Use as an attributed interpretive lens alongside chronological history, not as settled causation.
This is a gene–culture coevolution argument, not proof that civilization required alcohol. Introduction notes 1–12, PDF 281–282, identify the theoretical framework and explicitly acknowledge Gately as a major historical source.
Slingerland treats persistent intoxication as an evolutionary puzzle and argues that creativity, cooperation and social bonding helped sustain it. He contrasts this explanation with reward hijacking and mismatch accounts, while later accepting a modern mismatch involving spirits and isolation.
PDF 21
PDF 11
Introduction
Verified as a paraphrase of the supplied PDF, not independent validation of its underlying claims. Endnotes included in interpretation. PDF ordinal pagination, not print pages.
No access → 
Evidence
Slingerland treats persistent intoxication as an evolutionary puzzle and argues that creativity, cooperation and social bonding helped sustain it. He contrasts this explanation with reward hijacking and mismatch accounts, while later accepting a modern mismatch involving spirits and isolation.
Location and context
Introduction; supplied PDF pages 11–21. These are file page numbers, not print pagination.
This is a gene–culture coevolution argument, not proof that civilization required alcohol. Introduction notes 1–12, PDF 281–282, identify the theoretical framework and explicitly acknowledge Gately as a major historical source.
Annotation
Use as an attributed interpretive lens alongside chronological history, not as settled causation.
Citation:
Verification checklist
Verified means faithful capture, not independent confirmation of the book's claims.