>>4921254
>did other human species die out from being total uggos?

The kind of animal we are has (mostly) sexually selected for cuteness, smartness, and big dicks & big tits, so probably.
We're also a lot more comfortable with non-violent solutions to choosing and picking mates: our social systems are extremely complicated, we can actually talk about our feelings, understanding is possible between people in a way it isn't between other animals, and most cultures (historically) didn't completely ignore the desires of women.
There's a hypothesis that Australian Aborigines are so fucking ugly because they possessed zero, or minimal, female sexual selection. They resolved everything via violence and so they selected for ugly stupid brutes.

>>4921295
>Did they talk and wear clothes and shit and build like simple tents and structures or were they pretty much monke?

Neanderthals, as far as we'll maybe ever know, possessed comparable intelligence to us. Neanderthals could hunt and forage a range of foods, make acorn flour, knew how to boil water, could spin twine and rope, make rock tools, they made art, wore accessories and semi-tailored clothing (they didn't just wear rags), and showed signs of religiosity. But they also suffered from intense genetic isolation & inbreeding ?for some reason?, they never socialized with dogs or other animals, and speech may have been difficult for them.
Neanderthals come off as super autistic.

Homo Erectus, Rudolfensis, and Habilis, blur the line between man and monke because they had a very limited material culture (they could make maybe 12 things and they experienced zero innovation for a million years), but then they wandered around all over the planet (tons of them across East and South East Asia), were highly expansionist, and could be perceived as the most successful Hominid species.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/an/

Thread:

did other human species die out from being total uggos? i couldn't fuck any of these