Hi Billy,
I dig what you're saying and appreciate your response. But I'm afraid I have a quibble with the part about taking us back to our pre-human era where we didn't have or need clothes. This is not the same thing. We're comparing apples to rutabagas here. Here's why.
If we're referring to Australopithecus or Homo Erectus, we know from fossil and artifact records that they did not have the same technology as we do. Point being, as far as clothes, the thought didn't occur to them and they accepted the insect bites just as an elk would. In other words, they didn't know any better. We do and that makes all the difference. Be that as it may, we don't know for certain that they didn't wear clothes. They wouldn't have survived as artifacts. So we can't really see what it was like for them because we weren't there and there is no way to quantify that history. Naked and Afraid cannot establish the experience because we don't know what their daily life was really like. However, humanity invented clothing for a reason and we do know it is beyond written record and, thus, is a well-established custom among humans. We might think we can see what it was like but we'll be no more successful than World War Two re-enactors are at re-creating the landing at Omaha Beach during D-Day. They can wear the uniforms and carry the weapons, but they cannot re-create the dismembered bodies and ordnance flying about. And that was in fairly recent history compared to early hominids.
It isn't really possible to take a modern human who has knowledge of science, medicine, and even mathematics and think they can know what, say Homo Erectus may have done in thus-and-so a situation. We know, for example, that if we do not take care of a wound, it gets infected. We know it requires antibiotics if it gets infected. But a Paleolithic person might have assumed evil spirits got a hold of that person and that is why he died. They may not have cleaned or dressed the wound at all, unlike us. Even people in the Medieval Period had little knowledge of medicine, often using relics and water from a holy well to "heal" wounds. We also know a lack of Vitamin C causes Scurvy, something even sailors as late as the 1700s didn't understand. So, we also understand dietary requirements which, perhaps, Australopithecus may not have known. Early hominids may have pushed scavenger animals off of animal carcasses over a week old and eaten the meat. Would we do that today? Probably not because we know you can get food poisoning. But early hominids wouldn't have known that, done it anyway, gotten sick, and not known why.
As far as the "sex sells" sensationalism, I'm afraid I still must find it deeply regrettable that this is what we've come to as a society, speaking of evolution. Or, perhaps, a lack of. I'm not interested in a return to the social values of the Victorian Era, but the fact that people are interested more in sex than what is supposed to be the key that travels with it (that being love and respect for the person you share that intimacy with) is somewhat sad. But that's just me. However, humanity developed the institutions of marriage and relationships for a reason and that is societal cohesiveness and an expression of an emotion we somehow happen to have, that being love. Sex became attached to it also as something reserved solely for your partner. That includes nudity, to be clear. Humanity learned that sex being unrestrained led to violence because we're a monogamous species by nature. So are many other animals, such as ravens, doves, and many others. This is where sexual values originate. Something needed to be done because Torg slept with Trug's wife and Trug ran his spear through Torg in retaliation and each one's clan fought a clan war over it and the tribe split apart. So, really, "sex selling" in our society is dangerous to our societal cohesiveness in the long-term.
Anyway, this is how I see it. Not trying to argue, but just wanted to offer the flip side of the coin.
