>>13014648>What proof do you have?People from countries of colder climates have measurably higher IQ. This supports the theory that colder climates select for intelligence.
>The richer, smarter percentage of people... [would have less] child and infant mortality = more offspring. (they also had more births per women)>https://perso.uclouvain.be/david.delacroix/pdfpubli/joeg19.pdfUpper and merchant classes had lower child fatalities + more births per women.
A book called 'A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World' thorough looking at the Wills of dead people (which would state how many children the father had, and how much money he died with) found that richer 50% had 40% more children then the poorer 50%. Using a similar method, except by looking at death records in Medieval Paris found that the richer 50% had twice the surviving children. Because richer people tend to be smarter, this would then, by extension, mean smarter people had a fertility advantage.
>>13016748Because physical ability is a more useful adaptation for that selection pressure. Anyway, literally no one would die from lions and shit anyway. When people came back from hunting trips everyone would eat. Only 40% of men had children in polyamorous societies and there wasn't high mortality rates in the population. This means adaptation pressures would be tend to either social/sexual selection, not natural selection, as the people that where passing on their genes would be those who had children, not those (literally everyone pretty much) who happened to survive the environment.
>What proof do you have?What proof do you have suggests that African populations firstly lived in an extremely hostile climate, and secondly, that climate would select for intelligence because you have to 'outwit' the animals lol.
