War, what is it good for? It made us less selfish
Scientists explain how altruism evolved over 200,000 years of conflict
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
One of the defining characteristics of being human is the supreme act of personal sacrifice needed to lay down one's life for the good of the group – but could such altruism be hard-wired in our genes as a result of Darwinian evolution?
Biologists have argued for decades about the evolution of altruism and long ago came to the conclusion that Darwinian natural selection cannot explain acts of supreme personal sacrifice except those directly connected with helping the survival of close blood relatives who share similar genes.
But now a study has suggested that altruism in prehistoric human societies may after all have resulted from a form of natural selection caused by a state of near-continual warfare between competing tribes of hunter gatherers, an idea that Charles Darwin himself first suggested in his 1873 book The Descent of Man.
A scientist has suggested that because so many of the 200,000 years of human history were spent during our hunter-gatherer phase, before the invention of agriculture, less than 10,000 years ago, this long period in our evolutionary history shaped our social behaviour. Moreover, he believes that altruism may have evolved directly as a result of tribal warfare because personal sacrifice was the key that enabled one group to be victorious over another.
Samuel Bowles, of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, said: "Warfare was sufficiently common and lethal among our ancestors to favour the evolution of what I call parochial altruism, a predisposition to be co-operative towards group members and hostile towards outsiders.
"Biologists and economists have doubted that a genetic predisposition to behave altruistically – to help others at a cost to oneself – could evolve, excepting the help extended to close genetic relatives."
In his study, published in the journal Science, Dr Bowles takes on the proponents of the selfish-gene theory of human evolution by suggesting that natural selection worked on groups of people co-operating together, rather than just individuals.
Drawing on archaeological data from the Stone Age and ethnographic studies of latter-day tribes of hunter-gatherers, Dr Bowles concluded that it was possible for altruism to have evolved by Darwinian selection – if the warfare was intense enough between competing tribes and there were sufficient genetic differences between these human groups.
He has showed that genetic differences between human groups were indeed greater than previously thought, and that warfare was a near-continual activity that must have shaped early human social behaviour. As a result, altruistic acts of personal sacrifice helped one group to survive in favour of another, he said.
Dr Bowles said that the "altruistic warrior" theory is just one scenario that could explain the evolution of altruism in early human societies. "[The] willingness to take mortal risks as a fighter is not the only form of altruism... more altruistic and hence more co-operative groups may be more productive and sustain healthier, stronger, or more numerous members, for example, or make more effective use of information," he said.
Ruth Mace, an anthropologist at University College London, said Dr Bowles' study went against the accepted idea of the selfish-gene theory which long ago rejected the proposal that natural selection worked at the level of the group rather than the individual.
"Recent literature on social evolution has reopened the debate, arguing that in some circumstances group selection might be important, especially in a cultural species like humans," she said.
In a separate study published in Science, scientists proposed that a key driver that led to the evolution of the other defining attributes of being human – such as sophisticated tool making and the development of art and culture – resulted from population growth rather than biological changes.
Scientist from University College London say they believe the sudden emergence of human cultural traits such as art came about when population density passed a certain threshold, allowing the free exchange of ideas.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I think you missed the point.
Despite what you seem to think, the study wouldn't actually have been conducted in order to encourage warfare.
Nor is anyone likely to read this study and say "great lets have a war then" (but thanks for raising the moral alarm on this just in case).
Whether you find the implications unpleasent or not doesn't effect the scientific truth. In actual fact it sounds like the jury is still out on if this one.
In the mean time, try not to let your opinions colour your judgement and refrain from insulting US with your drivel.
Also, "fighting is often a form of male self harm"?? What kind of new age rubbish is that? You sound like a sexist pig (yes you heard me).
Warfare came with the agriculture and the age of empires - relatively recent in evolutionary terms.
There is an argument that much of the worst behaviour comes from collective societies, and that these function as though they are a new class of collective organism, with their own collective behaviour patterns.
Much of the dysfunctional behaviour of certain individuals comes from the intense pressure of adapting to life within such collective societies. particularly modern industrial socieities.
I am optimistic about human nature - I think socieities only work at all because human beings are fundamentally cooperative - think of what life in cities would be like if we really did live by selfishness alone.
Certain classes of people do seem to live by selfishness. The fact that such people are prevalent in the upper strata, as the guiding force of society, is indicative of the guiding forces of society.
And this article implies that one will sacrifice themselves for the good of their group, yet we see in humanity that an individual will sacrifice himself for another individual who is completely different from them.
Another study published in the last week also implied that differences are an attraction. The genetic differences between human beings today are less than 1%.
Altruism is an inherent characteristic of humanity.
All of us share the DNA of an ancient mother. So the group survival theory doesnt make sense. The other fact the article misses is that not only are humans will to sacrifice their lives, humans are also generally build with selfless traits.
Many children will readily help or share with strangers without gain. Obviously, society changes this in us so that we become selfish and look after number1 as we grow up. Modern society has gone to the other extreme, we are now in the era of "me, me, me" and selfgratification. The needs of the society are far less important.
"One of the defining characteristics of being human is the supreme act of personal sacrifice needed to lay down one's life for the good of the group."
Other animals show such characteristics, especially other primates. See the books of Franz deWaal on his work with primates who demonstrate reciprocal altruism. It is a necessary survival strategy. And birds too will sacrifice themselves for their young.
RT
www.online-privacy.vze.com
Not once in the original publication is the word "selfish" to be found! Just as he reworks the older 'mimeme' to sound more 'sciencey' so to does he introduce the idea of selfishness to explain something more complex ... the 'gene-centred approach' to adaptation.
I beleive it borders on academic fraud, yet we, as this article, treat it as a foregone conclusion. In the spirit of the original publication and older idea ... 'gene-centered' rather than 'self-centred' means something entirely different.
Altruism, co-operation, an interest in other cultures and ideas was just as much a part of survival as "selfishness". Science must remain neutral on such things rather than making value judgements.
Ozwoz
and on the subject of war lets not give in to feelings of optimism just because you (the writer living in a well developed nation) got your cup of coffee this morning and started cooking up fake stories such as this. this sounds very much along the lines of Stephen PInker's idea that acts of terro**** are a sign of progress in civilisation as it can be looked at as localised violence. Violence is not means to an end. there is no going back now, what was commited many years ago will have repercusions in the future. western society is evolving on the fact that giving way to violence (war), hate, selfishness under the illusion of competition is progress for society!!!???
so now the credit crisis, or whatever is proof that we are nations with serious debt and little heart
I would really like to see these less selfish and more altruistic people that have emerged from all this history.
For every man has their own life as their history, we can read about it in books but it is not the same. like most if you dont follow your heart and continue to act like as ape (whatever!) you will give in to a meaningless life where you wash your brain (hands) with more violence, hate and selfishness.. because the heart cannot live with such things and your end will be for nothing. it is not in our nature to go to war or be selfish, it is to follow your heart and save/preserve the world a little bit more