped evolving? How can this be? How can evolution be stopped?