Evolutionary theory, the idea that life has developed through modification and adaptation on earlier forms suggests that through natural selection, the process by which successful adaptations will be transferred from one generation to the next while unsuccessful ones will not, this " altruistic " behaviour should have been replaced by more adaptive behaviour.
Although altruism, the unselfish concern of an individual for the welfare of another seems to contradict evolutionary theory and natural selection, it has been suggested that actually it may be a mechanism developed to increase one " s reproductive success.
In terms of evolution, reproductive success or fitness is viewed as the ability of the individual to pass on his/her genes onto the next generation thereby ensuring their survival in the gene pool. William Hamilton suggested that altruism actually might be advantageous if the behaviour was directed at individuals that were sharing a large proportion of the their genes, therefore still increasing the likelihood of reproductive success.
Any two members of the same species share up to 90% of their genes, however close relatives, brothers for example, can share up to 50% of their genes above this threshold. So an altruistic act aimed at close relatives could be designed to maximise reproductive success within the family gene pool. This kind of behaviour favoured towards family members is known as kin selection.
When viewed from the perspective of the " gene " , this type of behaviour no longer seems selfless, but rather can be seen as a kind of " gene selfishness " . For example, if a Brother runs into a burning building to save the lives of his parents and little sister and is killed in the process, he has sacrificed 100% of his own genes but saved one and a half times his genetic make-up through the well-being of his family, i.e. 50% of his genes from each relative. As the distance of relation decreases so does the likelihood of genetic similarities and so more individuals would need to be saved in order to make the altruistic behaviour advantageous. Which is why in everyday life we commonly see altruistic behaviour directed towards close relatives, parents, brothers, children etc. “ What is at stake is not the survival of individual organisms but the survival of the genes carried by those organisms ” .
It can " t be expected that individuals during times of emergency are making complicated calculations on genetic make-up, but as a sportsman might make seemingly numerable split-second calculations, so is some unconscious process being evoked during altruistic acts.
In some circumstances it may even be advantageous to direct behaviour towards someone that is not as closely related but has a better prospect of living, e.g. it may be genetically irresponsible to save a brother who is terminally ill and will die anyway as opposed to a cousin that is young, fit and healthy. So in these terms kin selection can also been seen as weighing the odds against statistical risks of death . If altruism was solely aimed at relatives then it would be easy to explain in terms of kin selection and evolutionary theory, but how can we account for altruism between non-kin relations?
Trivers defined this type of altruism as reciprocal altruism. That is behaviour in the hope that someday the favour will be returned. So an act that benefit " s the recipient now, but puts the actor at a disadvantage may someday be returned therefore promoting reproductive success in the long term.
“There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that, like reconciliation, altruism may be an important and frequent form of social behaviour which serves to ensure social cohesion ”
This type of reciprocal behaviour can also be found in the animal kingdom. Particular species of birds require each other to remove potentially deadly ticks from parts of their bodies that they cannot reach themselves, although the act of removing a tick seems small nonetheless some valuable time and energy has been used. The actors " grooming " behaviour is advantageous in the knowledge that someday the favour will be returned.
However, this behaviour only becomes advantageous with the " knowledge " that the favour will someday be returned. With such a potentially long period between giving and receiving, can the idea truly be evolutionarily plausible? G.C. Williams determined that this reciprocal altruism could evolve if the species were capable of identifying each other as individuals. So then a sort of social conscious comes in to play.
Of course it takes an incredible amount of trust on behalf of the actor to do such a favour in the " hope " that someday it will be returned. But in evolutionary terms, if the favour was not reciprocated at an appropriate moment, the original beneficiary could potentially harm his/her prospects for future reproductive success. Indeed reciprocal altruism seems an important, if not crucial aspect of society.
A popular analogy used to demonstrate reciprocal altruism is the Prisoner " s Dilemma. The dilemma sees two prisoners locked up separately. The problem is posed that if both prisoners remain quiet then they will receive lighter sentences, however if one of them talks then they will get off lightly whilst the other prisoners will be given a much harsher sentence. It is easy to act selfishly or non-altruistically but then in the future if they need a favour from the other prisoner they will be at his/her mercy.
Although at the outset altruism can be seen as selfish or self promoting behaviour on closer inspection and reference to evolutionary theory the opposite seems to be true. Hamilton ' s theory of kin selected altruism is perfectly viable when you take away our individuality and look upon us with a more holistic viewpoint.
As with kin selection, reciprocal altruism seems also to be an important facet of life. It would appear very difficult to live in a selfish society and as emphasis is more and more placed onto society as opposed to the individual, this type of behaviour has evolved as an essential characteristic for survival.
If you think seriously about altruism and what it means to be altruistic you can come to some very disturbing conclusions. If we are no longer acting on our own accord but rather governed by underlying evolutionary principles then the very nature of who we are and what it means to be human comes into question.
