« What is Neoliberalism? | Main | We'll Be Ready This Time, Won't We? »

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Unnaturally Good?

Where does goodness come from? Why do we help other people?:

Is Goodness Natural?, by Lee Alan Dugatkin, Project Syndicate: It is hard to imagine that anyone thinks of goodness as a problem, but Charles Darwin did. The little worker bees that sacrificed themselves to protect their hives – the ultimate example of animal goodness – kept Darwin up at night.

Given Darwin’s ideas about evolution natural selection were correct (and, of course, they were and are), then this sort of altruism should be extraordinarily rare in nature. If increased reproduction is the ultimate end all and be all of evolution by natural selection, then altruists should disappear – and fast. But they don’t disappear, and Darwin was so puzzled by this that he spoke of altruism as a problem that could prove fatal to his whole theory of evolution.

Then a solution ... hit Darwin... Worker bees weren’t helping just any old bunch of bees; they were protecting ... blood relatives. ... So even though the little worker bees may have been giving up their lives, by doing so they were potentially saving hundreds of blood relatives. In modern parlance, we’d say that ...[by] helping your blood relatives, you are indirectly promoting the reproduction of copies of your own genes...

Darwin wasn’t the only scientist who was fascinated with the question of the evolution of goodness. In fact, his good friend and colleague, Thomas Henry Huxley ... got himself into quite a heated argument over whether blood kinship could or could not explain altruism.

Huxley’s opponent was Prince Peter Kropotkin, ex-page to the Czar of Russia, naturalist, and arguably the most famous anarchist of the nineteenth century. Huxley argued that all goodness could be traced to blood kinship, while Kropotkin argued that goodness and blood kinship were completely divorced from one another - one had nothing to do with the each other. Of course, neither was right, but it would take almost a hundred years before a shy, reserved, and brilliant British biologist named William D. Hamilton would settle all the arguments ... by coming up with a simple, but elegant mathematical equation. ...

Hamilton ... began by defining three terms: the genetic relatedness between individuals (labeled r), the cost of an act of goodness (c), and the benefit that a recipient obtained when someone was nice to him or her (b). Using some beautiful mathematics, in the early 1960’s Hamilton discovered that altruism and blood kinship are not linked by an all- or- nothing relationship.

Instead, what is now known as “Hamilton’s Rule” states that altruism evolves whenever r times b is greater than c. In other words, if enough relatives receive benefits from altruism to outweigh the cost of altruism, then altruism spreads; otherwise, it does not. ...

Literally thousands of experiments with both nonhumans and humans show the power of Hamilton’s Rule. This little equation is evolutionary biology’s version of e = mc2. Over and over, we see that an analysis of the costs and benefits of altruism, along with the genetic relatedness of interactants, allows us to predict the presence or absence of altruism.

Hamilton’s Rule, of course, does not explain all altruism. Another large chunk of goodness falls under the category of “reciprocity.” Individuals are sometimes willing to be altruistic to someone now in the expectation that they will, in turn, be helped when we they need it.

Evolutionary biologists have been almost as interested in this type of altruism, as they have been in kinship-based altruism. Amazingly enough, it was Bill Hamilton, along with the political scientist Robert Axelrod and the evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, who formalized the models behind the evolution of reciprocity. ...

Axelrod and Hamilton used the mathematics of game theory to predict when so-called “reciprocal altruism” should evolve. Again, scores of empirical studies have followed up the model.

Reciprocity can be complex, but an evolutionary perspective has cleared the path to understanding, just the same way it did in the case of blood kinship and altruism. If goodness is a problem, then the answer – or at the least part of the answer – can be found in evolutionary biology.

If anyone is familiar with this area (I don't remember much beyond the basics of pure altruism models, models where you care about the public good donations purchase, warm glow models, or models of signaling and prestige), I'd be interested in hearing about the consistency of Hamilton's rule with economic models of altruistic behavior and the associated econometric evidence. Of course, other comments are welcome as well.

    Posted by on Sunday, April 22, 2007 at 03:33 PM in Economics | Permalink  TrackBack (0)  Comments (55)


    TrackBack URL for this entry:

    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unnaturally Good?:


    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.