New York Times Book Review: How Evolution Explains Altruism

New York Times ^ | 04/10/2011

[SeekAndFind]

What do colon cancer, ant colonies, language and global warming have in common? This might sound like the front end of a joke, but in fact it’s a serious challenge to the standard view of evolution. Martin A. Nowak, the director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, has devoted a brilliant career to showing that Darwin, and particularly his followers, batted only two for three. Random mutation and natural selection have indeed been powerful motors for change in the natural world — the struggle for existence pitting the fit against the fitter in a hullabaloo of rivalry. But most of the great innovations of life on earth, Nowak argues, from genes to cells to societies, have been due to a third motor, and “master architect,” of evolution: cooperation.

“SuperCooperators” (written with Roger Highfield, editor of New Scientist magazine) is an absorbing, accessible book about the power of mathematics. Unlike Darwin with his brine bottles and pigeon coops, Nowak aims to tackle the mysteries of nature with paper, pencil and computer. By looking at phenomena as diverse as H.I.V. infection and English irregular verbs, he has formally defined five distinct mechanisms that have helped give rise to cooperative behavior, from the first molecules that joined to self-replicate, to the first cells that formed multicellular organisms, all the way to human societies, which exhibit a degree of cooperation unmatched in all creation. In Nowak’s view, figuring out how cooperation comes about and breaks down, as well as actively pursuing the “snuggle for existence,” is the key to our survival as a species.

[SeekAndFind]

Here's an example from the book of how Evolution explains Human Altruism ( NOTE: Not endorsing it, just sharing their presentation ):

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the heart of Nowak’s ideas is the haunting game of Prisoner’s Dilemma. The game involves two accomplices who are caught for a crime, interrogated separately and offered a deal. If one player incriminates the other, or “defects,” while the second remains silent, or “cooperates,” he will be given a sentence of one year, while the other player gets four. If both remain silent, they will be sentenced to only two years, but if both defect, they will receive three years. The rational choice for either prisoner is to defect, getting three years — though had both cooperated, they’d have been out in two. In the absence of trust, reason can be self-destructive.

[Christian Engineer Mass]

This might sound like the front end of a joke, but in fact [it's what passes for serious science in 2011]

Yep.

[SeekAndFind]

They don’t think it’s a joke, they’re quite serious.

In “SuperCooperators,” Nowak argues that two of his mechanisms, indirect reciprocity and group selection, played an important role in human evolution. Think of a proto-simian trying to figure out whether to trust another in an exchange: Should I provide sex now for food and protection later? The proto-simian may have observed the behavior of its prospective partner, or it may not have; chances are good that others have, though. Reputation becomes important. The proto-­simian evolves into a hominid, with a bigger brain allowing for more precise communication about reputation. Moral instincts evolve to produce shame, guilt, trust, empathy; social intelligence and conscience are born. Before you know it, Yogi Berra is summing it all up: “Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.” Language, cognition and morality, Nowak argues, are evolutionary spinoffs of the fundamental need of social creatures to cooperate.

[MNDude]

Believe it or not, they are serious about parrallel universes too!

[paudio]

Many game theorists allow themselves to jump from experimental economics results to policy, even though they know that those are tightly controlled experiments.

[pnh102]

[pnh102]

So let me see if I understand this. "Evolution" (or what these scientists call "evolution") dictates that only the species of life that is the most aggressive about advancing its own self-interests are the species that survive and lay the groundwork for future species.

So over the course of hundreds of millions of years that life has existed on Earth all species have had to follow this rule or they would not survive. Now all of a sudden we get to a situation where some of these species make a 180 degree U-Turn, do the complete opposite, and continue to propagate.

OK.

[PENANCE]

I don’t know what Nowak’s theory is based on; but I’ve always thought it nearly self evident that evolution can explain cooperation — but, “altruism” is a different thing altogether.

[pnh102]

... evolution can explain cooperation ...

Indeed. Animals will hunt in packs, but once the prey is killed, it is everything for itself.

[PENANCE]

Yes, any social animal has to have evolved to be social -- each individual's survival depends in part on the survival of the group. But, as you say, that doesn't stop competition within the species.

Real "altruism" on the other hand, seems to be a uniquely human trait & I don't think that evolution can account for it.