posted
I can see how cuteness in human babies would serve an evolutionary purpose. And some say that beauty is a rough biological indicator of health and fitness (let's not start a flame war about this).
But does cuteness in animals serve any kind of purpose? Maybe with dogs, since we can domesticate them and turn them to our advantage, but baby polar bears? Lion cubs?
Is it just a transference of our 'sense of cuteness' for human babies?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't ascociate animals with babies at all. They are just cute because they are little and fuzzy and seem harmless. Cuteness isn't purposeful they can't help that they are cute to us we can't help that we think their cute.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never thought about it before, but my theory is that cuteness is based on miniturization of hairy things with 4 limbs and 2 eyes. This is why we find many baby animals cute along with baby humans. Birds can be cute when babies, as in "March of the Penguins", but only because their feathers look like hair. It's also why many don't find newborn humans cute (not enough hair) and baby mice and rats aren't cute (no hair). Reptiles and insects are obviously not candidates.
In some people the cuteness wiring is off a little bit and they begin to think everything small is cute. Such as small spoons, and small furniture. Clearly this is not normal.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it's because no one wants to be the Evil Hunter who kills the helpless furry creatures with the dewdrop eyes. So you spare the cute and fuzzy things, allowing them to live until they grow up and fulfill thier reproductive purpose, ensuring that their population will remain stable.
Plus they're usually tiny, and one only has to look around to notice that humanity's cuteness receptors work better on miniature things. The 'wee little puppet man' factor, if you will.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But human babies aren't hairy all over. In fact, smooth even skin is most attractive on humans. Maybe it's because fuzzy cute things are soft to the touch, and we've learned to associate the sight with the tactile sensation so well.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leah, that's interesting. Perhaps it's because hunters who did go after squirrels got less meat and were less likely to survive, while people who hunted mammoths always got a hearty banquet.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, and while there are other animals we would be better off not hunting, they have certain deterrents (porcupines etc.). But kittens and squirrels don't, so we built artificial deterrents into ourselves?
Just thinking out loud here.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Baby polar bears are cute because they grow up to become one of the extraordinarily few species on earth which will purposefully hunt humans to eat.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: In some people the cuteness wiring is off a little bit and they begin to think everything small is cute. Such as small spoons, and small furniture. Clearly this is not normal.
quote:Scientists who study the evolution of visual signaling have identified a wide and still expanding assortment of features and behaviors that make something look cute: bright forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait, among many others.
Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth, vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say, and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian sense. As a species whose youngest members are so pathetically helpless they can't lift their heads to suckle without adult supervision, human beings must be wired to respond quickly and gamely to any and all signs of infantile desire.
The human cuteness detector is set at such a low bar, researchers said, that it sweeps in and deems cute practically anything remotely resembling a human baby or a part thereof, and so ends up including the young of virtually every mammalian species, fuzzy-headed birds like Japanese cranes, woolly bear caterpillars, a bobbing balloon, a big round rock stacked on a smaller rock, a colon, a hyphen and a close parenthesis typed in succession.
posted
I think there's another really good reason. Our species survived because we bonded with other species and developed symbiotic relationships with them. Cattle, llamas, chickens, ducks, geese, dogs, cats, horses, oxen, reindeer, etc. all have contributed greatly to our success as a species. The way things like that come about is by random events serendipitously leading to advantages. Some kid a million years ago brought home a baby reindeer and said "Please, mom, can we keep it?" The kin groups with genes that made them tend to see animals as friends, rather than only as prey or predators, thrived and passed those genes along.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems I've read about scientific studies saying that animals (mammals anyway) react maternally to the same features we find "cute" -- but the best link I could find with a quick search was from Wikipedia:
quote: Additionally, cutenessor at least physical characteristics associated with infancyseems to be recognized instinctively by many mammals as well as humans. This is probably because infant mammals share many of the same characteristics as infant humans. The many documented cases of wild animals adopting human foundlings may be explained by the human children's cuteness triggering the maternal instinct in their animal foster mothers.
posted
I know I read a study on this once, perhaps it is a sort of evolutionary contract across species to give other species a chance to reach maturity. It might be in all species interest to let everybody get some meat on the bone. However the predation on the young is pretty universal.
I know that the high pitched baby talk response coincides with infants having better hearing in that range, but I am not sure if this is reinforced in adults by child response or hard wired. It could be that underdevelopment in mammals just puts most mammals in a similar morphic state for the reason that we are all closely related with the coincidental maternal response.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that babies look the way they do for logistical reasons (they need a big head more than long legs, e.g.), and therefore we're designed to consider those features cute. Other babies have the same logistical design, and therefore we consider them cute, too.
I like Dagonee's link, too: it does seem to describe us. And why would we be so affected by cute, while other mammals aren't so much? Because their sense of smell helps them identify who they should care for, and so they don't need to notice cute.
(But some do. Try whining around a dog. They'll try to cheer you up!)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, the true answer to "Why are baby polar bears cute?" is that "So Chuck Norris will take pity on them."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: BTW, the true answer to "Why are baby polar bears cute?" is that "So Chuck Norris will take pity on them."
All of this fanatism towards that man make me not like him that much. I just don't understand why people put him on a pedestal so much.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the link Dagonee, I guess my initial hypothesis was more along the right track.
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
I know I read a study on this once, perhaps it is a sort of evolutionary contract across species to give other species a chance to reach maturity. It might be in all species interest to let everybody get some meat on the bone.
I'm no biologist, but I don't think species evolve along the lines of 'social contracts'. As in, there is no third entity called 'evolution' which decides that species A should make a small sacrifice so that species B can gain certain benefits. Every species develops in a way which increases its chances of survival, because unsuccessful genes aren't passed on.
Symbiosis exists because members of one species had traits which helped it interact with another species in a way which helped it to survive and have babies.
I'm also very interested in Tatiana's hypothesis. Though I don't think oxen are very cute, personally, I wonder if some of the cuteness we see in dogs is rooted in a pseudo-symbiotic relationship in early human history?
Was it Jared Diamond who said that technically, the relationship between dogs and humans was initially symbiotic rather than a case of humans domesticating dogs? (dogs keep the vermin away, while feeding on human rubbish dumps)
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
General Sax: Sorry, I guess what you were saying is that human tribes which waited until animals were adults before hunting them had a better chance of survival. Probably true.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes it is like the appearence of staying in a nice niche in a biosphere when the reality is that all the various competitors are struggling to devour, crowd out or overshadow each other and the species is just holding its own. It looks like 'agreement' but that is just a way to think about it. It is possible that allowing the young to mature is in a predetory species best interest, so it has become a hard wired trait. However as I said predation on the young and vulnerable is pretty universal. It is certain that being protective of the young is a universally benificial trait, so the 'cute' response is likely a side effect of the protective instinct. There is likely a scent at work as well, a nursing youngster is certain to have a smell that marks it. I have seen dogs take on kittens, and pigs nurse puppies. Scent means much more to such creatures then sight...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Scientists who study the evolution of visual signaling have identified a wide and still expanding assortment of features and behaviors that make something look cute: bright forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait, among many others.
Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth, vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say, and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian sense. As a species whose youngest members are so pathetically helpless they can't lift their heads to suckle without adult supervision, human beings must be wired to respond quickly and gamely to any and all signs of infantile desire.
The human cuteness detector is set at such a low bar, researchers said, that it sweeps in and deems cute practically anything remotely resembling a human baby or a part thereof, and so ends up including the young of virtually every mammalian species, fuzzy-headed birds like Japanese cranes, woolly bear caterpillars, a bobbing balloon, a big round rock stacked on a smaller rock, a colon, a hyphen and a close parenthesis typed in succession.
The greater the number of cute cues that an animal or object happens to possess, or the more exaggerated the signals may be, the louder and more italicized are the squeals provoked.
Cuteness is distinct from beauty, researchers say, emphasizing rounded over sculptured, soft over refined, clumsy over quick. Beauty attracts admiration and demands a pedestal; cuteness attracts affection and demands a lap. Beauty is rare and brutal, despoiled by a single pimple. Cuteness is commonplace and generous, content on occasion to cosegregate with homeliness.
posted
Katie, I believe the only reason scientists created that list of cuteness markers is to sell it to Japanese Anime execs for the next big-eyed, too-cute, blue-haired anime card game and never ending dueling cartoon show.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: But yes, small fuzzy four-legged things are adorable.
And also penguins.
Yes, but polar bears are real. Penguins are fictitious. That doesn't count any more than saying Pikachu is cute. They may both be cute, but that doesn't make them real.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think it's probably just a coincidence that they meet our human "cute" criteria. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
