Curtailed Cognition—Part 2

Let's return to humanity's dumbing down because of air pollution. What long-term consequences may result, if we do little to clean up our air? We already know that modern humans are dumber than our Cro-Magnon ancestors, who roamed Earth tens of thousands of years ago. Well, maybe not necessarily dumber, but their brains were at least 10% larger than ours. They probably needed to be smart in their environment, which had many more threats than ours. Today we don't need their smarts, because we've tamed our world. We no longer have to deal with the large predators they faced, or, for most of us, the threat of food shortages.

It's a fact that evolution kicks in when environmental circumstances change. Species adapt when their environment transforms. The brain is a very expensive organ to maintain. In humans, it sucks up some 30% of the energy we generate. If we can decrease the size of our brain and not suffer any consequences—say, because we live in a less risky world—then it makes sense for evolution to do so. All of humanity's domesticated animals—cattle, sheep, pigs—are dumber than their wild counterparts. Through breeding we've made them safe and tame...and less intelligent.

So an argument can be made that today we do not need the smarts we once did. In fact, you don't have to look far into modern culture for ample evidence that many people do not use all that much of their cognitive abilities anyway. So let the brain deteriorate a little; it doesn't require much intelligence to veg out on the couch in front of the TV, or compose 140-character Tweets.

There's yet another reason why we could let our cognition curtail a little, without suffering the consequences: our rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI). We already have computers that are far smarter than we are at certain narrowly-defined tasks, such as chess—let alone all the lightning-speed calculations they do. We soon may develop what's called artificial general intelligence (AGI), which will outsmart us in most every area. We can get dumber and dumber and live easier and easier, thanks to robots. It makes me wonder if we will one day willingly enter the Matrix, where we do nothing but live in our heads. Matrix living is the ultimate easy “life.”

Will your average person even care if his cognition is curtailed? Studies have shown that the actual amount of money that one makes is not nearly as important as how it compares to his neighbor's earnings. Keep his salary low and he won't complain, if his cohorts are making the same; but give his neighbor a raise and he'll howl loudly and long. So, if everyone is as dumb as everyone else, will it matter to anyone?

Nobody knows where this is going. We can't predict the future. What's more, we seem to be disinclined to do much about it, even if we can see the threat. It's so much easier to maintain the status quo... it's much less demanding.

A final question that speaks to me: Which is more important, to keep my brain from deteriorating any more, or fully use the cognitive power I've got? It is a shame to own a fine musical instrument, but never develop the skill to play it. Is it instead maybe better to own a mediocre instrument that I've learned to play well? It seems to me that many people already squander much of the cognitive capability they possess.

Curtailed Cognition—Part 1

The results of recent research by Yale University on a population of 20,000 Chinese people over the time span of 2010-2014 is very sobering, because the study is the first to demonstrate that air pollution reduces one's cognitive ability. We've known for decades that air pollution is physically damaging to our lungs, but now the physical damage to the brain has also been shown. Our intelligence is being threatened.

Some 95% of the world's population is known to breathe unsafe air. That problem is particularly acute in China, whose air pollution has been shown to be three times greater than the upper limits described by the UN's World Health Organization; which is why the Yale study was conducted there. The researchers demonstrated that air pollution caused a significant drop in test scores—particularly in language and math—creating the equivalent of a lost year in the average person's education.

So now we have further evidence of the health-damaging impact of air pollution. What do these results mean? How great is this threat? What should we do about it? Of course, the rational conclusion would be to take dramatic and immediate measures to reduce air pollution. Don't hold your breath, however (no intentional pun, here). Since most all forms of pollution and environmental degradation disproportionately impact the poor, we can't expect politicians—who owe so much to the rich—to do much of anything about the problem.

In related areas, very little has been done to slow global warming or the use of pesticides, so we can't expect much to be done about air pollution either. Politicians seem to be minimally concerned about the future, since the impact of their actions—harmful or helpful—often takes many years to bear fruit. Their attention is on the next quarter's bottom line, and their chances of getting reelected, not on distant events to come.

So what will the future bring, if air pollution persists? Are we doomed? Will we be getting increasingly dumber? What harm will we incur as a species, if we don't act? No one knows the answers to these questions.

Well, there's one thing that can be counted on: the pharmaceutical industry will swing into action by developing drugs to deal with the curtailed cognitive symptoms—especially if those drugs need to be taken for the rest of one's life (thereby ensuring continued income for big pharma). Our culture is good at treating symptoms—rather than root causes. We already know that citizens' lungs get messed up with air pollution, so big pharma has answered the call by developing inhalers. Similarly, we have medicines to treat diabetes and heart disease—all aimed at easing the pain and limitations of these problems, without the need to improve lifestyles. Drug companies make lots of money when industry makes people sick. 
 
So, will big pharma come up with medications to counter the brain damage caused by air pollution? It's a good bet that they will. We already have medications to treat the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and other brain problems. We can count on the pharmaceutical industry to rescue us from having to do much about air pollution.

I am currently taking an online course on modern diseases and debilitation of old age, which makes another cogent point on this issue. The Dutch professor of my course, a physician, spent a few years in the emergency ward of a hospital, often treating the aftermath of accidents, such as when vehicles collide. He later went into family medicine and often found himself dealing with emergency situations brought on by heart attacks and strokes.

It occurred to him that he was repeatedly faced with health accidents that were brought on, not by a sudden automobile crash, but in the wake of a few decades of unhealthy living. In either case, he was dealing with a calamity—one that either happened in the ER from a crash a few hours earlier, or the other due to a gradual crash over decades. Are we creating a slow-motion crash of brain damage from air pollution—a crash that is as avoidable as heart attacks and diabetes, which could be dealt with by creating a healthy lifestyle?

More on dumbing down next time...