this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
562 points (97.8% liked)
Greentext
4390 readers
1713 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, tallness surely would be a preferable criteria back then! To a certain extent, it is a proxy parameter for fitness.
I just think we can actually use evolution to explain a lot of things that we do, it doesn't mean we should do it.
In an evolutionary context, what does "should" mean?
In the past, fitness (and hence its proxy parameters like height and other beauty standards) correlated to the survivability of your bloodline. So it makes sense that people are programmed, to a certain degree, to admire things like tallness.
Nowadays because of technology the correlation no longer exists, or at the very least it is much diminished. But the programming is still there right in our DNA, so as a people we should artificially override this natural instinct because it no longer serves a purpose.
Sexual selection is still a thing, and not to push eugenics or anything, but shouldn't people be somewhat discerning regarding the genetic health of their partner? I mean, we're still a ways out from using CRISPR to fix inheritable weaknesses, but until then, keep slamming shorties but save your baby-making for a tall Amazonian, right?