Clothing is the root of all evil

Ancient humans it is estimated started wearing cloths 114,000 years ago:

Mark Stoneking of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig calculated that our human ancestors began wearing clothes about 114,000 years ago based on comparing the DNA of head lice, which have been around millions of years, and body lice (which are misnamed as they appear on clothing rather than the body), which are a relatively new species.

factsanddetails.com...

As early weapons systems are only 30,000-ish years old:

These hunter-gatherers brought with them a weapon that reigned supreme among them and their descendents for thousands of years to come, the Atlatl. It was the first true weapon system developed by humans, originating in Europe over 30,000 years ago and spreading to every corner of the globe that humans occupied.

www.atlatl.com...


I can now conclude:
Prior to clothing there was no individual possessions and arguably not even individual consciousness:

The development of the human psyche was still at a very early stage, rooted far more in the collective than in any sense of personal individuality. The ego and the self were still relatively or completely unformed. Durkheim (The Division of Labour In Society) takes the pre-historical human being to be almost devoid of conscious individuality: "If the individual is not distinct from the group, it is because the individual consciousness is almost indistinct from the collective consciousness"

www.agenthuman.com...

Now, as we all have seen demonstrated personal possession eventually leads to envy.
From envy stems theft (unfortunate but true)
All “evils” can be argued as theft (i.e. Murder; theft of life. Adultery; theft of spouse. etc. ad infinitum)

As such I can definitively state the hypothesis that clothing is the root of all evil.


Before you ask, I’m not a nudist.
Mods I hope this is the right forum for this.

Before you ask, I’m not a nudist.

This was the best part. Still laughing!

As to your premise, that's extremely interesting. S&F for a novel idea and because I want to see how ATS responds.

I agree. Attractive females wearing clothing is a big problem that needs to be dealt with. Unattractive females and all males should remain fully clothed at all times when in public.

Some interesting points and info, and yea, I can see the detriment of the personal possession phenomenon. Some archeologists have purported that this is a point where things went the wrong direction. My spear, my woman, my hut, etc.. was a shift towards individualism I guess. Where and why did this start I wonder? When did the "I" and "mine" come into play? A natural part of evolution via nature, or a conditioning from nurture?

The clothing issue, well could it not have started with simple shelter purposed for staying warm, or protecting mid-level skin sacks from being snagged and torn on brush?

spec

Gospel of Thomas 37:2
"Jesus said, "When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then [will you see] the Son of the Living One, and you will not be afraid"

How can we claim to understand the Psyche of Homo Sapiens 114,000 years ago? They have the same brain as us, and I cannot understand they can claim with such certainty the lack of an ego. I am sure that humans back then were more focused on community, but in my opinion that is a culture thing. After all, the extended family group were the only humans that most people had extended contact with, and if you don't subordinate the self to the group in that situation you risk being ostracized by the group and potential exile or death.

Subordination of self does not necessarily mean the elimination of self, however. A good balance between self and community can be achieved in my opinion, but when a society takes it as far towards self-serving as ours has it causes a lot of trouble.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Some interesting points and info, and yea, I can see the detriment of the personal possession phenomenon. Some archeologists have purported that this is a point where things went the wrong direction. My spear, my woman, my hut, etc.. was a shift towards individualism I guess. Where and why did this start I wonder? When did the "I" and "mine" come into play? A natural part of evolution via nature, or a conditioning from nurture?

The clothing issue, well could it not have started with simple shelter purposed for staying warm, or protecting mid-level skin sacks from being snagged and torn on brush?

spec

As to the "I" and "mine" I do not know. But I would suggest it had to do with the difference of coverings (i.e. clothing) that the tribal group had.
As to why clothing started I'm sure it was for warmth and protection. As it became, I have a rabbit fur and she has leopard print, is where I see envy really starting to take hold.

reply to post by Mkoll


I believe scientists think there was no ego for the exact reason you give.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Some interesting points and info, and yea, I can see the detriment of the personal possession phenomenon. Some archeologists have purported that this is a point where things went the wrong direction. My spear, my woman, my hut, etc.. was a shift towards individualism I guess. Where and why did this start I wonder? When did the "I" and "mine" come into play? A natural part of evolution via nature, or a conditioning from nurture?

The clothing issue, well could it not have started with simple shelter purposed for staying warm, or protecting mid-level skin sacks from being snagged and torn on brush?

spec

As to the "I" and "mine" I do not know. But I would suggest it had to do with the difference of coverings (i.e. clothing) that the tribal group had.
As to why clothing started I'm sure it was for warmth and protection. As it became, I have a rabbit fur and she has leopard print, is where I see envy really starting to take hold.

This makes sense, but wouldn't envy already have been in place? I'm sure the group dynamic had a hierachary of sorts, with the alpha members receiving more food, more mating oppurtunities, what have you. Couldn't envy have developed under such conditions?

Not to compare the two, but I wonder if pet dogs envy each other's collars. Serious question. Although I guess you'd have to have self-awareness to experience envy, don't you think?

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


Primates live in large familial social groups and we can clearly see their egos at work. Males fight over females, hierarchies get established, and so forth, and yet they still function as a social unit and a failure to share food gets you into trouble.

I believe that a strong sense of social responsibility doesn't eliminate the ego and the sense of self, but merely keeps it in check.

Who knows... maybe they're the "Mark of the Beast"


Weren't we supposed to "Wear" The Mark of the Beast?



(I'm not religious BTW, just throwing it out there)

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

Primates live in large familial social groups and we can clearly see their egos at work. Males fight over females, hierarchies get established, and so forth, and yet they still function as a social unit and a failure to share food gets you into trouble.

I believe that a strong sense of social responsibility doesn't eliminate the ego and the sense of self, but merely keeps it in check.

I am not prepared, sadly, to defend or argue primate ego. For all I know they learned it from watching us humans.

so people just remained cold before this, nobody wore a animal skin to stay warm until what you said happened. dont think so.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

This makes sense, but wouldn't envy already have been in place? I'm sure the group dynamic had a hierachary of sorts, with the alpha members receiving more food, more mating oppurtunities, what have you. Couldn't envy have developed under such conditions?

I would expect in the small tribes (or bands) of humans, there wouldn't be any hierarchy. Everyone would need to function well and mate with as many other individuals as they could. Just for the survival of the group.
If you go out with a group of friends, is there a hierarchy in that group dynamic?

Originally posted by borntowatch
so people just remained cold before this, nobody wore a animal skin to stay warm until what you said happened. dont think so.

Yes if you read the link I provided talking about the age of clothing:

Other evidence that textiles was invented between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago include bone needles and other sewing tools and impressions of interlaced fibers on clay shards found at Upper Paleolithic sites.

114,000 for clothes- 30,000 for needles. So for a good 75,000 years all we were doing was wearing animal skins.
Prior to that maybe we had more hair? Or stayed in warmer areas.

Interesting..

In the Bible the first thing Adam and Eve do is make clothes for themselves after they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...


Maybe "original sin" is technology?

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

Originally posted by smyleegrl

This makes sense, but wouldn't envy already have been in place? I'm sure the group dynamic had a hierachary of sorts, with the alpha members receiving more food, more mating oppurtunities, what have you. Couldn't envy have developed under such conditions?

I would expect in the small tribes (or bands) of humans, there wouldn't be any hierarchy. Everyone would need to function well and mate with as many other individuals as they could. Just for the survival of the group.
If you go out with a group of friends, is there a hierarchy in that group dynamic?

Yes there is. Of course my "position" in the hierarchy changes with each group. For example, in some groups I'm the serious one, in others I'm the clown. Some groups I'[m the leader, some groups I keep a low profile and just go along for the ride.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Yes there is. Of course my "position" in the hierarchy changes with each group. For example, in some groups I'm the serious one, in others I'm the clown. Some groups I'[m the leader, some groups I keep a low profile and just go along for the ride.

hi·er·ar·chy    [hahy-uh-rahr-kee, hahy-rahr-] Show IPA noun, plural -chies. 1. any system of persons or things ranked one above another. 2. government by ecclesiastical rulers. 3. the power or dominion of a hierarch. 4. an organized body of ecclesiastical officials in successive ranks or orders: the Roman Catholic hierarchy. 5. one of the three divisions of the angels, each made up of three orders, conceived as constituting a graded body.

dictionary.reference.com...

What you are describing is a Social position. Which exists independent of hierarchy, although both can be present at the same time.

dictionary.babylon.com...

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Some interesting points and info, and yea, I can see the detriment of the personal possession phenomenon. Some archeologists have purported that this is a point where things went the wrong direction. My spear, my woman, my hut, etc.. was a shift towards individualism I guess. Where and why did this start I wonder? When did the "I" and "mine" come into play? A natural part of evolution via nature, or a conditioning from nurture?
spec

Give us a break, people! Even your pet dog is possessive of its toys. It is stems from an innate "me and mine" brain that developed that trait as a function of survival. Yes, we, bipeds do overdo it somewhat.

It's pretty darn cold outside here in the winter, I think you're a little crazy for making this post. Do you live in Hawaii or something?