Kin Selection & Altruism

I have never seen how being related has anything to do with altruism.The only thing that "being related" does is to ensure that the individuals in the tribe/herd/pack also have the same gene or set of genes for altruism. So when an individual behaves altruistically, it ensures that the other members that are also altruistic benefit, so it would appear that altruistic behavior simply increases the number of individuals with genes for altruism. Any other genes in the other individuals' genomes just tag along, whether or not they are shared by the particular individual behaving altruistically. Although I don't usually like Dawkin's "selfish gene" idea, this is one case (paradoxically) where it makes sense, at least to me.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

It is true that perfect altruism would be an evolutionary disadvantage. If it could, somehow, come about that the entire population is altruistic, then the situation would be very unstable. Should a mutant for selfishness occur, that individual would be at a huge advantage -- it could take advantage of the altruism of its neighbors while never contributing anything in return. In a very short time, egoists would dominate and altruism would be lost.However, the work of people like Axelrod has shown that altruism-plus-recognition (that is the ability to recognize and punish non-contributors) is a very robust combination, and could conceivable dominate a population very quickly.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi, Mr. Jack.Yes; you seem to be assuming that altruism occurs with combination with the ability to reject those who aren't behaving altruistically (which, I believe, is how it works in the actual world).I wasn't speaking of any kin selection in my post -- for simplicity I assumed that the altruism would be "helpful" to anyone it encounters without regard to kinship relation. Of course, I can see how the combination altruism-with-kinship-recognition might, in some contexts, be even more beneficial -- the benefits of altruism without wasting energy and resources being helpful to those one may never see again (and thus never benefit from reciprocated help).

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

The explanation is to show that only those that are closely related (and hence had a higher probability of sharing more genes....

---

As I said before, in my opinion, the only "sharing of genes" that matters is that fact that closely related individuals will be more likely to share the same "altruism" gene (or set of genes). It is not the over all genetic similarity that makes "altruism" so beneficial -- it is the fact that an individual with an "altruism" gene will engage in behavior that will lead to an increase in the numbers of individuals with the "altruism" gene. The fact that the other individuals will also share genes for blue eyes or blood type A or whatever is largely irrelevant to why altruism can become fixed in a population.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

That's a good question -- probably there is no big deal about this -- in hind-sight. However, in the beginning, it was a big deal because the idea used to be that natural selection would choose individuals who would be more likely to produce their own offspring. So why is it that some individuals will seem the "share" resources and danger? Why do some individuals even behave in ways that will increase the likelihood of their own deaths (by giving audible warnings that an approaching predator is sure to hear) for the sake of the tribe? In fact, creationists will scream what a "big deal" this all is, and how it can't be explained by evolution.You are correct. Like so many intriguing mysteries that start out as a "big deal", once the problem is understood and solved, its resolution shows that it really is a rather mundane phenomenon.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt