Have you ever wondered why there are no ugly babies? This thought occurred to me this afternoon as I walked by a lady with a stroller. Nestled between several blankets and toys was a fat little boy with crossed eyes. And you know what I thought? I thought he was about the cutest thing since Cabbage Patch kids! This is interesting because had I seen a full grown overweight man with crossed eyes the word cute probably wouldn't have been the first word on the tip of my tongue. So why are all babies (more or less) cute?
I think it is an evolutionary trait that has found itself to be useful under the circumstances. If you compare humans to say, deer or giraffes, there is a pretty huge difference. I was watching one of my Planet Earth DVD's (by the BBC) and one of the episodes showed a baby...reindeer or something running away from a wolf only a few days after it was born! Incidentally most animals reach puberty 6-12 months after birth. Now if you were to transpose that sort of capability on to human offspring, I think it would be like having your kid when it was 10 or 11. (I am not positive about this though...I don't know a heck of a lot about kids so, it could be 9 or 10?) At any rate it would have to be born at an age when it can keep up with adults, and know when to run. And it occurred to me that if you were to ask any parent if they'd be so inclined to have kids that were born practically teenagers, the answer would probably be no. So that makes sense right? We have cute little babies and we keep them and get sucked into loving them before they are old enough to be annoying and possibly develop an underbite.
That answers why we keep them, but it unearths the question of why are they born helpless in the first place? At first go this seems like a disadvantage. As it turns out babies have to be born before they are developed enough to survive on their own. Blame our gigantic brains for that. The birth canal is only so big, and a 10 year old cranium much bigger. Human babies have to be born around nine moths otherwise they'd be trapped in the uterus or mom would have to pee out of a bag for the rest of her life. One way to think of it is that we humans give birth prematurely and our newborns are really still embryos with a lot of developing to do. So in order for humans to stay interested and take care of their helpless poopy offspring until they are old enough to wipe their own asses, and pay their own taxes (and hopefully (but not too soon, and not in the back seat of a Volvo) pass along their DNA), they had to be cute. We developed a liking for cute things (because it helped our DNA survive), and babies developed the ability to be adorable (so we don't abandon them at the first tantrum). Our fascination with kittens and puppies, and "baby" hamburgers, and miniature cell phones stems from this now hardwired gene-encoded desire.
So after all of that I thought, "OK fine. I buy that we like our own offspring, but why do humans think other peoples babies are cute?" You know what I mean. You are waiting in line at the grocery and some old man starts making ridiculous faces over you shoulder at the two year old in the cart in front of you. He doesn't have to do that, but he does anyway. Why did I think that pudgy little boy was cute? I have nothing invested in him?
It took a minute but then I was reminded of something I read (and I would quote it but I can't for the life of me remember where I read it) that wolves display a similar propensity. When the Alpha (not sure if that is supposed to be capitalized or not?) becomes pregnant all the other females in the pack undergo what is called a "false pregnancy". They eat more, and get kind of fat, and lactate. They do everything a pregnant wolf would do except actually give birth. Why does this happen? Well, it turns out that the Alpha female is not only the primary hunter for the group she is also the genetic premium. She can't very well be the fiercest and strongest if she is holed up in a den feeding her pups can she? The Alpha wolf almost always gives birth, and the other females in the pack almost always feed and help raise her pups. It's a win win in the long run although it might be hard to see at first. The strongest animal is proliferating her genes, while the others in the group directly benefit from the fact by ensuring their leader will be the best of the best. More premium wolves in the pack make the pack stronger.
I don't think it works exactly the same for people, but I think with just a little imagination parallels can be drawn. Or at least it could be an explanation for why we take so much interest in other peoples kids. Much of what we do is selfish, but on some levels, broader levels if you will, we also do things that don't make a whole lot of sense to us as individuals, but make plenty of sense on a bigger social scale. An interest in other peoples kids may actually make us stronger. Wolves like people are social animals, and we do not naturally exist outside of our social group. The story ends here. Not because it should but because this is as far as I have gotten in pondering this mystery.
I asked the question of why babies are cute, and you would think the answer to be simple but it's not. As I always say " If the answer involves wolves, it ain't that easy."
Just a note about why we think other peoples babies are cute. Remember that most all of our "instincts" we programmed in and for a very different world. So, although now the chances of us being related (or sharing DNA) with the baby being pushed down the street, when that instinct was developed, the chances of you sharing DNA with any baby that you might encounter was actually pretty high. Living in groups of 25 to 50 people doesn't give you a whole lot of other options. So, though it might not actually be advantageous now, and actually evolutionarily bead (adoption) it was actually quite useful at one time. Dawkins talked about this same phenomenon but with regards to altruism. It made sense a long time ago and things have changed so quickly that we haven't had time to reprogram. It is a "misfiring" of our inherited behavior. Very interesting about the wolves though. It still doesn't make a lot of sense to me because it seems for the other wolves to do that they would have to have some genetic stock in the offspring. I think it is very very rare for an animal to do something for the "good of the group" and at a loss for them. I wonder if there is a missing piece of the puzzle somewhere.
ReplyDeleteYou are totally right! I hadn't thought about it in those terms but that makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. It's interesting then to think about why our propensity to be "kind" to our neighbors hasn't survived as strongly. Because it seems to me that would have been the same situation.
ReplyDeleteAnyway as for the wolves, it does work for the others in the group (in terms of passing along their DNA) because when the Alpha female is out hunting the males tend to develop "a wandering eye" and that is when the other females get their chance. Their offspring probably wouldn't survive if they didn't have the Alpha supplying them with food.SHe is sort of the base of the pyramid. It's more complicated of course, but that is the basic gist of how it goes (so I've read.)Thanks for commenting!!!