When sexual selection can lead to a decline in the capacity for survival
nytimes.comI remember once from undergrad the saying '"obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.' Seeing how something could be true is dramatically different from identifying and defending that it is true.
It's dangerously easy to say "oh yea, makes sense, natural selection happens by mating so if mates choose club wings, I get it. Obvious." But Prum's trying to go a step further, and test just how far out of balance and arbitrary the mate selection part can be from the direct do-not-die part of evolutionary fitness.
He proposes that we can differentiate between these two by considering that the club wings aren't actually indicators of higher direct fitness, because they hurt the ability to fly, even among females that have no need for such shenanagins. I'm not sure I totally agree with or grasp that, but at least it's an attempt to further understand and test the idea.
I'm frankly surprised by comments accusing a well established evolutionary biologist of severely misunderstanding natural selection. The author has spent his career, among other things, investigating mechanisms of evolution, and identifying and performing tests to assess their relative importance to a particular species (here's an example: http://prumlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/prum_1997_phylog...).
You might consider whether your objections are addressed in his work not aimed at the lay population, and that your criticism really just amounts to "He wrote this at not exactly the right level of sophistication for me." Maybe that's true, but it's a pretty boring claim.
I agree. I'm inclined to think the concepts are more subtle, not less.
Some traits are shaped by sexual selection because of their deleterious effects. It's an honest signal: if you can survive despite having that crappy trait, you must be really robust!
You can't conceptualize that as a fitness hit, because of what fitness means in the context of evolutionary biology. But you had better be able to conceptualize it somehow, because it's interesting and important if true.
What I've understood is that if the change that's detrimental is compensated for by other attributes that do connote fitness this can be an evolutionarily stable strategy. That is, if the the bird is able to survive even with the club wings that is in fact an indication of relative fitness and the club wings can be selected for. Though I've only heard this theory in reference to things like bulking/attractive plumage that itself connotes some kind of fitness. For example, those birds with crazy long tails are arguably less able to hunt or whatever but the ones that do hunt effectively cause the female to think: wow so attractive! And he can manage to provide.
it seems to me like the article is more about elucidating beauty as a mechanism of decadence than an attempt to upend natural selection as a core component of the theory of evolution. the article basically says that beauty (however defined for a given species) can be both a selective and maladaptive pressure, where conventionally it's thought of only as a selective pressure.
species die out because of maladaptive pressures. that doesn't contradict the theory of evolution and natural selection's role in it.
Yeah but his whole thesis in thus article is based on the assumption that efficient flight is important for the survival of this species.
If we said 40 millions years ago - protowhales cannot run as fast because their mates really like the membranes between their legs this would still be technically true.
I will just echo the other posts here that the author of this article or his sources severely misunderstand natural selection and the special case of sexual selection. The most important thing to understand about evolution is that natural selection can only work with the existing traits of an organism, the current environment in which the organism exists, and what random changes happen. Furthermore, every change in the phenotype of an organism has a number of sometimes disparate impacts on its likelihood of reproductive success within its own environment. Given all of that, we should _expect_ to see seeming contradictions like this example.
Most birds can fly because their parents could fly. The genes for flying stick around because so many other traits of birds have evolved to benefit or rely on the ability to fly. But that doesn't mean flying itself is some magical end goal. Flying is only useful for natural selection insasmuch as it grants the organism a better likelihood of reproducing.
Why would natural selection necessarily prefer birds that are ideally designed for flying in what we perceive as a graceful manner? In fact, we know that it doesn't. Ostriches, emus, and penguins can't fly, though their ancestors were able to. That is not evidence that they are evolutionary dead ends. The huge variety of penguin species that have evolved since the ancestor of penguins lost the ability to fly proves the opposite, in fact.
This bird clearly flies well enough to continue to survive. If the traits that work against it flying gracefully grant it more reproductive success than flying slightly better would, then natural selection will favor those traits.
Natural selection is often treated far too preciously. Sure, it took a genius in Darwin to identify and clearly describe the phenomenon, but the process itself is tautological. It comes down to, "the things that reproduce better reproduce better". This bird exists, therefore natural selection favored its traits. If we don't understand why, the failure is ours, not natural selection.
> the author of this article or his sources severely misunderstand natural selection and the special case of sexual selection.
The author of this article is an Evolutionary Biology researcher at Yale. It would be really weird if he severely misunderstood natural selection.
I think this researcher had his "science journalist" hat on when he wrote the article. It's a formulaic piece of science journalism, complete with the touch of "most biologists are wrong about something that you, the layperson reader, will realize the truth about after five minutes of tenth grade-level reading." "Most biologists" here might as well be replaced with Mos'blogist, the mythical God of Wrongness, whom we invoke when we want to get excited about learning something new. "Mommy, I don't want to read about evolution." "But I have something here that Mos'blogist doesn't knowwwww! Don't you want to be smarter than Mos'blogist?" "Yay, mommy, I love getting the jump on Mos'blogist!"
Yes, Virginia, "most biologists," who get their news from Nature and Cell, are sadly lagging behind laypeople who read the New York Times. Is it any wonder people have so little faith in scientists? I think science journalists have a responsibility to highlight the fallibility of scientists and the flaws of the scientific process, but it is not public-minded criticism to make your readers believe that the majority of scientists working in an area are too dense to understand something that an average person can understand from a newspaper article, or already did understand if they read a single pop science book about evolution in the last several decades. That's just pandering.
Now, we could make the same mistake and assume that we, who do not write science journalism, have noticed something about it that one of its most successful practitioners (published in the New York Times, after all) never has. Or we could assume he understands it better than we do and does this shit on purpose because he likes being published.
It seems the several critics in this thread think that generalizing and flattening fitness into One Principle is a superior perspective. There's nothing wrong with the article, since the whole point of it is to talk about the nuances of different types of selection.
Fair enough. I guess I should have said the the text of the article uses an outdated, narrow, and confusing definition of natural selection, which is a great way to sow uncertainty and doubt about how evolution works.
Sexual selection definitely produces some interesting effects, but it's still a form of natural selection. This article portrays it as the opposite. I think it's far easier to understand the outcomes of sexual selection if you realize that reproductive success is the only thing that matters. And the factors that influence reproductive success vary widely. It's important to not get eaten, die of disease, starve to death, or die young. But for organisms that reproduce sexually, it's even more important to be able to find a mate. An organism that lives twice as long but reproduces just once is far less successful than an organism that lives half as long but reproduces twenty times. The whole idea that sexual selection is somehow at odds with natural selection instead of just being one of many selection pressures, is deeply confused.
> The whole idea that sexual selection is somehow at odds with natural selection instead of just being one of many selection pressures, is deeply confused.
Well, sexual selection is distinguishable, because it's not about the environment or other species, but about interactions between sexes. I mean, consider ducks. How does the penis-vagina arms race have any relevance to overall fitness? Indeed, it seems more like a bug in the sexual reproduction app.
But on the other hand, human consciousness and language are arguably products of sexual selection. And they have increased fitness. So maybe it's most useful to consider sexual selection as just another source of variation, grist for the mill of natural selection overall.
It's not a Hacker News thread unless there are a bunch of computer programmers telling people with PhD's how ignorant they are about their own field.
The problem in this case is that TFA presented this phenomenon as some black magic unexplainable by science, despite reasonable explanations having been provided half century ago and popularized even among lay audience by books like The Selfish Gene.
But hell if you are wrong about the general trend ;)
edit:
Really what TFA did is it just falsified some extremely naive and humanly-subjective interpretation of the slogan "survival of the fittest", without bothering to mention that this interpretation had already been known to be defective years ago and there are subtler alternatives which don't have this problem.
Well said and funny but it won't stop me piling on :-) ....
> Even the peafowl has a longer tail than she needs.
Surely he means peahen, the female peafowl (of which the male peacock has the extraordinarily long tail.)
everybody misunderstands natural selection. the field is large enough for a great deal of misunderstanding.
Ostriches, emus, and penguins can't fly, though their ancestors were able to. That is not evidence that they are evolutionary dead ends.
Well, I can't say concerning Ostriches etc but a common pattern in recently emerged islands is for birds to reach the island first. There not being any predators, some of the bird species evolve to being flightless. Once rats or other mammals reach these Islands, these species tend to become extinct. So naturally occurring "evolutionary dead-ends" are certainly possible (European sailors releasing rats and rabbits to the many islands they visited accelerated the process but it is still "inevitable" since mammals will to a given Island sooner or later).
Sure, one can define selection and fitness "internally" and thus whatever survives is "fittest" up to a given point. But it seems reasonable to take an external view and judge that certain evolution paths lead to the end of species. There's no reason abolish this kind of analysis just because one has honed the specific, technical meaning of these terms so that they aren't concerned with the question.
> The most important thing to understand about evolution is that natural selection can only work with the existing traits of an organism, the current environment in which the organism exists, and what random changes happen.
I believe most of the time you're right, the changes are random. However, at least one experiment has shown that species can pass adaptive traits to their offspring (called Lamarckian inheritance) [1]. The experiment is intriguing, in that it seems to hint something more is going on than the Darwinian inheritance model.
[1] http://newsroom.cumc.columbia.edu/blog/2014/07/17/effects-of...
"Clearly the telos of the bird is to fly well, as that of a lyre player is to play the lyre properly!"
It's Aristotelian biology.
The puzzlement over the apparent reproductive disadvantages of wing-singing is simply a reflection of a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not select for the reproductive fitness of species, it selects for the reproductive fitness of genes. And it does not select for the absolute fitness of genes, but rather for their fitness relative to competing alleles with respect to a particular environment. The genes for wing-singing are better at reproducing themselves in an environment where manakins already exist than the genes for alternative strategies for finding mates. That this might hurt the reproductive fitness of the other genes that go into making club-wing manakins matters not at all to the wing-singing genes. Genes don't think these things through. Genes don't think at all. Some genes build things that think, and some of those things that think end up being puzzled by the behavior of genes, including the very genes that built them.
You're describing this viewpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio... however I don't think it's really an accepted (in terms of evidence) theory that explains all evolution. I think most biologists think that evolution selects at multiple levels (although likely the underlying processes are much more complex than just that).
After all, no real visible phenotype is truly based on a single gene, but rather the dynamic interplay of hundreds of gene products over the course of the organism's development.
> You're describing this viewpoint
Yes.
> evolution selects at multiple levels
That's just another way of saying that evolution selects for reproductive fitness with respect to a particular environment. If a gene is part of an organism, then the other genes in that organism are part of that gene's environment.
The aggregation of genes into organisms is itself an evolutionary adaptation (as is the aggregation of organisms into more complex organisms like eukaryotic cells and multi-cellular creatures). This aggregation provides reproductive fitness by enforcing a certain level of cooperation among the aggregated genes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation). But this is not the fundamental mechanism of evolution, and every now an then a gene "defects" and does what is best for it at the time. Cancer is an example of this.
I think you're trying very hard to fit the real world into a hypothesis that doesn't make any sense.
I would encourage you to read up on what the gene-centered view actually states.
> that doesn't make any sense
If you look at the criticism leveled against this theory you will find that many of them have been addressed by the proponents of the theory, in many cases very successfully. Many things can be said about this theory but your claim strikes me as highly unqualified.
It makes perfect sense to me. What about it doesn't make sense to you?
I think he doesn't describe GCVOE but rather uses it to explain the apparent paradox.
Naively expecting "better" organisms to win fails to explain why these birds are evolving progressively "worse".
But if you go down and look at genes which handicap the male while triggering some silly attractiveness glitch in females versus genes that don't, it becomes clear that as long as the handicap isn't too strong, the former genes may easily win.
I think that's a point for the GCVOE this time.
Yes, well said.
> most biologists think that evolution selects
It's my understanding that gene-centered view is the main view among evolutionary biologists.
Multi-level adaptation seems to have fallen under lack of evidence. Evidence from nature, mathematical theory, and evolutionary simulations seem to back up selfish gene theory. There are still people like David Sloan Wilson who work on it.
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg." Samuel Butler, Life and Habit
> But the evolutionary mechanism behind this novelty is not adaptation by natural selection, in which only those who survive pass on their genes, allowing the species to become better adapted to its environment over time. Rather, it is sexual selection by mate choice, in which individuals pass on their genes only if they’re chosen as mates.
TFA has a weird definition for natural selection.
Evolution has no preferences and sexual selection is natural selection.
> sexual selection is natural selection
It's a matter of definition, I think. Darwin made a distinction between natural selection and sexual selection,
> Sexual selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (1859) and developed in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), as he felt that natural selection alone was unable to account for certain types of non-survival adaptations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
So the distinction the article here makes is a reasonable one with a long history. But more recently, the terms are often defined as non-distinct,
> Factors that affect reproductive success are also important, including sexual selection (now often included in natural selection) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
two sides of one coin, init? Edit: I mean, sexual selection is the pinhole of reproductive success, whereas other selective mechanisms are mediated by death, which is quite the opposite.
Agreed. This is more akin to evolution being stuck in a suboptimal (and perhaps a dead-end) local minima - but it is still natural selection as more pleasing features = survival on an individual scale.
Complex systems can spend a long time following gradient descent without reaching the local optimal. For all we know, it's features have other advantages, like scaring off predators.
Traits need to be considered with the ones they compete against. It's impossible to judge the bird in isolation.
Small aside: local minimum. Minima is plural (like datum/data).
Evolution happens because of natural selection. It is the narrative of natural selection and does not always have a happy ending. The subtitle of the article is just plain wrong. Of course natural selection explains "the too sexy birds", it just can't predict how long the evolutionary span will be.
The title suggests "Fisherian runaway" but the article does not.
Since the 1930s, it's been well known that in some cases sexual selection will undermine natural selection. Very simply, if a male is liked by most females, then a female has an incentive to mate with that male, even if the female does not like that male, because then her male children will have a trait that most females like. This can lead to a feedback loop that then goes to far, with maladaptive consequences.
This is a well studied case:
-------------------
Fisherian runaway or runaway selection is a sexual selection mechanism proposed by the mathematical biologist Ronald Fisher in the early 20th century, to account for the evolution of exaggerated male ornamentation by persistent, directional female choice. An example is the colourful and elaborate peacock plumage compared to the relatively subdued peahen plumage; the costly ornaments, notably the bird's extremely long tail, appear to be incompatible with natural selection. Fisherian runaway can be postulated to include sexually dimorphic phenotypic traits such as behaviour expressed by either sex. Extreme and apparently maladaptive sexual dimorphism represented a paradox for evolutionary biologists from Charles Darwin's time up to the modern evolutionary synthesis. Darwin attempted to resolve the paradox by assuming genetic bases for both the preference and the ornament, and supposed an "aesthetic sense" in higher animals, leading to powerful selection of both characteristics in subsequent generations. Fisher developed the theory further by assuming genetic correlation between the preference and the ornament, that initially the ornament signalled greater potential fitness (the likelihood of leaving more descendants), so preference for the ornament had a selective advantage. Subsequently, if strong enough, female preference for exaggerated ornamentation in mate selection could be enough to undermine natural selection even when the ornament has become non-adaptive.[3] Over subsequent generations this could lead to runaway selection by positive feedback, and the speed with which the trait and the preference increase could (until counter-selection interferes) increase exponentially ("geometrically").
reminded me of a much more interesting article I read a few years ago on the same subject: https://www.edge.org/conversation/richard_prum-duck-sex-aest...
Thanks, just read that. I agree it's far more interesting. It's also more nuanced, and gives a better idea of the nature of the debate.
A conversation with the author of this piece.
Which makes the article even more perplexing.
Interesting findings, but really nothing here new about the evolutionary biology. This is just another example of Zahavian adaptations, aka handicap principle, "which explains the evolution of characteristics, behaviors or structures that appear contrary to the principles of Darwinian evolution in that they appear to reduce fitness and endanger individual organisms. Evolved by sexual selection, these act as signals of the status of the organism, functioning to e. g. attract mates."
The title reminds me of a species we're all familiar with where the females are adopting increasingly high standards for mates based in obsolete evolutionary preferences which have no applicability to fitness in the current environment, and where the skills relevant to survival in the current environment are ironically often seen as unattractive by the females, and males who cultivate these skills often don't have the time to develop the portions of the aforementioned obsolete traits that are trainable.
and guys prefer women with large breasts and wide hips, both unnecessary due to baby formula and C-Sections.
Doesn't change the fact that preferring those traits are ingrained in us due to thousands of years of evolution and aren't changing any time soon. Worry about what you have control over you'll be happier
Breastfeeding is much better for the baby's development than formula
This is just a plain fact, why downvote it?
What obsolete traits are you talking about?
Mainly muscle mass and height.
You're getting a lot of crap, but I kind of empathize with you. Socializing and getting girls has never come easily for me. But you're sort of giving off a helpless vibe, and I think there's probably a lot you can do if it's important to you.
You're SOL on your height, but your muscle mass is quite malleable with pretty low effort. I work out for two hours a week, one hour on Saturday (upper body), one hour on Sunday (lower body and core). I don't look like an nfl linebacker, but it gets me to the athletic end of the dork spectrum at least. I'm betting you can find two hours a week to spare. If it doesn't take, you might have low testosterone, which is easily fixed medically (by taking testosterone, ie anabolic steroids... kind of extreme, and for the record, I don't take them myself, but if you actually have low t it seems somewhat reasonable to me.). Even if you don't want to work out, I don't think being short and skinny is a huge barrier to getting girls. Many of my friends fit this description and haven't had trouble. If that describes you, you may have other problems. If you've left unsaid that you're overweight, that's a lot harder to fix than muscle mass. Probably worth one good attempt to slim down, it works for some people, but doesn't for a lot of others. You may have to live with it.
Which brings me to... social skills. They really are skills. It comes naturally to a lot of people, but if it's unnatural for you, you CAN get better if you try. It takes a lot of effort, but if it's important to you, put some real effort (and time) into it.
Females are not as irrational in their preference for tall muscular men as you seem to think. Tall men make more money on average. So do good looking men. Why? There's two sides to any business: making shit and selling shit. I'm guessing you're good at the making part. Selling is just as important. People like to be around attractive people. Sucks for the non-beautiful, but just a fact of life. But you know what? They also like to be around funny, confident, and friendly people. And you can do something about that.
Muscle mass is a good thing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/muscle-ma...
More height means you have more cells that could potentially become cancerous.
> More height means you have more cells that could potentially become cancerous.
Wow, no shit:
http://www.wcrf.org/int/blog/articles/2015/09/why-taller-peo...
Not exactly the mechanism you proposed, but still...
Somehow I see plenty of short guys with little atleticism dating girls.
I can't say I ever do. This comes from living on a college campus for years and leaving without having been able to get a single date.
I once thought this was my problem. Turns out it had nothing to do with anything, and I was just an unlikable weirdo.
Sorry if that doesn't help. But blaming women for not liking you doesn't help either.
Being an "unlikable weirdo" wouldn't explain getting no responses on the standard dating sites/apps everyone on campus uses, when the demographics of the college are around 65% female. Part of the problem is that way back in the day, when the tribes were small, it was in the woman's best interest to mate with only the perceived fittest mates around, and her mental baseline of "average" would be set by the local tribe members. Now that we have the media and such showing super-fit males as the standard, that becomes the baseline of acceptable, so it seems like you're written off right away if you're below that. Some time ago before we were so inundated with such standards in the media, the mental baseline would be more realistic, and more males in the local town/area would have a chance. The male's evolutionary sexual strategy has always been to impregnate as many mates as possible, so the change in the media hasn't really had an effect on that end. This ties into my observation, which I've seen echoed on a lot of other forums online, that even the far less conventionally attractive women are increasingly refusing to settle for any less than a male they'd rate at "8/10". There's also a study by OKCupid saying something similar.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the perceptions warped by "media" are those of people who judge female psychology from lack of digital interaction with their app profiles and pop evolutionary psychology in forums populated by sexually frustrated men, not those of women having the amount of sex they want despite none of the men they meet having the wealth, looks and/or charisma of their favourite film and sport stars.
Even if all that is true, you might as well get on with your life.
I don't know about all of that stuff.
But I do know that I stressed out about shit like this in high school, then figured out that if you treat women like people and ask them out, some percentage of them will say yes.
Guess what? You can come off as an unlikeable weirdo on dating sites/apps.
That's why it's called a bachelors degree.
Just because you don't have a trait doesn't make that trait "obsolete."
By the way, a large majority of humans in the United States marry and even among the ones who don't marry a vast majority of them have dated. A large majority of people in the United States are not tall and muscular, we come in all shapes and sizes.
You may find this shocking but Women aren't uniform brainless sheep. Women come in all forms with all sorts of different things they find attractive. For example, I don't find muscles especially attractive and tallness does absolutely nothing for me. My husband is overweight and I don't mind a bit, doesn't distract from his attractiveness to me. Some women are even attracted to other women.
(Hint: it actually might be you since 99% of society can somehow manage to get a date)
> 99%
Looking at japan, that number seems overestimated. That might be your personal experience, but because of survivorship bias - you'd be less likely to meet antisocial shut ins etc.
The human females find sense of humor attractive. That requires development of big brain. Think how shitty big brain is - it soaks up nutrition, takes insane amounts of protein to develop, makes the infant helpless for 12 years, diverts resources from muscle mass and bone, makes easier death during childbirth and permanently diminishes the ability of the mother to gather food.
This species is doomed by the chasing of this superficial attractiveness.
I can't tell if this comment is being serious about not seeing the other advantages of the bigger brain for the survival of the specie.
Take a wild guess. Especially in context of the article which says how badly it fucks the wings without giving any information how the species interacts with their wider ecosystem.
well we're the first to defy Darwinism despite of having all those negative traits.
It's interesting to consider this article in light of the fact that the most ubiquitous and successful bird species are all drab and without much sexual dimorphism (crows, sparrows, gulls)
There are some things that seem odd about this author's terminology.
> ...the evolutionary mechanism behind this novelty is not adaptation by natural selection, in which only those who survive pass on their genes, allowing the species to become better adapted to its environment over time. Rather, it is sexual selection by mate choice...
In natural selection, it is only individuals which mate which pass on their genes -- surviving is no good if you don't mate! It is my understanding that sexual selection has been classed as a variety of natural selection. If the species sexually selects itself to a point of maladaption, it goes extinct -- just as if it was maladapted to its environment for any other reason. Notably, these birds are not there: they still seem to be okay.
> In the absence of direct costs to the choosers, the population will not be saved by natural selection. Because the cost is deferred, the whole population can ease further and further into maladaptive dysfunction, generation by generation.
This seems to be treating natural selection as a game of one round, or describing a situation where there is almost no capacity for variation in the species. But if it's really true, that the species is in a kind of dead-end, where the most successful mates are the most maladapted, and there is little capacity in the genome to remedy this situation -- as the females could develop a different standard of attraction, or the males some other method of attraction -- then the effect of natural selection would be to extinguish the species. This is, in some sense, how "progress" is made in natural selection -- as much by elimination as anything else. This leads us to:
> Instead of ensuring that organisms are on an inexorable path to self-improvement, mate choice can drive a species into what I call maladaptive decadence...
It has been said by many more well informed than I am, that there is something specious about an "inexorable path to self-improvement" with regards to animals. Animals become more adapted to their environment; but they don't become "better animals" since a change in the environment leads them to be worse adapted. The subtlety is that, traits may be gained, and then lost, and both were "better": to gain fur as the earth cooled, and to lose it again as the earth warmed.
And finally I must ask, where has the author shown the birds are maladapted? They fly awkwardly, sure -- but what difference does it make for them?
Sexual selection seems like a really interesting case of natural selection having the property of both creating and filling an evolutionary niche.
Through that lens, there's no counterintuitive behavior here, and natural selection isn't being undermined. It's an emergent polarization.
Can't believe Idiocracy hasn't been brought up by anyone yet, a SciFi satire about exactly this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
Bad article.
>The clumsy wings of males could be rationalized as a handicap that provides information about the birds’ condition or genetic quality.
Also known as an honest indicator of fitness.
>But the observation that female club-wings have also probably made themselves less capable fliers can only be described as decadent —
Why the "probably" there? Previously the author mentioned that the bones where hollow in the females, unlike the males. Maybe they can fly just fine!
>sexual selection leading to a decline in the capacity for survival.
Yeah but, the fact that they exist, shows that they have survived.
If they fly worse, does it mean their capacity for survival declines?
> It may even lead to extinction.
So natural selection.
I'd guess that this kind of article must gain a lot of upvotes in a hacker forum.
I see something in common between those birds and the modern western females. We will see soon how well nice look can compete with artificial intelligence for survival.