The effect of monad on species conservation

The dominance of "cute" animals (pandas) in media attention

The cuteness bias also extends to our relationship with the rest of the animal kingdom.

Species conservation campaigns overwhelmingly focus on animals that we find "cute" or charismatic. The panda bear is the paradigmatic example.

Its features, very similar to the ''baby scheme'', have made it a global icon of conservation.

How aesthetic and commercial reasons decide which species deserve conservation

In practice, it is often aesthetic and commercial reasons that decide which species receive more attention, funds and protection efforts.

Environmental organizations know that a campaign with the image of a seal pup or a koala is much more effective in raising donations than one with the image of a bat or a snake.

The lack of interest in ''ugly'' species such as reptiles and insects

As a result, thousands of species that do not meet our standards of beauty or cuteness are in serious danger of extinction and receive very little attention.

Reptiles, amphibians, insects and many other ''ugly'' creatures are ecologically as important or more important than the large mammals.

Yet their fate seems to matter much less to us.

The Ethical Debate Over Conservation Criteria

This raises a serious ethical debate.

Should we base our conservation priorities on our subjective emotional responses? Or should we use purely scientific criteria, such as a species' importance to the ecosystem?

The cuteness bias shows us how our emotions can distort our decisions, even in areas where rationality should prevail.

Summary

The "cuteness" bias affects not only how we treat humans, but also animals. In the field of conservation, species with adorable traits, such as the panda bear, receive disproportionate