The father of sociobiology, Edwin
O Wilson has changed his view on the importance of groups in
evolutionary terms. From the 1960's there has been a consensus
amongst sociobiologists that significant evolutionary pressure
comes only through the individual and his genes. Wilson and his
co-author have now however concluded that although the individual
is important, the group to which the individual belongs can actually
be equally important - as Darwin originally proposed. One group
can outdo another by reason of its members' willingness to co-operate
and thus favour the quality of life of its members and therefore
their reproductive prospects.
- Wilson
quotes in support, however, a study about lions. Female lions
of the same pride share a territory, but only some of them actively
defend it. If there are too few, the territory will be lost.
If enough cooperate in its defence, their territory is maintained.
According to the study, the defenders do not gain any special
benefits from their activity, except for those of being a part
of a successful group but then, so do their less active companions,
the freeloaders of the pride, as there is no penalty for not
taking part in the defence of the territory. We see in this the
paradox that the best strategy for the individual is nonetheless
to be selfish, a free-loader in a co-operative society where
most of the others act altruistically for the greater good.
So are we like the lions? Well obviously there are people who
do things more or less altruistically for the benefit of society
and others who let them do it. But in human society (and in groups
of some other primates) there is another important factor,
which redresses the balance in favour of the altruists. It
is a wish for fairness,
for fair play. And
my guess is that it developed as a means of improving the success
of society, by encouraging altruism amongst its members. Of course,
by altruism I mean doing things for the benefit of others in
the general expectation that others will do things for you at
some time in the future. If someone acts altruistically towards
me, I will feel it only fair that I should act in a similar way.
Clearly, however, the tendency to act altruistically or fairly
is not the same in everyone. It is for that reason, I would suggest,
that the human race has gone one step further by evolving legal
systems which are, in principle, based on fairness. The altruists
are getting even - they are fed up with being taken for granted
and have brought the lawyers in.
-
- So
then, the law of contract, for instance, is based on the premise
that it would be unjust i.e. unfair for someone to take advantage
of a bargain entered into without doing what he had undertaken
to do in return. The criminal law imposes fairness (justice)
by punishing people who steal from us or by penalising those
who drive so carelessly that they endanger others. Fairness
demands that damages be paid for injury caused by your negligence.
We are willing, altruistically, to give money to charity but
also to vote for governments which will levy redistributive taxes
to support those less well-off than ourselves, but we get very
upset if we find that people are playing the system. It’s
not fair. Neither will we vote for governments which want
to go too far in redistribution. We see it as fair that those
who work should benefit from doing so.
-
- Which
seems to mean that the aspects of fairness which we judge to
be essential to our lives are a part of our legal system - we
enforce fairness. And it seems to me that this makes sense
from an evolutionary point of view, because societies which have
under-developed or corrupt (i.e. unfair) legal systems are mainly
less successful economically. As we have found with the European
accession states, a sound legal system is necessary for economic
development and all the advantages that brings with it.
As we have seen, altruism tends to give a survival benefit to
the particular group within which it is practised and other groups
will suffer accordingly. However, we now have a major global
problem to solve - the problem of the greenhouse effect,
something which is placing a considerable strain on our altruistic
tendencies as well as what underpins it, our sense of fairness.
We are asked to work for the advantage not of our group, but
for mankind as a whole. We are asked to give up advantages
we already have so that other societies can develop, whilst at
the same time preventing too great an increase in total carbon
emissions. It will take a lot of persuasion. It goes
against the grain. On the other hand, we have over the
centuries managed to bring different tribes together to form
nations (in other words supergroups) with citizens who now work
together reasonably co-operatively. The question is - can
we now begin to bring different nations together to form a world?
Footnote:
The article referred to the occasion when Rabbi Hillel was
asked to explain the Torah in the time that he could stand on
one foot, he replied: "Do not do unto others that which
is repugnant to you. Everything else is commentary." Wilson
then offered this one-foot summary of sociobiology's new foundation:
"Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups
beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary."
As commentary, I would add that, in human society, fairness and
its incorporation into the law gives a considerable amount of
advantage back to altruists within groups and takes it away from
the selfish.
To read the original article follow this link -
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19626281.500-evolution-survival-of-the-selfless.html
|