Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by cavalary
Dacă Nietzsche ar fi fost un narval: Ce dezvăluie inteligența animalelor despre prostia omenească by Justin Gregg
challenging
informative
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
3.0
[RO: (EN below)]
Desi prezinta diverse moduri in care alte specii demonstreaza un anume nivel de inteligenta, autorul nu incearca sa sustina ca vreuna din ele se poate compara cu oamenii din acest punct de vedere, doar argumentand ca ar trebui sa acceptam ca, intr-un fel oarecare, acestea poseda inteligenta si, notabil, constienta, si ca o inteligenta mai dezvoltata ar fi mai bine descrisa ca mai extinsa decat mai inalta. Insa, mai mult decat asta, cartea subliniaza cum oamenii isi folosesc gresit sau nu-si folosesc extraordinara lor inteligenta, realizand mult mai putin decat ceea ce ar fi adevaratul potential de a face bine si cauzand si justificand enorm de mult rau si suferinta lor insusi, celorlalti, si cu atat mai mult celorlalte specii si ecosistemului.
Totusi, desi sunt de acord ca speciile cel mai putin inteligente si complexe au cel mai mult succes din punct de vedere al simplei supravietuiri, reproducerii si obtinerii de placere in prezent, ca oamenii in general isi folosesc gresit inteligenta, si ca mai multa inteligenta este in general asociata cu probleme mai grave de sanatate mintala si tinde sa aiba mai putin de-a face cu succesul decat norocul chior, cu siguranta nu sunt de acord cu concluzia ca ne-ar fi mai bine cu mult mai putina. Adica, pietrele exista epoci intregi, bacteriile prospera; evolutia, si viata in general, n-are niciun sens daca nu trece dincolo de supravietuire, daca nu atinge un nivel la care sa poata sa analizeze si creeze, sa imbunatateasca conditia sa si a lumii. Insa autorul nu ofera solutii pentru problemele ridicate, chiar spunand la final ca n-a intentionat s-o faca... Si argumentand ca, pentru ca viata pe Pamant va fi pana la urma distrusa de Soare, singura masura obiectiva a succesului unei specii este maximizarea placerii in prezent, in timp ce eu vad asta ca dovada ca masura reala a succesului ar fi salvarea de la o asemenea soarta, ceea ce necesita o inteligenta mult mai dezvoltata si mai bine folosita. Si chiar si traducatorul acestei editii a adaugat note care, dincolo de clarificarile tipice, prezinta si exprima frustrare fata de folosirea incorecta a unor termeni de catre autor sau, de cateva ori, critica mai direct, subliniind greseli de logica sau argumentatie.
[EN:]
While pointing out various ways in which other species exhibit a certain level of intelligence, the author doesn't try to claim that any of them can compare to humans from this point of view, only arguing that we should accept that, in some way, they possess intelligence and, notably, consciousness, and that more developed intelligence would be better described as broader rather than higher. But, more than that, the book emphasizes how humans misuse or fail to use their extraordinary intelligence, realizing far less than what would be the true potential to do good and causing and justifying immense harm and suffering to themselves, each other, and even more so to the other species and the ecosystem.
However, while I agree that the least intelligent and least complex species have the most success in terms of mere survival, reproduction and obtaining pleasure in the present, that humans generally misuse their intelligence, and that greater intelligence is generally associated with worse mental health problems and tends to have less to do with success than plain luck, I definitely disagree with the conclusion that we'd be better off with far less of it. I mean, rocks exist for eons, bacteria thrive; evolution, and life in general, has no point if it doesn't go beyond survival, if it doesn't reach a level where it can analyze and create, improve its condition and that of the world. But the author offers no solutions to the raised problems, even stating at the end that he never intended to… And arguing that, because life on Earth will eventually be wiped out by the Sun, the only objective measure of a species' success is maximizing present pleasure, while I'd see it as proof that the true measure of success would be escaping such a fate, which requires far more developed and better used intelligence. And even this edition's translator added notes that, beyond the typical clarifications, also point out and express frustration with the author's incorrect use of certain terms or, on a couple of occasions, criticize more directly, pointing out flaws in the logic or arguments.
Desi prezinta diverse moduri in care alte specii demonstreaza un anume nivel de inteligenta, autorul nu incearca sa sustina ca vreuna din ele se poate compara cu oamenii din acest punct de vedere, doar argumentand ca ar trebui sa acceptam ca, intr-un fel oarecare, acestea poseda inteligenta si, notabil, constienta, si ca o inteligenta mai dezvoltata ar fi mai bine descrisa ca mai extinsa decat mai inalta. Insa, mai mult decat asta, cartea subliniaza cum oamenii isi folosesc gresit sau nu-si folosesc extraordinara lor inteligenta, realizand mult mai putin decat ceea ce ar fi adevaratul potential de a face bine si cauzand si justificand enorm de mult rau si suferinta lor insusi, celorlalti, si cu atat mai mult celorlalte specii si ecosistemului.
Totusi, desi sunt de acord ca speciile cel mai putin inteligente si complexe au cel mai mult succes din punct de vedere al simplei supravietuiri, reproducerii si obtinerii de placere in prezent, ca oamenii in general isi folosesc gresit inteligenta, si ca mai multa inteligenta este in general asociata cu probleme mai grave de sanatate mintala si tinde sa aiba mai putin de-a face cu succesul decat norocul chior, cu siguranta nu sunt de acord cu concluzia ca ne-ar fi mai bine cu mult mai putina. Adica, pietrele exista epoci intregi, bacteriile prospera; evolutia, si viata in general, n-are niciun sens daca nu trece dincolo de supravietuire, daca nu atinge un nivel la care sa poata sa analizeze si creeze, sa imbunatateasca conditia sa si a lumii. Insa autorul nu ofera solutii pentru problemele ridicate, chiar spunand la final ca n-a intentionat s-o faca... Si argumentand ca, pentru ca viata pe Pamant va fi pana la urma distrusa de Soare, singura masura obiectiva a succesului unei specii este maximizarea placerii in prezent, in timp ce eu vad asta ca dovada ca masura reala a succesului ar fi salvarea de la o asemenea soarta, ceea ce necesita o inteligenta mult mai dezvoltata si mai bine folosita. Si chiar si traducatorul acestei editii a adaugat note care, dincolo de clarificarile tipice, prezinta si exprima frustrare fata de folosirea incorecta a unor termeni de catre autor sau, de cateva ori, critica mai direct, subliniind greseli de logica sau argumentatie.
[EN:]
While pointing out various ways in which other species exhibit a certain level of intelligence, the author doesn't try to claim that any of them can compare to humans from this point of view, only arguing that we should accept that, in some way, they possess intelligence and, notably, consciousness, and that more developed intelligence would be better described as broader rather than higher. But, more than that, the book emphasizes how humans misuse or fail to use their extraordinary intelligence, realizing far less than what would be the true potential to do good and causing and justifying immense harm and suffering to themselves, each other, and even more so to the other species and the ecosystem.
However, while I agree that the least intelligent and least complex species have the most success in terms of mere survival, reproduction and obtaining pleasure in the present, that humans generally misuse their intelligence, and that greater intelligence is generally associated with worse mental health problems and tends to have less to do with success than plain luck, I definitely disagree with the conclusion that we'd be better off with far less of it. I mean, rocks exist for eons, bacteria thrive; evolution, and life in general, has no point if it doesn't go beyond survival, if it doesn't reach a level where it can analyze and create, improve its condition and that of the world. But the author offers no solutions to the raised problems, even stating at the end that he never intended to… And arguing that, because life on Earth will eventually be wiped out by the Sun, the only objective measure of a species' success is maximizing present pleasure, while I'd see it as proof that the true measure of success would be escaping such a fate, which requires far more developed and better used intelligence. And even this edition's translator added notes that, beyond the typical clarifications, also point out and express frustration with the author's incorrect use of certain terms or, on a couple of occasions, criticize more directly, pointing out flaws in the logic or arguments.