a look at the role of mutual aid in natural selection

8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection

1/11

Reclaiming Lost Ground:

A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid

in Progressive Evolution

by James Michael Iddins

Who are the fittest: those continually at war with each other, or those who support

one another? We at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aidare undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in

their respective classes, the highest development of intelligence and bodily

organization.

-Petr Kropotkin


2/11

Iddins A Look at Mutual Aid

In 1914, a Russian zoologist and naturalist by the name of Petr Kropotkin published a

work that was simultaneously a critique of Darwinian thought and a publication of his research

findings from Siberia and Manchuria. Kropotkin notes that on his research expeditions there

were two key findings which significantly affected his perspective on both nature and evolution.

The first is the extreme severity of the struggle for existence which most species have to carry

on against an inclement nature; the enormous destruction of life which periodically results from

natural agencies1 and the second is that he failed to find although [he] was eagerly looking

for it that bitter struggle for the means of existence, among animals belonging to the same

species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the

dominant characteristic of the struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution(vii). These field

observations simmered for a while, but did not receive due treatment until Kropotkin felt

compelled to respond in print to T.H. Huxleys essay The Struggle for Existence, which largely

argued this second point that Kropotkin did notfind in nature. Kropotkins work, Mutual Aid: A

Factor of Evolution, argues that mutual aidorsociability is more important than competition

when it comes to facing the struggle for existence and progressive evolution, especially within a

species, though often across species as well. I intend to look at other perspectives on the topic of

mutual aidandsociability to determine if Kropotkins conclusions do in fact warrant more

weight than the now traditional Darwinian notion ofnatural selection through competition.

In their essay on social semantics, evolutionary biologists West, Griffin, and Gardener

point out that there is an abundance of research and evidence on the role of cooperation in

evolution, but that due to a lack of communication between scientists and researchers there has

1 This fact is another interesting challenge to traditional evolutionary theory which Kropotkin does not take up. It is

taken up by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin in The Sixth Extinction. They point out that luckorchance has just as

much to do with survival as adaptation, competition, and mutual aid.

2 | P a g e


3/11


4/11


fitness is largely based on genetic concerns. An individual indirectly benefits from a behavior

when that behavior promotes the evolutionary success of either their family genes, or genes

associated with this social animals cooperative behavior. An example is preferential cooperation

with kin.

Though West and company do not mention Kropotkin (1914) in their analysis, he seems

to be the pioneer ofdirect fitness explanations of cooperation (pre-gene theory), whereas W. D.

Hamilton (1963) seems to be the pioneer when it comes to explanations that invoke indirect

fitness. While Kropotkin does mention some very general indirect fitness arguments, the

technology simply was not available in his day to do much other than speculate. Hamilton, with

his work on the genetic basis ofaltruism, laid the groundwork for modern indirect fitness

arguments. When we combine both directand indirectexplanations of cooperative behavior, we

have what is called inclusive fitness, or multiple reasons to perform the behavior in question. The

individual benefits both directly and indirectly. I will begin with direct fitness arguments and

work my way toward indirect.

Kropotkin begins his discussion of cooperation by noting that Darwin himself, in chapter

three ofOrigin of the Species, cautioned his readers to leave the concept ofstruggle for existence

by means ofnatural selection sufficiently vague to account for other forces, such as cooperation

and mutual support, as factors that might make one species more fit for survival than others.

Darwin says, I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and

metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more

important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny (np). Kropotkin

then observes how, after noting this fact, Darwin himself proceeds to describe natural selection

in a more narrow sense than just indicated. Kropotkin notes that Darwins followers further

4 | P a g e


5/11


narrowed the term down until the point where they raised the pitiless struggle for personal

advantages to the height of a biological principle (4). So in essence, what we now think of as

natural selection is the result of a constant narrowing of the original concept ofnatural selection

which Darwin proposed. Kropotkin argues that this distortion of the concept was most likely due

to prevailing prejudices of the time, those in favor of unbridled economic competition and those

in favor of racism or nationalism. Whatever the reasons for this distortion, I am most concerned

in determining the role ofmutual aidorcooperation in the progressive evolution of species.

In his field notes, Kropotkin lays down much compelling evidence in favor ofsociability

and mutual-supportas the key factors of evolution for most species. Among the benefits of this

behavior are raising youth that will carry on its lineage, protection of the individual and securing

necessary food for subsistence. He even notes that many species seem to find it inherently

pleasurable simply to be around others. I will merely list a few examples to give the reader an

idea of the types of things with which we are dealing. Kropotkin looks at the communities of ants

and bees, nesting habits of beetles and insects, migration of birds, the joining of forces for a hunt

of various groups. He even looks at the symbiosis between certain species. Typical of his

observations is the following: What an immense difference in the force of a kite, a buzzard or a

hawk, and such small birds as the meadow-wagtail; and yet these little birds, by their common

action and courage, prove superior to the powerfully-winged and armed robbers! (26). He also

notes how obvious it is that certain species deploy what we would call strategy, involving other

members of their group or species, which has a definite logic and intelligence. Speaking of

certain parrots, he notes that in their societies, they find infinitely more protection than they

might possibly find in any ideal development of beak and claw (30). He notes that most species

5 | P a g e


6/11


will actually go out of their way to avoid competition, moving on to fill a different ecological

niche:

Happily enough, competition is not the rule either in the animal world or in mankind. It

is limited among animals to exceptional periods, and natural selection finds better fieldsfor its activity. Better conditions are created by the elimination of competition by mutual

aid and mutual support. In the great struggle for life for the greatest possible fulness

and intensity of life with the least waste of energy natural selection continually seeksout ways precisely for avoiding competition as much as possible (74).

So it is in such a way that Kropotkin makes a convincing case in defense of mutual aid, rather

than competition, as the chief factor in natural selection among animals.

E. O. Wilson, father of sociobiology, confirms many of Kropotkins direct fitness insights

in his work on the social behavior of animals. His discussion begins with an elaboration of the

phenomenon ofgroup selection, which describes selection that affects two or more members of

a lineage group as a unit (106). The fact that one has to specify that we are speaking of selection

on the group level just goes to show how distorted the notion ofnatural selection has become,

referring typically to individual competition in the struggle for existence. Wilson notes there are

both higher and lower levels ofgroup selection. On the lower side of the spectrum, we see what

he terms kin selection, where siblings, parents, and offspring or small tribes join together in

mutual support. On the higher level ofgroup selection, Wilson explains that an entire breeding

population may be the unit, so that populations (that is, demes) possessing different genotypes

are extinguished differentially, or disseminate different numbers of colonists, in which case we

speak ofinterdemic (orinterpopulation)selection (106) italics mine. He notes that selection

based on sociality and mutual support plays out on the level of the species or clusters of species

as well (metapopulation selection).

Wilson points out that the theory ofgroup selection has certain implications when it

comes to more traditional notions ofaltruism. Group selection argues that behaviors, which on

6 | P a g e


7/11


the surface appear altruistic or beneficial to only one party, in fact end up promoting the

evolutionary fitness of the actor as well. This is either accomplished through the promotion of

subtle personal interests (direct fitness) or promotion of similar types of individuals and

behaviors based on a network of related DNA (indirect fitness). Either way (or maybe both

simultaneously) we see that what appeared altruistic on the surface is in actuality reciprocal

altruism,cooperation, ormutual support. However one phrases the phenomenon, the key is to

realize that the benefit is mutual.

In his work,Beyond Natural Selection,biologist Robert Wesson supplements Kropotkin

and Wilsons observations nicely. He does this particularly well in a chapter on sociality among

animals. After citing many examples that are strikingly similar to Kropotkins, Wesson begins to

discuss socialityandmutual aidvia the Theory of Altruism. He says that biologists have

struggled for some time to identify the motivations whereby members of some speciesseemingly

sacrifice themselves, either in whole or in part, to the interests of the group, tribe, or community.

Wesson uses the work of both J. B. S. Haldane and W. D. Hamilton, who explain the seemingly

altruistic qualities of social animals in terms ofrelatedness and inclusive fitness. He notes that

these two concepts take into account that the great majority of the genes of any two individuals

of the same species are the same (129). Wesson says that, By this concept of relatedness,

apparent altruism could be interpreted as indirect self-interest and thus reconciled with natural

selection (129).Inclusive fitness, therefore, amounts to a habit favoring overall reproductive,

genetic, and behavioral success of aspecies as an extension of the individual(the goals of the

two are the same as far as survival goes, or at least so similar as to make any differences

negligent). This may be held up in opposition to the traditional notion of isolated individual

success in these three areas.

7 | P a g e


8/11


While Wesson admits that this theory is at best an approximation, it probes new ground

by its assertion that the gene, not the individual is the unit and motivating force behind at least

this particular aspect of selection mutual aid. According to Wesson, Inclusive fitness is an

effort to find an exact formulation for the reality that a certain amount of altruism is

advantageous for individuals and the family [or group]. By itself, natural selection of individuals

with the greatest reproductive success would never have permitted social animals to evolve

(134-35). This is an extremely important insight to keep in mind when considering traditional

Darwinian thought and conceptions of natural selection. In this, we realize that mutual aid, not

individual competition has higher evolutionary value.

Jeffrey Fletcher and Martin Zwick reinforce all of the above, especially Wessons point,

by further unifying the theories ofreciprocal altruism and inclusive fitness. These two naturalists

do this by utilizing Quellers more general interpretation of Hamiltons inclusive fitness theory:

Queller (1985) further generalized Hamiltons rterm [relatedness] by explicitly including the

consequences of the phenotype (behaviors) of actors and others on selection for a genetic trait

rather than focusing on the effect of genotypes directly (254). Using a game theoretical

perspective (via a prisoners dilemma), Fletcher and Zwick show that based upon Hamiltons

more limited definition ofinclusive fitness as direct genotype relatedness, an evolutionary

beneficial situation is not established. They show that the beneficial situation for our species, in

terms of progressive evolution only begins to occur once Quellers more general notion of

inclusive fitness is the reality. It is through this cooperation within the species that we better

situate ourselves to deal with what nature throws at us. Fletcher and Zwick extend this argument

across species lines as well, thus ending up with, not only fitness evidence in favor ofreciprocal

8 | P a g e


9/11


altruism orcooperation within the human species, but an argument formutualism orsymbiosis

among species as well.

Robert Wesson continues with a discussion of how social behavior develops and the

benefits to be had for all types of life. He says, Cooperation lies as much in the nature of life

and evolution as does competition, and there seem to be tendencies toward sociality beyond

environmental conditions and adaptation (135). So in essence, Wesson is describing sociality as

both dynamic and independent of environmental adaptation, though undoubtedly the lines blur

somewhere. Wesson continues: In forming a community, animals become in effect more

intelligent and more capable. They do this primarily by specialization by taking on different

functions, which are somehow allocated to different individuals. This is the case most clearly

with multicellular animals (135). Cooperation by specialization is certainly the case in

human animals and we see it throughout nature in almost limitless manifestations. One might

even suggest that modern notions of competition are founded on assumptions of cooperation in

many other facets of life.

Zoologist Desmond Morris, in discussing the progressive evolution of the human species

as it moved into farming and food production, notes the following:

Luckily the long hunting apprenticeship had developed ingenuity and a mutual-aid

system. The human hunters, it is true, were still innately competitive and self-assertive,

like their monkey ancestors, but their competitiveness had become forcibly tempered by

an increasingly basic urge to co-operate. It had been their only hope of succeeding intheir rivalry with the long-established, sharp-clawed, professional killers of the carnivore

world, such as the big cats. The human hunters had evolved their co-operativeness

alongside their intelligence and their exploratory nature, and the combination had provedeffective and deadly (14 & 15).

This powerful testament to the cooperation of the human species as it progressed into what

would become its place of planetary dominance is extremely insightful. Had our ancestors not

banded together in these pivotal moments, we would not even be carrying on this conversation

9 | P a g e


10/11


11/11


Bibliography

Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the

Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.

Fletcher, J. A. and Zwick, M. (2006). Unifying the Theories of Inclusive Fitness and Reciprocal

Altruism. The American Naturalist, 168:2.

Kropotkin, Petr. (1914). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers.

Leakey, Richard and Lewin, Roger. (1995). The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future

of Humankind.New York: Doubleday.

Morris, Desmond. (1969). The Human Zoo.New York: McGraw-Hill Publishers.

Wesson, Robert. (1991). Beyond Natural Selection. Boston: MIT Press.

West, S. A., Griffin, A. S., and Gardener, A. (2007). Social semantics: altruism, cooperation,

mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection.Journal of Evolutionary Biology,20:2.

Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

11 | P a g e

a look at the role of mutual aid in natural selection

Documents