Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Your speculations are wrong. Yes, if an ordinary person is sent out into the open without clothes, they will most likely die.
But if a person has set a goal not to depend on clothing and the benefits of civilization, he will be able to abandon them and go out into the open.
Let's take the brightest domestic example — P. K. Ivanov. This man gave up his hat at the age of 35, and from then on he gradually took off his clothes until he found himself in only long, wide black shorts (shorts).
For fifty years, he went barefoot, without a hat or jacket, in his underwear in absolutely any weather. Of course, they thought he was crazy. He'd had enough, of course. When the Germans came, they rolled him in the cold in a motorcycle cradle, buried him in the snow for an hour in – 40. And nothing! He also found himself in mental hospitals, where they pricked him in the leg with some kind of stuff, and then wondered how the old man was able to overcome his near-death state. And Porfiry Korneevich himself has never sought medical help since he was 35 years old. Who knows how long he would have lived, if his health hadn't been ruined… But this is all speculation.
Many people were amazed, looking at Ivanov, what the human body is capable of! Imagine: in the forty-degree frost, and in the summer heat, he went out on the street barefoot with a bare torso and did not experience any harm from nature.
So a person can exist on Earth without shoes and clothes. This is difficult to imagine just because the human body is now pampered.
Why do we need warm fur if we have a brain?�
Eat some more of these soft French rolls, and have some tea.
Eat some more of these soft French rolls, and have some tea.
For the survival of any species, including humans, it does not matter how similar or dissimilar it is to other species. All that matters is how well it is adapted to interact with the environment. And all living things have different mechanisms, which determines the diversity of our biosphere.
You might as well ask why a person can't breathe underwater, get energy from the sun, or fly. At some stage of development, the need for some qualities disappeared(or even interfered with, for example, wool), and in others he did not need at all (for example, hooves).
Man came out of Africa, and thanks to his ability to use the surrounding objects, he was able to spread to other regions of the planet(tools, homemade shoes, skins for clothing, fire, etc.).
The age-old question of the role of Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and the development of certain qualities in animals that contradict the logic of this selection. In the case of humans, this relationship is very clearly traced and even seems paradoxical, especially in the early, transitional stages of the development of our species.
Now that we have created “our own” world on this planet, different from the “world” of other animals living on the same planet, everything seems normal and there is nothing strange about it. But after all, once upon a time we did not have this “mind”, we lived in the forest and did very well “without shoes” and tools…
We can argue for as long as we want that “something” has happened and “something” has changed, and that our ape-like ancestor evolved into a human. The problem is that this “something” happened contrary to the mechanisms of natural selection, and this is obvious, and the fact that it took millions of years does not change anything at all.
I understand the gist of your question, but unfortunately I can't answer it clearly.