Evaluation of Evolutionary Theory of Altruism and the Role of Genes-a Modern View
Evaluation of Evolutionary Theory of Altruism And The Role Of Genes-A Modern View
Background:
Evolutionary theory holds that organisms with the strongest genes for survival and reproduction do, in fact, survive and reproduce most successfully. They thus multiply their genes most widely, spreading the advantageous genes through whole populations. Ceaseless repetitions of the process can gradually transform species into totally new ones. Such a world seems to have no place for self-sacrificing types, who presumably couldn’t spread their genes very far. Several competing theories attempt to solve the puzzle. One is that groups with cooperative members out compete groups with selfish ones, and thus spread their niceness genes, in a scaled-up version of the process by which genetically favored individuals trump other individuals. Variants of this notion have gained popularity in the past decade, although it fell from favor earlier, as it has some trouble explaining how altruism got a foothold in the first place. The origin of altruism and cooperation is an enigma because evolutionary theory seems to predict such behavior should be rare or nonexistent. Yet some forms of altruism, conscious or not, are widely documented in creatures as humble as insects and bacteria. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the evolution of aiding others in two general ways: 1. It argues that genes favoring altruism can spread in future generations if their costs to altruists ' personal reproductive success is outweighed by the benefits in reproductive success of altruists ' relatives carrying copies of the same genes ( 'kin selection '). The ratio of these indirect benefits through relatives, versus costs to oneself, needs to be greater the less closely the altruist is related to those helped - i.e., the lower the likelihood the altruist will be helping copies of their genes in the other. 2. It proposes that genes favoring altruism could spread if the altruism is sufficiently
Background:
Evolutionary theory holds that organisms with the strongest genes for survival and reproduction do, in fact, survive and reproduce most successfully. They thus multiply their genes most widely, spreading the advantageous genes through whole populations. Ceaseless repetitions of the process can gradually transform species into totally new ones. Such a world seems to have no place for self-sacrificing types, who presumably couldn’t spread their genes very far. Several competing theories attempt to solve the puzzle. One is that groups with cooperative members out compete groups with selfish ones, and thus spread their niceness genes, in a scaled-up version of the process by which genetically favored individuals trump other individuals. Variants of this notion have gained popularity in the past decade, although it fell from favor earlier, as it has some trouble explaining how altruism got a foothold in the first place. The origin of altruism and cooperation is an enigma because evolutionary theory seems to predict such behavior should be rare or nonexistent. Yet some forms of altruism, conscious or not, are widely documented in creatures as humble as insects and bacteria. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the evolution of aiding others in two general ways: 1. It argues that genes favoring altruism can spread in future generations if their costs to altruists ' personal reproductive success is outweighed by the benefits in reproductive success of altruists ' relatives carrying copies of the same genes ( 'kin selection '). The ratio of these indirect benefits through relatives, versus costs to oneself, needs to be greater the less closely the altruist is related to those helped - i.e., the lower the likelihood the altruist will be helping copies of their genes in the other. 2. It proposes that genes favoring altruism could spread if the altruism is sufficiently
References: Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, W. D. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211, 1390–1396 (1981). Bachner-Melman, I. Gritsenko, L. Nemanov, A.H. Zohar, C. Dina, R.P. Ebstein, 2005. Dopaminergic polymorphisms associated with self-report measures of human altruism: a fresh phenotype for the dopamine D4 receptor. Mol. Psychiatry 10, 333-5. de Waal, F. B. M. (1989). Food sharing and reciprocal obligations among chimpanzees. J. Hum. Evol. 18: 433-459. Dawkins, Richard (1976), The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Elias-Bachrach, G, 2005, Source: The Jerusalem Repor Goldschmidt, Walter Haldane, J. B. S. 1955. ‘Population Genetics.’ New Biology 18: 34–51. Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, 2006; The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 20 Knafo A, Israel, A Moore, J. (1984). The evolution of reciprocal sharing. Ethol. Sociobiol. 5: 5-14. Neimark , J, 2006; Why Giving Feels So Good, Issue: January/February 2006 from WEB Post, Stephen G. (2003). Unlimited Love: Altruism, Compassion, and Service. Conshohocken, PA, Templeton Found Pusey, A Sober, E. and Wilson, D.S. (1998), Unto Others (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Trivers, R. L. Evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46, 35–57 (1971). Wilson, Edward. O. (1975), Sociobiology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).