How much has body augmentation and cosmetics ruined genetic selection?
Everything from lipstick to hair color, to plastic surgery is meant to hide or fix what a person looks like. Does ugliness among a genetic demographic increase over time since the partners can't tell what the other person really looks like? How about child rearing? Does plastic surgery/breast implants increase the occurrence of women with small breasts? As time goes on, does that genetic trait also interfere with the ability to feed infants?
Aren't there specific genetic markers a person unconscionably looks for that triggers them to be more attracted to someone? Aren't these markers typicality those in the same genetic pool as they are? Isn't this intended to find the most viable mate for social and genetic compatibility so that there's a better chance of fertilization, less of a chance of miscarriage, and the offspring will thrive?
>>8098966
>I have no idea how evolution works but here's my long winded shitpost mixed with a bunch of asinine assumptions based on nothing but my complete and utter ignorance
sage
>>8099006
There is a chink somewhere in their genetics.
>>8099059
small tit ugly reject slut detected
>>8099128
fucking kek
>>8098966
It looks like natural selection towards the superior man is working to me.
Trigger, bitches!
>>8098966
or perhaps everyone has become uglier as a result of altered perceptions due to higher standards created through visual editing software, clothing, and make-up
>>8099059
It seems you have no clue how evolution works.
>>8098966
>How much has body augmentation and cosmetics ruined genetic selection?
Says guy with false teeth.
>>8098966
Smell is more important than vision when the brain decides who to go for.
So no, unless you consider using deodorant and soap when you shower at least once a week as "unnatural selection".
There's such a thing as formula for those who can't produce breast milk.
>personally I prefer big butts but don't demand it.
>>8101856
Urgh.
If you're having hedgehogs as pets you need to introduce lice to their bristles. If you keep sloths you might need to introduce algae.
Different creatures have adapted with their ecosystems to using different kinds of "tools" to make themselves more likely to survive and reproduce. Humans are obviously no different.
Body augmentation in the sense of implanting or extracting matter, hasn't been around for close to long enough to make an impact. Personally I find tribal cultures focused on inserting disks to be quite disgusting. Wouldn't be surprised if breast implants and plastic surgery will appear just as disgusting when medical technology progresses even further.
I think there might be genetic markers that make a person more attractive to another person. But I don't think there is one marker that is attractive and one that is not.
Besides, visual appeal is not the same as reproductory appeal. Olfactory selection is much more important, and that disregards perfume (perfume is crude in comparison).
humans love to love
>>8101856
>>false teeth
>cosmetics
Teeth is genetics though
>>8098966
Yeah, you are definitely right. Appearance isn't skin deep: it is highly indicative of overall genetic quality, and so any alterations to a person's appearance are misleading. Women can increase their looks by 2–3 points on the attractiveness scale if they apply makeup effectively. This is deception, no different than if a man borrowed an expensive car to make himself look higher status than he is.
The root of the problem is the ubiquity of it all. An attractive woman without any cosmetics won't garner the same attention that a lesser woman would with them, so in essence everyone needs to use cosmetics to even the playing field. Historically, this was the prerogative of the upper classes, meaning a lot of the so-called beauties just had better access to cosmetics than lower classes.
Another interesting point is that some of the impressions that cosmetics make are very uncontrollable. Many of these products and techniques mimic neoteny: a fertile, sexually aroused teenager. The human brain has been shown to be able to make attractiveness judgments in a tenth of a second, along with many other character judgments, ranging from leadership ability, to intelligence, to honesty. The damage done from perception altering cosmetics could be far greater than we ever realized. Even things like fixing teeth are misleading: the child will inherit crooked teeth no matter how well you have covered yours up.
>>8098966
> How much has body augmentation and cosmetics ruined genetic selection?
It can go both ways.
Many times the reason people need some form of "body augmentation and cosmetics" is because of culturally induced phenomena, which
may have nothing to do with root boiological genetics.
> Does ugliness among a genetic demographic increase over time since the partners can't tell what the other person really looks like?
It would more likely be for other reasons.
> How about child rearing? Does plastic surgery/breast implants increase the occurrence of women with small breasts?
It theoretically could. Probably not yet to a degree overly significant in most countries.
> As time goes on, does that genetic trait also interfere with the ability to feed infants?
Again, it theoretically could, if the genetic pool alterations were numerous enough.
> Aren't there specific genetic markers a person unconscionably looks for that triggers them to be more attracted to someone?
Yes, if you substitute "genetic markers" with "physical traits". So there is some relation to genetics.
> Aren't these markers typicality those in the same genetic pool as they are?
Often they are. So the basic conjecture of your post could be relevant - or at least interesting to discuss.
> Isn't this intended to find the most viable mate for social and genetic compatibility so that there's a better chance of fertilization,
> less of a chance of miscarriage, and the offspring will thrive ?
"Intended is a strong word. Natural selection works in complex ways.
Interstingly, punishment of false signals happens in other organisms. Male wasps for example will target other males who are weak fighters but have inherited facial patterns characteristic of strong fighters. In the case you propose the signal isnt inherited but the behaviour may be heritable. A girl who has fake bobs might have parents who were disingenuous in other ways. If we are like other organisms you would expect some members to "catch on" and avoid dishonest signaling to achieve higher fitness (healthier offspring).
I can't remember if there's a name to the theory but the idea of a trade off between the cost and benefit of dishonest signaling isn't new.
