Evolution And Its Implications

Genes and their phenotypes are akin to ingredients in a recipe. Most genes and mutations cannot be adaptive for an organism unless they work together with other genes and mutations. Most mutations are maladaptive and biologically harmful to most organisms, since they tend to disrupt a highly ordered morphology. However, a mutation that is maladaptive in one organism may be adaptive in a different organism(s) with a (vastly) different morphology and/or environment. There are thus probably millions of known and unknown examples of how genes may work together or work against each other as genetic combinations, or genotypes.

---

Perhaps the most well-known and easily explainable examples of intergenetic adaptive coherence are examples of heterozygote advantage. For example, a human must have both the alpha and beta alleles of the hemoglobin gene in order to achieve heterozygote advantage and protect against malaria. If a human is homozygous for the beta allele, then he/she will have sickle cell anemia, which is maladaptive in all environments. If a human is homozygous for the alpha allele, then he/she will no genetic protection against malaria, which will be maladaptive in an environment where malaria is a common disease. The most optimal adaptive bundle for a human in a malaria-prone environment is thus the heterozygous genotype/phenotype. Heterozygote Advantage could be described as a subcase of adaptive coherence.

Intergenetic adaptive coherence can also extend beyond heterozygote advantage. For example, modern humans evolved have lower tracheae and epiglottises. They also evolved mental faculties for enabling human language. All of these adaptions work together to create adaptive, complex communication between humans. However, none of these traits would be adaptive by themselves. A lower trachea that is connected to the esophagus makes it easier for humans to choke on their food, compared to other animals (where the esophagus and trachea may be disconnected). A brain designed to process complex communication consumes more energy.

Some humans can use sign language to make do without the ability to speak or hear. That would give them the benefits of complex communication, but they would be unable to gain the benefits of spoken communication. Those humans would probably also have the disadvantages of spoken communication, i.e. a respiratory system that makes the body more vulnerable to choking. Such humans are less adapted than speaking humans, but they are more adapted than humans who cannot communicate at all. This is a good example of how losing or not having one of the traits of an adaptive bundle may not necessarily cause the entire rest of the bundle to become maladaptive.

Alternatively, some humans may have suitable respiratory and vocal tracts for producing audible speech sounds, while they also lack the mental faculties for (effective) communication. The neural structures inside the human brain that are responsible for communication are necessary for communication. So, if humans don’t have those necessary neural structures, then many (or most?) of the genes and traits that are required for communication will be maladaptive.

Being heterozygous for the α-globin and β-globin alleles, and having fast twitch muscle fibers are another example of an adaptive bundle. Since West Africans evolved to have genes that prevent malaria, they also evolved to have other genes that work with the malaria prevention genes. Source

---

Some more examples:

• It’s adaptive for a primate to have both a tail and lower limbs that are shaped like human hands for climbing trees. For humans, it’s adaptive to have lower limbs designed for bipedal running and no tail at all.
• Multiple important genes/traits were necessary for creating modern human feet, which are adapted towards bipedal motion, rather than climbing trees.
  • The thumbs point the same direction at the other phalanges.
  • The phalanges became shorter.
  • Arches developed in the feet to support more weight.
  • The feet bones, tendons, and ligaments strengthened to ease bipedal walking.
• Smaller guts, larger brains, muscles optimized for bipedalism, stronger legs, and human feet were all adaptive in human evolution. (These traits were also coupled with cooking and eating higher-energy-rich diets, but that’s an example of genetic-memetic adaptive coherence.)
• Having no limbs would be maladaptive for most animals. But for snakes, the genes for having no limbs proved to be adaptive.
• Birds have feathers, wings, and only two legs. Together, these are all conducive for flying (or swimming).
• The aerodynamic head structure of a cheetah works with its muscle design for creating a faster animal.
• Longer snouts and longer tongues are both adaptive for insectivores, especially when an insectivore has both traits.
• Cave animals have a tendency to lose their sight and colors as a result of living in a dark environment, where selection for eyesight and camouflage is relaxed. But there is also selection at play here as well: making eyes comes at a cost. If they are not being used, then eliminating them is beneficial for saving the energy.
• Et Cetera

Blithering Genius has described genetic-memetic adaptive coherence: Adaptive Coherence.

As a hypothesized example, the memetic tradition where Sub-Saharan Africans carrying heavy/bulky objects on top of their heads may be somewhat facilitated by how they have denser bones and skulls compared to other human races, and how they tend to have smaller brains (both in terms of intelligence and size). Thus, if they carry heavy stuff on their heads and denser/thicker skulls, their brains suffer less damage and less micro-concussions compared to if Europeans or East Asians carried stuff on top of their heads and their less dense bones. The implication is that while East Asians or Europeans could carry heavy/bulky objects on top of their heads, they wouldn’t be as well-suited to do so as Sub-Saharan Africans.

Intermemetic adaptive coherence is all about memeplexes: sets of memes that reinforce each other. A lot of intermemetic adaptive coherence is all about how life can accomplish goals more efficiently. For example, limited (yet pragmatic) government enable free markets by solving problems of cooperation, while free markets can efficiently allocate and produce commodities and much of the government’s capital. Georgism and efficient urban planning also compliment each other well. Higher intelligence and higher rationality is important for achieving maximal intermemetic adaptive coherence for individuals and societies.

Most memetic traditions exist in the first place because they were/are adaptive. While I am recognizing intermemetic adaptive coherence as a concept, I’d say that most adaptive coherence involving memes would be genetic-memetic in practice.

Someday, I hope to publish a webpage talking about all my ideas about ideal memetics for a rational humanist / pragmatopian society, which would integrate many phenomena that would enable both genetic-memetic adaptive coherence and intermemetic adaptive coherence.

The concept of genetic adaptive bundles helps demonstrate why it makes more sense to view Competition in Nature as competition between organisms, rather than competition between genes. If we only think about biological competition in terms of genes, then we’ll fail to recognize the importance of phenotypes, and how different phenotypes affect the ability of organisms to compete against each other. The genes in phenotypes are akin to the ingredients in recipes. Changing an ingredient (gene) can change the recipe (phenotype). But the analogy isn’t perfect because organisms are designed to reproduce, and sexual reproduction enables different combinations of genes to arise in different organisms. Genes can be mixed and separated in the offspring of organisms. And ultimately, the most successful organisms are the ones with the best genotypes/phenotypes, i.e. the ones with most of the best adaptive bundles for some particular environment. Competition between organisms is thus the more holistic and explanatory way to describe competition in Nature, rather than thinking about metaphorical “competition” between genes.

See: Debunking the Selfish Gene: The Phenocentric Theory of Biological Purpose by T. K. Van Allen.

In many cases, some adaptive bundles may be more important than others for creating the most adaptive organisms in a particular environment. In such scenarios, the genes and alleles that are necessary for achieving those adaptive bundles will be selected before the less important adaptive bundles. Organisms that reproduce via sexual reproduction have the greatest potential to produce offspring that have the greatest number of different genetic combinations genotypes/phenotypes possible.

Different environments have different (theoretically) optimal adaptive bundles. Adaptive bundles are clusters of genes and traits. Different races and different species are defined by having different genetic clusters / correlations of genes and traits. The concept of adaptive bundles is thus important for describing why human races and many species/subspecies of organisms are different for each other.

R/K selection theory claims the following:

1. Some species are adapted to live close to the carrying capacity (K-selected), whereas others are adapted to live below the carrying capacity (R-selected).
2. K-selection favors greater parental investment than R-selection.
3. K-selection and R-selection cause two sets of mutually-exclusive characteristics (see table below).

I agree with all the reasoning in Blithering Genius’s essay, “Why r/K Selection Theory is Bogus”, as to why these claims are false. However, I don’t believe that all the patterns proposed in the third claim are entirely non-existent. Instead, I propose that some of the patterns are oversimplifications and consequences of a more accurate ecological model. As it pertains to modern humans, this model is partly described in “Life is Violent” by Blithering Genius and Life History Theory. I recommend reading all three of the prior linked pages if you haven’t already, since they are necessary for understanding the rest of this webpage.

The following characteristics are claimed to be associated with r-Selected and K-Selected species:

Characteristic	r-Selected	K-Selected
Environment Type	Unstable, Density-Independent	Stable, Density-Dependent Interactions
Size of Organism	Smaller	Larger
Energy Invested Into Offspring	Lower	Higher
Average Number of Offspring	Greater	Fewer
Maturity	Earlier	Later, usually after prolonged parental care
Life Expectancy	Shorter	Longer
Reproduction Times	Each individual only reproduces once	Individuals can reproduce more than once in their lifetime
Survivorship	Type III Survivorship Pattern	Type I or II Survivorship Pattern
Lifespan	Most individuals die within short time	Most individuals live to near maximum lifespan

The observations that brood sizes tend to decrease with (adult) body mass, and that lifespan increases with gestation period were recorded as far back as Aristotle.

The characteristics listed in the table above are often associated with each other, but not always.

1. “Why r/K Selection Theory is Bogus” notes how the density of environments is poorly defined.
2. The octopus is an exception to the theory that more intelligent organisms have longer lifespans. Octopuses are very intelligent, yet they only have a lifespan of 3-4 years at most.
3. Taller humans tend to have shorter life expectancies. This is contrary to how the r/K selection theory proposes that larger organisms should have longer life expectancies.

4. The size of r-selected and K-selected humans doesn’t follow the rest of the pattern. r-selected and K-selected humans can both be tall or short:

   Physique is mostly determined by the energetics of food production. People who herd animals tend to be taller, whether Nords or Maasai. People who grow rice tend to have short legs and light upper bodies. People who use hoes to farm yams have big butts. Europeans tend to be relatively strong and tall, because their ancestors used animals extensively for food and traction.

   – Blithering Genius, Discord

Furthermore, most r/K selection theorists tend to categorize all organisms as being either “r-selected” or “k-selected”. This is fallacious because different organisms have different life cycles, which affect their abilities to reproduce. It’s not meaningful to compare organisms that have significantly different life cycles. To do so would be to compare apples with oranges.

A bacterium reproduces by simple cell division, so it only has 2 “offspring” at most. (As with most things in biology, there are some weird exceptions.)

Reproduction is not a contest between men, bacteria, salmon and oak trees. It is not necessarily a contest, although it often involves a struggle for resources or mates, especially with other members of one’s species.

Different types of life have different life-cycles. Some produce millions of offspring, of which very few survive to adulthood. Humans have relatively few offspring, compared to oak trees and oysters. It does not follow that we are less successful, on average. The life-cycles of oak trees, oysters and humans are all successful reproductive strategies. That’s why oak trees, oysters and humans exist.

– Blithering Genius, “Responding to Conundrum, Again”

The r/K selection dichotomy is thus only meaningful when comparing between different taxa that are closely related. Closely related taxa tend to have more similar life cycles and tend to occupy more similar niches. Categorizing different human races as “r-selected” or “k-selected” thus has some meaning, but not as much as the improved terminology that I propose. This essay focuses mainly on comparing different human races.

Differential K Theory is an attempt to apply r/K selection theory to human races. It proposes that the evolution of every race was affected by a “K factor”, which theoretically affects and explains multiple race differences in fertility, IQ, criminality, and sexual anatomy and behavior. Europeans, East Asians, and other intelligent races are supposedly K-selected, while less intelligent races are supposedly r-selected. Parental investment presumably favors quality offspring in the former, while favoring quantity in the latter. Differential K Theory is popular among many race idealists, since it justifies their ideology.

However, Differential K only raises the question as to what factors affect the K factor. There are no clear or coherent answers to this question. It’s also not clear how different K factors would affect the selection for intelligence in different populations around the world.

Labeling a population as r-selected or K-selected is only a binary distinction. This limits the amount of information that these terms can convey. Not all K-selected populations are the same as each other, nor are all r-selected populations the same as each other. For example, the r/K selection framework doesn’t make it clear how “K-selected” populations like Europeans and East Asians are different from each other. r/K selection doesn’t describe the different selectionary pressures these populations went through. And even if the patterns associated with r-selected and K-selected species seemingly map well onto some human races, it’s still ambiguous whether some races should be classified as “r-selected” or “K-selected”.

The race idealists want to believe in r/K selection theory because it provides a narrative for explaining why some races have higher or lower intelligence and others. Supposedly the K-selected races have higher intelligence because their ancestors supposedly invested into making better quality humans rather than more quantity lower quality humans. However, this actually hides the truth it’s not that they invest in becoming better humans that they are different selection or pressures which selected for different traits in these populations.

All populations evolved to live near the carrying capacities of their respective environments, not just “K-selected” populations. It’s thus more descriptive to describe every population by the main factor that had historically kept them below the carrying capacities of their respective environments.

As mentioned in “Life is Violent”, human populations have historically been limited by a combination of disease, famine, and war. All human populations are known to have dealt with these causes of death at one point or another in their histories, but most populations were affected by each of these factors to different degrees.

War is not an alternative to peace and prosperity. War is an alternative to famine and disease, and famine almost always leads to war. If you and your children are facing death by starvation, then you will kill other people to get food. So, unless disease kills most children before adulthood, population growth will eventually lead to war. That is why war is a human universal. Our ancestors fought to survive. We inherited the genes and memes of the winners, not the losers.

– Blithering Genius, “Life is Violent”

For recent human history, it’s accurate to make some generalizations about human populations:

• Eurasian populations were mainly limited by diseases.
• South Asian populations were more limited by famines and malnutrition, in the past few hundred years.
• Amerindian, Austronesian, and sub-Saharan African populations were mainly limited by famines, malnutrition, and wars.

Words like disease-resistant, famine-resistant, and war-selected or r-selected are thus better descriptors for summarizing and describing the adaptations of modern human populations. However, they aren’t the only descriptors that we can use. We can come up with many other terms and statistics. For an information-dense continuous variable, we can graph and calculate the Ancestral Premature Death Rate (APDR) for every race.

Disclaimer: I’m not an expert on the evolutionary history of every human population. Throughout this page, I’ve only written and mentioned information that I already know about. The conclusions that I propose are based on what I know. Someone with greater knowledge could probably expand upon these ideas to write more conclusions.

By using better descriptors, the evolutionary reasons as to why some races have higher intelligence and lower crime rates than others becomes more clear. Populations that were more limited by diseases (“disease-resistant races”) were able to develop more stable civilizations, which also enabled higher populations.

See: Wikipedia: Life History Theory.

Video: The Peopling of the Americas - Blithering Genius.

Most people are vastly unaware of just how much tribal warfare the American Indians engaged against each since most public schools only teach the wars and conflicts between European settlers and American Indians. This list aims to debunk the myth that American Indians had peaceful societies that lived off the land before the Europeans came. As always, refer to the sources cited in the Wikipedia articles for more information. Wikipedia may not be a valid source of information by itself, but the sources that it cites are quite reliable in this case.

• “The Hurons as well as other Iroquoian peoples were known for the fierce ways in which they waged war against one another. Warfare between the Hurons and the Iroquois became so intense that women could not work in the fields to till their corn outside the defence of their palisades without fear of being clubbed to death on the spot and their scalps taken…” Source
• “At the time of the European arrival, the hegemonic Iroquois Confederacy, based in present-day New York and Pennsylvania, was regularly at war with Algonquian neighbors.” Source
• The Iroquois engaged in wars, cannibalism, slavery, and torture with other American Indians. Source
• “A war party was considered successful if it took many prisoners without suffering losses in return; killing enemies was considered acceptable if necessary, but disapproved of as it reduced the number of potential captives. Taking captives were considered far more important than scalps. Additionally, war served as a way for young men to demonstrate their valor and courage. This was a prerequisite for a man to be made a chief, and it was also essential for men who wanted to marry. Haudenosaunee women admired warriors who were brave in war.” Source
• “The neighbors of the western Cree were Athapascans on the north and northwest, Blackfeet on the west, and Assiniboine on the south. With the Assiniboine they were closely associated from the time of the separation of that tribe from the parent Sioux prior to the opening of the country by exploration in the early years of the seventeenth century; nevertheless, there were rather frequent drunken brawls, with consequent murders, between the two tribes in the boisterous era of the fur-trade. They joined forces in pushing the Blackfeet, Bloods, and Piegan southwestward out of the plains bordering Saskatchewan river, and up to the termination of inter-tribal warfare remained constant enemies of these other Algonquians. The Cree inheritance of the historic Sioux hostility toward the Chippewa was not lessened by the friendly reception they accorded the renegade Assiniboine, for whom the Sioux entertained bitter hatred mixed with professed contempt. The Woods Cree had little, if any, part in this warfare with the Blackfeet and the Sioux; their operations were limited to dispossessing the Athapascans of their territory between the Saskatchewan and Athabasca lake. Peace river, according to Henry, received its name from the circumstance that the Cree and the Beavers settled their hostilities at Peace point. —The North American Indian, Volume 18 (1907)” Source
• “Inuit had trade relations with more southern cultures; boundary disputes were common and gave rise to aggressive actions. Warfare was not uncommon among those Inuit groups with sufficient population density. Inuit such as the Nunamiut (Uummarmiut), who inhabited the Mackenzie River delta area, often engaged in warfare. The more sparsely settled Inuit in the Central Arctic, however, did so less often.” Source
• “Virtually all Inuit cultures have oral traditions of raids by other indigenous peoples, including fellow Inuit, and of taking vengeance on them in return, such as the Bloody Falls massacre. Western observers often regarded these tales as generally not entirely accurate historical accounts, but more as self-serving myths. However, evidence shows that Inuit cultures had quite accurate methods of teaching historical accounts to each new generation. In northern Canada, historically there were ethnic feuds between the Dene and the Inuit, as witnessed by Samuel Hearne in 1771. In 1996, Dene and Inuit representatives participated in a healing ceremony to reconcile the centuries-old grievances.” Source
• The historic accounts of violence against outsiders make it clear that there was a history of hostile contact within the Inuit cultures and with other cultures. It also makes it clear that Inuit nations existed through history, as well as confederations of such nations. The known confederations were usually formed to defend against a more prosperous, and thus stronger, nation. Alternately, people who lived in less productive geographical areas tended to be less warlike, as they had to spend more time producing food. Source
• “The Comanche bands regularly waged war on neighboring tribes.” Source
• “The Kalinago (Island Caribs) had a reputation as warriors who raided neighboring islands. According to the tales of Spanish conquistadors, the Kalinago were cannibals who regularly ate roasted human flesh. Source
• “Up to half of all Yanomami males die violent deaths in the constant conflict between neighboring communities over local resources.” Source
• “Blackfoot war parties would ride hundreds of miles on raids… Warriors would strive to perform various acts of bravery called counting coup, in order to move up in social rank. The coups in order of importance were: taking a gun from a living enemy and or touching him directly; capturing lances, and bows; scalping an enemy; killing an enemy; freeing a tied horse from in front of an enemy lodge; leading a war party; scouting for a war party; stealing headdresses, shields, pipes (sacred ceremonial pipes); and driving a herd of stolen horses back to camp” Source
• “Both the Salish-Tunaxe and the Semteuse were almost ”killed off in wars“ with the Blackfoot and further reduced by smallpox. Some of the survivors took refuge among the Salish. With the near extinction of the Salish-Tunaxe, the Salish extended their hunting grounds northward to Sun River. Between 1700 and 1750, they were driven back by pedestrian Blackfoot warriors armed with fire weapons. Finally, they were forced out of the bison range and west of the divide along with the Kutenai-Tunaxe.” Source
• “After 1750, warfare and pressure from the Blackfoot, Crow, Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho pushed Eastern Shoshone south and westward.” Source
• “The Paiutes, for example, were almost ‘continually at war’ with the Klamath south and west of them.” Source
• “Warfare was prevalent in the Maya world. Military campaigns were launched for a variety of reasons, including the control of trade routes and tribute, raids to take captives, scaling up to the complete destruction of an enemy state.” Source
• “The Aztec state was in the center on political expansion and dominance of and exaction of tribute from other city states, and warfare was the basic dynamic force in Aztec politics. Aztec society was also centered on warfare: every Aztec male received basic military training from an early age and the only possibility of upwards social mobility for commoners was through military achievement — especially the taking of captives. Thus, only specifically chosen men served in the military.” Source
• Dozens civilizations rose and fell in Peru since tribal warfare caused so many civilizations to fall. Source
• Cherokee Military History.
• Plains Indian Warfare.
• The Crow Creek Massacre.
• Scalping in the Americas.

There’s not a single historical account of American Indian tribes that doesn’t involve warfare with other tribes. Once humans are the apex predator, unless there is a very high rate of disease, the majority of deaths will be from warfare because people who let their children die of starvation rather than going to war, be eliminated by those who fight for their children’s survival. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that the high historical prevalence of American Indian wars may have selected for genes that predispose American Indian descendants to commit more crimes, compared to other races.

There’s no way to precisely calculate the actual percentages regarding the historical causes of death since we don’t have unbiased samples of the deaths, but we can infer most deaths were from war based on these historical accounts and the biological reasoning given here. We should also recognize that most of the academic estimates for the number of humans who have historically died from warfare are probably great underestimates because 1. war victims don’t get nice noticeable burials, 2. less than 1% of living remains ever get fossilized, and 3. there is an ideological bias in Academia.

Some estimates of the pre-Columbian population of the Americas are between 7-10 million, and others estimate ~50 million, but whatever it was, it’s likely that it fluctuated a lot with population booms/explosions and war busts.

---

This misses the point. We never claimed that Eurasia didn’t have any wars. The point is that the death tolls from most of those wars weren’t enough to destroy or destabilize Old World civilizations. Most of the wars listed in those Wikipedia articles occurred on local scales (not the entire continent), and weren’t sufficient to keep the European population below the carrying capacity. That is especially true for wars that mainly killed men, and few women and/or children. Disease was the main factor that limited European populations. European wars evidently weren’t as destructive to European civilizations, as Amerindian wars were destructive to Amerindian civilizations.

There are many examples of Native American societies/civilizations that collapsed and reverted to simpler ways of life. We don’t really see that in Eurasia. Political units collapse, and there were some collapses of large empires, but not the reversion to much simpler modes of existence. e.g. the collapse of the Roman Empire didn’t end civilization in Europe.

Of course, Eurasian wars had higher death tolls. This isn’t surprising because Eurasia had higher populations than the rest of the world for most of global human history. It was possible for Eurasia to have deadlier wars because Eurasia had more people to kill to begin with. Eurasia had larger human populations than the Americas because Eurasia usually had more robust civilizations that could sustain higher populations.

It’s thus normal for continents with stronger civilizations to have deadlier wars. This is true, even given that wars were usually not the main cause of death in most Eurasian civilizations. Eurasian wars were less frequent, most locations only had wars that occurred every few hundred years or so, and most Eurasian wars didn’t usually wipe out entire civilizations or technological complexity. By contrast, Amerindian wars tended to occur more frequently, and the biggest wars usually wiped out formerly existing Amerindian civilizations. As far as we know, Amerindian wars tended to have lower death tolls, since the environments in the Americas had lower carrying capacities.

---

Recommended Reading:

• War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence H. Keeley.
• War in Human Civilization by Azar Gat.
• The Essays in the War Section of the Traditions of Conflict blog.
• Data Review: Ethnographic And Archaeological Evidence On Violent Deaths - Our World in Data.
• Burying Science - Aporia Magazine: An alliance between Native American tribes and woke anthropologists is hindering our ability to study the past.

Many people have the misconception that American Indian civilizations didn’t have agriculture and/or were sparsely populated, but this is not true. There are several Wikipedia articles documenting agriculture among the American Indians for thousands of years:

• Wikipedia: Agriculture Among Indigenous peoples of the Americas.
• Wikipedia: Agriculture in Meso-America.
• Wikipedia: Prehistoric Agriculture on the Great Plains.
• Wikipedia: The Eastern Agriculture Complex.
• Wikipedia: Prehistoric Agriculture in the Southwestern United States.
• Wikipedia: Incan Agriculture.
• Wikipedia: Amerindian Use of Fire in Ecosystems.

Reason and knowledge are not the only reason why humans rule the world. If we examine other mammals like orangutans, elephants, and cetaceans, we will find that they are surprisingly intelligent. They have demonstrated exceptional capabilities to memorize concepts, do arithmetic, communicate with humans on a limited level, demonstrate self-awareness, have emotions, organize advanced social structures, and have advanced communication. Since advanced knowledge and reasoning skills are not limited to just only humans, it must be concluded that there are therefore other reasons why humans rule the world.

Related: Why Poor Places Are More Diverse - Minute Earth.

The reason why humans have risen above orangutans, elephants, cetaceans, giant pacific octopi, and other mammals/animals is that we are able to combine reason, communication/interaction, and our capable bodies/appendages better than any other organism in our world.

• Humans have the best reasoning and knowledge skills in the world.
• Humans have the most complex communication system and societies of any life known to mankind. Human language can express infinite quantities of ideas and information. Orcas and possibly some other animals are also known to have complex communication, but it’s difficult for anyone to know how it compares to human communication.
• Humans have the most capable appendages and anatomies in the world. Human hands can grasp tools and build many things with relative ease. By comparison, cetaceans and elephants don’t have the same appendages or anatomies to enable them to build the same things that a human can, such as fires, wheels, shelters, compasses, aqueducts, medicine, modern computers, and all the other things humans have invented.

Humans also have long lifespans compared to other relatively intelligent species. The giant pacific octopus is possibly the smartest of all invertebrates, but since its lifespan only lasts 3-5 years at max, it doesn’t have much time to do the same productive work that humans can do before they die.

Nevertheless, intelligence is definitely the most important out of the four skills / qualities, but the other skills would both be rendered useless without the ability to reason.

With all of this in mind, we can conclude that intelligent life that is on par with human life is most likely to at least have the following six characteristics:

• High Capacity to Reason (Intelligence)
• Volition (the ability to reason implies volition)
• Sophisticated Methods of Communication
• Emotion
• Limbs that are optimal for building tools and such
• Sufficiently long lifespan