The moon is a somewhat facetious benchmark, but we harnessed fire some 400k years ago. Agriculture, or more generally culvitating your own food, is another major milestone that happened 10k years ago, or thereabouts. Those are more reasonable, especially because other intelligent species could piggy back off our technology to speed up their own progression.
I agree with you that we have a “unique brand” of intelligence but we’ve gone astray in ascribing a value judgment to that, in my opinion - as in, our brand is the best. Or, our brand is so much better than others that those others are worthless.
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?
> However it seems to me that the way we define intelligence is part of the problem.
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.
