Are humans really getting more attractive over time?

Now, there may be some terrible flaw in my understanding of genetics (or aesthetics) here. It does sound a little silly to claim that humans are getting relentlessly more attractive over time. But you know, I never thought the Venus de Milo (supposedly the ideal of Grecian beauty 70 generations ago) was all that pretty.

Is averageness attractive?

There has been a fair amount of research during the last decade which suggests that averageness is attractive, at least when it comes to facial features.

Why are we attracted to the “average” person?

There is, of course, an evolutionary argument for why this should be true: evolution tends to select for healthy traits and to weed out unhealthy ones, so it makes sense that we should be attracted to the “average” person who possesses good traits rather than to the “uncommon” person who possesses bad traits.

What does a child represent after many generations?

So after many generations, a given child represents a kind of (stochastic) “average” of all the descendants whose genetic material contributed to its own.

Is 2016 the most attractive year in human history?

Yes because compared to history, people in 2016 are generally considered the most attractive as compared to the past, where cosmetics, plastic surgery, braces etc. weren’t as popularised/effective. No because societal norms shift. Let’s use education as an example.

Should we resist artificial selection of the best looking people?

For a steady shift toward a more attractive population, there would have to be a selection mechanism (natural or artificial) eliminating less attractive people from the gene pool. And we should probably resist artificial selection of only the best looking.