# Survival of the Cutest **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 11, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414 "2012-10-11T13:48:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/1 "2012-10-11T13:48:43Z")
I recently saw the article, “If evolution is all about survival of the fittest, why are we attracted to the cutest?” ([If evolution is all about survival of the fittest, why are we attracted to the cutest? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3064/if-evolution-is-all-about-survival-of-the-fittest-why-are-we-attracted-to-the-cutest)) The answer to the question was that our secondary sexual characteristics are in fact indicators of physical health and reproductive potential. I do not dispute this answer, but I believe it is incomplete. Although natural selection ensures the survival of the fittest, the word “fittest” needs to be defined. Being the “fittest” to reproduce does not necessarily mean physical strength or power. It means the animal has the most successful reproductive strategy, which depends on the organism and the situation. This is why small animals that breed prolifically can outlast megafauna who breed slowly. (This was previously discussed here [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1726/does-the-theory-of-evolution-fly-in-the-face-of-the-facts](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1726/does-the-theory-of-evolution-fly-in-the-face-of-the-facts)) Therefore, someone who is sexually attractive, whatever the criteria, will be genetically successful as long as they keep making lots of babies. The second issue that must be discussed is that of evolutionary “stasis.” Stasis occurs when an animal is so successful in its environment that the mortality rate drops and evolution slows. Humans are the best example of this, but you also see it with certain invasive species or other animals with no natural predators. Humans are no longer subject to natural selection. Thanks to medicine, weapons, houses, and [Match.com](http://Match.com), virtually anyone in our society has an equal chance of breeding regardless of their strengths or weaknesses. We are still evolving, (we don’t look like clones, do we?) it’s just that our genetic variations are no longer subject to natural selection. This state of affairs will continue until the mortality rate increases again. So to summarize, people who are sexually attractive but physically weak still manage to survive to breeding age thanks to our human intelligence. The fact that they breed at all makes them a successful organism, because surviving to make lots of babies is the only thing that matters to evolution… no matter how they went about doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/2 "2012-10-11T18:08:01Z")
Discussed recently: > **[Evolutionary fitness and attractiveness](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=660778)** > > If evolution is all about survival of the fittest, why are we attracted to the cutest? Cecil’s column fixated mostly on male attraction to females based on hip ratios and body mass indexes, which misses out on most of a very broad subject. First of... ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/3 "2012-10-11T18:15:44Z")
Regarding “fitness”: in evolutionary terms, whoever produces the most descendents is the most fit. The catchphrase “survival of the fittest” is therefore circular, but it helps illustrate the concept. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/4 "2012-10-11T18:25:35Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > The second issue that must be discussed is that of evolutionary “stasis.” Stasis occurs when an animal is so successful in its environment that the mortality rate drops and evolution slows. Humans are the best example of this, but you also see it with certain invasive species or other animals with no natural predators. Humans are no longer subject to natural selection. Thanks to medicine, weapons, houses, and [Match.com](http://Match.com), virtually anyone in our society has an equal chance of breeding regardless of their strengths or weaknesses. We are still evolving, (we don’t look like clones, do we?) it’s just that our genetic variations are no longer subject to natural selection. This state of affairs will continue until the mortality rate increases again. I wouldn’t consider humanity a good example of evolutionary stasis. First, we haven’t been around very long, in evolutionary timescales. Second, we don’t have a good measure of how or whether we’re evolving – but as you mentioned, it’s not quite following the usual case of competition for resources (wealthy people tend to breed less). More importantly, evolutionary stasis is more attributable to a stable ecosystem. I believe that’s the primary cause of puncuated equilibrium: most evolution happens after some dramatic shift, leading to a new equilibrium. I doubt anyone would call this time on our planet a period of ecological stability, and the results of the destabilization are yet to be seen. However, I do believe that there is now another factor in play, which is humanity’s ability to intentionally change the ecosystem. This means that evolution gets more complicated. > [@](#): > > So to summarize, people who are sexually attractive but physically weak still manage to survive to breeding age thanks to our human intelligence. The fact that they breed at all makes them a successful organism, because surviving to make lots of babies is the only thing that matters to evolution… no matter how they went about doing it. I don’t think there’s any controversy about that. (BTW, by “our human intelligence”, I take it you mean our culture, which provides support for an ever-growing population. Of course, there might be a limit to that, and who knows how the limits will be imposed.) ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/5 "2012-10-12T07:29:36Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Regarding “fitness”: in evolutionary terms, whoever produces the most descendents is the most fit. The catchphrase “survival of the fittest” is therefore circular, but it helps illustrate the concept. A minor quibble: fecund descendants. ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/6 "2012-10-12T08:30:52Z")
I think cuteness is associated with youth and youth is associated with fertility. ---
**Author:** ![bourbon-soda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@bourbon-soda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bourbon-soda)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/7 "2012-10-12T11:32:25Z")
Mate selection based on cuteness versus physical prowess of other kinds is probably a luxury dependent on accrued capital of society and concomitant development of a leisure class. Intelligence also gains in importance with societal capital accumulation. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/8 "2012-10-12T12:33:20Z")
> [@](#): > > A minor quibble: fecund descendants. Well, ultimately it’s long-term number of descendants. If you have 100 kids, none of whom get you any grandkids, you’re going to be eventually surpassed by the guy whose line steadily has 2.1 children. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/9 "2012-10-14T18:47:26Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > A minor quibble: fecund descendants. Not a quibble, because fecund is implicit in “descendants”, which includes all successive generations. > [@bourbon-soda](#): > > Mate selection based on cuteness versus physical prowess of other kinds is probably a luxury dependent on accrued capital of society and concomitant development of a leisure class. Intelligence also gains in importance with societal capital accumulation. So, peacocks … ? Wallace would have been on your side here. Darwin would not have. The debate was over “sexual selection”, where the criteria are whims of potential mates rather than “fitness” in the general sense. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/10 "2012-10-15T14:48:38Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > Therefore, someone who is sexually attractive, whatever the criteria, will be genetically successful as long as they keep making lots of babies. True, but irrelevant, as someone who is horribly ugly, whatever the criteria, will be genetically successful as long as they keep making lots of babies. In other words, that explanation applies equally to non"cute" vs “cute” people. The relevant question is how “cuteness” applies to “fitness”. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/11 "2012-10-15T15:36:25Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > In other words, that explanation applies equally to non"cute" vs “cute” people. The relevant question is how “cuteness” applies to “fitness”. It’s because the very definition of cuteness is based on the evolution of humans and their selection of mates. ‘Cute’ in this sense wouldn’t apply to people who were not sexually attractive, which is a critical component of ‘fitness’. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/12 "2012-10-15T17:49:07Z")
But that’s a circular argument. “Why aren’t we attracted to members we aren’t attracted to?” The ones who pass on their genes are the ones who reproduce. Saying “sexual attractiveness is a reproductive strategy” is like saying “having sex is a reproductive strategy”. For a species that reproduces sexually, that is a tautology. For the question of the article to have any meaning, you have to look at what “cuteness” is and why it’s desirable. Thus we get back to > [@](#): > > …our secondary sexual characteristics are in fact indicators of physical health and reproductive potential. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/13 "2012-10-15T18:57:29Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > But that’s a circular argument. “Why aren’t we attracted to members we aren’t attracted to?” The ones who pass on their genes are the ones who reproduce. Saying “sexual attractiveness is a reproductive strategy” is like saying “having sex is a reproductive strategy”. For a species that reproduces sexually, that is a tautology. > > For the question of the article to have any meaning, you have to look at what “cuteness” is and why it’s desirable. Thus we get back to Evolution is full of circular arguments. We evolve characteristics, and we give them a definition independent of evolution, but that definition exists because they are characteristics that are evolved. We think characteristics are ‘cute’ because we’ve evolved to be attracted to them. It’s a feedback system. If we had evolved differently, we’d find different things to be ‘cute’. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/14 "2012-10-15T21:18:49Z")
Completely true, but completely useless. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/15 "2012-10-16T18:34:02Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Regarding “fitness”: in evolutionary terms, whoever produces the most descendents is the most fit. Even that metric (# of descendents) is questionable as it still ascribes a guiding intelligence & motive to the evolutionary process. I’d prefer to use: (Genetic) information that survives… survives. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/16 "2012-10-16T18:41:54Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Completely true, but completely useless. It is useless, in the way all ‘why do we have this trait’ questions are. We can always say we have them because they provide a benefit, or are not detrimental. But the why can just as easily be that the living thing that first had that trait wasn’t standing where a meteor was about to become a meterorite. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/17 "2012-10-17T03:50:17Z")
> [@YamatoTwinkie](#): > > Even that metric (# of descendents) is questionable as it still ascribes a guiding intelligence & motive to the evolutionary process. How so? No intelligence, no motive, no goal. That which has the most descendents is by definition the most “fit”. The individual generally has no idea that the fun stuff cuases descendents. > [@Irishman](#): > > For the question of the article to have any meaning, you have to look at what “cuteness” is and why it’s desirable. Thus we get back to > > …our secondary sexual characteristics are in fact indicators of physical health and reproductive potential. Again, Wallace would agree with you, but Darwin (and the vast majority of modern evolutionists) would disagree. Some secondary sexual characteristics are probably good indicators. However, sexual preference isn’t limited to choosing the fittest mates. > **[Sexual selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection)** > > Sexual selection is a mechanism of evolution in which members of one sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with (intersexual selection), and compete with members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex (intrasexual selection). These two forms of selection mean that some individuals have greater reproductive success than others within a population, for example because they are more attractive or prefer more attractive partners to produce offspring. Successful males benefit... ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/18 "2012-10-17T18:05:08Z")
I fear we’re getting trapped in vague terms like “cuteness”, and how that applies to physical characteristics. I also note the sentence I quoted referred to “secondary sexual characteristics”, when really I was talking about physical characteristics in general that we generally look at for physical attractiveness. Yes, I understand about sexual selection, and how some features can be driven to excess without contributing to physical health. My point was that answering “… because that’s what we’re attracted to” doesn’t answer the question. Like answering the question “Why is the sky blue?” with “because it would look funny if it were a different color”. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/19 "2012-10-18T13:27:30Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > How so? No intelligence, no motive, no goal. That which has the most descendents is by definition the most “fit”. #of descendants is _often_ the form that “fitness” takes, but really, what it boils down to is information survival. Example: Organism A: Incredibly hardy, 1,000 year lifespan, procreates very rarely Organsim B: Incredibly squishy, 30 day lifespan, extrememly prolific Which organism is more fit? Say after x years, Organism A has 10,000 descendants, while Organism B has 10 billion? Does it really matter, as long as the infomation from both lines has survived, and will continue to survive? ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414/20 "2012-10-19T17:51:18Z")
OK, I see the distinction you’re making. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survival-of-the-cutest/637414.md?page=2)