Humanity’s influence on the Earth is undeniable, yet it comes with significant repercussions. Our success has often come at the expense of other species sharing our planet.

The ongoing climate crisis exemplifies our ability to profoundly alter our environment, often without considering the long-term effects on future generations and the diverse life forms that depend on a balanced ecosystem. Canadian cognitive scientist Justin Gregg terms our failure to foresee these consequences as “prognostic myopia,” a key reason he believes human intelligence is not as commendable as it might seem.

In his 2022 publication, If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal: What Animal Intelligence Reveals About Human Stupidity, Gregg posits that this myopia stems from our ability to create technologies that solve immediate issues, albeit with potential long-lasting consequences that can extend for generations. While other animals focus primarily on their immediate circumstances, they do not possess the same capacity for cultural and technological evolution, making their short-sightedness less detrimental than ours.

Gregg states, “All animals must confront the immediate, but our choices can lead to technologies that adversely affect the world for generations.” He illustrates this with the example of hunger leading someone in Canada to purchase a banana, which necessitates significant environmental costs, from transportation to deforestation, far beyond the momentary satisfaction of hunger.

Although his notion of “prognostic myopia” parallels Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons,” which describes the overuse of shared resources due to a lack of accountability, it is crucial to recognize that humanity's dominance over the planet is not solely due to foolishness or a lack of cooperation. Despite his assertion that we may be heading toward self-induced extinction, I contend that such an outcome is less likely than he suggests.

Gregg explores what led to our global dominance before addressing our proclivity for myopia. He describes humans as “why specialists,” noting our tendency to seek explanations beyond mere association—unlike other species, which primarily learn through direct experiences. This thirst for understanding has led to significant advancements, allowing us to overcome diseases and achieve remarkable feats, including moon landings and the creation of the Internet.

However, despite our capacity for inquiry, skeptics like Gregg often overlook a fundamental question: could a species endowed with such curiosity have behaved differently? Is it conceivable for beings aware of their own mortality to abandon the search for deeper understanding in favor of simpler associative learning?

While animals learn quickly whether something is beneficial, they do not question the underlying reasons. Humans, on the other hand, inevitably seek to comprehend the health benefits of food, leading to scientific inquiry, as illustrated by the myth of Isaac Newton's apple, which supposedly inspired his theories on gravity.

Yet, as Gregg points out, this curiosity doesn't necessarily confer evolutionary advantages; survival requires only basic knowledge about safe food sources. He focuses on a narrow view of intelligence, equating it with mere survival. This perspective ignores the rich tapestry of human experience, which encompasses beauty, joy, and purpose alongside suffering and mistakes.

Gregg adopts a pessimistic stance, fixating on the negative aspects of our cognitive capabilities, particularly our theory of mind—the capacity to understand others' mental states. While this capacity allows for manipulation, it also enables deep connections and empathy.

Our awareness, as reflected in myths like the Genesis story, underscores the costs of knowledge. Adam and Eve's transgression symbolizes the initial “prognostic myopia,” leading to greater awareness but also greater suffering. Despite the steep price of awareness, many would argue that the benefits, including the capacity for creativity and connection, outweigh the costs.

Gregg's concerns about humanity's potential extinction echo sentiments common in today's environmental discourse. While these warnings aim to promote awareness, they risk fostering despair that could paradoxically lead to the very outcomes they seek to prevent.

Acknowledging our proclivity for “prognostic myopia” does not negate the reality of the issues we face. However, extinction implies the total eradication of a species, a scenario that seems unlikely given our current population exceeding eight billion. Gregg's assertions of imminent extinction within the century seem exaggerated, as the term itself tends to invoke hyperbole.

Instead of fixating on extreme scenarios, we should emphasize the more immediate consequences of our actions. Climate change is already straining our food and water systems, threatening famine, disease, and population decline. However, significant population drops can occur without leading to total extinction; even a 90% decrease would leave millions still inhabiting the Earth.

Such a decline would undoubtedly result in immense hardship, creating a world markedly different from our own, but humanity would endure. With fewer people, the demand for resources would lessen, allowing ecosystems to recover. This complex interplay of suffering and regeneration highlights that while our awareness comes at a cost, it can also yield positive outcomes.

While I do not portray an idealistic future, the narrative is not predetermined. We can leverage our capacity for inquiry to address both short- and long-term challenges. Acknowledging the potential for foresight that transcends myopia is essential for navigating the complexities ahead.

Gregg's portrayal of human cognition captures only part of our reality. Our history is marked by successes and failures that shape our cultures today. Embracing the duality of our nature—our virtues and flaws—does not doom us to extinction but reflects the inherent complexity of the human experience.

REFERENCES Gregg, J. (2022). If Nietzsche were a narwhal: what animal intelligence reveals about human stupidity (First edition.). Little Brown & Company. What Is Theory Of Mind In Psychology? (simplypsychology.org) Tragedy of the Commons — Econlib