Of the previous assumptions I'll consider the second assumption first. That assumption is:

• We (humans) require societies

First we need to define a few terms. The "We" in the sentence includes all of mankind and needs no other discussion. Next we should define humans. When I use the term human I mean the modern homo sapien. To define society or societies we'll refer to Merriam-Webster. They have several definitions for society. I am assuming the following notion (definition 3b) from their on-line dictionary:

"a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests"

Next we have to question the "require societies" portion of the statement. To that end consider the following:

• The whole of recorded human existence (history) is organized around societies.
• I am not aware of any recorded or unrecorded human existence that does not include some notion (as defined above) of society.
• More to the point, I am not aware of any human existence without society.
• Prehistorical man appears (by all accounts) to be organized by societies.
• Most anthropologists, that I'm aware of, believe man's existence is tied to societies.

Continuing on, most people would consider a human without a societal affiliation to be at a minimum uncivilized and perhaps an animal. This reaction is largely instinctive. However, that doesn't mean this notion is not without merit. I'm not aware of any "animal-humans." By "animal-human" I mean humans that have no societal affiliation. Having said this we still must consider claims of a person who states that they have no societal affiliation. Since language (insofar as I know) a societal artifact, any use of language calls such a claim into serious doubt.

However, the fact that humans do not now, nor have they ever existed without society does not mean that society is a human requirement. It does show a strong linkage, an perhaps an extreme pehchant. And it certainly hints stronly at "requirement." But requirement is a stronger word. It usually implies a need. But, any study of humans in nature indicates extreme physical vulnerability. That's not to say that he is entirely helpless. But it is undeniable that humans are more vulnerable than other animals. This applies especially to animals that hunt.

Yet it is clear that a sustained, robust human population growth has occurred. And is tied to many factors. This growth has occurred largely because humans have been able to minimize or offset their physical limitations. It's generally agreed that the single most important human characteristic that offsets these deficiencies is intelligence. This includes sophisticated communication, making of tools, use of fire and numerous other traits. All of these key traits are directly or indirectly tied to coexisting in a society. Some would argue that the most important of these is language. Certainly, if the development of sophistiacated tools and weapons is dependent on language (and I'm certain it is) then the existence of humans equally dependent on language. And if man is dependent on language for survival then he is dependent on society for survival.