Kin Selection & Altruism

I didn't define it. I imagine the definition: an act performed that benefits another but has no immediate benefit for the individual acting is sufficent for our purposes.

Hello again Mr. Jack: Fair enough. I'll simply contend that what we are actually discussing is more along the lines of commensalism and/or receprocity, but most certainly is not altruism.Nonetheless, I guess I agree with Omnivorous that perhaps the desire to aid strangers (or non-kin in general) is a carry over from days gone past. True altruistic behaviour is indeed hard to explain, therefore it seems logical that we should see it only in species that have an ability to place some sort or arbitrary value on life (I hesitate to say a "moral code" but perhaps that is the best fit).

I don't think that the maintaining group cohesiveness, in and of itself, can explain altruistic behaviors. Most often, in those cases, some sort of reciprocity is "expected" and therefore the intitial behavior was not altruistic.

I'm specifically not talking about reciprocity.I don't believe in "True Alturism".

It doesn't have to, and as far as I'm concerned, altruism is not needed to explain the behavior(s), so I guess I agree with you. However, people historically used relatedness to explain why some individuals would behave in such a manner which would result in a loss of their direct fitness (1/2 of altruism). How, it is asked, could such a behavior be selected for? The explanation is to show that only those that are closely related (and hence had a higher probability of sharing more genes, including of course the “altruistic” gene) are the beneficiaries of such behaviors.So relatedness must play a role in some manner because how often do we see such behaviors in individuals that are not related? It is those later examples that are, to me, the more difficult and interesting ones to address. What possible explanation is there for someone sacrificing their fitness for the benefit of an unrelated individual? Does it ever happen in non-human species?

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

What sort(s) of behaviors are we talking about here? By using the words "punish bon-contributors" aren't we really disucssing something other than an altruistic behavior?If we use the definition discussed by Mr. Jack why would such a behavior be so unusual? You do something and "expect" somthing in return...eventually. What's the big deal?

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

We have the report a couple years back of a female chimp gorilla protecting and saving a human child that got into the display area until the keepers could get him out.There are anecdotal reports of dolphins saving drowning people (usually children) by holding them to the surface.This cannot be explained by any gene sharing model, but it can be explained by a social group model.{corrected above}This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*04*2005 12:03 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The dictionary.com defintition: al·tru·ism (click)
It would seem to me that we are discussing the zoological aspect here more than an purely individual one as you seem intent on doing.Now you can imply that survival of the species is some "expected" reward, but I can't see this behavior as being that conscious to that effect.This gives us the pack animals where one pair breeds and the others assist in the care and rearing and do not themselves breed.This also includes any action protecting the young of a group that are not necessarily your own, thus several herd species that surround the young to protect them when attacked by predators. Game theory shows that there is a net benefit to altruistic behavior without needing a family relationship model. This is one of the things that John Nash did on his way to a Nobel Prize. It does not surprise me that nature would find a similar solution through the computer program of massive trial and error.
http://www.stat.psu.edu/news/conferences/JohnNash/milnor.pdfOnce altruism becomes a feasible solution then there would be measures that would also evolve to stabilize it within a group, particularly as the group gets larger, and that is where the concept of "altruistic punishment" comes in - and they are talking about individuals that don't necessarily benefit from having punished the non-acceptable behavior of the noncooperators (scrooges).This can still fit your definition of "a behavior on the part of a donor that results in a decrease of direct fitness for the donor while 'imparting' a gain in direct fitness for the recipient of the behavior" if the donor never interacts with the recipient again and the recipient becomes a better contributor to it's social group.See Just a moment... I think this is a red-herring in the discussion, and I don't see it being much of a factor at all. Often the actions are taken without long mental evaluation of the {cost\benefit} ratios and futures of the pork market: a situation requires immediate action, the action is taken (by the altruistic) or not (by the scrooge). This gets back to group bonding behavior and a recognition of a larger group than family for belonging. Perhaps this is the evolutionary explanation of religions. It allows a multi-group social interaction at a larger scale than just extended family groups and codifies a behavioral pattern of sharing between the groups that is recognized at some gut level but cannot be articulated otherwise.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

As I recall, that "chimp" was actually a gorilla. Here are some links:
CBS Chicago - Breaking News, First Alert Weather, Exclusive Investigations & Community Journalism
Binti Jua | MY HERO
Ark Animals Wildside: Binti the Gorilla
Gorilla Heaven - Gorilla information & Conservation The genetic (kinship) accounts of altruism have never seemed convincing to me. I doubt that this is a genetic trait, at least in humans and gorillas. IMO it is more likely learned behavior.

This is especially interesting because you are considering the behavior of individuals who have already benefitted from the behavior but do not benefit in an obvious way from their own instance of it. Crows also stay with the parent pair for a few years and help to support subsequent nestings.It strikes me that this is the behavioral equivalent of Irreducible Complexity. There is no intuitive path to the genesis of prepaid behavior, but mathematical analsysis can find one and pop that little balloon of incredulity. Fascinating. It also strikes me that it is good to remember that behavior is culturally mediated: we sometimes think of culture as ethnic flavor, but of course it is more fundamental than that.Kin selection has always troubled me because altruistic behavior ranges from cost-free giving to life-sacrificing rescue attempt--while the degree of relatedness attenuates, the degree of altruism does not: perfect strangers risk their lives to save perfect strangers, and they do it often. If genes voiced altruism, culture may have amplified it by enlarging the scope of "us", the borders of "like me": perhaps the primordial behavior is rooted in the genes, but forms its habitus within the present We. Our mutual recognition may have grown from my family to my tribe, from my clan to my nation, from my nation to my kind: it's enough to make an old leftie go Mau Mau a liberal. Great comments and links, RAZD--much to think about. As usual, thanks again.

Fascinating. I remember it as chimp. The problem I have here is the aspect of beneficial to the species while at a less than neutral benefit to the individual (zool. definition above), and the results of game theory that do show a benefit to the group that employs altruism.This later bit would mean that a behavior is selected by evolution? (didn't we have a thread about that?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Living in the Chicago area, and having visited the ape house at Brookfield zoo a number of times, it stuck in my memory. My theory is that what is selected by evolution, is the ability to be easily socialized. The actual altruism would be a detail of the socialization.In the case of binti the gorilla, her experiences might have included socializing with humans more than is typical for gorillas (even zoo gorillas)

Close to where I've tentatively arrived: At present I am speculating that the altruism is selected, and the threshold is socialized.BTW, I believe that gorilla was Koko's niece?When we enter the realm of maternal behavior, all other bets are off. It is difficult to map a behavior within that set to general questions of altruism.