7....

A harsh environment that is challenging for survival.

Why did the primates in south america never develop into great ape equivalents?

Lack of predation. Lack of competition for resources.


Watch "Survivorman", the episode where he spends a week on the african plain.

EVERYTHING there is dangerous. Deadly even. If Africa wasn't so harsh while we were developing, we would never have had our intelligence grow. In my opinion.

It is that struggle against the environment, and against competition for your echological niche that stresses a population enough to select the most beneficial of the naturally occuring random genetic mutations.

Survival of the fittest.

Those genetic mutations always exist. look at the difference between your nordic "strongest man" competitor, a Kenyan long distance runner, and a Japanese auto executive.

Put them in a group, with no stress (no danger, plentiful resources) and all will survive well.

Put that social group in stress, and depending on the kind of stress one of them will be definately better suited for survival.

Continue that stress over a long enough period of time, and that type of human will become highly prevalent.



This is one of the reasons why I believe human beings have not progressed in intelligence in a couple thousands of years, and will not progress in intelligence unless all of society collapses.

In modern societies, it is the intelligent, the driven, and the motivated who generally* succeed in society. Unfortunately, the breeding rate of the successful to the unsuccessful is upside-down in every human society on earth.


Normally, in nature, the successful breed more than the unsuccessful. This strengthens the species.

In Human societies. Who is breeding? In almost every country, even those considered "first world" or successful, it is the poorest who
outbreed the richest by a very wide margin.

This is one scientific reason why Abortion is bad for the human race.

Those successful enough to afford abortions, should be breeding at least as much as the inner city single mother of 5 who keeps popping out kids because the government gives her more money each kid she has...and pays her more if she stays single.

The two-income family who is successful, pulling down a combined 100k plus a year, highly trained, intelligent, probably able to pass that intelligence on to the next generation, are on average having less than two children.


Over time, Those who for WHATEVER*** reason are not successful in society are out breeding those who are.

This has been going on for a very long time. And will only continue until those who are not successful in society so vastly outnumber those who are successful in society, that the society created and supported by those who are successful, can no longer support those who are unsuccessful in society, and rely on that society's support. The society will collapse.

This is a logical reason why I do not believe any kind of socialistic or communistic government is self-sustainable without MASSIVE governmental control over everyone's everyday life.

The half-socialism that every western society has is not sustainable in the long run.

either you have personal freedom, and a government that is self sustainable by not increasing taxes on a shrinking tax payer base to pay for freebeis for an increasing lower class.

or, you have zero personal freedom, and a government that is self sustainable by utter and complete control over everything, down to breeding rights.

or, you have what western society has now. A society that is designed to inevitably collapse.