In addition to some of the above, I think flowers’ fragility trigger our protective instincts. Here’s something pretty we have to be careful with or we’ll destroy it - which makes it feel even more valuable and attractive.
We have a similar reaction to butterflies, including wearing prints of them, and they have no use to us at all, some even actively damage our food.
They have bright colours, symmetry if that matters and as a cultural extra, in temperate climes at least, they’re only present in spring and summer, so can function as a symbol of good weather or good weather to come. I don’t think it needs more explanation that that.
We hardly find all flowers attractive anyway; many are tiny and barely noticeable, some are frankly ugly, some even have the texture and scent of rotting flesh. The boring unattractive ones just don’t get attention.
I felt sure that there would have been some scientific studies of this ‘phenomenon’. Here is one I found. (I removed the extensive references for easier reading)
Most flowers are not aesthetically appealing - all the wind-pollinated ones. We find flowers aestetically appealing when they’re showy, and the things that are appealing - symmetry (we’re wired to find symmetry attractive), colour and scent - are not for our benefit. But the flowers we find most appealing - the ones we grow , show off, paint , photograph and replicate in fabrics and paintings - generally are ones we made that way - roses, sunflowers, irises, etc. So they’re pretty because we made them pretty.
It’s certainly true that we have cultivated plants to produce more, and more showy flowers, but we’re only accentuating something that we already appreciated previously in its natural form in the first place - and besides, there are plenty of wild flowers that are quite pretty or showy in their natural, un-altered state.
True enough - and for those, the aforementioned built-in human attraction to symmetry and bright colours is explanation enough.
I’m not aesthetically pleased by flowers - or sunsets or majestic mountains either, for that matter. Absolutely nothing in nature appeals to me, and precious little art does. Honestly, the only things I think look inherently appealing are women.
So if I had to guess about why all you weirdos like them, I’d say the OP’s reason 3 is probably it. Flowers, more than other things in nature, are directly related to potentially edible plants. All plants that produce fruit have flowers. So the monkey brain associated flowers with good, and most people listen to their monkey brain.
The ripe fruit comes weeks or months after the flowers–seems too long to be selectively advantageous to making monkeys like them.
You’d learn to like the plants that flower though. Well, some of them.
I’d be willing to concede that it could just be that monkeys like bright colors - I know that when I see a picture of lava I want to jump right in.
If anything though, I would say there is a slight inverse correlation between showy flowers and edible fruit - plants have one or the other (or neither), but seldom both.
An exception that comes to mind is edible squash - which often has eminently edible flowers.
It’s been a long-term advantage for plants with attractive flowers to be utilized/cultivated/preserved by humans, whether or not anything “deliberate” evolutionarily speaking occurred in plants’ reproduction to make that happen.
I’d also note that far from being delicate little things that appeal to our protectiveness, lots of plants with spectacular flowers are extremely tough and difficult to eradicate even with our best efforts (giant hogweed which is “immune to our herbicidal batterings”, an overstatement to be sure, while some species of yucca seemingly can resist nuclear holocaust).
There is a human tendency to want to find deliberate reasons for behavior and phenomena, and that is in full evidence here with the speculation that flowering plants evolved such colors and elaborate shapes to attract or please humans, but in fact the vast majority of wildflowers and other flowering plants evolved long before and far away from humans. Even those that evolved adjacent to humans and their predecessors are not dependent upon people to propagate; their attractive features (color and odor) are evolved to attract pollinators and propagates or ward off predators. So any rationale for why people find flowers attractive that is based upon some ontological benefit to plants is unlikely at best and probably completely wrong.
So why do (most) people like flowers? Aesthetically they are visually stimulating and symmetric in ways that few other things in nature are, with often intricate coloration and patterning structure. For reasons that are not fully understood symmetry and visual balance are very pleasing to human brains in ways that other mammals don’t really seem to care about, so it would seem to be coincidental that the radial or sometimes bilateral symmetry of flowers is an apppealing features. Of course, this also advantages certain types of flowers that have become cultivars (artificially selected species of flowers) and that we have spread around the world. In short, they are nature’s abstract art, and why we don’t really understand why the human mind likes symbolic art, it most certainly does.
Other than that, flowers have a few utilitarian purposes; they indicate the presence of water; herald the return of the spring growing season; in fruit-bearing trees and stalked plants are an indication of maturity and edible fruit and seed bearing; they attract honeybees and their natural preservable sugar collection; and can provide valuable micronutrients and natural medicinal substances, or in the case of invaginated flowers can actually turn into fruits in the Malus, Musa, Citrus, Ficus, Phoenix, and other genera. However, the flowers we like the most, like those of family Orchidaceae and non-fruit-bearing members of family Rosaceae are those with the least functional use, so I’m dubious in the strictly utilitarian rationale for the development of human aesthetic appeal of flowers.
Stranger
Especially the part about how sex is so vitally important that the government should provide it free to the public.
I think it’s not all that different from finding the sound of gurgling stream pleasant. “Hey, there’s some fresh water over there!”
So, as noted, flowers = a healthy area of greenery. Not just for fruits and such, but also for game eating the greenery.
I agree with this. Flowers, even wild ones, don’t just happen. They exist in an environment dominated by humans. Domestic flowers are obviously being bred to have the traits humans find appealing. And even species of wild flowers are going to do better if they have evolved traits which humans like.
Um, what?
I’ve just decided that you’re definitely staying in topic (why wouldn’t you be?) so apparently the government wants us to have sex with flowers now. Admittedly they are sex organs, but honestly I didn’t think their fiddly bits worked with human fiddly bits.
Hey, now maybe that’s it. Perhaps (most) humans like looking at flowers because they’re exposed sex organs and that’s so so salacious.
I thought flowers catered to bees. Last I checked, humans weren’t bees.
The whole concept of luxury showing status is that you can afford to buy things that aren’t necessities. The higher the perceived value, the higher the status.
But I just think it’s the color and contrast. Bright and shiny things are attractive to most species.
Sure, there can be some selection, both artificial and natural, based on humans, since we’re the species who will plant flowers. But the bare example is just being bright and shiny.
Shiny is conjectured to be because water is shiny. Bright is conjectured to be because it separates fruits from greenery. Flowers don’t need to actually be good to eat to benefit from the adaptations for foods that are.
Uncle Monty:
Have you ever seen a bee planting a garden?
Humans have a much bigger say in what flowers grow than bees do.