Thus is the extent to which men value clothing. It can even be said that a man is his clothes, or that clothes make the man. The history of humanity is not a story of flesh, nor a story of bone, nor a story of blood. Simply stated, it's a story of clothing. An unclothed man, one senses, is a man stripped of humanity. He's nothing more than a brute. Were all men, by mutual agreement, to reduce themselves to brutes, then problem solved - the brute becomes the norm. This outcome in itself, however, is highly problematic. Nature, from time immemorial, has cast men into this world equally equipped. No man arrives in any state but stark naked. If it were man's nature to find contentment in equality, then he should thrive in his nakedness. In fact, though, stark naked man begins to question the value of individual enterprise if any and all are forever the same. He longs to assert his individual identity through some form of visual differentiation. He looks for something, a part of his physical person, that will stop his peers in their tracks. He exercises his intellect to its utmost, and ten long years later, undershorts are born. He dons his undershorts, struts about proudly, and basks his peers' adulation. This is the ancestor of today's rickshaw man. It may seem odd that ten years' effort should be poured into something so simple as undershorts, but that's modern perspective passing judgment on unenlightened antiquity. At the time in question, the development of undershorts was hailed as heretofore unparalleled achievement. They say that it took Descartes some ten or more years to arrive at his, "I think, therefore I am," a truth evident to any three-year-old. When one reflects on the difficulty of original thought, one can't but admire the intellect of the rickshaw man who, through ten years of sustained mental effort, brought the world undershorts.