Why do we wear chlothes? 1
’Tis plain enough to be seen, that ’tis custom only which renders that impossible that otherwise is nothing so; for of those nations who have no manner of knowledge of clothing, some are situated under the same temperature that we are, and some in much colder climates. And besides, our most tender parts are always exposed to the air, as the eyes, mouth, nose, and ears; and our country laborers, like our ancestors in former times, go with their breasts and bellies open. Had we been born with a necessity upon us of wearing petticoats and breeches, there is no doubt but nature would have fortified those parts she intended should be exposed to the fury of the seasons with a thicker skin, as she has done the finger-ends and the soles of the feet. http://essays.quotidiana.org/montaigne/custom_of_wearing_clothes/
Ask anyone why do we wear clothes: warmth and protection always top the list, whereas personal adornment, ritual, or modesty would come low on the list. Yet Montaigne is quite right: people that live in temperate climes are as fond of wearing clothes as the ones that live in more extreme climes; the amount of skin exposure and tempering of the body are matters of habit rather than necessity. Clearly, protection is not the main reason. What is this reason?
I believe that the Bible gets it right: the main reason for clothes is modesty. This sounds like an improbable rationale that almost no one takes seriously. Why would it be so crucial to cover one’s genitals? There is nothing to observe in this department that would rock our world. Those laughing at the prudes have a good point: fear of such exposure looks irrational and unwarranted in the view of insignificance of what is to be exposed. And yet indecent exposure is a taboo in the majority of human cultures. How could such a minor matter accrue such disproportional importance?
What I am offering as a rationale for clothing is the theory that goes back to Charles Darwin, who suggested (to such a low acclaim that his theory was totally neglected up until 20 years ago) that the main driving force for hominid evolution was sexual selection. However, even Darwin stopped short of implying that our intelligence is the result of sexual selection; this idea was suggested more recently by Miller
ftp://wuecon195.wustl.edu/RePEc/els/esrcls/sex.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/miller-mating.html
Miller begins with the observation that our capacity for arts, music, science, morality, humor etc. far outstrips what is technically necessary for the survival of a hunter-gatherer on African plains. There is no reasonable case for sonatas as an adaptation for differential survival. When such lavish excesses are observed in nature, the usual cause for such exuberant displays is the runaway sexual selection:
...In runaway, an evolutionary positive-feedback loop gets established between female preferences for certain male traits, and the male traits themselves. Given a nudge in the right direction (e.g. an initial bias in female preferences), Fisher’s model could account for the wildly exaggerated male traits seen in many species, such as the peacock’s plumage...The evolution of big brains is so rare, so recent, so capricious, and seemingly so unrelated to the demands of habitat or econiche. Brain size in our lineage has tripled over the last two million years, reflecting the evolution of unprecedented mental and behavioral capacities. Over three million years ago, our ancestors were already successful, social, fairly bipedal, tool-making hunter-gatherers on the African savanna - and they had brains only slightly larger than the chimpanzees. Then, two million years ago, for no apparent reason, brain size started growing exponentially in our lineage but not in other closely-related hominid species who shared the same habitat, such as Paranthropus boisei and robustus. Encephalization then stopped about 100 kya, again for no apparent reason, long before the Neolithic revolution in technology and art 40 kya.
...Human mental evolution must have been driven by some sort of positive-feedback process that is sensitive to initial conditions. There have been two traditional contenders. In the runaway social competition model, hominids got smarter to predict and manipulate each others’ behavior, leading to a social-intelligence arms race between mind-reading and deception. In the runaway gene-culture co-evolution model, hominids got smarter to learn and use material culture (e.g. tools and survival techniques), which was itself evolving. Yet these theories overlook the clearest and best-established case of positive-feedback evolution in nature: runaway sexual selection.
Miller suggests that our intelligence was the result of the Fischerian runaway sexual selection. He offered examples for possible selection mechanisms (e.g., neophilia), but we do not need to go into such detail. It is unimportant as to why the divine spark had been preferred. It correlates with various traits and the preference could’ve been for these traits. This, however, makes little difference for the argument. Such correlations are in the nature of intelligence, and that was preordained by the character of this world that can be comprehended. How and why the jackpot has been hit does not matter; it existed from the beginning. However, if the preference for intelligence is indeed a mating choice, this choice faces tough competition from other such choices.
Sexual selection does not need to operate on the preferences for higher intelligence and the associated traits; it can operate on anything, and peacock’s tail is a reminder of this truth. Genital morphology is closely related to reproduction, and it makes much more natural object for sexual selection than the quality of thinking. If you do not want the mating choices to be informed by openly exposed genitals, you better command your charges to cover themselves, so men are not selected for the longest penises and largest testicles; this reasoning can be extended to either sex. You do not HAVE TO cloth yourself, of course, but the long-term results of misdirected selection are exemplified by magnificently hang Mr. Fabio having the brain the size of a pea and Mrs. The Folds of Heaven as mentally endowed as her illustrious mate. Perhaps such Edenic world can last for a while, but then the smart ones would come, and Mr. and Mrs. Developed in the Lower Department would find themselves inhabiting tropical islands and impassable jungles.
The best thing about the commandments is that they do not need to be articulated. They are imprinted in the fabric of things, so that their lessons are learned on one’s own skin and on one's own peril. Some of our potential ancestors clothed and some did not. It is unimportant what prompted them to cloth; it is more important what clothing has done to them. The uncloth had missed on the next level; they did not become our ancestors. A piece of animal skin makes a lot of change when used consistently over the eons. The laugh is on the libertines. They would not be around had they had their way.
Blessed be the one who clothes the naked.
בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ מֶֽלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם, מַלְבִּישׁ עֲרֻמִּים
Ask anyone why do we wear clothes: warmth and protection always top the list, whereas personal adornment, ritual, or modesty would come low on the list. Yet Montaigne is quite right: people that live in temperate climes are as fond of wearing clothes as the ones that live in more extreme climes; the amount of skin exposure and tempering of the body are matters of habit rather than necessity. Clearly, protection is not the main reason. What is this reason?
I believe that the Bible gets it right: the main reason for clothes is modesty. This sounds like an improbable rationale that almost no one takes seriously. Why would it be so crucial to cover one’s genitals? There is nothing to observe in this department that would rock our world. Those laughing at the prudes have a good point: fear of such exposure looks irrational and unwarranted in the view of insignificance of what is to be exposed. And yet indecent exposure is a taboo in the majority of human cultures. How could such a minor matter accrue such disproportional importance?
What I am offering as a rationale for clothing is the theory that goes back to Charles Darwin, who suggested (to such a low acclaim that his theory was totally neglected up until 20 years ago) that the main driving force for hominid evolution was sexual selection. However, even Darwin stopped short of implying that our intelligence is the result of sexual selection; this idea was suggested more recently by Miller
ftp://wuecon195.wustl.edu/RePEc/els/esrcls/sex.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/miller-mating.html
Miller begins with the observation that our capacity for arts, music, science, morality, humor etc. far outstrips what is technically necessary for the survival of a hunter-gatherer on African plains. There is no reasonable case for sonatas as an adaptation for differential survival. When such lavish excesses are observed in nature, the usual cause for such exuberant displays is the runaway sexual selection:
...In runaway, an evolutionary positive-feedback loop gets established between female preferences for certain male traits, and the male traits themselves. Given a nudge in the right direction (e.g. an initial bias in female preferences), Fisher’s model could account for the wildly exaggerated male traits seen in many species, such as the peacock’s plumage...The evolution of big brains is so rare, so recent, so capricious, and seemingly so unrelated to the demands of habitat or econiche. Brain size in our lineage has tripled over the last two million years, reflecting the evolution of unprecedented mental and behavioral capacities. Over three million years ago, our ancestors were already successful, social, fairly bipedal, tool-making hunter-gatherers on the African savanna - and they had brains only slightly larger than the chimpanzees. Then, two million years ago, for no apparent reason, brain size started growing exponentially in our lineage but not in other closely-related hominid species who shared the same habitat, such as Paranthropus boisei and robustus. Encephalization then stopped about 100 kya, again for no apparent reason, long before the Neolithic revolution in technology and art 40 kya.
...Human mental evolution must have been driven by some sort of positive-feedback process that is sensitive to initial conditions. There have been two traditional contenders. In the runaway social competition model, hominids got smarter to predict and manipulate each others’ behavior, leading to a social-intelligence arms race between mind-reading and deception. In the runaway gene-culture co-evolution model, hominids got smarter to learn and use material culture (e.g. tools and survival techniques), which was itself evolving. Yet these theories overlook the clearest and best-established case of positive-feedback evolution in nature: runaway sexual selection.
Miller suggests that our intelligence was the result of the Fischerian runaway sexual selection. He offered examples for possible selection mechanisms (e.g., neophilia), but we do not need to go into such detail. It is unimportant as to why the divine spark had been preferred. It correlates with various traits and the preference could’ve been for these traits. This, however, makes little difference for the argument. Such correlations are in the nature of intelligence, and that was preordained by the character of this world that can be comprehended. How and why the jackpot has been hit does not matter; it existed from the beginning. However, if the preference for intelligence is indeed a mating choice, this choice faces tough competition from other such choices.
Sexual selection does not need to operate on the preferences for higher intelligence and the associated traits; it can operate on anything, and peacock’s tail is a reminder of this truth. Genital morphology is closely related to reproduction, and it makes much more natural object for sexual selection than the quality of thinking. If you do not want the mating choices to be informed by openly exposed genitals, you better command your charges to cover themselves, so men are not selected for the longest penises and largest testicles; this reasoning can be extended to either sex. You do not HAVE TO cloth yourself, of course, but the long-term results of misdirected selection are exemplified by magnificently hang Mr. Fabio having the brain the size of a pea and Mrs. The Folds of Heaven as mentally endowed as her illustrious mate. Perhaps such Edenic world can last for a while, but then the smart ones would come, and Mr. and Mrs. Developed in the Lower Department would find themselves inhabiting tropical islands and impassable jungles.
The best thing about the commandments is that they do not need to be articulated. They are imprinted in the fabric of things, so that their lessons are learned on one’s own skin and on one's own peril. Some of our potential ancestors clothed and some did not. It is unimportant what prompted them to cloth; it is more important what clothing has done to them. The uncloth had missed on the next level; they did not become our ancestors. A piece of animal skin makes a lot of change when used consistently over the eons. The laugh is on the libertines. They would not be around had they had their way.
Blessed be the one who clothes the naked.
בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ מֶֽלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם, מַלְבִּישׁ עֲרֻמִּים