I do not see how beauty, at the cost of utility, could be a product of “Survival of the fittest”
By
Suneidos the Cred-ible
on March 28, 2008
To Prunella: my apologies that I was a block head in a similar claim, this is closer to what I meant.
Premises #1 some beauty comes at the cost of utility.
Premises #2 not all beauty is a form of utility.
Premises #3 “survival of the fittest” always demands utility for survival.
3
3
50.0% 50.0%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Claims inspired by this one
Similar claims
- 8-6 That humans have so much in common with animals could be understood to mean that we had a common creator, not just that we evolved from the same organisms
- 51-0 Diversity is a survival trait
- 27-19 If the world is not rational, science is not possible.
- 10-2 If the world is not contingent, science is not necessary.
- 11-3 The past cannot be observed.
Discussion (6)
what about the need for sexual attraction (which 'beauty' can help)?
Well, it depends on how you define utility, but haven't you heard of sexual selection? For example, pea-hens' preferences, over many generations, resulted in the peacock's tail we see today.
Yes i have. So, in essence, beauty IS a utilitarian function, right?
ditto
This is more like it, I must use premises from now on.
Good point on survival of the fittest.
So in architecture and other art forms there comes a point where refined "beauty" actually retards the natural purpose of a thing. I have seen numerous fantasy knives that look wonderful, but would likely be the death of me if I ever tried to use it. There is ergonomics, and even psychological benefits from "beauty;" however, it seems to me that for beauty to jump from ergonomics to a psychological factor, beauty has overstepped ergonomics and become something of an opiate. How is fashion explained? Given, it is an industry, but why has evolution allowed fashion to become addictive? How can the fact that we (some of us, that is) have that desire, be explained? It doesn't sound like a step up to me.
#1 "Beauty" has both a physical and psychological effect(s).
#2 Some "Beauty" can overstep ergonomics and become addictive.
#3 Addictions are harmful even if the thing sought after is harmless by itself.
#4 Fashion often relys on a developed addiction which is harmful.
#5 The developed addiction of fashion ought not to have developed.
(How is evil explained, I know that some political theorists say that communism is the next stage in political evolution, and that it will eventually remove evil and there will be utopia, but why is evil propogated in the first place. Lets define evil as destruction in which all parties suffer.)
Now if I were to go logic-Nazi and label the terms "s", "p", and "m" use a full logical schematic and symbols for conjunction, negation, disjunction, material implication, material equivalence, and conclusion, we would really have some fun!
Are you talking about the desire or the needs which were blown out of proportion?