What's the evolutionary reason for us finding some animals to be very cute?

Even animals (especially their babies) that aren't domesticated or live very far away from where humans typically live, such as penguins, are cute and adorable to most humans. Even babies of animals which can be very dangerous to humans ( such as bears) are very cute. why?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You have it backwards. There's no reason we find certain animal traits to be cute. To the contrary, baby animals have those traits because other animals find them cute. That's a survival thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe this, though it is just an evolution of the gaps argument with no backing. Parents won't kill their young if they aren't intimidating.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Chicken and the egg. We find those traits cute/attractive/desirable because they correlate to infancy, youth, health, and being to identify an animal as "baby x" or "healthy x" has myriad uses. Enjoying the appearance of the tiny birds up in your nest so much that you want to care for it and feed it means your genes are more likely to passed on compared to birds that think little chicks are annoying and gay and eat their own babies or or kill them with neglect. Compassion has a genetic basis.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You don't have to find something cute to sympathize with it.

      humans find some other mammals cute because thats what survived in humanity some 20 000 years ago

      1. humans find wolves cute
      2. humans who did find wolves cute survived and those who attacked and killed wolves, died themselves soon after
      3. wolves were important because wolf teamed up with humans and helped in hunting deer
      4. humans and wolves share the killed deer
      5. after some thousand years wolves have turned into a golden retriever (there were a few sidesteps before it was a golden retriever)
      6. at that point humans who liked golden retrievers but did not have a problem with killing local woodland birds, survived and the trait of liking dogs and killing birds stuck with humanity for thousands of years, such humans survived the best
      7. even today bird enthusiasts are rare compared to dog enthusiast
      8. cats are a total mystery there is no reason people should be liking cats but they do

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The earliest generally accepted dog remains were discovered in Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany.[106][107] Contextual, isotopic, genetic, and morphological evidence shows that this dog was clearly not a local wolf.[14] The dog was dated to 14,223 YBP.[106]

        >In 1914, on the eve of the First World War, two human skeletons were discovered during basalt quarrying at Oberkassel, Bonn in Germany. With them were found a right mandible of a "wolf" and other animal bones.[108] After the end of the First World War, in 1919 a full study was made of these remains. The mandible was recorded as "Canis lupus, the wolf" and some of the other animal bones were assigned to it.[109] The remains were then stored and forgotten for fifty years. In the late 1970s there was renewed interest in the Oberkassel remains and the mandible was re-examined and reclassified as belonging to a domesticated dog.[110][111][112] The mitochondrial DNA sequence of the mandible was matched to Canis familiaris – a dog[20] and falls within mDNA haplogroup C of dogs.[45] The bodies were dated to 14,223 YBP.[106] This implies that in Western Europe there were morphologically and genetically "modern" dogs in existence around 14,500 YBP.[113

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this isn't true. they are "cute" because they are non threatening dependents, which we associate with our own offspring.
      the large eye:face ratio, large head:body ratio, overall size, short limbs and clumsiness; also fluffy coats for insulation are the phenotype of organisms that were until recently confined to a uterus or egg. these traits of offspring are generally applicable to mammals, and some of them are applicable to other animals. when animals see them, they know that the bearer of these traits is non-threatening and not self-sufficient. So humans and some species well fed in captivity behave gently and protect offspring of another species.

      populations may have experienced pressures to carry more of these traits into adolescence or adulthood perhaps as a sexual marker of youth. this is called neoteny

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >non threatening
        That is what some believe, like when they go out in the jungle to pet a grown elephant.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Humans have compassion, also for those not our kin, even animals. That is what makes us able to build civilisations.
    And that is why clan oriented societies are bare civilised an full of animal abusers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You don't have to find something cute to sympathize with it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the average person sympathises more with something they find cute/attractive/pretty/aesthetically pleasing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If certainly helps. Cute overload releases oxytocin which helps bonding.

        https://i.imgur.com/LcPUF7h.jpeg

        So would it stand to reason the more advanced a civilization, the more empathetic and compassionate they are? i.e. Western civilization is peak development of the human soul, whereas a less developed nation/continent could be seen as less compassionate/more savage/dangerous/violent/etc. ?

        That is a thought provoking line of thought, I just don't know if it holds.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >That is a thought provoking line of thought, I just don't know if it holds.

          Well, let's try this one on for size:

          >British empire seeks to spread a religion of compassion to all corners of the world
          >they bring high technology, sharing it with undeveloped peoples and teaching them advanced theorems
          >they preach morality and empathy to cannibals, polygamists, and others with detrimental cultures

          Now let us review how those groups responded to such benevolence. Let us also examine how many of these lesser groups have reached out with forms of compassion or empathy to others, how many have set sail to spread their virtue to far off lands, how many have developed great structures and systems to enshrine their advanced knowledge and higher mental acuity. I can't be sure, but I think I might be on to something.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lmao
            >get this people which we forcibly brought into modernity but are clearly not prepared to deal with it and leave them with nothing but reduced infant mortality, sympathy for revolutionary socialism and firearms. What could happen?
            >oh no, child soldiers
            At least we had nothing to do with it when they were just dancing under the moon and eating each other

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So would it stand to reason the more advanced a civilization, the more empathetic and compassionate they are? i.e. Western civilization is peak development of the human soul, whereas a less developed nation/continent could be seen as less compassionate/more savage/dangerous/violent/etc. ?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >And that is why clan oriented societies are bare civilised an full of animal abusers.
      For a while, we had a good balance, a worthwhile trade off between expanding our sociological definition of kin beyond clans to cities/nations/empires. We reaped most if not all of the benefits of engaging with integrity, reciprocity and trust, shared senses of obligations operating into domains much more abstract than family.
      But every layer of abstraction that makes us so much more sophisticated and civilized adds not only the possibility of incredible mutual benefit from self-interested but honest reciprocal benefits, but new niches and loopholes for manipulative sociopaths. We are being overrun by an influx of some of the world's worst parasitical bottom feeding sociopaths thanks to mass immigration and our own domestic elite sociopaths are trying to engineer systems of total control ala China.
      I use the term sociopathic both incredibly loosely, from the person who litters (possibly the quantum of evil) and the person who uses other people thoughtlessly, maliciously or exploitatively.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You pop sci normies make a dozen of these threads every week. Not every trait or behavior is the product of selection. In fact, most of them aren't. Most observable traits are determined just as much by epigenetic and developmental factors, and many arise as a secondary consequence or side effect of more direct forms of selection. There is no evolutionary reason that we find baby animals cute. There is an evolutionary reason that we find our own offspring cute, and since human offspring exhibit a lot of similarities with other mammalian offspring, we find the offspring of other species cute as a result. The cuteness of other baby mammals arises simply as a byproduct of the cuteness of human babies.

    The same can be said for a lot of things. E.g. pop sci normies like yourself will ask questions like "what is the evolutionary purpose of being good at computer programming", or "what is the evolutionary purpose of being susceptible to opiate addiction". Neither of these capacities arose in response to a process of natural selection, so neither of them will have evolutionary explanations. Computers have not even existed on long enough time scales to be evolutionary relevant to human natural selection. Someone's ability to understand computers might be a byproduct of selection for abstract thinking or logical reasoning or quantitative ability, but it could never be the product of direct selection effects. In biology, we call these the "spandrels" of evolution.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You pop sci normies make a dozen of these threads every week.
      Sure, and every week someone pompous feel the need to lecture other people on things they didn't state.
      >Not every trait or behavior is the product of selection.
      Indeed OP didn't claim that.
      >In fact, most of them aren't.
      Have you enumerated them?
      >Most observable traits are determined just as much by epigenetic and developmental factors, and many arise as a secondary consequence or side effect of more direct forms of selection. There is no evolutionary reason that we find baby animals cute.
      Just how do you know? Human compassion meant we domesticated dogs, horses and other animals, and that provided an enormous survival benefit. See also

      Humans have compassion, also for those not our kin, even animals. That is what makes us able to build civilisations.
      And that is why clan oriented societies are bare civilised an full of animal abusers.

      >There is an evolutionary reason that we find our own offspring cute,
      Sure
      >and since human offspring exhibit a lot of similarities with other mammalian offspring, we find the offspring of other species cute as a result.
      That does not follow. Do other animals feel the same towards other species?
      >The cuteness of other baby mammals arises simply as a byproduct of the cuteness of human babies.
      Above you wrote "offspring of other species" and now you restrict that to "other baby mammals", it doesn't look like you have thought this through.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your assumptions are wrong. Babies are cute and most mammals and birds find babies of many species cute. Elephants literally think humans are cute.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Elephants literally think humans are cute.
        D-do they pet humans?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wolves domesticated us to take care of them. They selected populations that, among other traits beneficial to them, found puppies cute.
    It just happens that this puppy loving trait also applies to other baby animals.

    Africans, who weren't domesticated by wolves, lack this trait and don't hesitate to harm cute animals.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's advantageous to want to protect human children with neotenous traits. But we have also had thousands of years of animal husbandry which we've adapted to. Finding puppies cute, for example, is an advantage because these puppies will grow up to be companions which increase our odds of survival. Animal bonding is probably an adaptation in humans and not just a coincidence.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >But we have also had thousands of years of animal husbandry which we've adapted to.
      Attimes, this take son strange forms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlhLEhJEWpE
      I wonder, will derwinism over time mean animals will become increasingly cute and adapted for cuddling? People feel compassion for cute and fluffy animals but will not hesitate in killing ugly bugs.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Big heads , and eyes disproportionate to the rest of the body is common among almost all mammal babies. So we find baby animals cute for the same reason we find baby humans cute.

    >inb4 other animals don't find human babies cute

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *