Phatose on 12/12/2012 at 20:23
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Why would they need more hair in hot climate? I'm not sure if there's scientific evidence of this, but it's quite common knowledge that in cold weather hair on our heads and bodies grow faster and thicker. I can also confirm this by my own experience, I get fluffy sideburns in winter :erg:
They wouldn't - if hairiness is a function of environment. But, if the hair loss was caused by clothes in particular, you'd expect the opposite - warmer climates require less clothes then colder ones, thus less hair loss.
I'm of the opinion humanity's lack of hair is because we're largely evolved to run around buck-ass naked in a hot savannah, and clothes exist because our naked asses didn't work out so well in colder environments. Which would make us evolved for nakedness, and clothes are just something we need cause we moved out of our natural habitat.
Bakerman on 12/12/2012 at 20:31
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
3. Evolve to be soft and hairless because clothes replace and supersede hair and thicker skin.
I'm pretty sure that's not how evolution works at all. I think you're confusing lifetime-scale changes in anatomy (like muscles weakening when you don't use them) with changes determined by sexual selection - i.e. more attractive characteristics mean more chance at breeding. I'm ignoring the survival factor, since humans pretty much no longer rely on sheer physical ability to survive.
So if society as a whole starts to feel like thick hair and tough skin are disgusting, then you might see more soft hairless people. But that relies on society maintaining this preference for hundreds of thousands of years. You're more likely to see those effects on your television screen than in the human form.
SubJeff on 12/12/2012 at 21:12
You don't think tools can alter evolution?
Less hairy individuals in the tribe wear clothes to keep out the cold. This confers an advantage upon them as they are able to stand even lower temperatures and animal attacks, poison ivy, etc. Thus the hairless ones are selected for.
Just one hypothesis.
If hairlessness is somehow linked to other biological factors like increase intelligence, strength, nice smelling bo, of even something more profound like resistance to certain diseases or just lack of attraction to body hair loving mites that carry disease, it will be selected for, no?
I just think that we are so disadvantaged without clothes in most parts of the world that the wearing of clothes likely made a difference.
mopgoblin on 12/12/2012 at 23:56
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Exactly.
Its not a turn on if it doesn't turn you on. But its not a null either. If it isn't pleasant for you to look at its likely to be nausea inducing unless you're a naturist and used to that sort of thing. Even naturists must admit that their first time at a "happening" probably involved some feelings of excitement or revulsion.
I'm not really a naturist, but in my experience being in a non-sexual setting where everyone's naked doesn't really result in excitement or revulsion. If anything, I was slightly surprised by how little difference it makes, but in retrospect it makes perfect sense. I mean, are pool changing rooms and the like super-awkward for you all* as well?
*or those of you who are cis, at least
SubJeff on 13/12/2012 at 00:56
No, they're not always awkward but they can be. People coming up to you chatting away as if everything is normal whilst drying their nether regions, whilst you're seated, for example.
R Soul on 13/12/2012 at 02:12
Just try not to yawn.
Vasquez on 13/12/2012 at 08:49
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
being in a non-sexual setting where everyone's naked doesn't really result in excitement or revulsion.
Yep, the Finnish sauna culture is like that, there's nothing sexual or disgusting about it.
SD on 16/12/2012 at 03:06
Pretty sure that hairlessness evolved waaay before we began to create clothing. Just in case there was any lingering doubt that SubjEff was wrong.
Pyrian on 18/12/2012 at 23:44
I don't think it's possible to determine when humans started wearing clothing. In fact, I'm pretty sure we don't even have a good handle on when we stopped having much body hair. But a certain amount of co-evolution seems possible. Maybe we didn't need to develop clothing until we were pretty hairless (and even using "we" in this context is likely misleading, too), or maybe we couldn't really evolve less hair until we already had clothing. The real story may very well be quite a bit more complicated than any of that. Or not. Without data...
BUT. There's evidence that our gut has evolved to better digest cooked food and that we've evolved the ability to digest milk as adults. So, there's little question that we can and have evolved traits dealing directly with cultural achievements. Therefore, regardless of whether clothing came before, after, or during hair lack, it is conceivable that we may have subsequently evolved responses to clothed versus naked figures. Whether it actually happened, I don't really know.
Quote Posted by Vasquez
I haven't said
everybody should stop wearing clothes, have I?
We're talking about
looking at naked people. Which is exactly what is being advocated everybody should have to do.
Quote Posted by Vasquez
You're saying "I want to see less ugly, so dress up"? :)
Yup.
Quote Posted by Vasquez
I don't know, cultural differences can be quite powerful. For someone who has lived his entire life in a place where women are always so clothed you practically can't see even a glimpse of them, a mini skirt and bikini top might seem like practically (and offensively) nude.
Sure, but that's still one step less than actual nudity, so doesn't contest my point at all.
