Is genuine altruism present in nature? Darwin proposed that natural selection drives evolution in nature.
While animals typically prioritize their own survival and reproductive fitness by acquiring traits, the notion of organisms behaving selflessly to benefit another member’s fitness sparks controversy. The idea that individuals would sacrifice themselves for the success of others is perplexing, especially considering Darwin’s emphasis on the survival of the fittest.
The concept of kin selection, which entails family members assisting each other for the collective advantage of the group, provides an explanation for altruism. Similarly, cooperation in nature can be seen as a manifestation of altruism because collaborating benefits the survival of the species rather than individual self-interest. In Mr. Allee’s research, it was determined that planarian worms have an increased probability of survival.
The text examines the influence of grouping on individual fitness and emphasizes the importance of kin selection and cooperation in promoting group survival. It raises doubts about whether these theories truly depict altruism in nature. The paper will present two contrasting theories on altruistic behavior—one proposing alternative reasons for altruistic actions and the other highlighting selfish behavior driven by survival instincts. Altruism is defined as a social behavior that decreases an individual’s fitness while increasing the recipient’s fitness.
According to Mr. (West), Darwin acknowledged the existence of functional help services among animals while believing in natural selection. He concluded that natural selection would promote socially interactive animals, as it allows for the development of beneficial traits that indirectly benefit the species as a whole at the group level.
Domondon’s review discusses how Darwin proposed a species where certain monkeys have a gene that allows them to signal alarms when predators are detected, while others do not have this gene. The monkeys with this gene will sacrifice themselves or engage in behavior that is costly in order to increase the survival of their group members and pass down the gene for alarm signaling. If these genes result in a higher reproductive success than groups without the gene, then this altruistic trait will be inherited, leading to more individuals with altruistic modifications. Hamilton introduced kin selection as another explanation for altruism.
Inclusive fitness, also known as kin selection, refers to behaviors in which an individual sacrifices its own well-being in order to assist its close relatives. It involves considering the fitness of both the individual and the entire group. According to West (year), inclusive fitness is most pronounced among closely related individuals, thereby leading to stronger kin selection.
Instances can be observed where sibling allomothers sacrifice time and effort to care for the offspring of a mother, greatly increasing the survival of the infant. As the offspring shares a third of the genes of the sibling allomothers, this increases their inclusive fitness. In other words, if the indirect benefits outweigh the direct cost inflicted upon the actor, kin selection will succeed. Therefore, species displaying altruistic behavior to help their relatives will increase the survival of the community. Additionally, reciprocal altruism provides a resolution to the issue of altruism.
The concept of individuals voluntarily providing services for each other while expecting reciprocal treatment later is associated with mutual benefit. This can result in enduring relationships where the benefits outweigh the temporary costs, as the behavior is reciprocated in a tit-for-tat manner (Silk 2007). Game theories offer understanding of such behavior; for instance, the Prisoner’s Dilemma presents a scenario in which two unrelated individuals have the option to cooperate with each other to achieve a favorable outcome. Conversely, one can choose to act selfishly for personal gain, while the other bears the full burden of costs.
The aim is to achieve equal cooperation and maximize fitness benefits for each participant. For instance, when encountering a predator, two monkeys have two choices: one is to flee and leave the other monkey as prey, and the other is to jointly attack the leopard in an attempt to overpower it and escape together. At this stage, the monkeys have to determine the most beneficial method for themselves. Nevertheless, if both monkeys successfully attack the leopard and survive, this trait is likely to be inherited.
Hence, while cooperation and reciprocal altruism may involve some costs, the benefits surpass these costs and greatly contribute to improved fitness. Is there genuine altruism in nature? Altruism is based on the assumption that an individual sacrifices its own time and resources to benefit another member’s success, posing a significant challenge in terms of evolution. Through natural selection, individuals acquire advantageous traits for their own survival. Additionally, evolution operates at the individual level, leading to the elimination of genetic traits unfit for survival.
If harmful genes result in a mutation within a species, such as an unattractive trait for the opposite sex, that individual will likely have reduced fitness. Natural selection will eliminate this trait. Therefore, animals that possess advantageous traits for reproduction and survival will continue to pass them on. This will enable them to outperform other species or adapt to favorable conditions, benefiting the survival of their kind. Mr. Allee proposed that altruistic genes can behave selfishly within a community. In such cases, the species should cooperate equally and exhibit selfless behavior that benefits the entire species.
Scientists have introduced the concept of potential cheaters, individuals who receive benefits without reciprocating or displaying altruistic behavior. This leads to a decrease in the population of altruistic genes, as genes promoting selfishness prevail over those promoting altruism. Selfish individuals gain advantages for their own survival without considering any drawbacks. Despite various resolutions to challenges related to altruism, it can be argued that altruism primarily serves the interests of the actor rather than solely benefiting the recipient.
Kin selection involves an individual behaving in a way that benefits their relatives, often at the expense of their own fitness. However, this behavior can be seen as selfish since it increases the chances of passing on their genetic traits. It makes sense for individuals to sacrifice themselves for the sake of saving multiple siblings or cousins, as it enhances the overall genetic fitness of their relatives. Acts of altruism are typically observed within closely related communities, assuming that any costly actions benefiting a group member will ultimately benefit the actor’s own genetic makeup and fitness. Despite its self-sacrificial nature, kin selection still motivates individuals to promote their own genetic survival.
In spite of this, kin selection does not support true altruism. If true altruism were to exist in nature, it would solely prioritize the interests of the recipient, rather than the individual themselves. However, kin selection theory explains altruistic behavior as a strategy developed by selfish genes to enhance the reproductive success of the recipient. Hence, the genes of the beneficiary indirectly contribute to the genetic survival of the actor.
The theory of reciprocal altruism challenges the notion of selflessness by suggesting that when an actor expects reciprocal behavior, it is essentially delayed selfishness. It is interesting to note that altruistic traits may appear at a group level, but ultimately drive individual selfishness. Those who act selfishly benefit more than those who incur costs selflessly, thus reintroducing selfish behavior into the population. So, does altruism exist in nature? Yes, there are instances where individuals assist others in improving their fitness at the expense of their own costs; however, these acts are not performed selflessly. Therefore, genuine altruism does not exist in nature.
True altruism, which involves performing acts without expecting any benefits in return and behaving supportively without seeking personal gains, is believed to not exist in nature.
