I’m 38 years old and I think I’ve read a “What We Know About Lucy Is Wrong” article every year.
It’s not surprising, of course, because this is the entirety of the fossil. 1000043424
Submitted 1 week ago by ooli@lemmy.world to anthropology@mander.xyz
I’m 38 years old and I think I’ve read a “What We Know About Lucy Is Wrong” article every year.
It’s not surprising, of course, because this is the entirety of the fossil. 1000043424
Jesus, can you mark this post NSFW!
/s
man she really got turned into dust
ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
This is an interesting read and it makes some good points, but I find it ironic that the author can see that our modern issues with nudity didn’t always apply to humans (or our close ancestors), yet makes claims like:
Which fails as soon as you go beyond the theoretical (we have not only historical evidence, but live examples still existing today that demonstrate the origin of “it takes a village to raise a child”) and is supported by a piece of research that frames the opposite of monogamous “pair bonding” to be “promiscuity”. 🙄
They are doing the exact same applying modern morals and constructs as they’re criticising others of doing with regards to nudity, only with regards to the idea of the “nuclear family” and “monogamous fidelity”, which I guess is something they aren’t ready to break down yet…
Haagel@lemmings.world 1 week ago
There is nothing more speculative than evolutionary psychology.
ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Ok, that still doesn’t make the situation any less ironic.
A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 1 week ago
We’ve all got something to work on, even the author.
ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Sure, and I never said otherwise, but still find it deeply ironic coming from someone writing an article about exactly that (having a modern “blind spot” some are comfortable maintaining)… ¯\(ツ)/¯