Jim Holt is the latest to point out (in the New York Times Magazine) that altruism might be genetically hardwired into us for one or more of several reasons. These reasons testify to the cleverness of Whoever set up evolutionary processes as an engine of progress. For example:
Kin selection: For most of human history, altruism was directed in large part to those physically nearby. They were likely to be genetically kin to the altruist. The altruist’s generosity thus benefited his gene pool, even if s/he derived no personal benefit. Whichever of those gene(s) that contributed to altruism were thus more likely to survive and be propagated into future generations.
Reciprocal altruism: Societies practicing reciprocal altruism tend to have a survival advantage (other things being equal). Our gifts of memory and reason help promote reciprocal altruism: Alice is willing to help Bob now, perhaps reasoning that later Bob will remember and help Alice when she needs it. If Bob fails to do so, then Alice will remember.
Holt explains:
Evolutionary psychologists have come up with four plausible Darwinian reasons for altruism. First, there is “kinship selection,” which is supposed to lurk behind the sacrifices you make for your biological family. It’s based on the percentage of genetic overlap. One biologist, when asked if he would lay down his life for his brother, quipped, no, but he would for two brothers or eight cousins.
Second, there is “reciprocal altruism,” which doesn’t depend on shared genes. Here, the basic idea is: You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. Reciprocal altruism is seen not just in humans but in some animal species. Vampire bats, for instance, benefit one another by sharing meals of regurgitated blood.
Kinship and reciprocation are, as Richard Dawkins has written, the “twin pillars of altruism in a Darwinian world.” Neither, however, would appear to be of much use in explaining philanthropy. Bill Gates has no special genetic relationship to the beneficiaries of his foundation. Nor does he expect them to reciprocate by purchasing the next release of Windows.
A third explanation for altruism, the Darwinian advantage of having a reputation for generosity, might look more promising. Nineteenth-century “robber barons” like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie had ample reason to amend their reputations by generous benefactions. The same might conceivably be true of Bill Gates, judging from the tone of the jokes you find about him on the Internet (several of which place him in hell).
And how about the final, and certainly most dispiriting, Darwinian rationale for ostentatious giving: the aim of bankrupting one’s rivals? This is sometimes called the Potlatch Effect, after the competitive feasts (“potlatch” in Chinook) of a Pacific Northwest tribe whose rival chieftains try to humiliate one another by unmatchable displays of generosity. Perhaps the Potlatch Effect could explain Bill Gates’s philanthropy as, say, a challenge to the founders of Google to ruin themselves through comparably enormous bequests.
Holt follows in the footsteps of, among others, Robert Wright.
Whatever the reasons, it’s becoming more and more indisputable that, in emphasizing love of neighbor, Jesus and his Jewish forebears were on to something fundamental in the universe.
Leave a Reply