I just thought of Eve asking Adam “Does this fig leaf make my ass look big?”
we’re actually a mixed species of original Atlantians/Sumerians and martians, Clothing likely originated as a form of seniority or social rank. Not to say there is no environmental reasoning behind it, i believe it wasn’t until the vikings that serious clothing/armor fur garments, however North American natives had adopted clothing long before settlers landed. I think its more of a consensual reality effect. Would you rather have your junk rubbing and snagging on undergrowth, and what caveman wants to show the village his woman’s banging, abs, ass and boobs… Human kind was born of the center of life on the earth, we’ve expanded into areas where clothing is necessary
Whereas I’m thankful the thread wasn’t closed. An interesting read. Glad not to have missed it. I will say, though, that the recent posts responding to xanakis are a bit silly. According to his profile, he last posted on the SDMB in March 2004. By all means, folks, let’s continue the conversation. But don’t assume the OP is still in the building. He ain’t.
Humans started wearing stuff in order to intimidate other humanoids.like neanderthals who were bigger and stronger. I just don’t know when that was.
Not necessarily. Inuit/Eskimo society would be one notable exception.
In this context, a question of the form “What is the purpose of X?” is usually a somewhat careless way of asking “What is the value of X?” It does not generally imply that the questioner believes evolution to be a planned process.
Involved in image research in an earlier life, the most memorable thing to me about Encarta is that some of its images used fractal image compression.
Where is fractal image compression now? Has it gone the way of flesh and Encarta?
According to, yes, Wikipedia, it’s still very computationally expensive. They refer to “decent rate” being 2 to 66 seconds per frame! That’s the time needed to compress one image. When we have other techniques that are much faster but produce comparable results, it’s hard to keep on using fractals.
I’ve had experience myself with this, using fractal-based image resizing. According to the article, that is done by converting the image to a fractal-based image and then resizing. It took around ten minutes. This is extremely slow on even modern equipment and a relatively small image (less than 0.5 megapixels). Since decoding is easy, that means the resizing doesn’t take much time at all, so that time is pretty much all from compressing the image.
It seems that fractal compression is really only used by people writing papers at the moment. People who are working on making it more efficient. There doesn’t seem to be any real use in the wild.
So, if we could find a way to use fractal compression on our clothes, luggage would be much smaller. I mean, underwear is prettymuch the same, so it would just be iterated, and people tend to prefer certain colors, so there would be a lot of room for compression. I guess you would have to lay out what you were going to wear the night before, though, because the compression would take a while.
Lack of hair is most likely a result of sexual selection, probably since skin-on-skin feels better than hair-on-hair. Clothing is necessary to stay warm in most climates, but of course serves interrelated cultural functions as well, varying from place to place.
:dubious: You got a cite for that?
Or the one immediately after yours. 
Almost certainly not the case. And “humanoid” is not the term you are looking for. You probably mean Hominini.
If true that hominids were, for a long time, hunters on the Ethiopian savannahs, then loss of hair would make sense. Hunting on the savannah would involve a good deal of long distance running after wounded prey. Sweating is an effective way of losing the body heat generated under these circumstances, and sweating would be even more effective with less hair.
We humans are quite unique in our ability to sweat, most furry critters can’t loose heat as easily as us. Just look at dogs, they lose heat mostly by via their tongue.
If this is true, and we were a succesful species before the first out-of-africa movements, I gather that Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Erectus might already have been much less hairy than we commonly imagine them to be.
Of course we intimidated other humanoids. Have you seen any elves or dwarves around lately?
It’s H. neanderthalensis, and who is this “we” of whom you speak, kemosabe? 
That seems like a rather unsupportable assertion. Lots of animals seem to do just fine covered with fur, even barbed spines or spikes.
You need to distinguish between natural selection and sexual selection. I’m talking about the latter. Darwin himself proposed the latter to explain racial diversity.
You’ve obviously never done hair on hair, have you?
Perhaps you’ve not done skin-on-skin.
Pervert.
While I’m all in favor of requiring citations in support of positions that are not accepted fact, demanding one for something that everyone knows is true and which Science has proven time and time again is ridiculous.
I blame the current fashion of men and women shaving everywhere. Or he’s a pervert like PBear42, preferring sex with 12-year-old zombies instead of normal sex with adult zombies.