Chapter 1: The Mystery of Human Intelligence

The question of why humans are the only known species to exhibit intelligence has long been a topic of discussion. Despite numerous theories, none have been able to withstand rigorous examination. Therefore, I decided to propose my own theory regarding this phenomenon.

My hypothesis suggests that millions of years ago, a predator posed a significant threat to females, systematically eliminating them. This predation likely occurred as our ancestors were forced to leave the safety of trees. In response to this danger, both male and female ancestors began to form closer bonds, which through natural selection, eventually led to the development of pair-bonded groups. I argue that this need for protection against predators is a fundamental reason behind the evolution of human intelligence.

To illustrate this point, modern evidence indicates that pair bonding is particularly prevalent in environments where there is a surplus of males compared to females. In scenarios where females are outnumbered, the tendency shifts toward forming monogamous relationships, especially when the females are in danger. The implication is clear: if female populations decline due to predation, males are more likely to bond with them for protection.

This situation raises an important point—while a significant loss of males may not threaten a species' survival, the same cannot be said for females. For instance, after the devastating War of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay during the 1860s, the male population suffered a staggering decline, yet the population rebounded by the 1900s. However, if the same percentage of females had perished, recovery would have been nearly impossible. Therefore, if females are dying in large numbers, it becomes crucial for males to develop strategies to safeguard them or face extinction.

I propose that our male ancestors did indeed find a solution: they formed groups consisting of bonded pairs. In such a setup, with fewer females and a looming threat, these pairs would have a greater chance of survival, both for themselves and their offspring. The key factor here is loyalty; when pairs unite, they can collectively fend off predators more effectively. Each female would have a dedicated male protector, ensuring the safety of their children as well.

The significance of this lies in the dynamics of pair bonding versus group survival. Couples who are not part of a larger group tend to focus solely on their own offspring, while non-bonded groups lack individual loyalty and thus protect the collective rather than individuals. By merging these two dynamics, our ancestors created a system that would enhance their survival chances.

This duality of responsibility may have led our ancestors to develop an adaptable approach to survival, navigating between the needs of their families and the group. I posit that this search for balance played a crucial role in helping our ancestors overcome the threats to female survival.

As for the development of intelligence, the cost of forming these groups was the increasing vulnerability of females and children. If the optimal way to protect females and their offspring was through forming bonded pairs, then natural selection would favor those with traits conducive to such arrangements—traits that include social and communication skills, loyalty, and group cohesion. These traits require intelligence, which in turn necessitates larger brains.

However, there is a trade-off: as brain size increases, muscle mass decreases. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in women. The human brain is incredibly energy-demanding, and to accommodate larger brains, our ancestors had to sacrifice muscle. This is why women exhibit higher body fat levels; it allows them to store energy necessary for nurturing children with large brains.

Consequently, as our ancestors needed greater intelligence to survive, women became increasingly vulnerable due to muscle atrophy. This dynamic also extended to children, who became more reliant on caregivers as their brains grew larger. Consider the vulnerability of an early female carrying a helpless infant, facing the dangers posed by predators.

When we combine these elements, we see a paradox: female vulnerability catalyzed a cycle of increasing dependence that ultimately fostered intelligence in our species. My theory may seem unconventional, but I suggest that the cycle of vulnerability has historically driven humans to the brink of extinction, prompting stronger social bonds, innovation, and violence against perceived threats.

In essence, this cycle may have even given rise to love, making us fiercely protective of our kin. The instinct to eliminate threats may stem from a deep-seated fear rooted in our evolutionary history. If my theory holds true, it indicates that our intelligence evolved not from a path of decreased vulnerability, but rather through the acknowledgment and acceptance of increasing vulnerability among women and children.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Chapter 2: Misinterpretations of Darwinian Theory