Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Survival Of The Fittest

People are getting more attractive, and that’s not an opinion, it’s a bastardisation of Darwinian fact. A clumsy summary of evolutionary theory follows:

In the same way that the peacock with the best plumage attracts the most peahens, or Miss Wildebeest only has eyes for the most studly gnu on the plains of the Serengeti, humans are hard-coded with biological urges in order to ensure the survival of the fittest members of the species (by “fittest”, Darwin didn’t mean it in the modern sense of the word, though ironically it’s no less applicable).

Humans are, after all, just dumb animals whose purpose is to reproduce in order to pass our twirly strands of DNA onto our offspring. However, evolution dictates that constant improvement must be happening, so any successful genes must necessarily then be usurped by even better ones. Therefore by default, each successive generation must be better-equipped to achieve this than the last.

It logically follows that people, through the millennia, must be becoming more and more eye-catching as they strive to pass down their genes to successors whose ability to find a mate (and therefore procreate) is based on their attractiveness to the opposite sex.

To anybody who’s watched re-enactments of cavemen/ladies on telly, it’s clear that our ancestors were once all munters. No doubt there were cro-magnon nightclubs up and down the land even in pre-historic times, where standards were lowered at 2 o’clock in the morning and these troglodytic individuals engaged in a little bump and grind, no doubt to the smooth tones of the Neanderthal equivalent of Marvin Gaye. And thank god they did as that’s the reason we’re here today at all. Probably.

Further evidence is all around as even the most cursory glance around you will reveal that people are generally a little more easy on the eye than your average caveman (Caroline Quentin is obviously some kind of throwback).

Society imposes short-term cultural trends which temporarily (and superficially) dictate whether or not an individual can be said to be attractive: from corpulent Rubenesque ladies of yesteryear to twig-like supermodels of the modern age, though these fads are passing, and don’t impact the underlying bedrock of natural selection.

The logical conclusion therefore, is that in a few thousand years everyone will look like Brad and Angelina, while the offspring of Brad and Angelina will be nothing short of godlike.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

What about the offspring of Caroline Quentin and Johnny Vegas?

BBBLLLLEEEUUUURRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!

A very nauseous but bronzed and adonis looking Mr Griffles.

Well, I must be if I've passed on my genes!

Anonymous said...

most of the male beings i mean most should keep it in their jeans! @ wear TIGHT UNDERGARMENTS for our sakes. they look like troglodites!or oe... well single cell beings. ooooh sorry.

Anonymous said...

A good misandrist should have better grammar!

Mr Griffles.