You're right, and it's the basic flaw in most of evo-psych nonsense that gets thrown at us. It's not just medical testing that makes the need for sexual selection by beauty obsolete, but it's also that there isn't much selection pressure happening on the human species anyway, due to the fact that we started from a relatively small population with a very limited gene pool and then went a rapid population explosion--so there has been a loss of selection pressure to drive the loss of deleterious alleles/accumulation of advantageous alleles in human history. We simply haven't experienced natural selection very much at a genetic level past the invention of agriculture, and applying evolutionary explanations to most human social and cultural behavior doesn't make much sense.
Moreover, even if you buy the "beauty has an evolutionary purpose and is still relevant in today's society" theory, the traits that would be perceived as reflective of fitness back when early humans were diverging from their hominid ancestors would be completely different from the traits that are perceived as beautiful today.
I like Chiang's stories, but I honestly haven't come across any science fiction in any form of media that presents speculation about human evolution that makes much sense scientifically.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-02-26 04:32 pm (UTC)Moreover, even if you buy the "beauty has an evolutionary purpose and is still relevant in today's society" theory, the traits that would be perceived as reflective of fitness back when early humans were diverging from their hominid ancestors would be completely different from the traits that are perceived as beautiful today.
I like Chiang's stories, but I honestly haven't come across any science fiction in any form of media that presents speculation about human evolution that makes much sense scientifically.