Are intelligent humans even supposed to be? I'm not saying

Congratulations on entering your first existential crisis. Welcome and enjoy your stay.

>>8533996
I find "supposed to be" an interesting way of looking at it. The "intelligent" population of the world has only risen throughout human history, so if there's some law of demography limiting smart people the upper bound is pretty high. Nature doesn't really operate on "should be". There's a natural ratio that is enforced by probability and so both less and more intelligent people are unnatural results.

Nature also isn't as violent as all that. Even animals can feel pleasure and enjoy living, and they have none of our human conveniences. It's worth keeping in mind that death is only assured in the sense of it being a constant possibility. It's not the law of the world or anything like that; things have a chance of changing, and death is one of those changes.
I think human conveniences alone are enough to prove nature only rewarding blind impulses to be false. Nature gives whatever the hell it wants. The only true reward in life is self-fulfillment for following your passion.

>>8533996

The tragedy of Schopenhauer was he realized the first three of the noble truths of Buddhism, but did not find the fourth.

nobody truly knows what was or wasn't "supposed to be"

>I cannot see why anyone would look at nature as a source of bliss.

>he fell for the 1800-1850 romanticist meme that nature is about sublimity and beauty
>he fell for fake disney moralism

Has Anyone Really Been Supposed To Be As Far As Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

Read the Intelligence Paradox by Satoshi Kanazawa

Intelligence is an adaptive evolutionary psychological trait to solve novel problems.

It's useful in today's society because completing school, getting a job, succeeding in the economy is evolutionary novel things (didn't exist in the savanna when humans did most of their evolving), but being too intelligent means that you don't have the basic instinct to reproduce (ie evolutionary success).

Evolutionary psychology an interesting field of study and goes a long way to answer these sorts of questions.

File: 53132975db885.jpg (63KB, 607x800px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 607x800px

>>8533996
>I cannot see why anyone would look at nature as a source of bliss. It's a slaughterhouse and it hates your guts.
We live in the safest time and people dive off of cliffs for fun. We are thrill seekers by nature and living securely is like playing with all the cheat codes on

1 but your "im 2 smart 4 women" links to the "rewards blind impulses" which is more of a social pressure than pure survival mechanism since the selection for "blind impulses" is a social trait rather than a purely natural trait. this argument has nothing to do with nature per se but the natural state of individual in society
2 nature does not have anthropomorphic traits, it just is, it does things contrary to its anthropomorphic traits such as giving room for superbug while destroying biosystems due to its own cyclical changes
3 the source of bliss for nature is not a search for unending comfort but to take sanctuary in something eternal, it can just be looking straight down into a volcano and there is some bliss in it, it is inherent inhuman and beyond simple comfort like a couch or a fluffy stuffed bear

>>8533996
Evolution selected for the optimal intelligence level for people. If it was advantageous to be smarter then what we consider smart would be normal.
The average intelligence is the best for reproduction. The people at each end of the spectrum (smarter and dumber) are disadvantaged when it comes to reproduction.
The only reason they exist is because of natural variation.

>>8535835
>Satoshi Kanazawa
He's a hack, an economist who sees adaptation everywhere and comes up with just-so stories to justify everything his eyes look at. Evolutionary Psychology is unverifiable, unfalsifiable garbage because of people like him.

>>8535903
Anything to add beside ad honimem?