Nature News published an article that was quite shocking to say the least, it went like this… “Mostly The Big-Brained Survive” and the article went without mentioning evolution which says nature favors the fittest.
“Brain size relative to body size is fairly predictable across all mammals, says Eric Abelson, who studies biological sciences at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. “As body size grows, brain size grows too, but at slower rate,” he says.”
“Plotting brain size against body size creates a tidy curve. But some species have bigger or smaller brains than the curve would predict for their body size. And a bigger brain-to-body-size ratio usually means a smarter animal.”
Using conservation as its passion rather than what it is, a social Darwinian idea which is poison…The doctrine implies that smarter automatically means that are more capable avoiding extinction because nature they claim favors the smarter animal.
Marris and Eric Abelson from Stanford University did not embrace the poison of social Darwinism rather to their credit, they outlined some disadvantages of being big-brained.
“For species larger than about 10 kilograms, the advantage of having a large brain seems to be swamped by the disadvantage of being big. Large species tend to reproduce later in life, have fewer offspring, require more resources and larger territories, and catch the attention of humans, either as food or as predators. Hunting pressure or reductions in available space can hit them particularly hard.”
There might be an underlying reason why Marris and Abelson did not distance themselves from the poison of social Darwinism like Marris and Eric Abelson did. They engaged themselves with speculations they are not possible to prove. They make a terrible assumption that brain size has something to do with how smart species are when it fact it could be quality of the brain rather that its size.
They link intelligence to survival which implies nature only sees the strong worth saving while getting rid of the weak. And lastly, implying that it’s others who make the decisions on what species is worth saving and what species is worth not saving and their work is supposed to help those who make the decisions.
The Darwinist believes nature favors the fit but says who? Even though the world is far from perfect, humans do help the weak, feed the poor, assist the weak with certain tasks they are unable to do anymore, there are laws in such places as the United States were employers cannot discriminate a person based on handicap. We live in an imperfect world that still cares for the weak!
What Marris and Abelson did is useless and illogical. Their underlying reason is to elevate people who are smart to blind faith. For example, if a group of smart people decide this particular species should survive over another, then that is the right decision because they are smart and the species whom they pick is smart as well. In reality, its circular reasoning using the poison of social Darwinism! Animal intelligence should have no baring whatsoever on conservation!