Did animals evolve cuteness so we would protect them?

HM04

    • 38
    Posts
    11
    Years
    Do you guys think it is possible that animals, overtime, adapted to be cuter because they knew if they were cute we would protect them and give them shelter?


    I guess you could kind of tie this into pokemon lol, like the only reason we waste time on pokemon is if they are competitive and super tough, rare, or freakin adorable.


    that's why pokes like bibarel and stunfisk get no love. :/
     
    Last edited:
    I think that most all animals were pretty evolved into where they belonged by the time we came around. We were pretty late in the evolutionary chain I believe.

    It does raise the question though of why we find cute appealing and want to protect it; is it instinctual because our own children are cute or because a certain kind of structure generally means weak? Or is it psychological, something that society instilled in us since birth to ensure that we would take care of children and those weaker than us no matter what? I would lean towards the latter because of a great deal of humans being completely unaffected by cute, especially cute babies.
     
    Oryx said:
    It does raise the question though of why we find cute appealing and want to protect it; is it instinctual because our own children are cute or because a certain kind of structure generally means weak? Or is it psychological, something that society instilled in us since birth to ensure that we would take care of children and those weaker than us no matter what? I would lean towards the latter because of a great deal of humans being completely unaffected by cute, especially cute babies.
    Click to expand...

    Thanks to a study done back in the day identified as kinderschema, the traits that we identify as being cute are "(a) large head relative to body size, rounded head; (b) large, protruding forehead; (c) large eyes relative to face, eyes below midline of head; (d) rounded, protruding cheeks; (e) rounded body shape; and (f) soft, elastic body surfaces." That's why I believe we love babies so much; furthermore just for the reason that I believe it's an innate and maternal/paternal response to care for our own offspring.

    I don't believe animals evolved over time in response to a "cuteness factor," but rather just an effect of natural selection. I think animals such as dogs fit into the kinderschema theory, which is why we have such a fond attraction towards them.
     
    Animals evolved and then when we started coming around the co-evolved with us because they knew that siding with humans would up their chances of survival because we have the largest/make the most use of our intelligence. The animals evolved to become cute so they could be kept by children as pets whereas some of the other animals evolved and became domesticated by man for hunting uses, and then other animals evolved just so that they can kill us because we the more we advance the more we destroy the world.
     
    I want to say yes. Based on the fact that primitive species of man would be more likely to eat the ugly babies of their food and keep the cute ones as pets. Because that's still behaviour that we still have today (except for the eating part). So only the cute babies succeeded to breed.
    I believe humans participated in selective breeding far before we knew it was a thing, or even that we were doing it.
     
    Oh man I totally didn't mean human babies. I actually meant if they happened to kill like a momma Lion with babies or something, but man such poor words on my behalf.
     
    G.U.Y. said:
    No. Animals did not evolve because they are cute and we would protect them.

    No.
    Click to expand...
    This. Implying that creatures evolved "cuteness" so that we would protect them implies that we would have been near their species for long enough to produce this effect. Many species considered cute that have not had much human contact, such as many island species, would not have had the time to evolve to be "cute" to be "protected" by humans. In fact, many "cute" species were killed by humans for food or sport.

    Humans see cute characteristics in certain animals because of the way that we evolved, not the other way around.
     
    Interesting, but I think it's more likely it was the other way around. We evolved instincts to protect things with those features, such as babies and young children, and it just happens to be the case that certain animals also have those features.

    Personally, though, I can't stand the sight of babies. I think they're ugly as sin.
     
    PervertedPikachu said:
    Ahem, you may not be a fluffy animal but I think you're cute, in an adult hooman way :3 *blushes and jumps into a hedge.*

    I'll agree with twocows that human babies are ugly. Fatty, bald, featureless, they're just ugly little things that cry and poop and vomit everywhere, not pleasant at all. Perhaps it's more of a connection between mother and child considering that hell, you have to squeeze them out and do most of the caring.

    It's pretty strange that I consider something of another species more appealing than my own young but that's the way it is.
    Hooman babies:
    Spoiler:


    Doge puppy:
    Spoiler:


    Isn't it strange how we've integrated so many other species into our collective conscious? The internet practically worships their cats. We personify what are animalistic behaviours. Why? I like it, it's always good to be kind to animals and they can bring a lot of happiness to people. Some animals do break species norm by adopting orphaned animals, dogs making friends with horses etc, humans do it the most though, perhaps because we're more intelligent and do weird things.
    Click to expand...
    oh stahp it u ^_^

    Holy ♥♥♥♥, are babies ugly. Basically because of all the reasons you listed above. Puppies all the way, yo.
     
    daigonite said:
    This. Implying that creatures evolved "cuteness" so that we would protect them implies that we would have been near their species for long enough to produce this effect. Many species considered cute that have not had much human contact, such as many island species, would not have had the time to evolve to be "cute" to be "protected" by humans. In fact, many "cute" species were killed by humans for food or sport.

    Humans see cute characteristics in certain animals because of the way that we evolved, not the other way around.
    Click to expand...

    This.

    Before humans there were already a lot of animals we would classify as 'cute'.
     
    If you mean with regards to dogs or cats, that's a result of artificial selection and domestication on our part. Dogs didn't evolve to be cute so that we'd protect them, haha. We already thought hey were, to a degree, and they look cute now because of hundreds upon hundreds of generations of selective breeding.
     
    No, animals were not evolving for any reason related to us until we started domesticating them. Now, as to the why we perceive some smaller animals as "cute" as opposed to "FOOD" is the question that we should be asking here.
     
    No. Animals didn't evolve around human emotions of being 'cute'. Domesticated animals on the other hand, such as cats and dogs, are bred sometimes bred to be 'cute' however.
     
    I think they are just bred to be cute so companies make more money. (Or breeders).
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top