An Evolutionary Hypothesis

I'm reading a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel (I know, I don't really need more to read, but I was at the book store and I had a COUPON! I couldn't waste the opportunity!). And in the preface (I'm not all that far into it), the author presents a rather interesting idea: that the Aboriginal people of New Guinea are more intelligent than the average Westerner.

Whaaaa? But listen, it makes good sense when you follow the argument through. New Guineans (NG) and Europeans (EU) evolved in very different environments. NG: they evolved in small, secluded hunter-gatherer societies. EU: they evolved in large cities with many other people. Because of this, the threats to their survival differed.

NG had little chance for the spread of disease, and therefore their greatest threat tended to be starvation or tribal warfare. Such a situation leads to a survival of the fittest defined by intelligence.

EU, on the other hand, lived in packed cities with loads of disease, and therefore had to face this threat every day. And at the same time, food was relatively plentiful (because of the development of agriculture) and warring was relegated to lower classes (due to a political structure). In such an environment, survival depends more on resistance to disease. The more resistant, the more likely to live.

Therefore, from this situation, it follows that on average, NG should be more intelligent than EU (or us, for that matter), simply because of environmental circumstances. NG evolved to be "fittest" by being intelligent. EU evolved to be "fittest" by being resistant to disease. Get it?

Interesting, huh?

Namaste.