• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution and "cute" animals

Ben K.

DP Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
4,717
Reaction score
1,981
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why on earth have humans evolved the tendency to find some animals cute, to the point of protective and nurturing tendencies?

I understand why we may find creepie crawlers instinctively distasteful, they have a tendency to be venomous. But baby cats and dogs grow up to be predators, or at least their ancestors and relatives did. By the same token, what drives us to find a baby lamb cute when our biological imperative should be to munch on it?

What gives?
 
because we are not predators ,we have humanistic tendencies:mrgreen:
 

Evolution has given humans an innate feeling of empathy.
 
It might be more social than evolution, While western culture may feel this way, I wonder if it extends to other cultures.
 
We seem to have a natural instinct to find baby humans cute, presumably evolved as it helps protect our young and thus propagate the species. A lot of the animals we commonly find cute have some of the characteristics of baby humans (indeed, are often other baby mammals) which is probably a cross-over of the same instinct.
 
That is a good question. Perhaps it is the same as our universal "vision" of space aliens; they all seem to have big heads (brains?), are bilaterally semetrical, usually bipedal and are just thus thought to be "like us". The closer an amimal is to a human infant, puppy or other cuddly, familiar critter the more it is seen as "good" or "cute".
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Evolution has given humans an innate feeling of empathy.
Click to expand...

Empathy describes an ability to imagine how others feel. I'm not sure how it describes finding certain animals cute. A lion cub doesn't have to be in any emotional distress to arose gooey "aww" feelings. It will grow up to be something that was dangerous and avoided at all costs by our ancestors.

Moreover, empathy enhances kinship and community and should be a capacity shared by both parties to be evolutionarily beneficial.
 

this is my opinion, as well. we're related the most to other mammals, and we seem to find them the "cutest," so it makes sense.
 
Ben K. said:
Empathy describes an ability to imagine how others feel.
Click to expand...

Yes, and animals have emotions. Simpler than humans, but still.


Moreover, empathy enhances kinship and community and should be a capacity shared by both parties to be evolutionarily beneficial.
Click to expand...



If I had to guess, it's all just a biproduct of sapience and having emotions.

But there exists a symbiotic relationship between Humans and dogs, or cats. Maybe it just grew out from there.
 
That's just it. They do look so darn cute, but they look even better on our dinner tables.
 

Only problem is, babies ain't hairy. And hairless breeds of dogs and cats don't do much for me at least.
 
Ben K. said:
I understand why we may find creepie crawlers instinctively distasteful, they have a tendency to be venomous. But baby cats and dogs grow up to be predators, or at least their ancestors and relatives did.
Click to expand...

We can identify with cats and dogs, as they are somewhat domesticated, and like us, are predators.

Ben K. said:
By the same token, what drives us to find a baby lamb cute when our biological imperative should be to munch on it?
Click to expand...

We find a baby animal cute, because we have a nurturing and protective element to our psyche. As for why we don't want to automatically eat it, it's probably because we aren't really that hungry, and we know we have a wide variety of foodstuffs at our disposal, and under out ability to cultivate, grow, and choose from.
 
Ben K. said:
Only problem is, babies ain't hairy. And hairless breeds of dogs and cats don't do much for me at least.
Click to expand...


See the bolded portion in my post.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yes, and animals have emotions. Simpler than humans, but still.
Click to expand...

They sure do. I think modern breeds of dog certainly have a high capacity for empathy themselves. They know how their masters feel.

But I don't think empathy comes necessarily into play to all types of nurturing instincts. A two day old baby or puppy has very little emotional capacity to empathise with besides hunger but the nurture instinct is still there in a huge number of people.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
See the bolded portion in my post.
Click to expand...

I'm favouring this baby is like a young mammal explanation. But I'm choosing the furry kitten to cuddle over the hairless one, even if the latter has more in common with a baby.
 
Ben K. said:
I'm favouring this baby is like a young mammal explanation. But I'm choosing the furry kitten to cuddle over the hairless one, even if the latter has more in common with a baby.
Click to expand...

OK, just stomp on those ugly bald kittens and puppies.
 
If one of my cats disappears, I'll be looking for you.

:kitty:

Dooble said:
That's just it. They do look so darn cute, but they look even better on our dinner tables.
Click to expand...
 
Ben K. said:
They sure do. I think modern breeds of dog certainly have a high capacity for empathy themselves. They know how their masters feel.
Click to expand...

True dat, homes.


Oh, of course not. But I am no expert. Just my 2 cents.
 
The animals we regard as cute tend to be babies, or to show the attributes of human babies. (Which are evolved to melt our hearts) A combination of large head-to-body size, and/or big eyes-to-head will be attractive, but patchy hair/scales or rough skin are signs of sickness or unfitness and trigger revulsion. Steven J Gould wrote an essay on Mickey mouse, and how he evolved from a skinny ratlike original to a short dumpy character with a big head, big eyes and smaller shorter body. He grew into a juvenile so audiences would be more attracted to him.

http://todd.jackman.villanova.edu/HumanEvol/HomageToMickey.pdf
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Evolution has given humans an innate feeling of empathy.
Click to expand...

Social norms and mores have not evolution. Evolution does not, for the most part, affect emotional responses like these.
 

No they do not. Dogs imprint their alphas and packs looks, actions and responses. Animals are not capable of true empathy. Not in thier behavioral sequences. Nice idea but not true
 

Again no symbiotic relationship exists. It is the millions of years of dogs reliance on the pack and pack members for survival. In real packs the term symbiotic may have some relavance but in the dog-human pack symbiosis is not a factor or relevant.
 

I saw some show recently that concluded that the reason human babies look so cute and giggle is a self-preservation tool built into the human condition. Babies do not appreciate humor but adults find laughter endearing. As babies age and find a sense of humor it becomes harder to make them laugh.
 
wolfman24 said:
No they do not. Dogs imprint their alphas and packs looks, actions and responses. Animals are not capable of true empathy. Not in thier behavioral sequences. Nice idea but not true
Click to expand...

Your idea is nice also, but not necessarily true. Empathy is a vaguely defined term as are all emotions, so denoting a "true" kind of empathy is scientific balderdash, unless true is a synonym for "human" which makes your argument circular.

As with all cognitive responses, it is entirely dependent on biochemical pathways influenced by external stimuli. These mechanisms are likely to be shared in some respect by our close relatives.
 
wolfman24 said:
Social norms and mores have not evolution. Evolution does not, for the most part, affect emotional responses like these.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. You can't separate the biological unit from social evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…