As I walked on the beach just now I thought of evolution, as one does on a beachwalk. Is there an evolutionary logic to become more intelligent? In other words, does a mutation which increases intelligence have a better chance of becoming a dominant gene? I would think that this would be the case only if the environment changed. Then having slightly more intelligence would be a good thing in order to survive and continue to have offspring in this changed environment.
But without a change in environment, increased intelligence would matter little. If the species is existing within their environment quite nicely then intelligence offers no advantages. We only have to look at our ancestral cousins: the great apes, to see that evolutionary changes have been very minor throughout the millennia due to them being perfectly suited for their environment in the jungles. Humans, after our branching-off from the apes, must have had the need to become more intelligent probably as a result of the ice age or some dramatic change in environment which rewarded intelligence and allowed those intelligent beings to continue having offspring. The fact that, for example, we have little hair meant that intelligence ruled over natural protections which directly opposes that of apes.
But the real proof is the crocodile, which has remained unchanged for millions of years. There would have been countless mutations over the years which increased intelligence, but if the environment doesn't change and their tummies are full regardless, then there is no need for increased intelligence to become genetically dominant. It may become dominant, but it doesn't have to.
However, it is different with fear. It is evolutionary logical for animals to be fearful, or at least, for fear being a dominant gene. Regardless of the environment, there are predators and natural dangers such as storms, floods, poisonous plants, etc etc. So, for example, there was a very great need for the advent of the adrenal gland to secrete adrenaline in fight or flight situations. Of course, the 'fear' gene can't become so overwhelming that someone never leaves the cave (like the Dad in the Croods) or you would starve but fear serves a very important evolutionary purpose: to increase the probability of survival.
So fear, and all it's associated cousins such as anxiety, compulsiveness, shyness, phobias and so on are here to stay. It is not a case where the human species' intelligence will somehow supersede fear and thus relegate it to a non-dominant gene. In fact, it may be the opposite. If the environment changes enough, it may be fear that supersedes intelligence and turns the clock back on the increased intelligence we have been enjoying for the past millennia. The original mammals, which evolved at the end of the dinosaur period, were tiny little fearful creatures like meerkats existing ever vigilant for danger. It is only because the past few thousands of years have been relatively stable has intelligence been allowed to increase.
So unfortunately we are stuck with fear and it's cousins, and we have to live with it. But conversely, recognise that it only serves an basic evolutionary purpose. It resides in only the 2 bottom levels of Maslow's pyramid (survival/security), and our intelligence can get us to the next levels.
