On the surface it would seem that according to the theory of evolution, there would only be selfish people in this world,since time and other resources spent helping other people could have been utilised to better ensure one's survival. However, consider this. Birds with brightly colored feathers are chosen over birds that have duller plumage when females choose their mates , even though brightly colored feathers would attract more predators, and brightly colored feathers serve no practical functions.
So why?
It would seem that bright coloured plumage serves as an indication of healthy genes. A bird with nice long bright tail feathers has actually managed to survive all the way to adulthood. One might attribute it to luck, but birds have had centuries to mate, and to be lucky for centuries, one would have had to beat mind-boggling odds.
So why not altruism as well? To actually survive in this capitalist world and still find it in oneself to go out to help others is not easy. It demonstrates a certain faith in one's ability to not only take care of oneself but also care for others as well.
One might argue that there are cases of people who are barely making enough to provide for themselves, who nonetheless still volunteer for community service or go out of their ways to help others and thus the claim that altruism is a desirable trait in natural selection cannot be true. But then, altruism is just a single trait. There are also cases of bright, intelligent people who have had health problems that ensured that they could only expect to live less than three years. Or cases of strong healthy individuals with the minds of three-year olds. Just because a trait is desirable does not mean an individual will succeed in life, it is the sum of his or her individual traits, rather than a single trait that ensures their success. Possessing an exceedingly strong desirable trait might even prove to be a hindrance, without other traits to complement it. Consider the case of a man who is exceedingly strong but who is unable to control and moderate his strength. He would face difficulties even for simple everyday tasks, that another person endowed with less strength would execute without even having to think through. Similarly, altruism without complementing traits might hinder an individual, but that still would not invalidate altruism as a desirable trait.
There are also those who argue that the act of giving itself gives people a feel-good factor, and thus it is not truly altruism, as a person gains from it. What difference is there from this feel-good factor from the feel-good factor we have when someone gives us genuine praise for our intelligence, our strength, our looks? Or from self-praise for a work well-done? It is the same thing. Just because there are no circumstances at this current moment that let me use my superior intellect doesn't mean I don't possess this trait. And I certainly have no reason to indulge in a feel-good factor about my intellect when nothing arises to remind me about it. The same can be said for altruism. It is still there, regardless of whether something happens, and the feel-good factor is independent of the trait itself.
To end, I would like to present this scenario. When a person sees someone drowning, and he jumps in to save the victim, he will almost certainly regret it later, when both of them are safe on the shore, and the victim has been sent off to some other place. Our hero will be cold, wet and miserable, he'll probably have forgotten to take out his hand phone, name cards, and anything else that couldn't survive the water. Chances are, it'll be hours later before he can get a fresh change of clothing and a nice bath. The feel-good factor that comes after is certainly not worth the loss. He would have been better off donating blood for the feel-good factor. I do know for a fact, that should he ever happen across another drowning victim, he'll still jump into the water without thinking, though perhaps he'll take out his hand phone this time. Because it is the right thing to do.
