This is an original theory of mine that hasn't been published as yet- I
thought I'd bounce it around.

Intelligence, like all animal attributes, is subject to evolutionary
pressures. Evolution occurs on the basis of survival advantage for
particular attributes, often in response to an environmental stress or
opportunity. There is also a limit as to the amount of the evolution
depending on the degree of the stress or opportunity. For example, giraffes
have evolved a long neck and great height and this gives them an advantage
in foraging from tall trees. If, however, there were no trees in their
environment over 3 metres (10ft) tall, then it is unlikely that they would
have evolved to their current height. There would be no survival advantage
in evolving further. Similarly, many other extreme attributes in animals can
be explained on the basis of a survival advantage. Humans have an extreme
attribute in the form of their brain size and their intelligence.
Neurological tissue is so metabolically expensive to maintain that much
debate has gone on to find an explanation and to fit it with metabolic
findings of other creatures, especially carnivores.

Intelligence in carnivores is helpful in outwitting prey, and in pack
hunters with organising hunting tactics, etc. No doubt much more than this
has been mentioned in other discussions. Granted that it takes a high amount
of intelligence to make tools and spears, and hand-eye co-ordination and
vector prediction are very helpful when hunting with projectiles.Humans
however far exceed this, with a capacity for abstract thought, language,
art, culture, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, clone biology, filling in
silly forms, etc that greatly exceed that necessary to maximise their
survival advantage in the evolutionary wild.

Let us assume that intelligence increases in response to the environmental
adversity. If the environment is only complex to a particular level, there
is no real survival advantage in intelligence increasing any further. If the
environment has only so much stress, then there is no advantage and no need
for intelligence to increase further. In fact there is a disadvantage- brain
tissue is metabolically expensive! So, intelligence would be limited to the
amount necessary to take maximal advantage of the environment. If kippers
fell from heaven every day at 9am, then there would be no advantage in high
intelligence to a carnivore.

Now, humans are far more intelligent than the stress of the environment
required. Our intelligence is far too great to be explained by the
requirements of the environment.

The evolutionary stress that we had to meet was very very very strong. How
else can you explain our phenomenal intelligence.?

What, therefore is the evolutionary stress that led to the phenomenal
increase in human intelligence (as evidenced by brain growth of
archeological remains) over the past 2 million years? (ref 1). The giraffe
had the tall tree, the bat had the darkness, the rhinoceros had carnivores
to deal with, the anteaters long tongue is obvious. What was our stress??

Was the stress other carnivores? No. No other animal was a real threat to a
band of humans (and dogs). It certainly wasn't a hole in the ozone layer.

The stress was, quite simply, OTHER HUMANS.

The fact that we are homicidal is the underlying stress that caused our
intelligence to keep on evolving- there is a survival advantage in being
smarter than the next human. The evolutionary force was not being better
able to survive the environment, it was in being better able to survive
attack from other humans.

Which is to say that we are so smart because some of us are homicidal. Which
is a dreadful thing to say about a species, but quite a reasonable
explanation. I don't mean to say that we are fundamentally sociopathic- I
think sociopathy occurs when crime is directed within a tribe, and I think
that would have happened less than today (as evidenced for example by the
enormous increases in sociopathy associated with childhood exposure to
lead). I'm referring to xenophobic violence directed towards other tribes.

What does this infer?? Firstly, it makes one view human violence in a
different philosophical perspective. Also, think about the universe as a
whole. Any other species as intelligent as ourselves is just as likely to be
as homicidal as we are. Of course, they may be worse, especially if they're
smarter.

So, I'd like to know how many of the sci-fi buffs out there are still
looking forward to first contact!


With kind regards
Yours sincerely

Dr Ben Balzer, family physician
[log in to unmask]
109 Morgan St.
Beverly Hills 2209
Sydney, NSW, Australia

Reference
1. Christopher B. Ruff et al, Body mass and Encephalization in
Pleistocene Homo (letter)Nature Vol 387 8 May 1997 pp173-176