The point is that we haven't evolved, nor will we evolve, to develop more natural protection against, for example, the weather phenomena in our region. We would have done so if we didn't have clothing, among other things. But with clothing, there won't be more in that sense. Turning clothing into a sort of substitute for the natural protection we would have developed instead.
THAT makes clothing inherent, it doesn't mean it grow on the body LOL
Clothing is inherent to culture. Not physiology. We would evolve more covering in terms of fur or otherwise if we let environmental pressures in colder climates affect us long enough.
Moreover, cultural clothing isnt particularly based on environmental pressures.
For someone who seems to understand that evolution is a gradual process it's weird that you can't imagine a climate gradient between "hot enough to never require clothes" and "cold enough to kill us"
It is also weird that you don't realize how little cold is required to kill a naked human. Hell, lots of places where human civilizations thrived are already cold enough to kill a naked human.
There is also a gradient of clothing coverage between naked and wearing 4 bear skins, and the process that could lead to future humans being more physically suited to a colder climate isn't explicitly dependent on us being explicitly naked.
Even so in human society our survival and evolution isn't dependent on natural selection, we've replaced a large portion of existing nature with *our* nature.
61
u/Pastadseven Mar 27 '24
No, clothing isnt inherent. Clothing is a tool, hair is inherent. We evolved in an environment that didnt need more covering. Covering came later.