Polar Bear Cubs Are Objectively Cute

[acropolis]

This thread is about 'cute babies,' in general the phenomenon by which babies, human and otherwise, are perceived to be cute.

I'm not a particularly big fan of human babies; especially very early on they look like aliens. But yeah, young kids can be very cute too. When they aren't being obnoxious brats. But puppies,* kittens, and bear cubs all are just incredibly 'cute.' I was at a friends house a while back, and he had a puppy and watching it trip over random shit on the floor was adorable. And when it would crawl right into your lap and go straight to sleep it was adorable, and when it would try to jump over a beer bottle or something and only make it halfway, it was adorable.** And so on. I hold that polar bears have the cutest babies, but whatever. Anyway.

My question is: why do I think they are cute? If I saw some guy walking around, tripping every ten feet and falling on his back, trying to hop over a beer bottle, then slipping on it and falling on his face, I'd be thinking something like "What the **** is wrong with this loser?" If he then tried to crawl into my lap, there would be hell. So what's the deal?

As I see it, there are three possibilities.

1) I've been socialized to think babies are cute. Damn you, society! etc. It's unclear to me how this allows for me to think that a baby of some species I've never seen babies from before is cute (I saw a footage from a panda bear nursery the other day. Cute.). But it's still a possibility.

2) It's genetic somehow. I can see how there would be a 'survival' advantage in humans naturally perceiving human babies as cute; but I don't see where thinking puppies are cute comes in here. A genetic 'babies are cute' truce among mammal species? Seems odd. How would this even work, from a genetic standpoint? I've heard that humans are predisposed to fear snakes and spiders, so I guess it's possible (Ohman et al., 2003).

3) Babies, and specifically polar bear cubs, are objectively cute. Which has obvious philosophical repercussions.

* In case anyone is wondering due to me posting a thread about getting a dog a few months ago, we didn't get one. Apparently according to the page of our lease that wasn't in our lease, any dogs were limited to being less than 30 pounds. And had to pay rent. I'm not kidding.
**Lucy was killed by a car a few weeks later. Which was sad. And irrelevant to this thread.

[PSH]

If babies weren't cute even women wouldn't be able to put up with the shit, puke and noise they generate.

[Dead_Meat]

Exhibit A

[PSH]

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

Exhibit A

It's eyes are too small to be truly cute IMO. Unlike the seal cub.

[Nodrog]

http://www.denver.org/pictures/ImageType1_18_zoo.jpg :) :)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

A genetic 'babies are cute' truce among mammal species?

Fairly standard evo-psych related argument. We have an adaptation which means we gives us as an "advantage" of sorts. This adaptation has other sorts of repurcussions / side effects. The analogy Gould gives is that a consumer buys a new PC every year to play new games but gains a bunch of other advantages (e.g. faster encoding capabilities).

Obviously that's pretty generic, but it's possible it applies more specifically. An adaptation which makes us better hunters probably makes us better football players, etc. An adaptation which made babies "cute" but somehow excluded polar bears (and other mammals) might be pretty difficult to achieve.

Anyway, this is all socially / individually refinforced. I personally don't find other lower animals "cute" at all, in any context.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

. An adaptation which made babies "cute" but somehow excluded polar bears (and other mammals) might be pretty difficult to achieve.
.

Fur allergy/phobia.

PS evo-psych is pseudoscience.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Fur allergy/phobia.

But how would that be a benefit?

When I say "difficult" I of course meant "unlikely to occur". It's not like millions of humans ended up dying because they mistook polar bears for humans.

PS evo-psych is pseudoscience.

Probably but pseudoscience doesn't necessarily mean worthless (in this context). Since it's "competing" with sociology or psychology it really doesn't matter. We know very little about human behaviour so these sorts of speculations are both inevitable and not actually harmful (unless you start taking it too seriously).

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

But how would that be a benefit?

When I say "difficult" I of course meant "unlikely to occur". It's not like millions of humans ended up dying because they mistook polar bears for humans

If humans thought that baby animals were cute then that would mean they would try to befriend tiger cubs and hence either get eaten by their angry parents or mauled by the cubs when they had grown up. It sometimes happens in todays world that babies get attacked by family dogs, so hating animals would decrease the chances of your offspring getting bitten by pets.

Also, having the stomach to eat puppies would provide a survival advantage over those who refused to do so in times when food was scarce.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Since it's "competing" with sociology or psychology it really doesn't matter. ).

I'd say its more competiting with literary criticism because the idea of making up just-so stories with no real criteria to choose between different interpretations seems fairly central to both.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If humans thought that baby animals were cute then that would mean they would try to befriend tiger cubs and hence either get eaten by their angry parents or mauled by the cubs when they had grown up.

Is there any historical evidence we lived in large numbers near/with tigers, etc? And how dangerous are tiger cubs anyway?

It sometimes happens in todays world that babies get attacked by family dogs, so hating animals would decrease the chances of your offspring getting bitten by pets.

As far as I was aware, the domestication of animals was relatively recent in evolutionary terms.

Also, having the stomach to eat puppies would provide a survival advantage over those who refused to do so in times when food was scarce.

Again, this depends on how many dogs there were around historically. And don't "we" as a species eat dogs anyway? Eating younger animals is possibly a bad idea anyway (I don't know, but surely bigger animals = more food?)

I'd say its more competiting with literary criticism because the idea of making up just-so stories with no real criteria to choose between different interpretations seems fairly central to both.

Well none of these disciplines (and yes literary criticism included) are sciences in the real sense (in the predictions/testing sense). Most of them are pretty worthless if you're looking for something concrete, but there is nothing that is concrete. But they offer interesting hypothesis we can discuss / integrate into patterns of thought. It'd probably be better if it was called evolutionary-philosophy or something.

As always, I'll quote Chomsky :

You might like to solve the problems of, say, what causes human action, but the problems you work on are the ones that are right at the edge of your understanding. There's a famous joke about a drunk under a lamppost looking at the ground, and somebody comes up and asks him "What are you looking for?" He says, "I'm looking for a pencil that I dropped." They said, "Well, where did you drop it?" He says, "Oh, I dropped it across the street." "Well, why are looking here?" "This is where the light is." That's the way the sciences work. Maybe the problem you would like to solve is across the street, but you have to work where the light is. If you try to move it a little further, maybe ultimately you'll get across the street.

[1-X]

baby cheetahs

this hedgehog is great

(both of these got into my bookmarks via the b3ta newsletter btw)

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Is there any historical evidence we lived in large numbers near/with tigers, etc? And how dangerous are tiger cubs anyway?

far as i know, throughout all human existence human populations have lived near to some population of large and if not carnivorous at least omnivorous species. wolves, lions, tigers, and bears (oh my). all of which have cute kids.

but then, a number of important historical documents involve human babies being raised by either wolves or bears or gorillas (great apes), so maybe there is a benefit.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Is there any historical evidence we lived in large numbers near/with tigers, etc?

Well, there were presumably tigers on Noah's Ark.

But anyway, I assume the same would apply to all dangerous animal babies . When youre out in the woods hunting, stopping to think "awww, isnt the ickle baby wolf so cute :))))" probably isnt a good idea from an evolutionary standpoint.

As far as I was aware, the domestication of animals was relatively recent in evolutionary terms.

Yeah, I think thats true. Maybe we'll all end up having pitbull-phobia in the future!

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by acropolis

A genetic 'babies are cute' truce among mammal species?

Don't predators generally go for the old, sick and young though? Lions kill young zebras (because the adults are faster/smarter), hyenas kill lion cubs (mostly because the adults are too hard to kill), etc.

I don't think all baby mammals are cute. Newborn baby mice, for example, are pretty ugly. In fact, a lot of mammals are ugly(ier) when newborn, but become cuter when they get their fur, open their eyes, etc.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And how dangerous are tiger cubs anyway?

I don't know about tiger cubs, but here in the north woods they say if you see a bear cub to walk or run away from it because Momma bear won't be far away and has absolutely no sense of humor.

[IncubusGod]

Well it would make sense that our brains have an adapation that ensures we care for our young. If we find them cute and adorable, we want to take care of them. Since young children cannot take care of themselves and would die without constant care, then clearly it stands in our best interest to have this instinct.
Perhaps the things we are pre-programmed to feel this way about (certain characteristics, smaller features than adults, big eyes etc). are also present in the larger mammalian population.
Since we've evolved from similar roots, then it would stand to reason that we find certain young of other species cute.
Of course this is all renforced by society in general.

[NEWSBOT3]

this makes no sense because i hate babies/children :/

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Well it would make sense that our brains have an adapation that ensures we care for our young. If we find them cute and adorable, we want to take care of them. Since young children cannot take care of themselves and would die without constant care, then clearly it stands in our best interest to have this instinct.

Also possibly so the dominent male doesnt kill all the young?

[vampire_lestat]

Cute animal number 1
Cute animal number 2
If I could find the pictures there would be more, but unortunately nobody seems to want to give me good pictures of wolf cubs.

[mist]

i'd assume that the "oh a cute tiger kitten" instinct would be overruled by the "oh my god, a tiger that wants to eat me" instinct should its parents be anywhere near, which isn't unreasonable.

that asside, i was under the impression that the large heads, big eyes type things were common to the 'cute' babies.

in answer to the puppies falling over stuff being cute, but the grown men not being cute - could it be because puppies, human babies and other generally 'cute' things are fairly helpless, so we've evolved to look after them, whereas grown men doing the same thing don't evoke that response as the silly bugger should have learned to look after themselves by now?