Looksmaxxing: The Costs Our Biology Pays for Aesthetic Optimization

I am troubled by the phenomena associated with the pursuit of aesthetic optimization and eternal youth. Perhaps they are no worse than in other times, but their speed of propagation and mass adherence is particularly striking. Wellness, fitness, anti-aging: the main markets of desperation, fueled by cultural anxiety generated by a system that bombards us with images of unattainable perfection, pathologizes us and offers quick solutions without guarantees (often dangerous ones, creating a never-ending loop, because there’s always a "new procedure" and because aesthetic aspirations change rapidly; in fact, the perfect face is now considered "natural" and youthful, the facelift).

One of the current names for this logic is looksmaxxing: Looks + maxing = maximizing appearance, a hashtag that surpassed two billion views on TikTok by April 2026. It was described as the new aesthetic grammar of Generation Z, particularly aimed at young men (which is something new). Mewing, meticulously calculated skincare routines, and even irreversible surgeries, all in search of a single cloned ideal: a defined jawline and facial symmetry. It has an emotional texture; it doesn’t present itself as vanity, but rather as a formula to stop feeling invisible, to gain confidence or social respect. In other words, it’s the age-old demand for recognition.

It doesn’t present itself as vanity, but rather as a formula to stop feeling invisible, to gain confidence or social respect. In other words, it’s the age-old demand for recognition.

At the same time, Botox injections have made a strong comeback, but the crazy part is that this treatment, once rejuvenating for those over 50, is now prejuvenation: intervening before the marks of time appear, not after; or, well, both before and after, forever. The "baby botox" is popular among those aged 20 to 29, and the participation of Generation Z in the total number of aesthetic patients rose from 4% in 2017 to 10% in 2024. Moreover, the global market for botulinum toxin, valued at $9.68 billion in 2026, is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 13% until 2035, driven (according to industry reports) by the increasing influence of social media on appearance standards and the growing social acceptance of preventive aesthetics.

At the same time, the prevalence of acne, obesity, hair loss, and premature aging, among other things, is rising. And so, the market responds: more products to “solve” these issues: fillers, peptides, Ozempic, Botox for everything. As a biologist, I know there’s no quick solution that doesn’t come at a cost. Biology has its own rhythms, and altering them has a higher price than advertising and marketing suggest.

All these procedures are marketed with the label of “minimally invasive,” as if the injection were a trivial gesture, and no one tells you about the real risks (I’ll share more about that below). In the end, it’s a misleading euphemism that hides a publication bias favoring successful outcomes while obscuring the adverse events associated with Botox. But the epidemic of complications, while not very visible, does exist.

Each intervention (an injection, a surgery, a drug) activates systemic responses. And this may sound obvious, but the skin is an organ that communicates, regulates, and responds; the nervous system is a network that reconfigures with each experience; metabolism is a hormonal dialogue with the entire system. Not everything that promises youth cares for life, and we have normalized these dangers.

And this isn’t new; the history of "aesthetic treatments" is filled with substances that, under the promise of beautifying, slowly poisoned. Geishas used a lethal mixture of mercuric chloride and white lead to achieve perfect whiteness, at the cost of neurological damage, renal, bone, hepatic, and dermatological failures (they died slowly from their own makeup); Queen Elizabeth I covered her smallpox scars with a formula of lead and vinegar: it achieved skin depigmentation but also caused baldness and tooth loss; arsenic pills promised to improve complexion until the poisoning took their consumers (19th century); radium in cosmetics like shampoos, tonics, and creams promised radiance (radioactive). Only the poison changes with time.

As a biologist, I know there’s no quick solution that doesn’t come at a cost. Biology has its own rhythms, and altering them has a higher price than advertising and marketing suggest.

Today, botulinum toxin, hyaluronic acid, synthetic peptides, skincare, and surgeries claim to be safe. Safe for whom? The aesthetics industry (like so many others) profits from our urgency to change and our trust in what they sell us as "safe." But the price of that trust is sometimes not paid upfront, but in installments, with years of diffuse symptoms, confusion, and unanswered medical consultations. And the desire to feel good in one’s own body shouldn’t involve a pact with ignorance.

That’s why I want to discuss this not as just another trend but from a biological and neuroaesthetic perspective: these are interventions on human biology that alter physiology, perception, and potentially, evolution.

A clarification

Before continuing, I want to clarify something: the topic of "aesthetics" resonates with me because the nervous system constructs reality and meaning through aesthetic experience. According to neuroaesthetics (my research area), a transdisciplinary field that studies the biological and neural correlates (not only cerebral) of aesthetic experience, aesthetic experience is not a judgment of taste or a cultural preference; it is a process of constructing sensitive knowledge through perception and the integration of three systems: the sensorimotor, the knowledge-meaning, and the emotion-evaluation systems.

Aesthetics, in its original sense, is aisthesis: sensitive perception. It’s the way the body, mind, and environment come together to generate meaning. The “aesthetics” that comes to mind generally has nothing to do with the aesthetic experience discussed in neuroscience (or aesthetic philosophy). The aesthetics, understood as sensitive knowledge, has profound consequences on our perception of reality and the construction of societies. When we reduce aesthetics to a surface operation, we impoverish our capacity to feel, connect, and inhabit the world. And when that reduction serves a market that sells us injected faces and optimized bodies, it not only conceals a scientific truth but also jeopardizes the human capacity to perceive and signify the world. We are literally closing the door to authentic aesthetic experience to open the door to a simulacrum of beauty and existential emptiness.

That said, I’ll continue.

We seek faces

The human face is the most social organ of the body. It communicates emotions, intentions, and identity. For social connection, empathy, and compassion, faces and gazes are key. A face can generate trust or alertness in fractions of a second.

The brain seeks faces, eyes, and smiles. Biologically, we are "obsessed" with finding faces. Likewise, there are two priority elements in facial perception after making that facial recognition: the eyes and the smile. The eyes are the first point of fixation and the main source of information; they convey attention, emotion, and intention, and a genuine smile facilitates connection.

However, the perception of facial beauty is processed in an integrated manner and is neither purely biological nor purely cultural. It is a dynamic co-construction that occurs in less than 100 milliseconds, recruiting ancient evolutionary systems to assess safety, intention, health, and social value. The brain compares what it sees with what it expects to see (its prediction). Faces that fit those expectations are processed with fluency and judged as more attractive. Those that don’t are more likely to cause discomfort.

The human face is the most social organ of the body. It communicates emotions, intentions, and identity. For social connection, empathy, and compassion, faces and gazes are key.

In this assessment, "attractive" faces activate the brain's reward system (medial orbitofrontal cortex, striatum), and beauty is experienced as a hedonic value: we enjoy looking at what pleases us. Some universally preferred characteristics are suggested: facial symmetry influences attractiveness, there is a possible link to sexual selection and genetic quality. In this biological sense, the face serves as a signal of health, fertility, and developmental stability. Smooth, reflective skin is associated with greater attractiveness because it facilitates perceptual processing and indicates health. Asymmetry, on the other hand, may signal instability or environmental stress. Because the face not only reflects heritage but also the individual's life history (epigenetics): nutrition, stress, exposure to toxins. It is a biography written on the skin.

Facial beauty perception is, therefore, a dynamic integration of multiple layers: biological (genetic, epigenetic, health), experiential (memory, learning), contextual (environment, moment), and cultural (aesthetic norms, familiarity).

When the face doesn't express and beauty isn't health

The success of these procedures relies on an opaque discourse that leaves millions of victims in its wake, invisible, nameless, unrecorded. Both botulinum toxin (Botox) and biomaterial implants (dermal fillers and biostimulators, such as hyaluronic acid, calcium hydroxyapatite, polylactic acid, or polymethylmethacrylate) carry health risks. The absence of mandatory records leads to a systematic underestimation of the true magnitude of the problem. And the lack of solid studies and mandatory reports not only conceals the risks but also the ways to manage them. In the aesthetic intervention industry (like many others), successful outcomes are widely publicized while adverse events are silenced.

But I can share some things I found.

Botox: action and risks

First, Botox is a neuromodulator, not a skin tightener. It is a substance that acts on the nervous system, not just locally. It not only paralyzes the muscle but also modulates the perception of others' emotions and one's own mood. And it’s not an exaggeration to think that by paralyzing expression, Botox may be altering the feedback between body and mind. Because the neurobiology of emotions is linked to facial expression, the face not only shows what we feel, but what we feel is anchored in the ability to express it and recognize it in others. That’s one side of it.

On the other hand, the concrete health risks. Its neurotoxic effect can trigger a cascade of complications:

1. Local and transient: bruising, ecchymosis, eyebrow asymmetries, eyelid ptosis (drooping eyelid). Its incidence varies, but ptosis is the most common, affecting 3.39% of cases.
2. Muscular and ocular: the diffusion of the toxin to adjacent muscles can lead to anything from generalized muscle weakness to diplopia (double vision), ectropion (eyelid drooping outward), and xerophthalmia (dry eye), putting the cornea at risk.
3. The warning of autophagy: a study from the University of Chile (2026) revealed that Botox inhibits autophagy, the cellular recycling system. This suggests that prolonged use could open the door to cellular damage accumulation, a finding that the article does not mention but underscores the lack of long-term studies.
4. Systemic and severe: though rare, they can be devastating. Urticaria, anaphylaxis, dyspnea, soft tissue edema, infections from atypical mycobacteria, and even neurological syndromes like Guillain-Barré have been reported.

Dermal fillers (everything else)

The most widespread, ultra-common. Marketed as safe, natural, and reversible. But according to evidence, hyaluronic acid can provoke immune reactions that extend beyond the treated area. They can trigger inflammation throughout the body. Local issues range from a bluish tone in the skin (the so-called Tyndall effect) to painful lumps, infections, and, most seriously, the obstruction of a blood vessel, which can cause tissue death, blindness, or even a stroke.

Additionally, fillers can act as triggers for the Adjuvant-Induced Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome (ASIA), a reaction of the immune system that occurs after exposure to substances that enhance the body's defensive response. Symptoms include extreme fatigue, muscle and joint pain, fever, sleep problems, and neurological disturbances. In one study, 62% of individuals with biopolymers reported symptoms that went beyond the local, and they were diagnosed with ASIA.

Then there’s polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), a plastic used to enhance buttocks, lips, and other areas. It is already associated, according to studies, with the so-called "breast implant disease," and brings:

1. Chronic fatigue, extreme exhaustion that doesn’t improve with rest. Unexplained body, joint, and muscle pain.
2. Brain fog, memory issues, concentration problems, and mild cognitive decline.
3. Fever.
4. Skin rashes, itching, unusual hair loss.
5. Dryness in the mouth and eyes.

A whole cocktail of symptoms that seem straight out of an autoimmune disease, but stem from an aesthetic decision. The average time for these symptoms to appear, as reported to the FDA, is 5.6 years, which is why establishing a causal link is so difficult: by the time the symptoms show up, no one associates them with the implant, and it's easier to attribute them to aging, stress, or bad luck.

Now, synthetic peptides are the new object of desire in the wellness and aesthetics world. They promise weight loss, cellular rejuvenation, radiant skin, and a few other things. But they are a massive uncontrolled experiment. The risks are numerous: infections and allergic reactions since they are injectable substances without quality control; hormonal and metabolic alterations with uncertain effects; cardiovascular issues; and most concerning, the possibility that they stimulate disordered cell growth, which could increase cancer risk. Without studies on humans, this risk cannot be ignored.

With peptides, the consumer becomes the guinea pig.

Evolution is not a linear process towards perfection

It's a contingent drift that depends on the interaction between organisms and environments. Bodies are shaped not to survive or thrive, but to be desired by an algorithm; we modify ourselves not for health, but for status in a like ecosystem. An optimization for the machine, because the jawline enhanced through surgery, the cheekbone lifted with fillers does not improve any capability. In short, current aesthetic practices are decoupling appearance from biological function and have a cultural dimension that interacts with evolution. It's not far-fetched to think that future generations could inherit not only genes but also dysfunctions from these procedures or aesthetic expectations and medical practices that reconfigure what it means to be human. I wonder if the desire for perfection could paradoxically become a factor of maladaptation.

Bodies are shaped not to survive or thrive, but to be desired by an algorithm; we modify ourselves not for health, but for status in a like ecosystem.

We chase youth while dying in the attempt, trading beauty for balance, attraction for connection. We undergo procedures that weaken us to appear strong, that make us sick to seem healthy, that isolate us to look desirable. The paradox is that in this pursuit, we lose what truly makes us attractive: vitality, presence, the ability to hold a gaze. And perhaps we should care more about the gaze, which changes when we are sad, or sick, or joyful and healthy. The sparkle in the eyes (which shows us the qi, a wise Chinese would say), or the smile that tells us more about a person than any angle of their jawline. Maybe true looksmaxing isn't about getting closer to an external standard, but about returning to our own flesh, our own story, our own way of inhabiting the world. Perhaps I'm going too far with this topic, but, well, I always end up here.

How do we get out of this?

The system has learned to position itself exactly in the crack of desire. And I repeat, it's not a collection of trends, but an integrated system of extracting attention, desire, and biology. The exploitation of neurochemistry and the medicalization of existence are the central workings of the system.

I never like to stay in analysis, so how do we get out of this? Well, not individually. I don't think it's about 'disconnecting' or 'stopping consumption,' but about reconnecting. And for that, we need to dismantle the logic that sustains the system and resist in some way.

How do we get out of this? Well, not individually. I don't think it's about 'disconnecting' or 'stopping consumption,' but about reconnecting. And for that, we need to dismantle the logic that sustains the system.

An aesthetic resistance, not as a 'rejection' of beauty, but as a reappropriation: transforming beauty into a resource for affirmation, survival, and collective resistance, allowing aesthetics to regain its sense and meaning as 'sensitive knowledge,' expanding the definition of beauty. A perceptual exit, training attention like a muscle, multisensory perception as potential. It can be anchored in concrete practices: reducing consumption of brief content, prioritizing deep reading, practicing mindfulness, and cultivating the capacity for wonder at the real. Obviously, it's not a magic solution, but a training that requires time and consistency.

In short, the exit is possible, but it cannot be individual: the system is too large, the cage too sophisticated. But I am interested in reclaiming aesthetics as sensitive perception and not as a superficial, ephemeral, and commercialized pursuit. Science helps us dismantle this great arm of the system that only deepens discomfort.