> Hubris which considers the concentration and usurpation of resources more intelligent than the communal or even universal or natural distribution.
You're making this up. There were/are human (as in homo sapiens) societies based on communal distribution; we don't think of those humans as less intelligent. No serious intellectual in the humanities or sciences does.
> Hubris which considers survival at all costs more intelligent than self sacrifice for the collective.
"Self-sacrifice for the collective" has been an earmark of some societies, believed by their thinkers. Explicitly articulated in words that way, it's squarely a human idea. Just like it's a human idea that self-sacrifice for the collective is just idiotic group-think; the individual is supreme.
>we don't think of those humans as less intelligent. No serious intellectual in the humanities or sciences does.
Feels like No True Scotsman. Much of Western colonial policy for half a millennium was based on this very assumption, and their effects echo in their unreformed and unreparated posterity.
"Much of Western colonial policy for half a millennium was based on this very assumption"
I am not so sure, especially about the "half a millennium" part. It seems you are extrapolating from specifically Anglo-Saxon justifications of slavery, where blacks were considered unequal-because-stupid. That's not the norm over the entire globe and half a millennium, though.
There isn't significant evidence that, say, the Spanish conquistadors considered the vanquished Amerindians stupid (and it would be indeed hard to pronounce the people who built Tenochtitlan or Cuzco stupid). Same with the English in India. Heathens, yes, stupid, no.
Obsession with intelligence, stupidity, heredity thereof and, subsequently, eugenics, mostly dates from post-Darwin times. It approximately matches the last century of colonialism, but not 500 years.
Prior to the 19th century, few people cared about sophisticated explanations of conquest and dominance. There just weren't enough intellectuals around for theoretical explanations to matter. You lost a war, you became someone's subject or slave, that was it. In Europe, in Arabia, in China, everywhere. If there was any theory at all in play, it was mostly theological ("the unbelievers lost, because God willed it so, or we lost, because we sinned and God wanted to punish us").
> Obsession with intelligence, stupidity, heredity thereof and, subsequently, eugenics, mostly dates from post-Darwin times.
Blame Social Darwinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) for this. Even today a lot of people (mainly in the Western world) try to promote this pseudoscience under any pretext possible.
Note : Despite the fact that Social Darwinism bears Charles Darwin's name, it is primarily linked today with others, notably Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics.
You're making this up. There were/are human (as in homo sapiens) societies based on communal distribution; we don't think of those humans as less intelligent. No serious intellectual in the humanities or sciences does.
> Hubris which considers survival at all costs more intelligent than self sacrifice for the collective.
"Self-sacrifice for the collective" has been an earmark of some societies, believed by their thinkers. Explicitly articulated in words that way, it's squarely a human idea. Just like it's a human idea that self-sacrifice for the collective is just idiotic group-think; the individual is supreme.