Well this certainly lives up to the discussion thread title. This is an ill posed question because it selectively carves out a very specific definition of human value for obviously ideological reasons. Why is capital the definitive measure of contributions to the human race? What about the wheel (Mesopotamians), what about fire (Africans - geographically, probably no one knows the taxonomy but certainly not northern Eurasians). What about geometry? Or perhaps something fairly important called numbers. Are those not knowledge?

That this is not a good measure of that?

The fallacy is in the use of the word "evolved."

If you take a random sampling of ten thousand modern humans and scatter them across an undeveloped planet, what will happen is basically:

• The ones who live in horrific environments will barely manage to survive and fail to develop technologically.

• The ones who live in environments with plentiful game and foraging availability but with minimal agricultural potential will not perceive any pressure to drive innovation.

• The ones who live in environments most conducive to agriculture, with a harsh enough climate that saving food for the winter is a good idea, will eventually develop agriculture.

The selection pressures on technological development work orders of magnitude faster than the selection pressures on intelligence.

It definitely gives some credence to either biological or cultural arguments for innovation.