>>11954693I agree that he writes in a retarded manner.
I also understand his point and *somewhat* agree with him.
If you look at average IQ by country, it correlates negatively with infectious and parasitic disease burden
There is also the flynn effect, an increase in IQ over time (in developed countries) that can't be accounted for by genetics alone, and is attributed to better healthcare over time resulting in less disease in developing children.
In these cases it's possible, if not probable, that fighting infections meant too much energy was taken away from brain development.
What he seemed to say in an earlier post is, if we didn't need to worry about maintaining a strong immune system (a system that produces many energetically expensive immune cells), we would have more energy to put into (for example) brain development.
But we do have to worry about having a strong immune system. We can't rely on vaccines to give us pre-emptive immunity for every disease, because we have novel pathogens, and we have pathogens with no vaccines.
If we had a weaker immune system, but vaccines for everything, and the ability to develop a vaccine in less than a month for a new pathogen, we would only need enough of an immune system for adequate immunisation; which arguably is less energetically expensive than the immune system we have now.
We'd also probably have less autoimmune diseases, alzheimers, parkinsons, etc; which are affected by excessive inflammation
