Kin Selection & Altruism

The studies I have seen to date suggest that this is not the case. That is, those that do not help (and do not breed) will have lower lifetime fitness than those that do help. I will admit, however, that thus far I have found nothing that looks directly at your question. Most studies focus primarily on the comparative lifetime fitness of first year breeders versus those that help at least one season. I will continue to search, but again, I doubt that your question will bear fruit, and maybe I can hypothesize as to why.
Those that help are doing so for some reason or another. Whether it is kin selection, safety in numbers, learning how to nest build, feed and fledge young, or future inheritance of a territory and/or a mate. No matter the reason, they are getting some benefit from the behavior.
Those that simply return and then do nothing...get nothing. Or what little they do gain in terms if health (bigger, stronger, or whatever) would be outweighed by the draw backs of not getting any of the things I mentioned above.
The common theme in the papers I have read is that helping occurs when some extraneous factor(s) come into play. Territory limitations (size, availability, quality, etc.), difficulty in fledgling success, predation concerns, and other stuff of that nature. The implication being that helping is beneficial and therefore selected for. So, in summary, it seems that doing nothing in situations where others are helping would not be the correct choice to make. Yes, I know that...and I was pointing out that that definition sucks. It is meaningless from an ethological or behavioral standpoint. Even you seem to admit that any behavior outside of the “mommy/daddy dance” would fit the definition. It's the "dumbing down" approach to explaining difficult concepts to the scientific illiterate...IMHO. From cormorant colonies on the Great Lakes? If so, perhaps we have crossed paths...so to speak.You should try going to one sometime (wait...you had better not, seeing as how cormorants are Federally protected and it takes quite a few permits even to approach a colony). Early on in her studies, my wife had to collect both regurgitate from the young and pellets (similar to what owls do) in order to obtain dietary information. It was kind of fun, in that sick sort of way the only field biologists can truly appreciate. You would approach a chick, which would first just kind of stare at you with these big green eye (please don’t eat me!), but as you got closer they would start to make a god-awful noise (similar to something you hear out of a 30 year smoker with lung cancer), and as you got even closer...YACK! Then you’d reach down, pick up the puke, place it in a whirl pack, record some info, and head off for another chick. The truly fun part was when you walked under the few individuals that had actually nested in what pathetic example of “trees” were left on the islands, and you were unaware that a chick was up there until it was too late. Cormorant puke landing on your head is NOT a pleasant experience.

Hey RAZD...looks like it's down to you and me, so this one will probably just fade away. Well, be that as it may, it is what altruism actually is all about.As it turns out, I have had no real luck finding any current info on helpers at the nest. Most of the papers I have found are from the 80s and before. However, most do seem to suggest a life-time fitness increase to helpers relative to nonhelpers (with the understanding that I found nothing with the added comparison to those that return and do nothing but sit back, drink some beer, and watch the tele).I will also admit that I have not put a great deal of time into searching for additional material over and above what I could find with relative ease. Perhaps if more people join in, I'll look deeper into the literature. I cannot really contend this point, as you, by agreeing with the arbitrary bounds that have been set, are widening the scope of the definition to the point of meaninglessness(wow...is that even a word?).
Like I said in my earlier posts(s), any behavior that is something other than "scronking" would fit within these bounds. Intuitively, I feel that something is wrong with this explanation, but I cannot quite put it in to words. Maybe...I guess...maybe I do not see any over analyses occurring. I live about an hour North of GR, and spend a great deal of time there (in the non-snowy months) riding and racing my bike (the kind you pedal). Very true. Ya have to admit though...gulls are certainly a very adaptive species. They can land on water, they can land on land, they can land in trees, they can land of wires, and they can land on piers. They will eat just about anything. They are great soarers and can stay aloft for long periods without flapping. All-in-all, if I could choose to be any kind of bird, being a gull would not be all that terrible of a choice to make.

I'm not sure I have stated otherwise, but I let me be clear: I do not think that helping at the nest is a conscious decision made by a bird with the knowledge of some future gain in reproductive success. They do it because they have the gene to do it, which will be selected for because they will leave more offspring than those that do not help. I never said that they somehow know that by helping they will become more successful themselves.Also, I think it's important to note that the behaviors we have been discussing are not some anecdotal thing. Helping at the nest cannot be compared to some spur of the moment rescue attempt.And lastly, since I do not think altruism exists, then I guess I’m inclined to agree with your assessment. I cannot come up with an example (outside of some human behaviors) where one individual sacrificed their fitness such that the recipient gained in fitness. I never said improved reproductive success was part of the decision making process. It is, however, a consequence. And if that’s the case, then it is not, by definition (at least the definition that I’m using) altruism. But by the same token, NS will not select against such behaviors.This is a tough area for me. Let’s use Omnivorous as an example. He jumped back into a burning truck to save an unrelated individual. I would argue that while he was not an altruist (he lived), the behavior itself was altruistic. Now, I have a friend that would completely disagree. He would (and does) argue that Omnivorous did what he did in hopes of some future reproductive benefit. It may have been an unconscious behavior, but the “goal” was the accolades bestowed on him as a true hero. He may not have been thinking that at the time, but that was what truly happened, and that such a behavior would be selected for. Personally, I disagree with this assessment . but there ya go. I think I might be getting confused here. You think that the gorilla that helped save the child behaved in an altruistic manner because there was an energy cost to her, while at the same time there was a obvious benefit to the child. Yet you argue against helpers at the nest as being altruists because the result of their behavior is not seen for some time? Helpers at the nest are not considered altruists. The behavior is not altruistic. The behavior was once thought to be altruistic because: “how could such a sacrifice be selected for?” it was asked. Once it was looked into it deeper, and it was found that there were many benefits (territory inheritance, acquiring a mate, learning how to feed young, etc.), then we could see how NS would favor helping. Why should it matter how long it takes for the benefit to manifest itself?If you recall, my primary argument against helpers is not the time lag between the behavior and the results. My argument is that since the helpers show higher lifetime fitness, the behavior does not fit the definition.Remember, I'm against calling the vast majority of these behaviors "altruism". I don't believe altruism exists, except in the most rare of occurrences, and almost exclusively associated with humans.

This would be an example of commensalism (if species "A" receives no benefit or harm), but not altruism.However, if it could be shown that there is reproductive loss to species "A", then I suppose it could be argued it is an example of altruism (see, I'm not completely opposed to the concept altruism).Who knows, maybe this sort of thing is the key to the evolution of altruistic behavior. It's simply an artifact of our bacterial heritage .

There is a species of fish (a cichlid I believe) where the male has an egg-like pattern near his anal fin close to where sperm are released. The female of this species are mouth brooders so upon the release of her eggs she promptly sucks them up into her mouth. She sees the males "fake" egg spot and tries to suck up that "eggs" as well, as he of course, releases sperm. This then, by your logic would clearly be a precursor to a path leading to the...well...to the...BJ? Has any looked into the comparative reproduce success of individuals that transferred genes to those that did not? I hate to be a stickler for detail, but with no corresponding decline in reproductive success, this behavior would not be considered altruistic. I know, I know, I’m using the wrong definition, which just so happens to be the classic definition. Oh well.I have to be honest and admit that I have not read the paper, so I will ask you this: Is it explained anywhere “why” species "A" would do this?

Which is why when we discuss altruism we DO take into account a resulting loss in reproductive success because otherwise (as I have repeated stated) any fucking (well...except "fucking" I guess...if successful) behavior would fit. And then what's the point? Only according to you. Maybe that is what you are looking for, but not others of us that have an interest in Animal Behavior. which is a behavior defined as commensalism.See RAZD, we have definitions that fit most of the "other" behaviors you have described. Altruism has a definition. It was derived many moons ago by Hamilton. I see no reason to change it simply because some people want to use it in situations where it does not apply.Here's something sort of funny though. Next semester, I may very well have convinced my old advisor to offer his "Topics in Ethology" course as Altruism. If so, and if I can swing it time-wise, I will most definitely attend. And guess what RAZD, I may very well argue altruism from your perspective...if you would allow me to utilize some of your logic. I will, of course, give you full credit if you want it. What say ye...mind if I put your ideas to the test?

Not true. It's simply a definition. It is, in the real world, meaningless. Animal do what animals do, they don't read books to determine if the behavior they want to perform has some biological definition. They simply "do".They question I like to answer is "why".It is for that reason that I do not want to water down the definition to the point of meaninglessness. We do see true altruism in humans. Why? I don't know, but trying to find out can be very fun. If we instead just change the definition, then we stifle the hunt for answers. Yes...thank you...this is what I have been saying since the beginning. Making a definition try to fit a behavior is a false concept. It's nice to see you agree with me. Bees are not altruistic.You are the one that seems to be of the notion that we should simply change the definition of Altruism so that behaviors we observe will fit. I say do not to change the definition. We already have a definition. It's narrowly defined and I think it should stay that way. You have been espousing that the negative result of the donors' behavior can be any arbitrary measure, where as I have been arguing that the negative result to the donor has to be...by definition...a fitness measurement. Cooperative social organization would be mutualism. And the way I see it, the evolutionary benefit, or cause, or whatever, would be the cooperative nature of the behavior. Certainly we can see the positive evolutionary selective pressure of such a behavior. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. See...that's utter nonsense. A parent feeding offspring being classified as an altruistic behavior renders the term to such stupidity that anything would fit. What does it tell us? What do we get from describing care behavior as altruism? Nothing. How is insuring the survival of your offspring an altruistic behavior? You don't see it as more of a mutualistic interaction? You see no benefit to the parent? The "desire"...the biological drive to pass on ones genes into the next generation is bullshit? All it really is a from of parasitism? Damned kids, sucking the life out of mom and dad! Come on...I don't think even you believe that.

Mmmmmm...good point. However, the way I see it is that you are not so much interested in changing the definition, per say, but rather you want to change what is meant by "cost". In the definition I prefer, the cost is specifically spelled out to represent reproductive successes. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that the entire quote were your words...only the last line in response to the linked article. And it is here that we disagree. As stated above, if we fail to define “cost”, then anything applies. Not true. I do not have a definition for humans that differs from that of other species...you do. I have one definition and thus far I have only seen it "fulfilled" in humans. That's not to say that we will never see it in other animals, but thus far, each time "altruism" has been invoked, other definitions have better explained the behaviors. And I disagree. While I do agree that we should apply to same definition to all organisms, I think the one defined by Hamilton should be the one that is used. When we see a behavior in non-humans that is classified as altruistic, I most often feel that other, already described (defined) behaviors better explain those behaviors. When we see it in humans (as defined by Hamilton), then I see a tough nut to crack. When we see it applied as you wish, then I see a useless explanation that is applicable in virtually any interaction.Why? Well because as I see it, you want to look at "costs" as anything. What, to you, is not a cost? Literally everything we do outside of absorbing nutrients would be a cost...so what behavior is NOT altruistic? I'm not making special conditions, nor loading the definition with anything. It's simple...the cost is defined as a drop in direct fitness. It is your idea the loads the definition with a plethora of behaviors defined as "costs" . in that anything applies.Look, we have plenty of behavioral definitions that apply to all possible interaction between two individuals. While I obviously cannot state which of these behavioral definitions apply to all of your examples, I do believe that I have suggested valid alternatives (in most cases) to your use of "altruism". Many can be explained by using mutualism, commensalism, or amensalism. Why do you feel the need to use altruism? Now, I agree, that if we look at any friggen thing an animal does as a "cost", then altruism fits. But everything should NOT be considered a cost. If so, the we can simply ignore all the other descriptive explanations. Amensalism...Bull shit, it altruism. Commensalism... bull shit, it's altruism. Mutualism...nope, sorry, that's bull shit too, it's actually altruism. Predation, nope again...altruism. So, you then see any behavioral interaction between two or more organisms as altruistic?

Hi again: Of course I agree that a behavior that results in a benefit is not altruistic, and have never stated otherwise. But you're wrong when you say that the cost is unimportant (see your lioness/gazelle example below for an explanation of why). But you're arguing this from the wrong point of view. Using your loose definition of altruism it is the gazelle that would be behaving as such...not the lioness. I think it's a pretty interesting study. Personally, as I understand it, it shows commensalism, but not altruism...sorry.Look, it's not my fault that certain groups want to use the term 'altruism" for human studies. But as I have said repeatedly, altruism has a definition that deals specifically with reproductive success and cost. I see no reason to change that so researches can get a warm fuzzy about their study.(Edited to remove some extra words.)This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 03-17-2006 04:02 PM

I would hardly consider being eaten an act of generosity (see below for an expansion on this concept). And I have never stated that a reproductive cost is of "little" or "inconsequential" value. Quite the contrary. I believe that reproductive success is of such a high value that I don't want to change or water down the definition of Altruism so other "things" apply equally as well.Now...about the gazelle. Altruism is a behavior that results in a decrease in reproductive success. And sacrificing your life is probably the ultimate behavior one can perform. However, did this gazelle actually sacrifice its life (and hence it's reproductive success) for the good of the lion (and by the same token then, enhance its reproductive success)? I think not. The gazelle was caught, killed, and then eaten by the lion, but I somehow doubt that it went willingly. I'd wager that the gazelle put up a valiant effort (that ultimately failed), in its desire to remain alive. Being eaten is in no way an act of altruism because animals do not just go out and give themselves up for the good of the species, all the while increasing the fitness of their primary predator. Not at all. Being killed and eaten is no way a part of my definition of Altruism (nor anyone else’s that I know of). Honestly, I don't know enough about it one way or the other to fully answer your question.
My experience however, (which I will admit is limited to my Grad school days and the reading of papers) is that by-and-large, these types of studies often have what I would consider poor experimental design, and then they over state their conclusions. Getting into the head of another animal can be extremely difficult to do. Obviously, we really have no idea what the animal was thinking when it did something, so for that reason I think one needs to be extremely careful when interpreting and stating their results. Who knows, maybe the chimps like seeing the object fall, so giving it back to the experimenter was a way to simply see it fall again. Again though, seeing as how they sacrificed nothing (reproductively speaking) the behavior was quite obviously not altruistic.