<div class="text-justify">

I have a theory that if people were suddenly intelligent enough, the majority of the fighting amongst humans would end, and the focus would be put on thriving as a species. The argument against this is that smart people can be evil too of course, but I also think this position comes from a limited view of the level of intelligence needed, as we are anchored by what we know of intelligence today.

> People aren't very smart. 



---

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/243Wm11AiNBY7M57cFqNyhvrBNSAXobw6P4mSXnyZ7PPRyeJjgMEZNbxM3tD21rGwei96.png)

---




> Even the smart ones.

I also occasionally ponder if or how different my life would be, had I been significantly more intelligent throughout my life and I suspect, it would have been *very different.* It is impossible to know for sure, but after having a stroke that has heavily affected the way I think and behave in the negative intelligence direction, I feel I have some insight into what a bump might do in the positive. Under less thought pressure, it would also lower emotional pressure and better decisions could be made.

> But a massive bump in intelligence?

Remember when Neo was able to first see the Matrix and start dodging bullets? And then as he started to *understand* at a greater level, his ability to make decisions at speed in what was very slow for him was possible. He could do this because he could read the code and was able to see how *everything was connected.* Similarly, I think that if we were intelligent enough to actually see how everything was connected in life, we would stop fighting amongst ourselves and start expanding our species.

Just look at all the current conflicts in the world and recognise that despite how you *feel* about them, they are the disputes of small minds, from the leaders at the top to the plethora of people supporting them. Despite all the claims, there is very little intelligence involved, and next to zero at the levels required to make the *mental shift* to actually change it - let alone at the levels required to make the change at scale.

> The fact is, we are idiots. 

And while my daughter hates when I use that word, she is starting to realise it too. For instance, the other day we were walking and there was smashed glass on the path. And she said, why do people do that, and why wouldn't they pick it up? And then she looked up at me before I could answer, and she said - "Don't say it, daddy".  

> People just do *senseless shit* that even the most *basic* of person should realise isn't beneficial. 

Not just to society, but ourselves. While the prevailing thought is that we "all act in our own self-interest", the *fact* is that what we see as beneficial in the moment doesn't mean it is beneficial in the next moment. For instance, the person who smashed the glass bottle might have got a bit of a dopamine kick and then, not picking it up makes life easier, but in the long term, is that going to make the person's life better, when everyone is doing the same? Similarly, someone who eats candy gets the "best interest" feeling in the moment on the tongue, but feels worse, thinks worse, and will likely look worse soon after. 

> Acting in self-interest doesn't mean doing what is best for ourselves.

Everyone might be working in a self-interested way, but that doesn't mean those actions are what is best for us in the short, medium, or long-term. For instance, people not controlling their emotions can have the immediate release of energy when angry, but ruin their relationships and potentially lives in that moment also. It is still self-interested behaviour. 

> Self-interest can be a terribly poor position.

However, *enlightened self-interest* is quite different, if we can consider that "enlightenment" is the ability to be like Neo, see the Matrix, and make better decisions in the moment. If we were in this enlightened state, we would realise that much like the conclusion those who have claimed it in the past have come to - that we are all in this boat together. 

> We float it, we sink it.

But those enlightened souls weren't and aren't intelligent enough to make a difference at scale, because to do that, would mean that not only would the majority need to be enlightened, but they would also have to have the practical capabilities to change their behaviour to work together to float the boat. 

> It seems incredibly unlikely, doesn't it?

Perhaps this is where technology comes into play, because AI *could* be the intelligence source that makes it imposiible for humans to fuck it all up, but in doing so we might actually lose the traits that make us human and, it is probably more likely that like the Matrix, we just become slaves to the technology. *As if we aren't already.*

But, it could also be that there is another technological breakthrough at the genetic level that can change our intelligence to the level required that we can become aware of our interconnectedness and reliance on each other and our self-interested actions align with the self- interested actions of everyone else too. In that case, we would work together to improve our world and each other, rather than fighting over useless shit that we should have been smart enough to stop fighting over millennia ago. 

> Who thinks they are smart enough?  



Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


---

**Be part of the Hive discussion.**

- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort

**And you may be rewarded.**

---


</div>