Evolution of Altruism

I'm not confident of the existence of altruism.That aside, I don't see why benefits accruing to non-kin would mean that kin selection fails as an explanation. We have many behaviors that have been modified by different social contexts--fight-or-flight evolved far back in our lineage, but it still serves many well in the boardroom and badminton court, far short of tooth and claw.Also, the notion of kin has certainly expanded. Our ancestors never had the opportunity to die for a nation; there were no nations. Some folks risk their lives to protect whales, precisely because of their sense of kinship with a big-brained mammal.You are making a large assumption in your dismissal of reciprocal altruism: any man old enough to be an American combatant has had many opportunities to reproduce. Trust me on that. In the context of our species' evolutionary past, he most certainly would have already reproduced.Many animals--even animals of different species--herd or flock together because the larger group decreases each individual's odds of being picked off by a predator. That isn't altruistic, though from the perspective of the individual taken, a "sacrifice" has benefited the entire group, kin and non-kin alike.In war, you have a singular focus on frustrating the enemy's purposes. These jump-on-the-grenade scenarios are necessarily in the heat of battle, and I'm not sure evolution has to account precisely for the behavior at all: Is it altruism when the same warriors are always leading the charge, both promoting the odds of victory and making them more likely to die?Or is that merely the behavior of more aggressive individuals on a continuum defined by expressions of self-defense instincts differing in intensity, and societal imprinting? Did Norse berserkers evolve--or did the social constructs of the time create them? Both, probably: the ability to fight in a self-neglecting fury wins more fights; societies developed different triggers for the behavior. No altruism is required.At any rate, I think war-time scenarios are poor examples on which to proceed with a discussion of altruism. The elements of training and super-stimulated aggression are just too confounding.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

It's speculative fun to discuss altruism because the science is still murky, without even agreement that the phenomenon exists.That's also why many creationists like to claim there are no evolutionary explanations, when, in fact, the problem is that there are too many evolutionary explanations. Time will sort that out. You have moved from one self-selected, highly trained and adrenalized population to another. I think the same objections to the military model of altruism apply. It is unreasonable to expect the theory of evolution to explain every individually maladaptive instance of human behavior.Suicide? Serial killers? Psychosis? Do you think the theory of evolution must explain these as well? We do have a pretty good proposed evolutionary explanation for religion, if that helps. That seems fairly self-evident, especially when you keep in mind that during our evolutionary history, a tribe was a relatively small breeding and foraging unit. Still, I'm sure we can find some genetic evidence for you.While I work on that, could you provide some evidence for your factual claim of altruism? You haven't, yet. I think that would at minimum require an event with no other plausible explanation. I don't see your point. Are you proposing that the theory of evolution requires that biological evolution must keep pace with social change? That is absurd on its face; we are not Lamarckites. Again, I don't see what your point is. Are you claiming I can recognize my third cousin twice removed? Accurate identification of close kin doesn't mean we can identify all kin.As to the twins studies, could you cite or link the studies so that we can examine them for ourselves? It is notoriously difficult to sort out genetic and environmental differences when studying the behaviors of both identical and fraternal twins.One last note: generally speaking, theories are overturned by better theories, not by nibbling at the edges. Biological evolution is supported by mountains of physical evidence; speculative critiques based on nonscientific presumptive explanations of current human behavior will just bounce off.As mentioned above, I'd like to see your evidence for altruism, as well as your theory of altruism and what that theory predicts.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Bonobos.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

What evidence are you presenting that is being dismissed?For example, you note that kin selection (carefully couched in the case of parents and siblings) is consistent with the theory of evolution. Multiple posters have pointed out that the concept of kinship is expansive.How is that a dismissal?

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

That's an extraordinary claim: google "biological altruism critics" for another impression.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

I agree. Looking solely for explanations in a evolutionary calculus of relatedness can amount to a brand of biological determinism.I don't think we have to look further than mirror neurons to find a biological mechanism for both empathy and altruism. The mirror neurons were discovered serendipitously, when a researcher studying moneky brain function noted that a monkey's neurons fired as they fire when the monkey picked up a raisin--when the monkey saw a researcher pick up a raisin. Subsequent studies revealed that the mirror neuron system in humans is considerably more robust than in monkeys, so much so that our mirror neurons fire even when we merely hear or read a description of an action.The evolution of mirror neurons in a social animal makes considerable evolutionary sense for both learning and bonding. A good case can be made for mirror neurons as the sine qua non of empathy, with studies suggesting the robustness of the mirror neuron system in the individual correlating with both impairment (autism) and personality traits of human warmth and coolness.We really do feel each other's pain--and distress, and disgust, and much else. What actions that empathy prompts probably depends on the baseline state of the individual's mirror neuron system--as well as social and intellectual states. I'd readily agree that religious beliefs can play a role here.Mirror neurons provide both a good candidate to explain our deeply social nature, our empathy for our own and other species, and the expression of that empathy in action as altruism. The question then shifts away from the adequacy of kin selection to account for altruism: empathy evolved as part of our social package, and, perhaps, only as a secondary matter laid the groundwork for altruism. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James