-
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
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
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
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
3/11
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
4/11
Iddins A Look at Mutual Aid
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
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
5/11
Iddins A Look at Mutual Aid
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
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
6/11
Iddins A Look at Mutual Aid
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
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
7/11
Iddins A Look at Mutual Aid
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
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
8/11
Iddins A Look at Mutual Aid
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
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
9/11
Iddins A Look at Mutual Aid
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
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
10/11
-
8/7/2019 A Look at the Role of Mutual Aid in Natural Selection
11/11
Iddins A Look at Mutual Aid
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