If Humans stop wearing clothes would evolution make us grow hair all over our body, including women?

Question

Wouldn't it be great if we stopped wearing clothes so we can all save money?

Answer 1

Evolution does not have motivation or purpose, so one cannot predict what will happen if humans stopped wearing clothes. If having longer hair gave humans some reproductive advantage, then yes, hair would be selected for, but not because evolution has some sense of purpose, but rather because individuals with longer hair had greater reproductive success. But the factor by which long hair as a trait provides some relative advantage in reproduction, say "s", is likely very very low. It woud take many generations for a notable change in hair growth to appear in the population.

But anyways, humans will never stop wearing clothes. Imagine, for example, one group of humans decides to stop wearing clothes, while another wears clothes. And say the weather doesn't "cooperate". The dumb-arses who wear noo clothes will die of hypothermia, and their fool genes will be eliminated from the population. The wearing clothes strategy will always beat the no clothes one, and so we will never have a stable "evolutionary strategy" where wearing no clothes beats out wearing clothes.

So no.

Answer 2

Possibly, however evolution does not work that way. Random variation causes random things to happen once in awhile when people are born etc and when that new variation is somehow more appealing and that person has more kids and the variation is spread among the population via reproduction then over a long period of time a more beneficial variation can take hold in a society. That is probably not a good explaination but basically evolution does not work in the way you are thinking where a need is spontaneously met by all of humanity's babies suddenly taking on a new trait. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

Maybe. But first all of us living in the northern climates would die of exposure if we went outside.

There might be somewhere between the snow belt and the equator where a few hairy people could survive the elements and go on to have children who were equally or more hairy who could survive and have more hairy children. That's how evolution works. Those of us living now would not grow hair to cope with the elements.

Answer 4

for the familiar public of human existence (excepting some intermittent ice a protracted time), our ancestors lived in Africa, and chilly became not the undertaking that's for, say, Canadians. in any case, evolution would not "choose" what to grant to which species. It tries random issues and notice what works superb. probably, people with intense hair suffered sick outcomes from it and did not reproduce as oftentimes. possibly the hair interfered with looking and accumulating in some way or accumulated micro organism which led to ailment. the wanting that's that proto-people with rather little physique hair had a extra useful probability of reproducing than proto-people with an stunning style of physique hair.

Answer 5

Well, I believe the body would begin to grow hair but it would take ten of thousands of years. Man probably lost his hair in the first place because he started to wear animals skins as clothing. But this took eons of time. You would never be able to do this in a northern clime like northern U.S. or Canada. We would all have to move to the tropics.

Answer 6

We STARTED hairy and lost it.....NOT having hair must be a better survival characteristic than having hair. So, no, we would not grow hair all over our bodies...

Answer 7

well the human race would die off cuz no1 wants to reproduce with a hairy woman lol ewww

Answer 8

yeah

then no one would care what you wore or anything!
and then people wouldnt care if we got all hairy :D