Inclusive Fitness Theory

I have issues with humans' inability to get along with each other.

All I want is for people to be nice, and respect one another, and not kill or do harm or otherwise intentionally ruin other people's lives.

Historical precedent would suggest, however, that this is unlikely to happen.

But don't despair: there is a spark of hope, in the form of a evolution theory known as 'inclusive fitness theory.'

The basic principle of inclusive fitness theory (or IFT, as I will hereafter refer to it) is that organisms can improve their genetic success through altruistic social behavior. Biologists have long been perplexed by the behavior of animals who help their kin at the risk of their own lives, as this selfless behavior does not fit under the survival-instincts-only theory based in Darwinism. IFT explains this behavior through overall, not personal genetic succession. There is a much better chance of genes surviving if everyone looks after everyone else in the family, and not just themselves.

For example: vampire bats live in huge colonies of thousands of bats, and feed only on blood. They have a remarkably fast metabolism, and so must feed at least every two days, or they will die. They also only emerge at night. This poses a problem, as they cannot guarantee finding food every night. However, the bats share: if a bat is unable to find food, it finds a bat who did find food. The two bats clamp mouths, and the food is distributed between them. This is how the colonies are able to thrive, and the species to survive. If not for the generous behavior of the bats, they would die off very quickly. Therefore, sharing ensures the survival of the species.

In 1964, W. D. Hamilton proved mathematically that a gene and/or species can increase its evolutionary success by promoting the survival of the entire group with that gene or within that species, not just the survival of the individual. Hamilton's rule states that rb > c, where r is the probability (above the species average) of the individuals sharing a gene (commonly known as the 'degree of relatedness', b is the reproductive benefit of the recipient of the altruistic behavior, and c is the reproductive cost to the altruist.

In "Kin and Kind", a New Yorker article about IFT by Jonah Lehrer, he describes the conflict arising from this equation, and this theory. A whole lot of mathematicians are super upset about the alleged inconsistency of this equation (described in this paper), and a whole lot of scientists--particularly evolutionary biologists--are super upset that the mathematicians are getting super upset. As Lehrer describes, the conflict seems primarily to be rising from the different approaches taken: the math people are annoyed about the math used, and the science people are annoyed that the math people are getting bogged down in the math part when the science part is so much more important. IFT has offered all sorts of insights into natural selection theory (the current ruling evolution theory), especially as relating to social behavior and why animals do the things they do. If one removes IFT, one removes a whole lot of scientific theory in a field that had just about stopped making headway.

To me, IFT makes sense. I'm not a mathematician or an evolutionary biologist, but one of the theory's strong points is that it's just simple enough to seem true. However, it would seem that humans have too many other complex psychological things going on (as well as perhaps too many people in the species) for this theory to apply to them: none of us are particularly worried about our genes being carried on, as everyone around us shares 99% of our genes anyway. Which is unfortunate, because maybe if we had more riding on each other's lives, we'd take better care of each other. But oh well.

My only other problem with IFT is a point made by Lehrer:

"The controversy [over IFT] is fuelled by a larger debate about the evolution of altruism. Can true altruism even exist? Is generosity a sustainable trait? Or are living things inherently selfish, our kindness nothing but a mask? This is science with existential stakes."

If IFT is to be believed, there is no such thing as true altruism. If we do anything for each other, it's purely a survival instinct. We as humans like to believe that we're deeper and more meaningful than that, that we love people because we love them, not because they're best suited to survive; that we help people because we're nice, not because we're ensuring the survival of our own genes. But IFT would suggest that none of that is true, and we are all living under the influence of our genes, who are greedy bastards longing to live on.

To be honest, though, I don't mind if that's true. Even if it's just for our genes, the fact that we are altruistic and loving at all is something to be happy about.