In Defense of Ugly Animals (by Sara McDonnell)

In Defense of Ugly Animals Human Preferences and Animal Conservation Efforts

Goodbye to the Aye Aye

The Aye Aye of Madagascar

Don’t you love me?

Aesthetic Qualities

Cute Animal = $$$$$ Ugly animal = $

How can we use human preferences to make new conservation programs successful?

All animals have intrinsic value

American attitudes toward wildlife.

9 Values Utilitarian Ecological Scientific Humanistic Moralistic Dominionistic Negativistic Naturalistic Aesthetic

Primary preference factor: distinctive aesthetic qualities

Key features Size Physical appearance Texture Movement Power Danger

Is this an endangered species?

big beautiful fast

ugly harmful disgusting

Dislike reptiles amphibians invertebrates Like mammals birds fish

Neotony: The “Cute” Factor

The look of neoteny: big eyes big head stub nose pudgy cheeks

Humans are attracted to animals with neotenous features because they resemble human babies.

Neoteny sells.

The evolution of Mickey Mouse.

Penguins score high on the cute scale.

Chinstrap penguin King penguin

King penguin Crested penguin

Human aesthetic preferences influence conservation policy and programs.

Majestic and symbolic

Charismatic Megafauna

small & plain

Embrace the “cute factor.”

“ … focus on the lovable aspects of ugly animals—whether it’s a dash of color or the way they waddle about.”

Slender Slow Loris

No More Cute.

All nonhuman species should be conserved.

Americans recognize the dependence of society and its economy on a healthy ecosystem.

Ecological education is paying off.

No more supermodels.

Biodiversity is good.

Ugly but important.

Ugly but industrious.

Knut is still cute.

The end.

In Defense of Ugly Animals (by Sara McDonnell)

by Krista Kennedy on Aug 05, 2008

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 9

Statistics

In Defense of Ugly Animals (by Sara McDonnell) — Presentation Transcript