```and are you arguing a direct result or a corrilation?```
Direct result because if you don't have money, Woman won't have children with you, so you need to be somewhat successful. To be successful you need relatively high IQ.

And I'm not talking about the last 100 years or so, obviously.

I'M talking about the last 2000 years or so

your making this comparison in a VERY narrow scope of evolution

No, its one of the most important things.
The "alt-right" favors the "Winter Theory".

when you start talking about inteligence you need your thesis to stand up to how humans evolved to even be able to create citys, how the lowest inteligence populations on earth manage to be 4 or 5 times more cognitively effective than the species they decend from, and how many animals in the world have vastly different congnitive capabilitys than others without seemingly much difference between them

Wich means that High IQ is a result of harsh Enviroments (=Winter), wich requires some planning.
And if you messed that up, you'll die

you need to tell me how the difference in inteligence between a crow and a pidgen is as vast as the difference in inteligence between a man and a crow

and your arguement of population density falls appert with the crow and pidgen

or if we just look at ants

No, because Humans are different and not adapted to the enviroments -> No Fur or feathers.

and also need more food because they are bigger.

we are adapted to envirnments

we are simply adapted in a vastly different way than most other animals

The winter thing is great at telling a narrative it lacks bringing the argument beyond correlation though.

No, if you go out in the Winter without clothes, you die rather soon.

yet the winter is no more dangerous to humans than the savanna

yet humans have lived in that envirnment longer than any other envirnment humans have lived in

"harshness" is not a monolith, the way northern climes are harsh has a selective difference than the ways the savanna is harsh

the birthplace of civilization was neither though, the birthplace of civilization was at a river delta somewhere close to the equater

Playing devils advocate here. Weren't neanderthals based in the North?

well they are named after a valley in france

the most prelevent theory is that neanderthals evolved in the north, humans evolved in the south, as the ice age receided both groups began migrating in the opposite direction until they crossed and now theres some neanderthal dna in humans

```the birthplace of civilization was neither though, the birthplace of civilization was at a river delta somewhere close to the equater```
Yet all the "powerful" civilization were on the northern Hemisphere...

northern hemisphere is anywhere defigned above 0.infinity latatude. egypt and mesopotamia wernt european

I mean the most powerful civilization had to be somewhere

At one point of time that somewhere was China iirc

"powerful" is relitive to time period and some messurement

that messurement changes depending on who you ask

china evolved in basicly one of the most idelic environments on earth

there is no larger area of fertile land and ideal climate on this planet than south west china

Its either in Europe, India, China and that's about it until a couple of years ago

Well the parts of China that are heavily populated.

the only area comparible is about half the size in the us

egypt is not european

mesopatamia is not european

babyleon wasent european, assyria wasent european, persia wasent european

israel wasent european

europe didint arive to the game until after egypt had existed for 4000 years

europe was the last player in the civilization game, anyone who came in later didint do it fast enough by the time europe was taking over the world and burning their citys to the ground for gold

this is personally i dont think civilization is the only factor in inteligence, or atleast citys arnt, i would argue that cities are a result of a society thats able to make a city rather than the city makes the society that can make the city.