Traditionally it has been said that when presented with danger an Emu will bury its' head in the sand. Whether this is entirely true I have no idea, but it is useful to illustrate a point. The question is this, why has natural selection not eliminated such stupidity? It follows that an Emu, here representing a stupid animal, would quickly be predated and would have less chance of passing on its genes to successive generations. It would seem that over generations, stupidity would be deselected as a trait, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Paradoxically, with all our modern aides, people with increasingly lower mental capabilities will be able to overcome hurdles that would previously have held them back. In effect, the evolutionary door to stupidity in humans is wider open now than its ever been. Is this such a good thing I wonder? And is it something we should be concerned about? Why has evolution not pressurised us into maximum mental proficiency as one might expect as with any other trait? This leads to the suggestion that perhaps natural selection does not necessarily favour intelligence over other traits. It would seem that nature allows for a certain level of stupidity without being overly punative. Why should this be? In theory, we should all be highly intelligent, highly efficient beings, but very often this is simply not the case. Given our mental capacity and the thousands of generations of intelligent human life, one could almost expect us to have become variations of Mr. Spock by now, evidently this is not the case, but perhaps it should be. Has nature an upper level of intelligence beyond which there is no rationale to persue it further. Does nature need dumb creatures simply to feed the smart ones? Could an antelope be doomed to be lionfood from birth? How does this translate to human beings? Do idiots have a role to play?