The terrible truth about intelligence.
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 evolution. Evolution
is on the basis of survival advantage for particular attributes.
So, 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!

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.

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??????????

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

The stress was, quite simply, OTHER HUMANS. No other animal was a real
threat to a band of humans (and dogs).

The fact that we are homicidal sneaky maniacs 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.

What does this infer?? For a start, 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, eposecially if they're
smarter.

Still looking forward to first contact?

Ben Balzer





> >I have no doubt the greatest gains in intelligence
> >occured with the help of animal foods in the diet, but
> >that doesn't negate the possibility of *very* early
> >use of fire.
>
> I wasn't negating the possibility of early use of fire (though I have
great
> scepticism about it)!  I was negating the following three ideas 1) that
> cooking vegetables caused increases in intelligence, 2) that vegetables
> supply the substrates required for brain development,  and 3) that cooked
> vegetables are more energy dense than meat!
>
> Referring back to your first theorum, if
> >hunting leads to brain growth, and chimps hunt, then
> >why is their brain development not on par with humans?
>
> Two plausible reasons occur to me:  1) they don't now and never have eaten
> enough meat and fat 2) they don't now and never have eaten seafood as man
> has.  As I said in the original post, I am inclined to agree with Crawford
> and Marsh that early humans must have been inhabitants of coastal regions
> where they could get abundant DHA from sea mammals, sea birds, and fish.
>
> Ingrid Bauer wrote:
>
> >in refutation to the  argument about brain building requirements for
humans
> >presented by Don, this argument have been presented:
> >
> ><we actually develop bigger brains by growing them for longer (not
faster),
> ><and most or all of the growth is completed during lactation
> >
> I don't know what qualifications Ingrid has, but Dr. Michael Crawford, a
> renowned biochemist, is probably the world's leading expert on EFAs and
> brain development.  According to professor Crawford, "The brain is the
> earliest organ to develop. Seventy percent of the total maximum number of
> brain cells that anyone ever has were built inside the mother during fetal
> life." Nutrition and Evolution, p. 130.  Thus, contrary to her claim, most
> actual formation of brain tissue actually occurs before lactation (good
> thing too, or we'd have an incredible number of imbeciles on our hands due

> to formula feeding).
>
> If Ingrid is on track, then why is it that the placenta selects neural
fatty
> acids from mother's blood, passing them on in higher concentration to the
> fetus? Long gestation contributes to greater brain development, and long
> gestation with increased DHA supplies is even better!
>
> IN addition, If Ingrid's view is correct, then several things beg
> explanation:
>
> 1)  WHY ARE HUMANS THE EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT OMNIVORES AND
> CARNIVORES HAVE MORE SOPHISTICATED NERVOUS SYSTEMS THAN HERBIVORES?
>
> 2)  Why do studies show that vegetarian moms have milk with lower DHA
levels
> than omnivores?  And why do studies show that children raised on milk
lower
> in DHA have less intelligence than children raised on milk higher in DHA?
>
> 3)  Why is it that carnivorous dolphins are the only animals with a brain
> near human size (in relation to body mass)?  Answer to this question
should
> address the fact that dolphins evolved from an herbivorous ancestor.
>
> 4)  Why aren't the vegetarian nations (e.g. India) producing crops of
> geniuses?  Why have the more vegetarian nations lagged so far behind the
> omnivores in scientific and technological innovations?
>
> 5)  Why is it that cross cultural studies show that (carnivorous) Japanese
> children are on average scoring significantly higher on IQ tests than
> non-Japanese?   Why is it that Japan is scientifically and technologically
> so much more innovative and economically potent than even the U.S.?
>
> (Japanese are carnivores at the top of the seafood chain...as Crawford and
> Marsh point out in Nutrition and Evolution, they are still a kind of
hunter
> gatherer society, since much of their food is wild fish.  In Japan DHA is
> considered to be so important that the government encourages use of it to
> fortify foods!)
>
> Don