Debating altruism (an addendum to The Biology of Ubuntu)

Last spring, I gave a talk on the evolution of altruism for my living group, Ubuntu. Our namesake is the southern African philosophy of community. I am because we are, being one literal translation. With our social action organization full of members looking to devote their careers towards the benefits of others, I thought it relevant to explore the biological roots of such behavior in our student-lead talk series.

Why be nice? and Is altruism human nature? my prezi asked. It described how cold-hard biology explains the warm-fuzzies of helping others. To this end I employed two major theories: reciprocal altruism and kin-selection.

Well guys, I have an admission to make: I lied, at least by omission. I, like countless science advocates before me, simplified the picture for a streamlined presentation. The truth is that altruism researchers are often at odds with one another and ironically unable to cooperate.

Centrally, I consciously omitted what some see as the explanation for ultra-cooperative societies and human morality: Group-selection. I now offer amends. With a little background on the debate, hopefully it’ll be clear why I did this heinous thing.

Group selection is the idea is that some traits evolve because they are beneficial to the group as a whole. A hive with bees that sacrifice themselves in defense of the colony would out-compete a hive made up of selfish bees. Where other theories say the unit of selection is the gene (via the individual and their kin), here the group is selected for success or failure.

Group selection has been around a while (Darwin suggested its possibility). But back in the 60’s it was roundly dismissed from the table of serious science. However, group-selection has now reemerged with a vengeance, boasting a new “ecumenical name,” multilevel selection, and the backing of what most biologists fear: math.

In a 2010 paper, premier entomologist E.O. Wilson and biological mathematicians presented a model that they claimed refuted the long presumed evolutionary mechanism of kin-selection. In the wake of this thorough mathematical disassembling, they advanced multilevel selection as a paramount driver of social evolution.

The growing camp behind Wilson et al. would describe my presentation as the mainstream approach, unverified after decades of exploration. So why would I exclusively bind my talk to the crumbling scientific principles?

Responding to the original paper, over 130 scientists signed onto a protest that defended kin-selection and emphatically rejected group-selection. These scientists submitted what I was taught: the panoply of examples and explanatory powers of kin-selection.

I structured my presentation to deal first with the majority opinion (because what is science without the power of plurality?), and second with what I personally felt was familiar. I feared attempting to explain something that I, among others, understood minimally.

Around the time of my talk, I sat down with Dr. Ian Gilby who researches chimpanzee cooperative hunting and taught a course entitled, Why by nice? Asked about this recent controversy, he pointed out what he saw as the major issue: the biologists are missing the math and the mathematicians are missing the biology. Wilson’s model is so complex that scientists who have spent years working in kin-selection won’t even touch it.

These opponents assert that modelers must have incorporated some misconception of how organisms work. The problem is that those fluent in biology are unable to pick out the ostensible mistake in the mathematical language. This has left both sides entrenched in a debate cut along disciplinary as well as faction lines. Even when willing, participators are often unable to examine the other’s perspective.

It’s in this context that Wilson, who admits to not fully understanding the math, and friends have shifted their argument. In a recent essay (like a previous article), Wilson has taken the fight out of the elite peer-reviewed literature and down to the humble streets of the New York Times. Here, they have painted the picture of a fight between them, the little guys, against the establishment.

Wilson’s prose is captivating. As the author of two Pulitzer winners among other popular science books, he knows how to appeal to a broad audience. It’s also hard to disagree with someone who has helped found TWO of your academic fields (sociobiology and conservation biology).

However, I’m skeptical of these articles. This is science. We’re not rooting for teams. Why appeal to the masses over an enigmatic scientific debate? While Wilson’s colleagues surely appreciated his written advocacy for issues like conservation, I imagine it must now vex them, his less expressive rivals.

Not that the other side has been silent. A recent example is an essay by evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker, “The False Allure of Group Selection” on Edge.org.

These two essays are wickedly contrasting. Wilson links all that’s honorable about human nature to group-selection: “…individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue.” While Pinker does the opposite: “Many questionable claims are packed into the clustering of inherent virtue and the theory of group selection… virtue is equated with sacrifices that benefit one’s own group… If that’s what virtue consisted of, then fascism would be the ultimate virtuous ideology, and a commitment to human rights the ultimate form of selfishness.”

The two explicitly acknowledge that they are oversimplifying and analogizing. Despite these qualifications their words leave me, the undergraduate, perplexed. Isn’t science the world of objective analysis? Can’t we figure out the answers with some graphs and error bars? And what’s the deal with all this value weighted terminology thrown into public forums? There’s no activist issue on the line, like a researcher publicizing the behavior of an endangered species to gain conservation benefits. So why promote so publically?

Maybe it’s because these evolutionary psychologists understand something about how the human brain works. The appeal of facts and models only goes so far. We are creatures of creed and concept. By branding an idea with a loaded term like virtue, it can begin to carry positive associations. And, in order for an idea to resonate when we come across it in a journal, we must have already encountered it whether directly or through its permeation into the ethos.

Scientists are like musicians who might play a tune many times for small audiences before submitting it in front of a record company. Each essay and article is a straw-dog, provoking a reaction that gives feedback incorporated into future versions, but they also help chip away at our reservations. Not matter how objective we think we can be, we’re a lot more resistant the first time we meet a new idea than the fiftieth. An unfamiliar tune slips past unnoticed, but an oft-repeated one feels catchy and sticks.

Perhaps I did a disservice, passing on the opportunity to teach the controversy and open new minds to more possibilities than my own. However, I think my presentation was more cogent because I didn’t try to incorporate something I knew little about. I wanted to convey the scope of biology’s contribution to our humanity, the manner of that contribution was less important.

You’ll notice I’ve hardly even described group selection or the other theories! Well, I included some links. You can read both sides and make up your own mind. That’s much more exciting than having someone tell you what’s correct. It’s also better science, because science isn’t limited to journals the same way it isn’t restricted to sterile labs and test tubes. Science is multimedia, charged social-issues, and rabble-rousing. It’s as messy as any political election and often we can only make sense of it in the same way: reading as much as possible of everything that’s out there and discussing with friends or experts.

Science is debate, so it’s a good thing humans like to argue.

[Link to original presentation]