We seriously underestimate other animals' intelligence, but until some other animal on earth puts a flag on the moon, it's safe to say that no other animal on Earth shares our unique brand of intelligence.
We seriously underestimate other animals' intelligence, but until some other animal on earth puts a flag on the moon, it's safe to say that no other animal on Earth shares our unique brand of intelligence.
This doesn’t just apply to other species but also to other ways of being (“cultural intelligences”?) than our neoliberal, capitalist and technology-focused society. Our great technological achievements have been fatal for millions of other species and there is a strong possibility that they will be fatal for us as well. How intelligent is that?
I recognize that when we talk about “intelligence” in the context of the original article we mean something different than the more common sense meaning I used in my last paragraph. However it seems to me that the way we define intelligence is part of the problem. What’s a greater achievement, traveling to the moon or living for millions of years in harmony with the natural systems of the planet? Or who is happier, a blue whale or a Walmart employee?
Problem isn't how we define it, the definition we have is useful because it describes a very real qualitative difference between us and other animals. I think you nailed it on your first paragraph: the problem is the value judgment that goes along with that definition.
At least 1.5% by mass
About 3% of our body is nitrogen, about half of it comes from fertilizers made using Haber-Bosch process, an industrial chemical process that is unlike anything found in nature.
But if we count differently and consider agriculture in general as "something we've built up", then it is about 99.9%. It is estimated that the earth would support about 10 million hunter-gatherers, we are nearing 10 billion.