This essay, among several lost others, were prepared for an Honors class which focused on the Philosophy of Evolution or something of that sort. The class was incredibly interesting, the challenge was in the writing style expected of the students. Thus far, the english composition essay format practiced ad nauseam always included no "I" writing, no skimping of verbiage, and no outright listing of intentions or repetition. Philosophical writing, much like writing in any other discipline, necessarily requires some stylistic changes. Unfortunately for my grade in the class, these changes had to be learned, polished, and applied on the run. Of the writing styles with which I am familiar, it is my personal belief that the Philosophical style of writing is a bit too repetitive and windy.
Human Altruism: A Social Remnant
From Simpler Times
By: Nathaniel E. Kistner
Final Essay submitted in partial fulfillment
Of requirements for Hon 3010
Dr. Robert Northcott
Altruism: A Social Remnant From Simpler Times
For several centuries now, psychology has been trying to explain why humans have the capacity for the hatred, evil and outright nastiness that we naturally do. We kill, torture, steal, rape and wage all-out war against people whom usually we have never so much as said a word to. It would seem, however, that after behavioral science got tired of trying to figure out the complex puzzle of human egoism, that someone stood up and asked the opposite question: what about altruism? Just as sure as each action has an equal and opposite reaction, such is the same for the ambivalence inherent in human behavior. Sure humankind can be terribly nasty to one another, but at the same time, most individuals can go out of their way to be quite nice to one another, often again, to people that they have never met and will most likely never see again. Basically, the question that is now baffling the most inquisitive minds is why are we nice to one another? Ever? I believe that the answer lies primarily in the genes, and I will elaborate why. Of course nobody these days has the technology to pick out a specific gene, hang it up and say: “yes, that there is the ‘nice guy’ gene, we’ll just have to mark that one”, but there are several evolutionary clues within the history of humankind, our behavior and the history of our nearest brethren in the animal kingdom that can help us out along the way. In this paper I plan on illuminating for you just a bit, the word “Altruism”, and from there talk a bit about social species and exactly how altruism is selected for. Next, I will explore on how altruism goes from a simple programmed behavior to an actual decision, and how we feel about it. Next I will visit a bit with our closest evolutionary brethren, the Chimps and the Bonobos and compare their behavior to our own before closing with a few remarks.
Before going on too wild a tangent talking about human altruism, let us go ahead and distinguish it from everything else by defining its opposite: egoism. Egoism is the proposal that all human behavior at its core, no matter what the behavior, can be boiled down to the human need do what’s good for oneself- looking out for your “number one”. Egoists believe that no matter how seemingly selfless the behavior is on the surface, there is an ultimately selfish reason for it. For example, if you hold a door for somebody on your way out, you only did it because it made you feel good, or because secretly, your hoping that the individual that you helped will eventually reciprocate in some way, whether you know them or not. An egoist would look at the life of someone like Mother Theresa and say that all of her good works were to keep her religious mind from tearing her apart with guilt on a daily basis, not because it made other people happy. This may seem a bit on the pessimistic side, but this is how an egoist would define most behaviors, as ultimately self serving. This school of thought hinges upon the idea of the “selfish gene”, a concept that ultimately crops up in any discussion about the philosophy of biology or genetics. The concept of the “selfish gene” is the idea that any single gene has the ultimate goal of furthering its existence and the existence of its copies and hang any other version of said particular gene. From a Darwinian point of view, any such gene is not only wonderfully well constructed but stands to be selected for more often than other, less “selfish” genes. So since humans have grown to be so massive, so dominating a species, then they must have adapted at least slightly more successfully than virtually any other species, right? And since ultimately, (at least from a Darwinian perspective), we are just the product of all of our genes, then we must ultimately be terribly selfish creatures, made up of nothing but selfish genes. Advocates of the school of altruism do not deny the existence of “selfish genes”, nor even selfish behavior, but they do insist that there can exist something more beyond that (Batson 4).This is because humans have the capacity for altruism, sometimes to the point of taking themselves out of the gene pool for good, and such behaviors simply do not fit into an egoist perspective. In fact, for some time many kept the realm of altruism restricted only to behaviors ending in self sacrifice, (Campbell 1975, 1978; Hatfield, Walster and Piliarin, 1978; Krebs, 1970,1982; Midlarsky, 1968; Wispe 1978), these would cite examples of martyrs, heroes and such of the like to which the cost of their altruism is ultimately very high, often to the point of death (Batson 6). While these examples certainly cannot be discounted from the definition of altruism, to keep the definition limited only to such extremes makes it much more difficult to find altruism in daily life, much less to prove that it can ultimately be selected for in an evolutionary setting. Comte’s (1851-1875) concept of Altruism stated that altruism is: “any social behavior that was an expression of an unselfish behavior to ‘live for others’” (Batson 5). This definition works but is difficult to get a firm handle on. So far, the definition that I like best, and plan on adhering to throughout the duration of this work is that of Batson’s altruism, which holds that altruism: “…is a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare.” (6). I like it because the altruist doesn’t have to 1) kill themselves, 2)devote to much time to being altruistic 3) do a whole lot more than simply being nice, in order for this definition to still remain workable. Besides, all in all, the only reason why altruism is even questioned is because it crops up in so many small, daily ways. The question is not, “why hold a door for someone instead of blowing them away”, but rather: “why do we care whether or not that person ever makes it through the door at all if we don’t know them, and will never see them again?”
What makes altruism a difficult topic is the fact that only recently have evolutionary biologists began to allocate discussion to human altruism, and currently very little is allocated at all (Monroe 162). What’s more is that the relative empirical rarity of altruism could make it quite easy to simply be explained away as a genetic aberration or misfire, but it’s the persistence of altruism that makes this difficult (Monroe 161). Evolutionary biologists, however, cannot hope to solve the question of altruism without first building some theories about the evolution of social behavior, after all, if we were not social creatures, we would never have a chance of being altruistic. Only recently has any evolutionary theory of sociality even been explored as a central problem for modern evolutionary biology (Boorman 3).
Currently, in the world of the living, there are at least 1 million distinct animal species (and that is being conservative), and of those only a tiny fraction display anything close to what could be considered as true sociality (Boorman 2). A majority of these species are limited to colonial insects such as termites and the nearly 7600 described species of ant (Boorman 4). In fact, of all the vertebrate mammal species, the ones that exhibit some of the most complex sociality are those belonging to the primate order (Boorman 4). Of all of the species currently living on earth, those which exhibit advanced social behavior, including humans and eusocial insects, are the most successful forms of biological organization that have ever existed thus far (Boorman 3). The social behaviors of most insects and even primates can hardly be called altruistic, however, and many would argue that most of these species (especially the eusocial insects) lack the mechanisms to endow them with the capacity to have inner motives at all. This is not the point though, because although these behaviors are not necessarily chosen behaviors, reflecting an altruistic state of mind, they are social and seemingly unlearned behaviors. Ants and other social insects are born knowing exactly their place, and exactly what to do, and go to work doing it immediately. This is perhaps because along the way, somewhere, there were genes that were selected for those particular patterns, and individuals lacking those certain genes were left in the evolutionary dust. Could this not also be the reason for altruism to exist today? After all, in most cases, altruism can be extraordinarily helpful, and must have been even more so in days long past in the history of human evolution. The fact that it exists today may simply be because at one time, it was selected for, and since then, it has not been selected against. This would quite clearly make a good case for why altruistic behavior occurs in such a wide range of frequencies and propensities. Simply put, once we needed it, now we don’t but it doesn’t hurt to still have it. Surely are few martyr genetic lines that still exist today, but the lines for people who are “pretty nice most of the time” have no reason to have been selected against.
In the days of the old hunter-gatherer tribes, social groups were small, and to work together was to survive better. In fact, evidence suggests that 150,000 years ago, the struggle for survival endured by the earliest human tribes became so severe that war among groups was quite commonplace, and often took place over rights to foraging grounds or other food sources (Love thy…1). In these days of small tribal groups, such warfare could result in the destruction of entire local populations, wiping out entire groups of multiple genetic lines (Love thy…1). It is hypothesized by some evolutionary biologists that altruistic behaviors may have begun to evolve during this time, during which altruism may have conferred an overall survival advantage to the entire group. Altruistic behavior would theoretically greatly reduce the costs of inter-tribal combat, thereby helping to preserve an individual tribe’s numbers, making them more efficient at waging war (Love thy…2). For instance, let us assume that amongst a tribe is two families, (hopefully the tribe is much greater in number than just the two families but for now only two of them are our focus). Now let us assume that family A and family B’s primary males are both involved in a war between another clan, let us assume that B suffers a broken leg during combat, making it impossible for him to hunt or gather anything until it knits. Instead of this injury becoming fatal to B and all of B’s family and offspring, A and A’s family helps to take care of B and helps to feed B’s family until B is back into good condition. Now, instead of A being all alone, he still has B and B’s family, so that next time if A is the one that is hurt, A will have someone to cover for him and help nurse him back to health. Such altruism could also be applied to hunting, say, if A and B were this time out hunting, and came across a mountain lion. Now, mountain lions, unlike larger cats hunt and live almost completely in seclusion except for during mating season. Let us assume that the mountain lion attacks, and because it is alone, A and B both together stand a fighting chance against it. Assuming both win, their altruistic and cooperative genes stand to live another day to reproduce, whereas the mountain lion’s more solitary genes are lying out on the forest floor. A or B could have easily just ran off, leaving the other to keep the lion busy, but this would leave the lion alive to attack another day and possibly finish the job. Moreover, other members of the tribe, if aware of what happened, may be less inclined to help should a similar situation crop up. In this light it is easy to see how cooperative altruistic tendencies could have been selected for and began to adapt. But there is much more to altruism beyond simple cooperation and sociality, and there exists separate theories about several types of altruistic behavior.
Amongst selection theories for altruism there are three that are universally agreed upon: Kin selection, Reciprocity selection, and Group selection. We have already seen Group Selection in action just a bit earlier. Group selection acts if a specific population is divided into denes (reproductively separate “islands” as it were), and if a dene’s extinction were to take place, group selection acting through such extinction favors any gene that lowers the likelihood of the denes extinction (Boorman 5). Simply put, Group selection favors groups with genes that reduce their likelihood of extinction, whether it be a propensity for hunting, or working together, or caring for one another.
Kin selection is perhaps the most noticeable type of selection still active today. Kin selection is cuts its roots in Mendelian genetics and inheritance. According to Mendelian genetics, any brother and sister pairing shares 50% of the same genetic material, first cousins share 1/8, parent / offspring groups 1/4 and so on. Kin selection favors any set of genes that controls kin altruism behavior which benefits genetic kin at some cost to the individual altruist (Boorman 5). This type of selection considers a gene successful only if a significant number of genes is saved in relation to the amount put on the line by the altruistic individual. Basically, if you are protective of your kin, at least some of your genes will carry on even if your own full set does not.
Reciprocity Selection is second only to Kin selection in this day and age. According to the theory of Reciprocity selection, cooperative behavior on average increases the total fitness of both or all of the cooperative individuals (Boorman 5). This theory is called “reciprocal” because in most cases, both individuals gain from the partnership, and are successful if “average” fitness is increased, even if one individual’s fitness is slightly decreased. In this way selection favors genes which govern cooperation between individuals who need not in general be related at all (Boorman 5). It is possible that due to this sort of selection, humans were actually able to succeed past the hunter/gatherer roles that found the first humans on the lower rungs of the food chain in the beginning.
Our altruistic tendencies are not simply a product of genetic selection itself. Of course when dealing with any organism, just about anything boils down to genetics. But altruism, it would seem has several different origins. After all, we feel something when we do anything. We feel good when we help someone in need, and feel slight pangs of guilt when we do not (generally speaking). These feelings, Victor Johnston would say, are called primary feelings, emotions and hedonic tones of being pleasant or unpleasant which were naturally selected for reproductive success (Peters 334). Our feelings are based in our neurological and endocrine systems responses and are functions of different parts of the limbic system and the human brain (Peters 329). One such subdivision for instance is primarily concerned with flight-or fight responses, providing us with feelings such as fear, anger, and the vast spectrum of intensities that such feelings occur in. Depending on the circumstances in which these emotions occur, they can provide the individual with the necessary value system for learning to adapt to rapidly changing aspects of the environment and can provide that extra edge needed for survival (Peters 340). Just the existence of these systems and abilities are the very product of the survival to reproductive age, reproduction, and care for offspring plus the additional advantages resulting from altruistic and social behaviors of past generations up until today.
What about nurture though? We talked about the ‘nature’ side of altruism, what about ‘nurture’. Could we be altruists because we were raised that way? Clearly just about every human culture you could scrutinize today has it’s own code of morals, manners and taboos, and most of them are fairly similar to one another. So are we a product of our environments? Let’s look at some our genetically closest brethren, the chimpanzees, and the bonobos. Truly, our closest living relative in actuality is the bonobo, more so even than the chimpanzee. This is commonly overlooked however because the latter is famous for using tools, while the former is famous for promiscuous sex, not a favorite topic amongst evolutionary scientists most likely. Around 6-8 million years ago, it is surmised that our ancestors split genetically from the bonobo / chimp group and later became the first early humans (Kaplan 2). Shortly thereafter, the split formed between bonobo and chimp formed and they both went their separate ways. Amongst the differences between bonobos and chimps, are their differences in attitude. Chimpanzees are well known for their reputation for aggression and outright bloodshed and brutality (Kaplan 2). Chimpanzees are ruthless hunters with a taste for meat, often seen grabbing smaller monkeys and bashing them against rocks in their environment before feasting on their flesh. Chimps also war against one another for mating rights and often beat uncooperative females. Chimps are highly social but are lead by the males of their groups. The alpha of which is usually the biggest, strongest, and the most ruthless. Bonobos on the other hand are peacable, calmer creatures. Bonobos are docile, and are never aggressive or murderous towards one another. Their social groups are led by the females (who are generally slightly bigger) and they portray the characteristics of compassion, altruism, patience, empathy, and sensitivity (Kaplan 2). They spend much of their time embracing, cuddling and have far more casual sex than do the chimpanzees. In fact, when a group of chimpanzees meets a neighboring group, the result is often an all out war which usually leaves many individuals beaten and sometimes dead. In contrast, when neighboring groups of bonobos meet, the female members will engage the male members of the other group in casual sex. Lately, the question of the behavioral influence on these two types of primates is not one of genes, but more of surroundings. These two species have habitats which are so vastly different and separate that the two never meet under normal circumstances. The differences in their behavior are postulated to be rooted in their lifestyles. Chimpanzees’ natural habitats are full of hardships: difficult to obtain food sources, poisonous plants, and predators. By contrast, the bonobos lifestyles are relatively carefree, they have an abundance of food sources which meet their every dietary need nearby, and they are relatively easy to get to. Bonobos failure to use tools stems from the lack of necessity to. Could it be then, that the carefree, loving altruistic lifestyle of the bonobo is due in part to its habitat and not entirely to its genetics? Biological scientist are trying to solve this problem currently. However, the problem is proving difficult because switching these creatures to different habitats ruins the natural order of their lifestyle. Such is the difficulty that faces any question relating to behavioral biology, making it of the more difficult biological realms for scientists to handle.
My hypothesis is this: in days of yore, when humankind was skirting the line between extinction and survival, altruistic behaviors and the ability to work together to help one another survive are what put humankind over the hump and provided us with the extra boost needed to make it to the top of the food chain. Up until present day, it has not necessarily been strongly selected for, but it also hasn’t been selected against. This is why some people are more helpful than others, but everyone has some propensity to help out at least a little bit. Why are we altruistic these days when it does not confer any advantage to us now? The answer is: because we used to have to in order to make it as a species. Some of it hinges on some strange inborn need to help each other out, some because we feel good about doing it, and the rest may be due to our environment. Let’s face it, many societies have it pretty good when it comes to meeting and then surpassing basic human needs. So we can afford to help out because we have time to, it doesn’t always cost us much. Another hypothesis that may have some bearing is that we help out sometimes because we spend the rest of our time looking out for ourselves (Graeber 212). Each developed society in the world today has some type of money – based market. It is usually in those societies that we see the most “senseless” altruism (Graeber 213). Perhaps the existence of such constant selfishness is another reason for the existence of our altruism. After all that looking out for ourselves, maybe we just have to get a little altruistic behavior out of our systems.
Works Cited
Batson, Daniel C. The Altruism Question, Toward a Social-Psychological Answer.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey. 1991.
Boorman, Scott A; Levitt, Paul R. The Genetics Of Altruism. Academic Press, NY, 1980.
Graeber, David. “Army of Altruists”. Harpers Magazine. Essy 31. Jan. 2007.
Kaplan, Matt “Make Love, Not War”. New Scientist. 02624079, 12/2/2006, Vol. 192,
Issue 2580
“Love Thy Neighbour – So you Can Kill The Others Off”. New Scientist. , 02624079,
12/16/2006. Vol. 192, Issue 2582
Monroe, Kristen Renwick, The Heart Of Altruism- Perceptions of a Common Humanity.
Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. 1996.
Nichols, Shaun. Mindreading and the Cognitive Architecture Underlying Altruistic
Motivation. Mind & Language. Vol. 16 No. 4 September 2001, pp. 425-455
Peters, Karl E. Pluralism and Ambivalence in the Evolution of Morality. Zygon, vol. 38,
No. 2. June 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment