Selfish groups will be outcompeted by altruistic groups, nobody disputes this and it has been proven by game theory (hawks vs doves, prisoners dilemma). But if a single selfish mutant arises within the altruistic group, as will eventually happen, he will outcompete his altruistic peers and his selfish genes will propagate.
Also the group is basically never a stable unit of natural selection due to migration and genetic intermixing, at least in humans (maybe in eusocial ants or something).
That’s a great observation on a point I didn’t cover. Our groups are not stable the way as it is in eusocial animals, and indeed history has provided us with plenty of examples of how human groups come together and fall apart.
I think with a better understanding of how group selection processes work, we can stack the odds in favour of stable (and, hopefully, prosocial) groups. For example, Elinor Ostrom’s work on design principles for managing shared commons. What are your thoughts on that?
Yeah, I guess the question is whether such criteria can be met for a sufficiently long time for genetic group-level selection to take place at any significant level, since individual-level selection will always be super dissolutive to group cohesion. Ants solve this problem it seems with anatomical caste differentiation (workers cannot rebel).
In University I did some work on this and I found cultural group selection to be the most compelling framework. Obviously, culture can act upon genes quite massively through gene-culture coevolution. As it turns out, social institutions probably exert massive pressure favouring prosocial genes and disfavouring antisocial genes in human groups (and those groups are most likely to prosper, thus their prosocial institutions proliferate). Selective mate choice and child neglect, altruistic punishment of deviants, etc, have probably acted on our genome in the same way that group-level selection more directly on genes would, that is, by favouring group-level adaptations (although individual selection is only at play, the selection pressures are moulded by norms aimed at "the good of the group"). It's very probable that our innate social psychology was shaped by culture, favouring group-level adaptations since we tend to reward those who are good for the group, and punish (imprison, execute) those who deviate. Hope that makes any sense.
Thanks for sharing! I find your explanation both plausible and compelling. Of course, unless we can identify the specific genes and mechanisms involved, such explanations are always in danger of being labeled just-so stories. Also, I myself am more of a pragmatist, and am more concerned with what we can do with what we know now to solve specific problems than theoretical contributions (:
Hi Daniel, I wrote it as a broad appeal to the human race, which on hindsight is hilarious, since only the tiniest of tiniest fraction of humans living today will read this.
Selfish groups will be outcompeted by altruistic groups, nobody disputes this and it has been proven by game theory (hawks vs doves, prisoners dilemma). But if a single selfish mutant arises within the altruistic group, as will eventually happen, he will outcompete his altruistic peers and his selfish genes will propagate.
Also the group is basically never a stable unit of natural selection due to migration and genetic intermixing, at least in humans (maybe in eusocial ants or something).
That’s a great observation on a point I didn’t cover. Our groups are not stable the way as it is in eusocial animals, and indeed history has provided us with plenty of examples of how human groups come together and fall apart.
I think with a better understanding of how group selection processes work, we can stack the odds in favour of stable (and, hopefully, prosocial) groups. For example, Elinor Ostrom’s work on design principles for managing shared commons. What are your thoughts on that?
Yeah, I guess the question is whether such criteria can be met for a sufficiently long time for genetic group-level selection to take place at any significant level, since individual-level selection will always be super dissolutive to group cohesion. Ants solve this problem it seems with anatomical caste differentiation (workers cannot rebel).
In University I did some work on this and I found cultural group selection to be the most compelling framework. Obviously, culture can act upon genes quite massively through gene-culture coevolution. As it turns out, social institutions probably exert massive pressure favouring prosocial genes and disfavouring antisocial genes in human groups (and those groups are most likely to prosper, thus their prosocial institutions proliferate). Selective mate choice and child neglect, altruistic punishment of deviants, etc, have probably acted on our genome in the same way that group-level selection more directly on genes would, that is, by favouring group-level adaptations (although individual selection is only at play, the selection pressures are moulded by norms aimed at "the good of the group"). It's very probable that our innate social psychology was shaped by culture, favouring group-level adaptations since we tend to reward those who are good for the group, and punish (imprison, execute) those who deviate. Hope that makes any sense.
Thanks for sharing! I find your explanation both plausible and compelling. Of course, unless we can identify the specific genes and mechanisms involved, such explanations are always in danger of being labeled just-so stories. Also, I myself am more of a pragmatist, and am more concerned with what we can do with what we know now to solve specific problems than theoretical contributions (:
You have "we" addressed three times in the final sentence. Who does this "we" refer to?
Hi Daniel, I wrote it as a broad appeal to the human race, which on hindsight is hilarious, since only the tiniest of tiniest fraction of humans living today will read this.
Best,
Yen