{"id":57293,"date":"2018-09-13T12:27:50","date_gmt":"2018-09-13T16:27:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/?p=57293"},"modified":"2018-09-13T12:28:16","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T16:28:16","slug":"the-evolution-of-beauty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/2018\/09\/from-the-library\/the-evolution-of-beauty\/","title":{"rendered":"The Evolution of Beauty"},"content":{"rendered":"

Esther Jackson<\/a> is the Public Services Librarian at NYBG<\/a>\u2019s LuEsther T. Mertz Library<\/a> where she manages Reference and Circulation services and oversees the Plant Information Office. She spends much of her time assisting researchers, providing instruction related to library resources, and collaborating with NYBG staff on various projects related to Garden initiatives and events.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\"The<\/a>In The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin\u2019s Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World\u2014and Us<\/a><\/em>, Richard O. Prum<\/a> brings readers on a journey to understand the diversity of beauty in nature, and the evolutionary reasons for its existence. An ornithologist, Prum first focuses on avian ornamentation and attraction\u2014a field with which he is intimately familiar; second on humans and our closer relatives\u2014arguably a more theoretical undertaking. Prum follows Darwin\u2019s theory of sexual selection<\/a> which posits that \u201cmate preferences can evolve for arbitrarily attractive traits that do not provide additional benefits to mate choice,\u201d essentially (and very simplistically), a theory of beauty for the sake of beauty. While not necessarily at odds with Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution, Victorian audiences rejected this theory based primarily on the disbelief that animals could discern beauty, and therefore disbelief that female individuals could use the metric of beauty to be agents of their species\u2019 evolutionary progression.
\n
\nIn The Evolution of Beauty<\/em>, Prum brings Darwin\u2019s theory of sexual selection back to popular audiences, offering a convincing argument for its relevancy and importance in today\u2019s evolutionary biology. In the book\u2019s introduction, Prum writes: \u201cI have decided to embrace beauty as a scientific concept because, like Darwin, I think it captures in ordinary language exactly what is involved in biological attraction. By recognizing sexual signals as beautiful <\/em>to those organisms that prefer them\u2014whether they are Wood Thrushes, bowerbirds, butterflies, or humans\u2014we are forced to engage with the full implications of what it means to be a sentient animal making social and sexual choices. We are forced to entertain the Darwinian possibility that beauty is not merely utility shaped by adaptive advantage. Beauty and desire in nature can be as irrational, unpredictable, and dynamic as our own personal experiences of them.\u201d<\/p>\n

An ambitious book, different parts of The Evolution of Beauty <\/em>may appeal to different readers. In particular, the ornithological sections are rich, immersive, and mesmerizing. Prum\u2019s expertise, and his easy synthesis of his research and the research of others\u2014notably Dr. Patricia Brennan<\/a>, whose post-doctoral work at Yale was foundational for the \u201cMake Way for Duck Sex\u201d chapter\u2014are a treat for anyone with an interest in the natural world. While those with a bit of existing knowledge of science might feel more comfortable with Prum\u2019s style of writing, The Evolution of Beauty<\/em>, a 2018 Pulitzer Prize finalist, is accessible to many different readers, and worth the time.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin\u2019s Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World\u2014and Us, Richard O. Prum brings readers on a journey to understand the diversity of beauty in nature, and the evolutionary reasons for its existence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[1346],"tags":[4789,4677,5567],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/ph0lU-eU5","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57293"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57293"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57293\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":57298,"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57293\/revisions\/57298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nybg.org\/blogs\/plant-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}