How advanced Alien societies may differ from ours.

In an advanced civilization, certain mindsets have to be achieved. War, petty variances, race issues, class warfare, etc. must be resolved before the whole of a people can really go forth. This one goal orientation gives a species real growth and a chance for long term sucess at home, therefore space travel can be the next step. When ALL of the people concentrate their efforts on real goals, they do not spend all resources on wars and destruction, but on their complete evolution as they should. This concentration improves all aspects of their lives, and future. Advancements in DNA and nutrition, medicine and quality of live become paramount, therefore as generation after generation go forward, there may be controlling aspects that arise due to certain limitations, but spacetravel changes this equasion. Basically, these large issues from our point of view, are old history to a spacefaring species that have advanced beyond what we can imagine. We only know the bad habits as a young planet, and have not yet grown up and evolved, we will never get far at this rate, children will play..... Where I am going with this is that advanced DNA manipulation, nutrition, medicines and enviornment would eventually remove the issues of population control, way beyond that, and spacetravel would produce opportunities to spread a species amoung the stars. our minds are not advanced enough to see this is a non issue as their 'big picture' is not the same as ours.

reply to post by teslahowitzer


I disagree.
Conflict, at least according historical example, gives rise to far more technical advancement faster than states of peace, harmony, and free love in the streets.

In climates of non-conflict, the over-privileged self entitled wealthy focus their efforts on obtaining more power, privilege, influence and money.
In climates of conflict, especially large scale states of war similar to WWII, Nation-states will make demands of sacrifice of the population via taxation, war bonds, ration cards, and sundry other methods all bent toward development of better technologies and methodologies for the defeat of similar equiv-tech enemy.

All that peace and love is altruistically dreamy nice and all, but, history has exemplified that states of total war lend more toward the technological advancement of any society, whether it's the invention of the samurai sword, the trebuchet, full-plate armor, cannons, rifled cannons and firearms, iron-clad ships, submarines, airplanes, missiles, missile guidance systems, and all the innumerable other innovations that have resulted from conflict, including interesting next-gen optical and stealth field generation technologies for 'invisibility' camouflage, and other such.

That's just the hardware tech.
Conflict extends into developments in strategy, game theory, psychology, information warfare, encryption, communication, soldier physiology, health and battle readiness fitness, and sundry other concentrations.

Peace, love and harmony might give us blue pills for the betterment of the quality of life in an aging population incapable of much other than the purchase of said blue pills, or advances in entertainment technologies for the rest of a peaceful population, but, conflict and total war, at least historically, gives far more toward the advancement of a society, if said society can survive it.

Big risks. Big gains. It's mixed with the chance of crippling losses too, but. History shows us how this works out.

Aliens?
Anyone we meet, if such ever happens, will likely be forged from or have a respectable history of total war/conflict such we'd be wise to keep a finger on the trigger until contact negotiations are worked to total satisfaction.

The idea that in order to achieve technological advancements (such as interstellar travel) a civilization must be 'peaceful' and work together is pure woowoo, and frankly, to make it out as if this could be the only way they could achieve these advances (by being morally correct creatures) is absolutely ludicrous. There are many scenarios one can envision where 'billions' of cooperating 'peaceful' creatures are not needed to achieve technological advancement whatsoever. This fantasy that some insist on imagining the intelligent E.T., as if they were some grandiose ethical version of ourselves, is just more of the same - humans only able to imagine other creatures in the universe in light of themselves and their condition. Poppycock.

In the human theatre, war, or pre-war tension definitely delivers the goods in technology and advancement, as literally everything is thrown into the pot in a time of crisis.

Flower power new age tree hugging born again types deliver diddly squat, other than a population explosion,
std's and visits to rehab.

Some may ask which scenario is better, but that's going into another area entirely.

Predator and prey, brutal as this is, keep both species in top form.
Modern humans have no predator other than old age, ill health, wars or misfortune.

We are a young technical society,
no one sits back and looks at the big picture
where we as a species are going long term,
out in the cosmos there will be societies many times older than us,
and would have had to grasp the nettle so to speak.

Eugenics and the policing of it
would have to be the remit of the most wise among us,
but the problem for us is that the most wise are not those with the power.
Maybe in alien societies this would be different
but with us it is all to evident that power corrupts many.
Proof of this would be if Ben Rich was correct in stating we do have interstellar travel,
and other wonders,
but locked up in black projects.

I firmly believe this is why we do not have open alien contact
because humanity's rulers can't be trusted,
and no one speaks for all.

I would consider alien societies to fall into 3 groups,
Reptilian, Mammalian or equivalent and Insectoid.

I would speculate that the first, Reptilian, to be the most populous in the galaxy,
this type of life was well established here for 100's of millions of years
and would most likely be the first to rise to ascendency.
Mammalian or equivalent could be quite rare,
but I suspect the way their societies would be structured would be quite similar,
where males and females would pair off,
but the possibility would exist in Reptillians for single sex societies where there would be only one hermaphrodite gender.

Advanced Insectoid societies are where we could really hit high strangeness
where the emphasis would be on the hive as a total rather than the individual,
with very different tiered levels of importance and roles
and a definite hierarchical structure.
Breeding in that type of society, I don't really know where to start
as it is truly alien.

If a planet is nicely centred in the habitable zone,
it is going to be teeming with life, just like earth,
and I'm sure that there are many in our Galaxy like this
which makes this conversation justifiable and seldom touched upon.

Advanced Alien civilizations won't be life forms made up of matter.

They will have evolved into energy life forms. Being energy life forms they would not have to have 'classes'. Immortality would have given them infitine knowledge.

They'd have their sects of intelligent wise groups creating matter life forms throughout the universe. They'd also have their sects of carnal beings feeding off those life forms and causing mahem just for kicks.

They too would still wonder the purpose of the universe and life. They could create life and kill it...just to watch what happens.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are the most abundant things in the universe. It would be naive to think all other life would be made up of matter. All our matter is...is just highly evolved particles created with time in the cosmos that eventually decay back to its original simple source.

reply to post by Openeye

Originally posted by Openeye

Very doubtful. The laws of physics pretty much sum up how astral bodies exist, so unless you discover a planet the shape of a triangle I will defer to the science, as last time I checked all planets are spheres, and all galaxies are spirals. Sure there are many many things we do not now about the physics of the Universe, but we know quite a bit.

We knowassume quite a bit.

Quantum Mechanics has proven that the Classical/Newtonian Laws of Physics are not 100% flawless in every possible type of situation. Just one contradiction should be all that it takes in order for us to realize that the Laws of Physics which we cling onto, may not actually apply everywhere else.... out there..... where-ever......

Last time I checked, the only thing about the Universe that we know for sure, is that there is nothing that we know for sure.

reply to post by metalholic

Originally posted by metalholic

Watch how simple and easy this is.

Stating something in a simple & easy manner, does not guarantee it's accuracy.

Originally posted by metalholic

Maybe not every little detail but anything with the capability of thought and has an intelligence that evolved over a vast year. Has went through the same situations and growing pains we have.

Restricting the possibilities by placing limitations on something that we humans know absolutely nothing about, is illogical.

Originally posted by metalholic

Because every time you advance you trap yourself in a paradigm that makes it difficult to advance and create a new one..

It's like trying to jump in and out of boxes without getting stuck in one.

I am saying that the possibilities are limitless, and may even be completely unimaginable to us. My box has no sides, no top, & no bottom.

You, on the other hand, are speaking in absolutes, even though it is nothing more than assumptions.

I like posts like this, it bring out ideas.

Personally, I think there are some civilizations that would be similar to our own, except they would be us if that Al gore guy won.

I usually end up thinking they would be alot like our civilization like Star Trek. They would be Technologically Matured compared to us squandering threat to nations with nuclear power. And if they wanted to threaten a global body, or nation I`m sure they could come up with more sophisticated and powerful instruments.

I don't think an advanced civilization would have to worry about over population especially if they have been around for a long time. Also if they can Terra-form planets, they would not have to worry so much about it. Resources could also be considered infinite, especially if they have those microwaves that make the food from nothing(also from star trek).

Laws however, well that could vary. After all take a look at our countries with so many rules. Take weed for example, some countries will chop your head off for a gram, some will throw you in jail for year for a 5 piece. And others wouldn`t care.

I think a monetary system could exist, but would be taken lightly unlike ours were it all ways a live and death struggle for a couple of dollars. And would not have impact on politics what so ever( A guy can dream). I think brands would be a thing of the past due to their over consumption of resources.

Plus, I don`t think an overly aggressive society or civilization could survive for various reasons. They would be to aggressive to even organize and would be at risk of self-destruction, and would lack the technological maturity a very advanced civilization that would have let them preserve them selves as a species.
Not only that I think an advanced civilization would not tolerate a immature nuclear capable neighbour, and could possibly quarantine them for such reasons until, they become a technological mature race.(Good luck with that one)

Neways those are just my opinions. U get a flag an a star from me for such a open-minded post which gets rare.

Also take alook at this video if you got time. I found it great considering it take in so many factors as to what it takes to make become an advanced civilization. Also stars Carl Sagan, who is optimistic about advanced species.

Carl Sagan on Drakes Equation

Originally posted by Donegal_TDI
If we are to survive for 1000's or millions of years

I am afraid that a society 1000s or millions of years more advanced (be it humans or aliens) is ENTIRELY not imaginable.

Society here on Earth, just 150 years ago was already so different, let alone back in the middle-ages, Romans etc... Look, 150-200 years ago they did not even have electricity, social norms/taboos were already entirely different (slavery, status of women etc.) than what we have now.

What would be in 2000 / 50000 / 100000+ is entirely...out of anyone's even wildest imagination.

My PERSONAL opinion is that a society/culture within several hundred thousand of years or a million years will have mastered to "exist" outside the physical realm, they are not bound to physical bodies anymore. This is what I think, however of course its speculative.

reply to post by BrokenCircles

Quantum Mechanics has proven that the Classical/Newtonian Laws of Physics are not 100% flawless in every possible type of situation.

But that does not prove that there is no such thing as universal constants.

Just one contradiction should be all that it takes in order for us to realize that the Laws of Physics which we cling onto, may not actually apply everywhere else

No, thats not how science works. Just becuase you find some sort of phenomena in your experiment does not mean that your conclusion is entierly incorrect. For example (one of my favorites), we are not going to one day discover that gravity is in fact not a natural force but invisible energy beings that push everyhing to the ground. Sure there maybe things about gravity that we do not understand and interacions it may have that we know nothing about, but that does not mean we do not undersand the primary principles of its nature.

Last time I checked, the only thing about the Universe that we know for sure, is that there is nothing that we know for sure.

Except of course that whenver this subject comes up some one is bound to say what you say above

A long lived advanced alien society will have had to deal with many contentious issues in it's past to reach a long term equilibrium.
I'm talking flesh and bone aliens
not airy fairy creatures of fantasy but creatures probably not that dissimilar from us
whether they be reptilian, mammalian or similar.
Insectoids are going to be another deal entirely as mentioned earlier.

The way humans are, us, is not sustainable into the future,
and one thing you can take from here is that in the future for us,
there will have to be changes, momentous changes,
to ensure our survival into the future,
if anyone really cares that is,
other than what goes on within the border of their own country.

reply to post by Donegal_TDI

Predator and prey, brutal as this is, keep both species in top form.
Modern humans have no predator other than old age, ill health, wars or misfortune.

You pretty much summed up the threats to any intelligent species right there. What else besides what is on that list "preys" living organisms?

no one sits back and looks at the big picture

I'm pretty sure many intellectuals out there do, as well as many of us arm chair intellectuals.

Eugenics and the policing of it
would have to be the remit of the most wise among us,
but the problem for us is that the most wise are not those with the power

Even if a really wise man was in power, he would have no right to take my right to reproduce away. As futurist media is the truly the only reference point for much of this discussion I direct you to Gattaca.

I firmly believe this is why we do not have open alien contact
because humanity's rulers can't be trusted

I completely disagree. Even if human leaders could not be trusted, what would be the harm in introducing yourself to another race of intelligent beings? Especially if you gave them no technology, it could an inspire a whole race to reach for the stars.

I would speculate that the first, Reptilian, to be the most populous in the galaxy,
this type of life was well established here for 100's of millions of years
and would most likely be the first to rise to ascendency.

Advanced Insectoid societies are where we could really hit high strangeness
where the emphasis would be on the hive as a total rather than the individual,
with very different tiered levels of importance and roles
and a definite hierarchical structure

I do not see how the reptilian, or the nervous structures of insects brain could develop in such a way that would allow it to manifest intelligence on the level as the primate brain. Reptiles have been around for so long because they are extremely efficient in their "design", as are insects.

So if time is simply the measuring stick for intelligence, why are snakes, ants, or better yet jellyfish or other Cnidaria the dominate intelligent lifeforms on earth?

The way humans are, us, is not sustainable into the future,
and one thing you can take from here is that in the future for us,
there will have to be changes, momentous changes,

I can agree with you to an extent, things do need to change for us to improve. However, most of the things that need to change have to do with our finite resources.

reply to post by Druscilla


Hi Drus, the other side of the coin is possible. Imagine this planet with no wars in the last 200 years, a small percentage spent on defence and all of the rebuilding not required. The brightest minds unleashed to achieve things mankind can actually benefit from and grow with. Instead of the trillions spent on weapons, warfare and military, spent on science and spacetravel ( we could have colonized Mars by now) genetics, antigravitational travel etc, etc,. The best of innovation required by nessecity can be more than your imagination can handle. Efforts focused on real innovation for a people's future and expansion is what would make a species evolve and become what mankind can only dream of in our infant state.

reply to post by Openeye

Originally posted by Openeye

No, thats not how science works. Just becuase you find some sort of phenomena in your experiment does not mean that your conclusion is entierly incorrect.

I think you've got that backwards. I'm not saying that it is [color=BBDEDE]'entirely incorrect', but rather that there is a chance it is [color=BBDEDE]'not entirely correct'. There's a huge difference.


Simplified: I'm not saying we're definitely wrong. I'm just saying that we cannot absolutely guarantee that everything we believe is in fact 100% correct, and holds true all throughout the entire Universe.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Last time I checked, the only thing about the Universe that we know for sure, is that there is nothing that we know for sure.

Originally posted by Openeye

Except of course that whenver this subject comes up some one is bound to say what you say above

That's because it's true.

reply to post by Donegal_TDI


I'm not sure why some contributors seem to have a problem with "speculation"??? Speculation is exactly what the OP has asked for: "I would like your opinions on the scenarios that might exist on such a planet." So why throw a wet blanket over the discussion? There are many bright people on these forums, and intelligent speculation is one way that individuals' viewpoints are given the opportunity to evolve.

Personally, I'm in that camp that says we can barely begin to imagine what advanced civilizations might be like. But it is fun to try. ;-)

As to population control ... well, would they even need it? First, I'd guess that the nuclear family as we know it is probably not even a feature of many of these societies. Sex and love may have been genetically "turned off", as hard as that is to ponder, with all reproduction taking place artificially. I certainly don't advocate such a setup for us, but I'm sure we've all tried to imagine what the human race might accomplish were those basic drives eliminated. Would we then be a species of Sheldon Coopers? Add to that a million years of rapid artificial selection, and what do we have? The unimaginable.

The role of artificial intelligence demands more attention here. I'd imagine that a society making widespread use of AI would not have its population size limited by natural resources. Harnessing the power and products of perhaps multiple star systems, maybe more, could they then chemically convert / produce as much of basically anything they wanted? (Before imposing limitations based on 20th-century human science, consider the maximum extent to which our chemistry, physics and biology could possibly be evolved. We're a mere ~150 years beyond the elementary Germ Theory of Disease....)

Back to 'them': would proliferation of their own kind even be a primary goal?

Would they even need food and nourishment as we know it? Would they be cybernetic -- half biological, half artificial -- with the entire consumption & waste processes we're so familiar with supplanted by some imponderable source of energy?

I just don't think that they'd be limited by the issues the OP presented. (Though those issues are incredibly relevant to us.) Why wouldn't they be well beyond it? My thought (completely unoriginal) is that yes, energy is finite, of course, but there's enough of it in a single atom to ensure that, if effectively used, life as we know it -- i.e., purely biological, sexually reproducing life -- might have been intentionally left far behind by any super intelligence.

On the other hand ... after a few million years of this advanced existence, perhaps some of these hyper-evolved 'species' would set up isolated population clusters confined to doing things the natural, old-fashioned way?

Who knows? It is interesting to speculate....

And the OP is right: we're going to need to have some tough discussions on the topic of population control, because ... Earth is full. Literally and mathematically. From what I've read, we're at or near the limits of sustainability, given the acreage of land and gallons of fresh-water needed per person. Many experts are already saying that, not so long from now, wars will be fought primarily over wheat and water. So I fear that, without some incredible scientific breakthroughs, humanity has some very rough times ahead. Let's hope not. And these anti-science factions that currently exist, often based on ancient religions, have got to be dealt with too.... But how?

If ET is here, I doubt it's in anticipation of our placement onto some kind of cosmic "endangered species list". I'm not at all hopeful that they'd save us from ourselves. Though if the worst did happen, maybe our genome would at least make it into their galactic catalog and be preserved that way?

Interesting thread.

I think all the nonsense about "ooooo millions of years of evolution is certain to result in wonderful wow" is all total and complete moronic rubbish.

How many hundreds of millions of years did the dinosaurs have to do anything other than eat grass, each other, fart, fornicate, repeat?

What about insects? Insects were and have been around much longer than dinosaurs, yet, I don't see mosquitoes using advanced stealth technologies, computer generated tactical planning, satellite data, flying cars and other things to acquire blood.

Fish! Fish have been around even longer than insects, or dinosaurs ever were. I've yet to see any underwater cities with fish driving around in their own submarines, or anything of the sort.

It's like most people thinks it's a video game and if you just "imagine" millions of years of evolution and evolutionary "advances", there's just got to be some level-ups in there like those civilization games.
Has anyone proposing such actually pulled their simple minded heads out of their cell phone, or iPad long enough to look around?

It's entirely possible there's a biological cap on intelligence as a mostly useless thing for an animal to have, especially in consideration of looking around, no other animal we've asked questions about it have had much to say on the matter.
It could very well be that being "smart" is more trouble than it's worth due the biological cost all that processing power requires, and over time as that intelligence invents things to make life all the more domesticated, easier to deal with, less complicated and more survivable than having to run around naked killing things with rocks, the very wonderful brain that made all that technology of tool usage possible is used less, and less, and less, and less the more comfortable and domesticated life becomes.

Biological evolution, in the historical record, has indicated in the morphology of a number of other animals, the less, or more something is used or relied on, biology will select for, or against that trait.

The easier life gets, the less we need to really USE our brains.

Millions more years of this, and we may find ourselves like moronic unthinking cattle cared for by the sophisticated machines we developed those millions of years in the past to care for our overly self-domesticated needs.
There's already sign for this in modern society with the ongoing idiocracy or willing self-moronization of the masses always selecting for the 'easy' choice.

Without willful recognition and purposeful avoidance of a recession in intelligence, but, assertive attempts to reach escape velocity, we risk a cognitive falling back to the dullard, unthinking dirt and slime we came from.

The same hump, or trap of self indulgent, self satisfying, over self domesticated comfort resulting in a cognitive recession would certainly present temptation to any sufficiently intelligent, advancing, technologically reliant civilization.

Originally posted by Druscilla

How many hundreds of millions of years did the dinosaurs have to do anything other than eat grass, each other, fart, fornicate, repeat?

And why would they?

That's the life.

Originally posted by Druscilla
I think all the nonsense about "ooooo millions of years of evolution is certain to result in wonderful wow" is all total and complete moronic rubbish.

You're making the assumption that the evolution is random. Once an intelligence reaches our level of civilization, evolution is no longer associated with uncertainties. Such civilization will have the capability to control its own evolution and select for which traits it deems desirable. Intelligence is obviously one of those traits.

Originally posted by DruscillaHow many hundreds of millions of years did the dinosaurs have to do anything other than eat grass, each other, fart, fornicate, repeat?

With all due respect, dinosaurs were never intelligent. This is a moot point.

Originally posted by DruscillaWhat about insects? Insects were and have been around much longer than dinosaurs, yet, I don't see mosquitoes using advanced stealth technologies, computer generated tactical planning, satellite data, flying cars and other things to acquire blood.

From a fundamental biological perspective, insects simply do not have the prerequisites to build a civilization, i.e a sufficiently large brain and the ability to manipulate the environment. Dolphins have a comparable intelligence to humans and could understand calculus, but you won't see them building structures because they cannot manipulate their environment even if they are mentally capable of such tasks.

Originally posted by DruscillaFish! Fish have been around even longer than insects, or dinosaurs ever were. I've yet to see any underwater cities with fish driving around in their own submarines, or anything of the sort.

See above.

Originally posted by DruscillaIt's entirely possible there's a biological cap on intelligence as a mostly useless thing for an animal to have, especially in consideration of looking around, no other animal we've asked questions about it have had much to say on the matter.

I don't see how this helps to make your point. Sure, there may be an evolutionary cap on intelligence, but this has nothing to do with intelligent beings enhancing their own intelligence without natural selection. Again, moot point.

Originally posted by DruscillaIIt could very well be that being "smart" is more trouble than it's worth due the biological cost all that processing power requires, and over time as that intelligence invents things to make life all the more domesticated, easier to deal with, less complicated and more survivable than having to run around naked killing things with rocks, the very wonderful brain that made all that technology of tool usage possible is used less, and less, and less, and less the more comfortable and domesticated life becomes.

That is highly unlikely, especially if you're talking about artificial intelligence. What's more probable is a convergence of biological and machines into a hybrid and we are seeing the beginning of this phenomena today. An intelligence capable of creating artificial intelligence would not be so vulnerable to its own creation.

Originally posted by DruscillaThe easier life gets, the less we need to really USE our brains.

This is patently false, otherwise it wouldn't be the richer and better off countries in the world that account for the majority of scientific and mathematical research. As automation improves, jobs that required little to no thought are marginalized. This will likely cause more people to be educated in jobs that are not as easily automated, and the most obvious choice are STEM fields.

Originally posted by DruscillaMillions more years of this, and we may find ourselves like moronic unthinking cattle cared for by the sophisticated machines we developed those millions of years in the past to care for our overly self-domesticated needs.
There's already sign for this in modern society with the ongoing idiocracy or willing self-moronization of the masses always selecting for the 'easy' choice.

That is possible, but extremely improbable. You're assuming we simply won't control our evolution as we have controlled the majority of other aspects in our environment. While it is true that we have likely reached a maximum in intelligence due to natural selection, this doesn't necessarily mean it is the only way to increase our intelligence. Genetic engineering and cognitive enhancement research is likely to yield promising results this century, which would cause a staggering increase in intelligence that otherwise would be effectively impossible through even the most optimal and desirable natural selection methods. That's not even considering the convergence I mentioned earlier with machines.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist


I'll grant the artificial augmentation and manipulation for customized willful advancement beyond the 'gravity well' of natural selection.
That's the escape velocity I was referring to.
Currently, however, as far as genetic manipulation goes; designer babies, etc., genetic tinkering with the human genome for a bigger, better, smarter, faster, prettier, more resilient, more adaptable longer-lived you is a big No-no.

There's laws against the GATTACA goal.
The overly superstitious clinging to the apron strings of some hoodoo mythology or another sling terms like "playing god" around more than our closest primate relatives fling poo.
... and these backward, superstitious are in the majority as well as holding stock in positions of power everywhere.

Inheritable trans or meta-human augments will not come out of any developed first world region. If that ever happens, we'll likely see it coming out of the outlaw regimes that don't play by the same rules.

Mechanical augmentation through the assistance of tech-singularity when/if that ever happens will have a higher likelihood of occurring.
There is, of course, the Herbert paradigm (from Frank Herbert's Dune series) where tech singularity is concerned involving thinking machines being outlawed for fear of biological extinction through either gradualism, or outright hostile takeover.

There are, of course, altruistic views of a technological future aplenty. I rater enjoy the concept of The Culture dreamed up and illustrated by Iain M. Banks in his novels.

For the majority, however, what are you going to use all that extra cognitive horsepower for?

Your brain, right now, isn't too far different from the greatest brains that have made the most startling impacts on human history. It's all really a matter of discipline, focus, drive, education, application of education, and varying degrees of creativity.
Right now, the technology at your fingertips, in your pocket, what you're using directly at this moment has thousands of times, tens of thousands of times, or millions of times MORE processing power than the entirety of the US Space program combined up to at least 1980.

And what are you using it for?
The vast majority of people are using all that amazing processing power to moo and bahh their domestic animal bleats and grunts at all the other domesticated animals in their local herd, to post pictures and videos of other animals, either themselves, or cats, doing things of amusing value.

Certainly there's a specific specialized calling in some fields for the ability to think faster, deeper, longer term on larger scales, but, a large majority of the social mediocrity wouldn't know what to do with increased intelligence if it was just handed to them.

As stated, the modern brain of the everyday man and women isn't that far different than any other brain that's made impressive marks on human history. Yet, many (in civilized first world nations) don't even bother to attempt advancing themselves beyond required schooling.
All that thinking is just too hard.
Going to University is just too much work and trouble.

Sure, there are those among us that hold up and advance the margins.
The larger part, however, are making do treading water and playing the consumer, relying more and more on the easy button supplied by smarter technologies, and developing a stronger sense of entitlement as each generation is birthed into existence.

We're closing on a fulcrum point.
We.
There's hope for the artificial advancement of the species, but, at the same time, the teeming masses of willfully and in some cases militantly mediocre may pull us back down into the slime by dead weight alone.