Evolutionary Psychology

A recent piece in the New York Times addresses the issue of altruism, one of the most central issues which Evolutionary Psychology theorists seek to explain in terms of inherited traits.  If the 'goal' of living is to reproduce your genes, then why would anyone ever help someone else at a cost to themselves?  Every human should think and act along the lines of "every man for himself" in order to ensure that their genes (and not yours!) get passed on to further generations, right?  Isn't that what "survival of the fittest" means?!

Actually, not quite.  A common misconception regarding evolutionary theory is that it refers to individuals' genes, traits, motivations, etc, when in fact it refers to our entire species.  Imagine that every individual human cared only about their own wellbeing - not much of a stretch for some - and was willing to steal or kill for personal benefit; as a group, we'd likely kill ourselves off fairly quickly.  There's a reason that we say "there's safety in numbers"; but only if the threat isn't also coming from within the group.  And that's where altruism comes in.

The general Evolutionary Psychology consensus is that our development of altruistic tendencies (or, similarly, non-human animal tendencies such as adopting orphaned animals of other species and nursing the sick or injured ) occurred in conjunction with our development as a social species.  Essentially, altruistic behavior supports the group and increases its fitness, while the structure of the group protects the individual (from saber toothed tigers and stuff) and allows them to live long enough to reproduce.  It's symbiotic!

But, like everything in science, it's not quite that simple.  Debate is currently raging over kin selection, or the altruistic process of helping your relatives at a disadvantage to yourself.  A 1964 paper on evolution by British biologist Dr. William Hamilton explained this phenomenon not in a social fitness way, but through the idea of shared genetics.  Dr. Hamilton's paper's argued that because siblings share genes, an individual of any species may protect and care for their siblings' offspring, rather than having their own, because of the possibility that the offspring actually carries a significant portion of their genes.  Essentially, he is arguing that nieces and nephews are close enough, genetically, to daughters and sons to warrant the devotion of resources and attention, as an attempt to get one's own genes passed on.  In support of this argument, Dr. Hamilton considered some types of social insects (such as ants and wasps) and their infertile females, which actually share more genetics with their sisters than with their brothers.  In this case, it is may be more beneficial for the females to focus on their sisters' offspring than to worry about having their own; their genes will be passed along either way!

A group of rival scientists, however, are arguing that ideas of kin selection and other types of special conditions are needlessly complicating natural selection, which explains altruistic phenomenon equally well. They believe that the problem is one of perspective.  Instead of worrying about the motovations of the worker ants, "...we should put ourselves in the queen’s perspective. They offer a mathematical model suggesting how natural selection could produce offspring that stay at a queen’s nest. If she produces daughters that stay in the nest, she can spend more time laying eggs, rather than hunting for food to feed her young".  Of course, this new theory of altruism, which asks us to consider the motivations of the parent as manifest in the behavior of their offspring, has it's share of opponents.  According to one evolutionary biologist at Oxford University, this way of thinking is "just patently wrong", because it does not focus on genetic differences between genders and different numbers of offspring according to gender.

Either way, no matter which perspective the field eventually decides on, there will surely be some future scientist who comes along and decides to disprove it; that really is the scientific method.

What do you think?  Why do people adopt children?  Why do they risk their lives to help others?  Is it to make the 'group' stronger and more stable, or is there something else at play?  Which came first, the group or the altruistic member of the group?