Altruism - are scheduled to be good... yet...?

Starting from the observations of Charles Darwin ostilitatiilei between social groups have played over the years an important role in explaining the evolution of human behavior. However, if human beings were primitive "peaceful" or "warlike" remains a controversial and currently working.

Hunter-gatherers were very bellicose

A fundamental aspect of social evolution concerns the origins of altruism and a fascinating hypothesis advanced some years ago by the American economist Samuel Bowles, professor in the Department of Political Economy at the University of Siena and director of the Behavioral Sciences at the Santa Fe Institute New Mexico, was recently re-proposed the journal "Science." Why should we help other human beings who have no connection with blood? In fact, the behavior is against nature: just who shares with us the genetic heritage deserves to be defended and protected. Or not? Well No. The human being is "programmed" to behave in this way . And only a few animal species have in common altruistic behavior that leads to cooperation within groups and long term has enabled man to conquer the planet. Yet, although the altruistic society is a society though serene, and one is equally fragile: get some selfish that take advantage of this to destroy this idyllic picture. But then how is it that altruism as behavior collectively came up today? According to Samuel Bowles, is the merit of war . I mean the need to defend against external attacks is a factor group cohesion, strengthen ties of solidarity . Therefore, the external threat is one that enhances international goodwill. In order to verify the theory, Bowles studied archaeological and ethnographic evidence seeking evidence of our ancestors inclination for war. What was learned? As hunter-gatherers were very warlike 41% of deaths among them occurring as a result of bloody conflicts . Bowles's model could not not include the genetics: so altruism is a behavior maintained over time thanks to DNA. Furthermore, the study argues that there is a group selection: even at the expense of individual interest, altruism of the genome is propagated as it is "protected" by the community and therefore strongest warrior. Many biologists disagree with this theory, both groups are not in the differentiated between them in terms of genetic order to justify the appearance of a phenomenon of selection.

The enemy outside

How many times have you had a fight with a family member? insufferable, selfish, hypocritical, profiteering: You talked many times about that in these terms. Enough, however, that a mutual acquaintance and her bad talk the same person to trigger a reaction in you automatically, like "How dare you? Who are you?" This inconsistency typical human behavior is one that, according to the study by Samuel Bowles (published in "Science") is wider than that represented by his family, a utility that can not be overlooked. external aggression triggers internal solidarity .
Even with relative unsympathetic or naughty neighbor you have not even related by blood, to deserve a defense "ex officio". Just need to defend yourself from the enemy "outside" extends the concept of "friend" . So people are more willing to take from the mouth to the idle that until recently neither support it. In fact, scientific studies confirm even what dictators know instinctively: when the people are unhappy and threaten to revolt is time to trigger an armed conflict and seek a scapegoat ; and if it is perceived as a stranger. Because the blame always others outside. And the strategy works always guaranteed. What do we do as hunter-gatherers are no longer a long time. And over the centuries that separate us from the era that happened a few significant things. They came preaching religious beliefs mutual love and goodwill towards others . Then, reason has become a research tool of reality. I began to realize our actions, why they cause and consequences that our actions they trigger. In other words, at the individual level, we have evolved into beings able to think and it might be a good idea and plan to do it collectively . To understand that, to be altruistic and cooperate not need to appear an enemy to lead us to do it.

Born altruistic

Climate change occurring ago between 10,000 and 150,000 years, explained economist, would be pushed groups of hunters and gatherers to invade the territories of others. Based on the incidence of violent deaths in tribal Bowles developed a statistical model to calculate whether altruistic propensity of each group have influenced its ability to overcome and therefore survive. In so-called altruistic groups, individuals go to battle to defend the common good, in the selfish it was more likely that each of them decide not to risk their skin. Therefore, altruistic groups were stronger and would be shattered while the selfish, managing and to perpetuate genes . In conclusion, according to Bowles's theory, human beings are naturally altruistic.

In evolutionary key, that an individual decides to sacrifice his own life (and thus the ability to reproduce) to allow the group to which it belongs to survive conflicts with Darwin's theory of natural selection , according to which an individual is adapted from evolutionary standpoint when it is able to "multiply" and transmitting genetic heritage on. The contradiction could be but only one appearance. In 1976, Richard Dawkins suggested a modification of the theory: the bodies are not only fighting for evolutionary success, but each gene in part, on their own . From this perspective, the gene "winner" is the one that manages to multiply as much as possible, even if it provides an evolutionary advantage that a gate body.
Take for example a family: each individual has a genetic heritage very similar to that his relatives; if, say, one to sacrifice for the good of the group, others of the same gene carriers will be able to reproduce and transmit to future generations genetic heritage . Moreover, this theory has been made ​​since 1965 by William Hamilton, as the "Kin Selection" (parental selection) and has been used to explain the evolution of social incredibly species such as ants, bees and termites. As such, the less technical, Bowles's hypothesis may be valid. Unless you would have some gaps, in the view of some hard to ignore. Like the economist studied archaeological evidence, not entirely credible: since been studied only some remnants of bones and skeletons incomplete, it is difficult to determine if an individual's death was violent or arising from other causes (weapons used to kill not always leave traces in the bones). But even accepting the validity of these tests, it appears that Bowles's theory has a weakness: assume that altruism and bellicose attitude can and should live together within the same individual. It is known that humanity is "schizophrenic" in morally and according to research by Bowles, contrasts common reason for this was due to the evolutionary success of families deeply warrior, but animated by a strong spirit of solidarity. There is also another possibility , plausible evolutionary standpoint, that Bowles has not taken it into account. The same climate change that would have pushed some groups make war with each other could stimulate an opposite effect in other situations. Instead they divide, the conditions of adversity might make families remain united ; family nuclei those who have developed dynamic group, putting their shared resources and energy managing to survive and to transmit genes from generation to generation, until today, unlike genes' selfish 'others', reached " trash "of human evolution.

Human contact

A man returns home from the office and tells his wife: "I feel a little tired." "Are you tired? I'm tired!", It explodes immediately, passing in review all the things that he had done during the day. Moment in consort husband by opening monologue interrupt television and wife calling him a friend to complain of her husband's insensitivity. A day at the office, the man meets a colleague and greeting him, added: "I feel a little tired." The other replies: "And I". As are peers, can understand each other. Their conversation, experts say, although reduced to the minimum necessary, provide mutual recognition, located on a genuine human contact. The link between altruism and empathy (the ability to represent and understand your emotions, feelings and motivations of others) is a Another issue still open at psychobiological. Moreover, in recent years, empathy, always privileged field of philosophy and religion, became very fertile subject of scientific research. Reflecting the possibility that empathy to have a biological basis in his book "Empathy and moral development", Martin Hoffman, Professor of Psychology at New York University, advancing the theory that "must have been empathy, altruism as the predisposition rather than altruism itself, one that has passed natural selection, becoming an integral part of human nature."

Paradoxes of empathy

On the TV screen of images of a collective nature dramatic event (earthquake, flood, military operations with civilian casualties, attack). Arousing images in some intense desire to do something, to be there to give a helping hand to relieve the suffering of someone else (activation empathetic), and others nearby feelings of emotional detachment and both like what happened in background would not look. Often, experts say, after an overdose of media, it triggers the spectator desire to quickly return to normal, the small details of everyday life, the desire to erase from your mind as quickly as possible traumatic event . After a few days, even to those who were left emotionally involved, interest begins to diminish and eventually will continue to feel empathy only observers in a concrete way or another came in contact with victims. These mental processes become understandable if analyzed mechanisms underlying empathy and its distortions, Hoffman believes that in his essay try to devise a psychological theory of pro-social behavior. How to develop inclination towards empathy? Studies on disorders that can occur in parent-child relationship demonstrates that no nearby attachment, loyalty no empathy . In addition, according to the American psychologist, empathy us not to share the emotions of others impartially, but is vulnerable to known distortion (bias). Altruism small, the so-called "parish" in some respects corresponds to a so-called "familiarity bias", a sort of "bias" or systematic distortion of empathic ability that makes the most of us to look more much "indulgence" acts of individuals in their own group (family, ethnic, religious, professional, etc.). Empathy biological bases reduce aggression within groups and, if nurtured, taught by typical instruments of cultural evolution, can strengthen the motivation to live in harmony with people who do not belong to their own social group.