Clothing and the Evolution of Cognition
In the entry 313 I declared my disagreement with the nudists' myth, that nakedness were natural and without any effect on their perception.
I have been pondering over this a bit more. The following speculations are the result.
More than 2 million years old stone tools and bones including teeth have been found, indicating that homo habilis was an omnivore. Therefore If this species was not hunting then at least scavenging the leftovers of carnivorous animals. Using hides as a protection against cold and rain was an obvious thing to do.
In the entry 313 I declared my disagreement with the nudists' myth, that nakedness were natural and without any effect on their perception.
I have been pondering over this a bit more. The following speculations are the result.
More than 2 million years old stone tools and bones including teeth have been found, indicating that homo habilis was an omnivore. Therefore If this species was not hunting then at least scavenging the leftovers of carnivorous animals. Using hides as a protection against cold and rain was an obvious thing to do.
But it has been estimated that people had started wearing some kind of clothing between 500,000 and 100,000 years ago. Therefore my following scenarios are set at that time. They are entirely my imagination for the purpose of explaining, how clothing could probably have accelerated the evolution of cognition, intelligence and language.
Scenario 1: 600,000 years ago, a tribe of homo erectus living in a hot climate, still naked. The males live in a group, hunting and scavenging, the women and children live in a separate group, foraging and gathering. The groups meet regularly to share their provisions. They have a rudimentary language. Whenever both groups meet, the male instincts get triggered by the visual stimulus of the naked females, who are automatically perceived as prey, no matter, what they want or if they protest. The males consider and perceive them as utilities without a brain. The females dislike and fear the males, but they depend upon them for the meat and for protection, else they would avoid them. Both genders have mutually no social interest in each other except when they interact for the only purpose of procreation.
Scenario 2: 400,000 years ago, a group of homo erectus living in a cold climate. They cover themselves with the hides and furs of animals. They also live as two groups, the females with the children foraging and gathering, the males hunting and scavenging.
But something is very different: When a male meets a female, his instincts are not immediately triggered to the extent of blurring his reason. He sees only a female face and a body hidden under layers of hide and furs, instead of being exposed to the full visual stimulation by seeing a naked body. Therefore he has the chance to discover or to experience, that the female is indeed a person with a brain as much evolved as his own, that he can communicate with her and that this communication is beneficial for him.
As a consequence, during the times of the male's homeostasis, males and females interact using their cognition, they are spending time together. The males are positively influenced by the females. Females are more than passive prey, they also choose their mates and by a preference for advanced cognition in males, this influences the direction of further evolution.
I speculate that all this has been the cause of a big boost in the the development and evolution of language, reasoning, empathy, social skills and intelligence. This evolution has continued as long as women with self-respect and intelligence covered their bodies in decent attire. The recent backlash will be the topic of another entry.
Scenario 1: 600,000 years ago, a tribe of homo erectus living in a hot climate, still naked. The males live in a group, hunting and scavenging, the women and children live in a separate group, foraging and gathering. The groups meet regularly to share their provisions. They have a rudimentary language. Whenever both groups meet, the male instincts get triggered by the visual stimulus of the naked females, who are automatically perceived as prey, no matter, what they want or if they protest. The males consider and perceive them as utilities without a brain. The females dislike and fear the males, but they depend upon them for the meat and for protection, else they would avoid them. Both genders have mutually no social interest in each other except when they interact for the only purpose of procreation.
Scenario 2: 400,000 years ago, a group of homo erectus living in a cold climate. They cover themselves with the hides and furs of animals. They also live as two groups, the females with the children foraging and gathering, the males hunting and scavenging.
But something is very different: When a male meets a female, his instincts are not immediately triggered to the extent of blurring his reason. He sees only a female face and a body hidden under layers of hide and furs, instead of being exposed to the full visual stimulation by seeing a naked body. Therefore he has the chance to discover or to experience, that the female is indeed a person with a brain as much evolved as his own, that he can communicate with her and that this communication is beneficial for him.
As a consequence, during the times of the male's homeostasis, males and females interact using their cognition, they are spending time together. The males are positively influenced by the females. Females are more than passive prey, they also choose their mates and by a preference for advanced cognition in males, this influences the direction of further evolution.
I speculate that all this has been the cause of a big boost in the the development and evolution of language, reasoning, empathy, social skills and intelligence. This evolution has continued as long as women with self-respect and intelligence covered their bodies in decent attire. The recent backlash will be the topic of another entry.
