You’re awesome- you shoot down your own arguments better than anyone else could.
They’re smart because they could survive but we’re not as smart because we were capable of building towns & cities. In other words ‘survival’ to you does not mean successfully adapting to one’s environment sufficiently to be able to expand one’s population.
You seem to think that thriving ( being able to expand one’s population ), is not as important as surviving ( merely being able to feed oneself ).
That is some next level logic right there.
Their ‘survival’ was largely based on deforestation via mass burn offs of forest ( now bush because so many types of plant were lost ), to feed a handful of people.
Global warming? Imagine if those same ‘superior’ methods were used by all the people’s of the world. Our population would be 10% of what it is today, at best, & every rainforest/forest would have been lost Millenia ago.
Again we see that word survival.
Another measure of yours that shoots your story to pieces- the Chinese etc are light years ahead in that too. They/we survived so well that we could even afford to have larger populations.
Interestingly you don’t attack the idea that Asians ( orientals ), show up as being smarter than White people. Or the Africans for showing up as smarter than the aboriginal.
None of this is racial. It’s genetics which are of course largely driven by the environment.
If aboriginals had 100,000 years of living in say Northern Europe with mother winter blowing through to wipe out the lazy, the unwilling to co-operate & the unwilling to innovate then I’d guess that they’d be showing a similar IQ to the people who did have mother winter doing that for them every year.
The fundamental question that faced ancient people in these warm lands? ‘How much can I eat, how quickly can I eat it & how many children can I hear based on that’ was a pretty basic question.
It’s no wonder those are the they excel at- hunting & gathering while practicing low level conflict between immediate neighbours etc.
Now contrast that against ‘if I don’t work together with the family next door neither I nor my children will survive the winter. The family next door have come up with a better way to store food for long periods of time so I better copy that & perhaps improve on it. They also have a large network outside their immediate family to defend those foodstuffs over winter, if best start working with others on that, too’.
The Southern Hemisphere is largely a land of ‘the quick and the dead, screw your family pal- I & mine need to stuff ourselves as full as we can as quickly as we can, get outta the way!’.
The North on the other hand is a land of ‘the smart/willing to work with non family members & the dead’.
If that really does present an intellectual dilemma to you then perhaps go smack a tree- after all you’re basically upset about what Mother Nature forced upon we humans as necessity.
Remember necessity? The ‘mother of invention’?
Well, when you have access to food all year round ( even if you have to walk a bit to find it ), you just don’t have that same necessity, therefore you do not invent, therefore your mental capacity never needs to expand.
Another point for co-operation increasing mental capacity? Larger group sizes demand higher cognitive abilities to navigate those larger groups. Small family or extended family groupings at best can in no way compete with the natural impetus for growth that townships/cities create for us.
At the end of the day you seem to think that knowing where crabs are displays a higher intellect than inventing a refrigerator.
That’s awesome.
You’re a very special person.
