Why does your brain seek to be creative?

This is an interesting question  on a neuroscience level as it removes the question of ‘if’ creative and prioritises the ‘why’ are we creative. Unfortunately our understanding of the brain remains limited  but there is little doubt that all our brains have evolved to be creative. Such a statement would therefore prioritise creativity from a survival and reproductive stance with a byproduct being the ability to create societies, technologies and environments. Therefore being creative is a fundamental human trait that we all have but which is culturally, socially, historically and psychologically shaped and constrained.
So here is a second question. If the brain seeks to be creative – why do societies and particularly education systems around the world seek to constrain creativity through failing to recognise it is a fundamental human trait central to our survival and future development? Why do curriculum planners and governments prioritise what we know, as in the reproduction of knowledge, as opposed to encouraging a curriculum that values what doesn’t already exist and what we don’t know?
The answer would seem to be that somehow there is a consensus in the safety of exchanging measurable knowledge – universities thrive and exist on this rule – even though paradoxically they then rely on creative enterprise to  distinguish their uniqueness  from each other.
Being risk averse seems to be a social and cultural shortcut to constrain natural everyday creativity whilst also marginalising creativity to a limited format predominantly associated with the ‘Arts’.  We ultimately therefore reduce creativity to a damage limiting social paradigm  namely the arts – where expression and creative practice is a damage limiting enterprise mostly associated with leisure pursuits.
And my point is?
The recent  trend in the english education system has been described as ‘an analogue curriculum for a digital age’. Such a wax cylinder approach denies children creative opportunities and whilst we potentially watch England rise in the Pisa rankings (to produce future pub quiz champions who can recall knowledge effortlessly) we can stand and watch the decline in social, economic and cultural capital.
It is reported that during the war effort Churchill was asked to cut arts funding to which he replied “then what are we fighting for”. The same applies to education – what is it for? Returning to an 1868 Taunton curriculum does not build upon the UK strengths in marketing and design and denies children a broad range of creative and cultural experiences.
Ultimately  we need to reconceive creative practice from a ‘marginalised activity for some’ to being an ’embedded activity for all’.