Hello,

More of my philosophy about is Human smartness just a particular survival strategy..

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think i am a smart philosopher and i will explain more,
notice in my below writing that the Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice said the following:

"Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy"

I think it is stupid, because when you become rich using your smartness you transcend "survival" and you cease to use smartness as only
a survival strategy and you can start to use your smartness to become more and more rich or/and to living a much better human life etc. or when you have a high salary you are not thinking much of the time about survival since survival is only to remain alive, but you are living and being in a much better human condition, so this proves that Human smartness is not just a particular survival strategy.

More of my philosophy about beauty and about human smartness..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and as you have just noticed
i have just explained more the basis of my philosophy(read it below)
and now i will ask two philosophical questions and they are the following:

Are humans smarter than other animals?

And does universal beauty exists ?

So i will answer the first philosophical question by saying the following:

So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice:

Why are humans smarter than other animals?

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021

So as you are noticing he is saying the following:

--
"The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene.
Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way.. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good."
--

So i think i am smart and say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following:

"Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy"

This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive

So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above.

The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following:

Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following:

"Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast."

So i think that the above webpage is not right.

So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct.

So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully:

I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage:

Look at the following webpage from BBC:

The myth of universal beauty

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty

So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty:

"Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive"

So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage:

"Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive"

So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural.

More of my philosophy about the problems of our humanity..

I think the Climate crisis that is a term describing global warming and climate change will be solved by using science and technology and i have posted about the new technologies that will be used to solve it, and i think we can fix capitalism using some reforms and it is not so difficult, but there is some problems that remain and they are the following:

As you have noticed(read below), the global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems, so this global average ecological footprint is growing more and more,
so economic growth can be separated from unsustainable resource consumption and harmful pollution. It is what our humanity has to do by
also using science and technology.

Some benchmarks for the year 2014:

The global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems.

A French person needs 4.7 gha to maintain his standard of living. If all humans consumed as much as a Frenchman, we would need 2.79 planets;

An American needs 8.37 gha for his consumption. If all humans consumed like an American, we would need 4.97 planets;

A Brazilian has an ecological footprint of 3.08 hag (1.83 planet);

A Chinese has a footprint of 3.71 hag (2.21 planets);

An Indian has a footprint of 1.12 hag (0.67 planet).

a Haitian has a footprint of 0.67 hag (0.4 planet).

And the other problem that remains is the following:

Look at the following video to understand it:

Global Junk Food: How the Western Food Industry is Making Poor Countries Fat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEJwbGBrXfk

Yet more of my philosophy about capitalism..

I just written the following:

---

More philosophy about why raising taxes destroys the economy and more..

I invite you to look at the following interesting video:

Why raising taxes destroys the economy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GChpnX44_Ns