Sergei Morozov
The nature of altruism. How it works?
Altruism is one of the most popular themes in
evolutionary psychology. It has been discussed for many decades, but nobody can
discern any appreciable progress. Now the idea that genes of altruism will be found
is popular. It is possible, but if a scientist
will know how to find and where to find, and above all what to find.
There is a set of phenomena, combined by term
‘altruism’. But these phenomena are different, have different nature and different
appearances. Motives for altruism can be both conscious and subconscious.
Now nobody has authority to say which altruism is true
and which is false. People have different upbringing, and some observers could
see altruism there where a doer has selfish motives.
Usually altruism needs a doer and an observer. Nobody
can say what pure altruistic behavior is. It is only possible to speak about
how some altruistic behavior is accounted by different observers and doers.
I’ll try to find exactly evolutionary components of
altruism. They must be some independent evolutionary adaptations, which to some
degree comply with notion of altruism.
This article will be built on classical scheme ‘Thesis
- antithesis - synthesis’. As a thesis I have taken mainly chapter ‘Altruism’
from Edward Wilson’s ‘On human nature’.
As antithesis I’ll use my book ‘Sex and
Rank’. I have chosen this Wilson chapter because it is well-known and was
not seriously criticized. My book ‘Sex
and Rank’ based on another book of Wilson, ‘Sociobiology’.
Some the other themes are taken from Wiki; Wiki
article is terrible, but it good enough for using because it consists of all
well-known wrong beliefs. Why it is a terrible will be shown below.
The task of finding altruism must be reformulated, not
‘what is altruism’, because nobody knows, but ‘what is called altruism’. Then
it will be possible to find ‘How it works’ and causes of altruism behavior.
And then, for the variants that can be found, it will be possible to try to find
evolutionary components.
Wilson’s definition of altruism:
Generosity
without hope of reciprocation is the rarest and most cherished of human
behaviors,
Generosity is a behavior. Altruism is a behavior.
Wilson divides altruism at ‘hard-core’ and ‘soft-core’
On human
nature: ...the bestower expresses no desire for equal return and performs no
unconscious actions leading to the same end. I have called this form of
behavior "hard-core" altruism, a set of responses relatively
unaffected by social reward or punishment beyond childhood. ...
"Soft-core" altruism, in contrast, is ultimately selfish. The
"altruist" expects reciprocation from society for himself or his
closest relatives.
So every exchange action can be called ‘altruism’. Is
every shopping an act of altruism between buyer and vendor? Some scientists
think ‘yes’.
Reciprocation is not altruism.
Reciprocation altruism resembles paid love. Paid love
is not love, but just prostitution. Reciprocation altruism is reciprocation,
but not altruism.
So altruism is altruism, reciprocation is
reciprocation.
‘Soft-core’
variant is not altruism.
And once more - understanding on altruism is in the
eye of observer, and observer can mistake ‘soft-core’ for ‘hard-core’ and vice
versa, i.e. can mistake altruism for selfish non-altruistic action and vice
versa.
Modern popular notions of altruism are more foggy than
Wilson’s ones.
Question of altruism is divided in two
What are
causes of behavior, which may be called ‘altruistic’?
and
What
thing does somebody order to behave altruistically?
It may be only three things: intellect, instinct (program)
or conditional reflex.
1. Defense of group members. Identification error
There is one of definitions:
Altruism
– the “principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others” (Wikipedia)
In this case it is important to understand who ‘others’
are.
There is a basic instinct to protect offspring. All
mammals have this instinct.
All social
mammals have instinct to protect group members.
Humans protect not only group members, but also the
other humans and animals.
In this case we can recognize direction of
evolutionary progress. It goes in direction of expanding zone of defense.
And hierarchy of defense is the same: offspring are the first, kin are the second, group members are the third and then the all other.
One more definition:
Altruism is a well-documented
animal behaviour, which appears most obviously in kin relationships but may
also be evident amongst wider social groups, in which an animal sacrifices its
own well-being for the benefit of another animal. (Wikipedia)
When one group of Gombe chimpanzee split up in two,
chimps without any doubt had killed former kin. (It is very original variant of
kin selection. Group selection appears stronger than kin selection). The border
of group is complex concept.
There is an inherited program that define who must be
defended. Usually it is kin, but there is difficulty with border. Question
‘from whom to defense’ is even more difficult.
All mammals know which a predator they can
attack and which they cannot.
If a predator is identified, and it is possible to
attack him, then it is necessary to attack him.
Baboon female will not protect her child from a leopard.
Baboon male will do. All roles have been determined by programs.
When chimpanzee male try to attack a leopard his risk
is minimal. Leopard will not fight, leopard has goal to kill and to go out. In
mutual fight a leopard will kill chimpanzee, but it get injures and it will be
problem to it to survive after. Leopards prefer to attack suddenly from an ambush
to win without any injures.
In this case we can see work of program, and that work
of program can be added with cultural elements, which transferred through
imitation.
First
variant of behavior that has mistaken for altruism is just work of programs.
When defense of group members is, some variants are
possible:
- Death of defender variant 1. Defender was not
healthy enough. Enemy has recognized it and attack defender. This is natural
selection of defenders.
- Death of defender variant 2. Attacker has not enough
experience or has not true program and attack defender. It is a rare situation.
In this case attacker will be injured and this is natural selection of
attackers. Leopards having inclined so wrong have less chance to survive and
their offspring too.
- Defender has run off in fear. In this case
competitiveness of group relative to the other groups is decreasing. But if defender
is fearful, he cannot become an alpha. Roles of defender and alpha are linked
by extended procreation, and more successful defenders have more offspring,
because they have more chances to become an alpha. Usually fearful males
restricted in procreation by members of group.
Chimpanzee and leopards have limited set of
situations. As a result they have limited set of errors. Humans have more
variants, and as a result humans make more different errors. These errors
sometimes are appreciated by observers as ‘altruism’.
In every before mentioned situations there is
execution of program of group member protection. Moreover, execution of program
of group member protection is criterion for intergroup selection, which
directed on support of this behavior.
It is possible to recognize that during evolution of
species zone of protection was increasing. Offspring - group members - group
members from group members - members of other groups. Genes of defining of
protection zone must exist. Zone of defense of primates is all members of
group, including defense of members of group from other members of groups.
Chimpanzee defend only members of own group. Somebody
other’s child on enemy territory must be caught and eaten. But what to do if
somebody other’s child is on territory of the group?
If child is in the field of view, it means that it is
child of group. There is no possibility, that it is somebody else's child,
because in savannah in field of view could not be somebody else's child. So,
this child must be defended. The subconscious does not understand that people
live in civilization, and not in savannah. (Savannah
principle of Satoshi Kanazawa.)
First time every genetic alteration is broken code.
This error has different value in different peoples. Humans are inclined to
defend all children. Error is misunderstanding of group border. But this code
is broken just relative to chimpanzee. For the people this ‘broken code’ is
norm.
This border is expanding more and more. Situation is
in a progress now. Some humans are eating children of chimpanzee. Some humans
think it is true to protect not only humans, but chimpanzee too.
Finally, program error of identification group members
exists, in result it appears human apply group behavior not only to own
species, but also to other species. Every human has own zone of error. Some
people can have to drown kittens, but cannot have to drown pups.
Instinct of group member protection in humans is the
same as in baboons. Only zone of applying is changed. And for altruistic
behavior this basic instinct must be working.
So, for
altruistic behavior are needed:
- Basic instinct (program) of group member defense.
- Genetic error of identification border of group.
This error is undoubtedly useful for group member,
because humans live in large groups and this error increases success of the whole
group. Big groups have won small groups. Additionally it is identification sign
for woman to choose more brave partners.
History of mankind is process of destroying of small
and less organized groups by large and more organized groups. System of expanded
identification is needed for organizing and support of expanded groups, such as
tribe and nation. (S.Morozov, Nation andmass)
There are
cognitive and executive programs (S.Morozov, Notion of Programs)
Executive program - defense of group members - is
working properly.
Cognitive program - identification of group members -
is working wrongly (Relative to chimps).
In sum we have that what is called ‘altruism’.
Some phenomena have double nature - instinctive and
cultural. It is general situation when on genetic base a culture has built up.
Culture is seemed as a prolongation of instinctive program behavior.
For example, grooming is an instinctive behavior. But
details of grooming are cultural ones. Who, whom, where, when are cultural
details. Border between instinct and culture undoubtedly exists, and may be
demarcated.
Defense of offspring, women and group member is man’s
specialization. So women must have some different system of identification. Healthy
women are less altruistic than healthy men.
And one more conclusion: altruists are more aggressive
than non-altruists. Additionally: women are less aggressive than men.
2. Mimicking action itself
Most of living species, including birds, can repeat
actions they having seen.
Chicken have become to peck only after they could see
somebody who pecks.
There is a link of action:
Need to act - act - seeing - repeating of act -
possibility to repeat act
Hen needs to peck - hen pecks - chicken sees - chicken
repeats - chicken can repeat
Humans are some more complex than chickens.
Humans have inclination to repeat somebody’s actions
in imagination.
Repeating of actions in imagination provoke the same
associations like the action itself.
In his imagination human stands himself on the place
of human or animal being seen. And human can feel sense of discomfort. If
somebody has his teeth bored, it is discomfort to see, isn’t it?
Sex and
Rank: Most people have nothing to do with homosexuals, and healthy people
should not really care about what they get up to. Hostility arises because a
person adopts the actions of others through innate mimicry, sometimes mimicking
the action itself – we only have to recall how the action of yawning can spread
from one person to another. A person subconsciously mimics and his reaction is
one of revulsion. This is how homophobia develops among men.
Moreover, some actions being seen are repeating
unconsciously, e.g. yawning, coughing, and scratching.
So, observing of discomfort creates a sense of
discomfort. Sense of discomfort provokes to get rid of discomfort. In this case
to rid of own discomfort is to stop or facilitate somebody’s discomfort.
Degree of discomfort is linked to perception of norm,
norm specifies data of environment. (For butcher it is difficult to feel sheep’s
sufferings.) Determinative factor is imagination. If imagination is a weak, man
cannot feel somebody’s pain on level of discomfort.
Opportunity to fancy itself on somebody place is
self-sufficient evolutionary value for group.
This type of altruism is linked with possibilities of
imagination.
Possibilities of imagination are inheritable.
Evolutionary benefits can be realized only in group.
Genes of strength of imagination can be found. And
genes that make to submit to the influence of imagination can be found too. But
the second will be a difficult task.
Altruists in this case have less self-control than
non-altruists.
3. Perception of norm
Dogs like to attack cats and bicyclists. But dogs which could see cats and bicyclists
from their birth don’t attack them.
Dogs attack bicyclists altruistically.
Norm of perception of external world exists. Unfamiliar
objects, subjects and actions arouse suspicions, stress and aggression.
Some people don’t like homosexuals and terrorists. If
someone doesn’t like terrorists, it is possible to say with great confidence
that someone didn’t grow up among terrorists.
Consciousness of man has been drawing detail of world
in imagination. Man sees some details, and his imagination add some to picture.
If during that process something goes wrong, if some details don’t coincide, man
has got discomfort.
Consciousness has set of acquired norms. For most dogs
cats and bicyclists are breach of norms.
Breach of norms can cause altruistic behavior. E.g.:
‘those people are suffering, let’s help them’ or ‘those fellows are bad, let’s
kill them’. Of course, altruistically. ‘Bicyclists are evil, let’s bite them’.
Robert
Heinlein: "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing
animal"
It is necessary to add ‘mostly’ and ‘most men’.
Really there are two variants of rationalization.
Man rationalizes not only his own behavior; first man
rationalizes signals of his own the subconscious. And very often man
rationalizes those signals wrongly.
- Man
rationalizes signals of his own consciousness.
- Man
rationalizes his own behavior.
- In sum
man rationalizes his own rationalized behavior.
We want to kill bad fellows. But it is a bad affair.
We don’t want to do that. We begin to rationalize, then we find enemies of bad
fellows, and then we help to enemies of bad fellows to win.
As result of rationalization sometimes it is difficult
to find first signal.
Level of norm of altruism is different for different
societies and groups. So, level of violation of norms is different too. Level
of norm in group of monks will differ from that level in group of pimps.
This category of altruism has not genetic propensity
for, and mostly link with upbringing.
Actions if norm is violated can be linked with
inherited aggressiveness and self-control, but it difficult to reveal clean
evolutionary adaptations.
So, altruistic behavior second time is linked with
aggressiveness.
4. Imitation of altruism. Altruism as conditional reflex
On human
nature: A central goal of Nibbanic Buddhism is preserving the individual
through altruism. The devotee earns points toward a better personal life by
performing generous acts and offsets bad acts with meritorious ones.
Altruistic behavior can be inoculated as norm, as a natural
behavior.
For example, child every time can see that parents
give alms. Child doesn’t understand, for what to give alms. But after, during
all his life, this man gives alms. It’s clean automatic action.
This is wrought conditional reflex. Beggar - alms.
Brain doesn’t switch on.
It is necessary. To whom, for what - man doesn’t
think.
Really, most of people don’t think about the most of
their actions. They commit these actions not
altruistically, not selfishly, but automatically.
Culture can be seen as a great deal of conditional
reflexes.
The most part of human behavior is a fulfillment of
non-conscious actions.
Difference:
Violation
of norm (3). Altruism is result of thinking and partly
rationalization. Altruism is result of stress reaction.
Imitation
(4). Altruism is not result of thinking but result of
reflex behavior.
Sometimes norms have changed. Usually it happens
during the wars. Behavior actions are contagious. Imitation is one of the most
powerful instincts. Propaganda knows how to use that. To have more altruistic
action someone have to show more altruistic action.
5. Sensible action
On Human
Nature: ...we are fascinated by the extreme forms of self-sacrifice. In the
First and Second World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam, a large percentage of
Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to men who threw themselves on top
of grenades to shield comrades, aided the rescue of others from battle sites at
the cost of certain death to themselves, or made other extraordinary decisions
that led to the same fatal end...
But it is necessary to add: if man can threw himself
on top of grenade, grenade is so nearly, that that man has no chances to
survive without variants.
Situation with grenade is not to save himself or not.
Man in this situation is doomed. Question is to save the others or not. This
question is a much simpler.
Sometimes man knows that his life is doomed. In such a
situation any behavior may be chosen. And usually this behavior is an
altruistic, accordingly to culture.
Sensible action can have different input data. These
data can be true and can be wrong. These data can be true for somebody and can
be wrong for somebody.
In every case, sensible action must be considered from
point of acting altruist.
Sometimes man doesn’t know really data. Man could not
know is God existed or not. But man admits that God is existed and his sensible
action is made on the base that God is existed. It is a sensible action too.
Motive for sensible action is reasoning.
Actions like a situation with grenade need a great
deal of self-control. But self-control in situation with grenade can be
different. Monk can be almost saint and have excellent self-control, but is situation
with grenade he will stay and pray. That behavior is result of his reasoning.
There are
two situations are possible:
Observer sees an altruistic action. Doer makes
altruistic action, he have managed by sensible reason.
Observer sees an altruistic action. Doer doesn’t make
altruistic action, he have managed by sensible reason.
Altruism in situation of violation of norm demands low
self-control. Sensible reason altruism demands high self-control.
To save humankind, including oneself, it is easy. To
don’t save humankind it is necessary to be unique misanthrope.
6. Sympathy - antipathy
Usually sympathy is erroneous transfer of behavior
from one subject to another. It happens subconsciously. E.g., chimpanzee has
behavior set to take care of partner. If there is no partner, chimpanzee can
apply that behavior set to human or pet.
Children provoke sympathy by mere their appearance.
They have needed proportions for that. And if somebody sees these proportions,
he has got command ‘care me!’
Sympathy may appear as a result of mimicking action.
Sympathy may appear on the base of forgotten
associations.
There is multitude of variants for appearing of sympathy.
How it is appear is another question. In this case is enough to know that
sympathy has existing.
Sense of sympathy makes to perform altruistic actions.
Usually it is erroneous actions, which are intended
for other goals. Its goal may be care about children or group members. Really,
object of sympathy have got actions which are somebody’s other for.
Chimpanzees share prey with participant of hunting.
All participants must get their share. It is a culture. But chimpanzee can
share with somebody who doesn’t participate in hunting.
Mother chimpanzee feed children. Adult chimpanzee who
had seen this action can repeat it with other member of group. Especially with
those members of group, who have had his sympathy. It is a mimicking plus
sympathy, and this action may become a cultural element.
Additional factors
These additional factors almost always have place and
may to make finding of pure genetic adaptations complicated.
Different errors
Sex and
Rank: Programs may work correctly or incorrectly, even correctly in an
incorrect environment. When a person is incapable of following the program he
becomes stressed.
Errors are most popular cause for actions, which are
mistaken as altruism of animals.
If animal meets many factors it has stress, and mistaken
actions are very possible.
Those may be errors of recognition and executive
programs.
Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels,
ducks,
and even tigers.
These are typical recognition errors.
In
addition to sharing meat after their cooperative hunts, they also practice
adoption. Jane Goodall has observed three cases at the Gombe Stream National
Park in Tanzania, all involving orphaned infants taken over by adult brothers
and sisters.
Chimpanzees are more complex than dogs, and their
errors are more complex. Chimps have added to action more imitation of other’s
behaviors. Chimps have strongly pronounced sympathies. In general, chimpanzee’s
adoptions are just ‘monkey action’. All the adopted have died, because
chimpanzee males try to feed them by their breast.
Aggressiveness
It was shown before; altruists in most of cases are
more aggressive than non-altruist.
Aggressive men more often protect other people, than
non-aggressive.
Imagination
For many occasions of altruism imagination, especially
the strength of imagination is main motive. Man without imagination will not
react on some situation, where man with imagination will act.
Self-control
Self-control works as arbiter between programs, as
switcher of programs with help of reasoning.
Man sometimes can suppress his programs by his own
will, by his own reasoning and self-control.
Action in case of violations of norms usually needs
weak self-control.
Sensible action needs strong self-control.
Altruism and age. Young are more inclined to risk
actions. And young are more inclined to altruistic actions. Young have weaker
self-control than adult. Very often action of altruism of young is result of
lost self-control.
Some intermediate conclusion: Some altruistic
preconditions are conflicting between itself, e.g. aggressiveness vs
self-control. For evolution it is just support of golden mean.
Rationalization
When observers study human altruism, they must
remember about rationalization. Way of thinking of man in dangerous situation
is differed from usual way of thinking. For altruist it is difficult to find
his own motives, so altruist would rationalize his own behavior.
Saying about situation with grenade, Wilson add this
citation:
On human
nature: But in the absolute, ultimate end, when your final extinction is right
there only a few yards farther on staring back at you, there may be a sort of
penultimate national, and social, and even racial, masochism - a sort of hotly
joyous, almost-sexual enjoyment and acceptance - which keeps you going the last
few steps. The ultimate luxury of just not giving a damn any more. (James Jones)
This is an example of typical rationalization. When
people do altruistic action, usually they do not have enough time to think out
such schemes. And the more time people have to think, the less chance they will
make altruistic actions.
Misunderstanding of someone’s motives
To appreciate act of altruism an observer and a doer
are needed.
Having met with norms of another group, people could
mistake normal behavior for altruism.
Moreover, people could mistake selfish behavior for
altruism.
Altruistic action may be prescribed as laws.
It is
often as example of altruism a behavior of martyrs and terrorists are considered.
- It is possible, what terrorist so deeply perceive
violation of norm, that his life become impossible, and suicide can be accepted
as just one possible escaping. (Situation 2 and 3)
- Terrorist can trust in postmortem life with so high
degree, what he accepts death as normal action, as normal next step of being.
Most religious people have doubts about life beyond the grave. Martyrs don’t
have such doubts. (Situation 5)
- Terrorist could account his own life as a big
problem, and suicide is primary and just one possible decision. But he can add
some other feelings as revenge, enmity, aversion to his suicide. That has
happen when mass killing of schoolmates occur and when terrorists recruit women
that has lost social status. (Situation 5)
Criticism
In the
science of ethology (the study of behavior), and more generally in the study of
social evolution, on occasion, some animals do behave in ways that reduce their individual fitness but
increase the fitness of other individuals in the population; this is a
functional definition of altruism. (Wiki, ^ Robert L. Trivers (1971). "The
Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism". The Quarterly Review of Biology 46 (1):
35. doi:10.1086/406755.)
Kin and group behavior
To increase fitness of own children really is an
action to increase own fitness. Fitness of children is equal to their individual
fitness. If no children it is no fitness. Individual fitness cannot be without
actions that directed on fitness of other individual, which are posterity.
It was said before that ‘reciprocal altruism’ is ‘paid
love’.
If to suppose the support of posterity is altruism,
almost every action would be altruism.
Mother comes to shop to buy some food for child. This
is altruism, isn’t it?
And in same degree it is wrong to suppose that group
actions are altruism. Group actions are
program actions, which support fitness of individual through support of fitness
of group.
Kin selection has own programs of kin surviving. For
example, grooming is. Executing of those programs is norm, non-executing is
pathology. To call absence of pathology as altruism is wrong. These are not
altruistic actions; it is just kin behavior and group behavior. If not all kin
and group behaviors would be altruistic.
For social species it is impossible to separate
"survival of the fittest individuals" from "survival of the
fittest groups". For individual is impossible to survive if group wouldn’t
survive.
Insects
On human
nature: In spite of a fair abundance of such examples among vertebrates, it is
only in the lower animals, and in the social insects particularly, that we
encounter altruistic suicide comparable to man's. Many members of ant, bee, and
wasp colonies are ready to defend their nests with insane charges against intruders.
Wilson like insects...
Generosity
without hope of reciprocation...
This is from Wilson’s definition of altruism.
‘Generosity’ of insects - it is very difficult to
agree, but possible.
But ‘hope of reciprocation’ of insects - it is beyond
of imagination.
Sterile insect individuals cannot have self-sacrifice,
because their life is just self-sacrifice.
Insects fulfill programs. They don’t have
consciousness.
Question of self-sacrifice for being, which lives
approx. 60 days, which doesn’t procreate and which doesn’t have consciousness
is not question.
Working bee and warrior ant are born to make work and
die, like cruise missile is made to make work and die. Those all are expendable
material.
Male of mantis dies during mating because female bites
off his head. But male of mantis is programmed for this action, and it is
uneasy to call his behavior altruism. Matriphagy
of spiders is the same situation - procreation needs that parent must be eaten,
and this is the same program action.
On human
nature: There are no hypocrites among the social insects.
Yes, it is so. But there are no altruists too.
Altruism implies mere conscious action, mere free of
will, a mere choice, if not it is altruism of programmed cruise missile, which
doesn’t know selfishness, consciousness and that is death.
So, strongly programmed, non-alternative behavior
cannot be called ‘altruism’.
And this must be expanded on every programmed
behavior, including kin and group behaviors.
Price of altruism
Some definitions imply that altruism is cost for
altruist.
Wiki,
first definition: Altruism is a well-documented animal behaviour, which appears most obviously in kin relationships
but may also be evident amongst wider social groups, in which an animal sacrifices its own well-being for
the benefit of another animal. ...
Wiki: In
the science of ethology
(the study of behavior), and more generally in the study of social
evolution, on occasion, some animals do behave in ways that reduce their individual fitness but
increase the fitness of other individuals in the population; this is a
functional definition of altruism. (Robert L.
Trivers (1971). "The
Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism".)
Really majority of acts of altruism costs nothing to
altruist. And some people do altruistic actions because they have known that
acts cost nothing. When baboons attack leopard they know that cost will be
nothing (if baboons will be together). If man help old lady cross the street,
he has known that he will not be knocked by track.
Bird ran into glass of cage of gorilla and has lost
consciousness. Gorilla takes the bird and tries it to help to fly. Gorilla
helps bird is undoubtedly altruism. But what it cost to gorilla? Nothing is.
Altruism
is behavior, which increases fitness of individuals, which don’t belong to
group of doer, and isn’t a normal behavior, and admits alternative behavior.
Conclusion
Just ‘altruism’
doesn’t exist. There are some phenomena, which united under one term.
Altruism is
not a phenomenon; it is a set of phenomena.
Moreover,
all variants of altruism are derivative from other behavioral patterns.
Motives for
altruism are instinct, reflex and reason. And errors of instinct, reflex, and
reason.
‘Altruisms’
are not adaptations themselves. It is corollary of adaptations.
Sometimes
altruism could be result of inertia of evolutionary adaptation.
No link
between altruism and homosexuality is found.
Types of altruism are
1. Defense of group members. Identification error.
2. Mimicking action itself.
3. Perception of norm and violation of norm.
4. Imitation of altruism. Altruism as conditional
reflex.
5. Sensible action of altruism.
6. Sympathy and antipathy.
Almost never any type works as single-handed; usually
altruism action is combination of types.
There are additional factors, list see above.
Scientists can find genes for every type of altruism,
but they cannot find genes for ‘general altruism’, which is not exist. But now
they have to find genes for ‘general altruism’.
No comments:
Post a Comment