f1jim wrote:Unfortunately, people size up other people by outward appearances and it's baked into our survival mechanism.
I am always surprised that people think that mate selection was the be-all-end-all for human survival. I think it is far more likely that living in COMMUNITY was the thing that protected our survival (and the survival of our offspring) best.
Who gathered food to share with me while I was injured or ill for several weeks? Who kept me from being murdered in my sleep so that my food / clothing / shelter could not be usurped by another group? Who kept my kids from drowning, wandering off, or getting eaten while I was out hunting or gathering?
In so many societies, my biggest protection (from personal extinction, and from the extinction of my bloodline) was from living in community among trustworthy people who had my back. Whether those people were still in their prime, or capable of reproducing, probably didn't matter. In fact, I suspect that many of the people that I relied on for my personal survival, and for the survival of my offspring, were not men who were virile and in the prime of life, nor women who had a favorable waist-to-hip ratio for childbirth.
So I find it odd when mate selection is considered to be the only thing, because it seems to me that community was far more important for survival!
The person who guarded the fire didn't have to have pretty skin tone or a virile body -- they just had to be able to keep the fire going.
The people who gathered food for the community didn't have to be able to bear children -- they could totally sterile -- they just needed to do their part to identify and collect the foods that were edible and nutritious.
And on and on!
It is at least one perspective worth considering!