2409? That seems a bit specific. They couldn't just round to 2400, or even 2410? do they have a specific date picked out when all the women in the world shrink by 2 cm and gain 1 kg? If they do, I'd love to see a simulation on what will happen on that date. #evolution
@psychiccheese: The button jeans industry will either experience a boom, or be destroyed, out of fear of a second expansion. Either way, sweat pants? Money in the bank. #evolution
except this study doesn't predict the social factors or mating rituals of future generations, which may have a continue to have a sexual preference for foxymophandlemamas. Maybe there is a neglected reason that over the hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution society favors skinny tall girls, despite their less hearty child bearing skills. #evolution
@Fierock: Good point. And it only explores what is true for one New England community. It does not explore statistics from a broader range of cultures and cultural subsets. I could go into a whole diatribe about WHY this group of women is more likely to have more children and from a younger age, but that doesn't change the fact that sweeping generalizations are probably going to be made about statistics and data that represent only one sliver of world cultures and reproduction behaviors. #evolution
hasn't this been the trend since the dawn of the human race? a lot of it is that male preferences, for thousands of years, were selected for males that were attracted to fertile females. the guys that like unhealthy levels of skinny breed themselves out over time. why is it that the fasion industry glorifies skinny, tall women then? well it's not because they're celebrating the female form, or sexuality for that matter. just take a look at the difference between figures that are popular in porn vs. on the runway and it will become immediatly obvious that models are not the apex of sexual appeal for the vast majority of men and with good reason. #evolution
@tetracycloide: i think its because its easier to cloth someone who is rail thin. you can up the quality of the material if there's less needed for a piece. #evolution
@Miss_fortune: i think it's easier but less from a cost standpoint and more from a design standpoint. if the model has definition and presence of their own then there is less space for the designer to work in. #evolution
@Miss_fortune: I once heard a former model say that designers designed clothes to look good on hangers and so used models that could duplicate the look of the garment on a hanger. #evolution
I am sure one could draw all sorts of varying conclusions on why shorter, plumper, more fertile (really? more fertile women have more children? I am shocked!) have more kids. At any rate, I will be dead long before my leggy blondes will die off. #evolution
And in 800 generations, the average woman will be zero centimeters in height, weigh zero kilograms, bear her first child 400 months earlier and enter menopause 800 months later!
@Ruthless, If you let me: You might have something there. I always thought it was just because usually the girl is shorter than the guy so it was just relative. Like I call my son Short Stack because he's just under four feet tall, yet he's only four years old so he's really not short.... #evolution
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
The two main reasons:
1. Fashion models are not intended to be sexy women. They are intended to be walking clothes racks to show off sexy fashion.
2. The fashion industry is dominated by straight women and gay men. They are not picking models intended to be sexy to straight men. #evolution
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
My name is Belabras and I support this message. #evolution
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
[xkcd.com] #evolution
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
#graspingatstraws #evolution
10/20/09