> exponential

You keep using that word but are not understanding what it means. The further back you go on an exponential curve, the shallower it gets. Technological advancements are exponential. That's why they're faster now and slower way back when.

But that's also a simplification, because "humanity" is not a single entity with a single development curve. Civilizations grow and advance and then develop new technology and societal complexity faster and faster, and then they stagnate/fall, new ones evolve and branch off of them, etc.

Also there are major differences in society and technology between 5000 years ago and 1000 years ago, so I don't even understand your premise.

Lastly, why would riding animals need to be something a culture developed early? Animals are far more useful as food, wool, beasts of burden, etc. It also requires pretty sophisticated techniques and technology to effectively ride animals, especially on battle (stirrups for one thing). Hitching a cart, which were human powered before, to an animal is actually less complicated than developing horseback riding.

This paper also says no real increase for those games though. It's "cherry picking" data because it's looking at the effect of larger audiences.

Like...what is your problem? Do you deny all science or only the science that hurts your fee fees?

>I can't believe a paper is trying to attribute the virus mutations that caused world wide spikes and waves of cases to a 5000 people safely sitting outdoors.

Well, good news, it's not.

Yeah I think the sexualization comes from treating the human body as something taboo which has always seemed weird to me. Breasts and genitals aren't any different than by other body parts, and history shows us people will sexualize anything if the culture makes a taboo of it (uncovered ankles, back of the neck, whatever).

But it's hard to change.

Nudity isn't inherently sexual, period. Plus crowds of people don't register as many individuals but as a single new entity in your brain (i.e., one crowd). A thousand of the most attractive people in the world all grouped together in a crowd still just read as "crowd". You'd have to actively filter out people and focus on one or two at a time to see them as individual, attractive people again.