It sucks to think that finding small or otherwise weaker members of other animal species cute and wanting to take care of them might be to hamper the evolution of another dominant species by preserving those that would have died off and slowing natural selection, amirite?

Thank you, I came here to say that. Survival of the fittest simply means the best suited to survive long enough to produce offspring. If an animal is cute and therefore less likely to be killed by and more likely to be protected by the most dominant species on the damn planet, that is certainly survival of the fittest. It doesn't necessarily mean smarter or faster or bigger or stronger.

I mean us finding the weaker one cute, not the species as a whole. Like rooting for the underdog. Biologically speaking, a small deer's offspring will be less suited for survival and the small deer would probably have gotten killed for being the weakest in the herd. This way, nature continuously improves species. If we find the weak deer cute, we will want to take care of it, and it may go on to have offspring genetically weaker. If this continues, the deer species evolution becomes much slower.

You said it would be slowing natural selection.

I'm not talking about survival of the fittest, or even cute characteristics of species. I
m talking about finding weaker members of a species cute, just because they're weaker.

Yes, which is a prerequisite of evolution.

My earlier reply works here too.

Please reread the post. I said the weaker members, not the whole species.

People don't go in the water enough for that, but if we did, yes, they probably would evolve that after a few million years to we feel inclined to preserve their species.