The paradox of altruism: can the meme concept contribute to the explanation of the existence of altruism?

83 Pages·2002·0.43 MB·English

by  Clark

0

The Paradox of Altruism

Can the Meme Concept Contribute to the Explanation of
the existence of Altruism?

by

Theo Jef Clark,
BEd, BSc

A thesis submitted as partial fulfilment for the Degree of Bachelor of
Science with Honours
in the
Faculty of Science,
Griffith University,
Queensland.
1
Abstract

One of the cental theoretical problems of sociobiology is the 'paradox of altruism'. How
can altruists survive when the selfish can take advantage of them? I examine the three
favoured biological theories for the evolution of altruism, and show that they fail to
completely explain human altruism. Susan Blackmore in her book The Meme Machine,
argues that it can be explained by the evolution of units of culture, memes. I will give
detailed consideration to her claims, and advance some of my own. My own claims
mainly consist of the major role group selection (of memes) has had in the evolution of
altruism. I find that if we accept meme theory, then memetic group selection has
considerable explanatory power. I also analyse meme theory as a general, scientific,
causal explanation (specifically the ontology of cause and effect as proposed in some
recent philosophy of science). This is important because when we are trying to explain
a phenomenon, we search for its cause. If we find the cause, we have then explained
why the phenomenon has come to be. Altruism is one such phenomenon, and memes
for altruism seem to potentially offer a genuine causal explanation to the 'paradox of
altruism'.
2
Declaration

This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, no material in this dissertation has been previously
published except where due reference is made.

Signed:

Date:

Place:
3
Contents

PREFACE...........................................................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM STATED..........................................................................................7
The ‘Paradox of Altruism’...........................................................................................................................7
Human Nature.............................................................................................................................................9
Evolutionary Theory..................................................................................................................................10
Ends and Means........................................................................................................................................13
Hobbes vs Rousseau...................................................................................................................................14
CHAPTER 1: THE BIOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF ALTRUISM...............................................................17
Kin Selection..............................................................................................................................................17
Reciprocal Altruism and Tit-for-Tat..........................................................................................................19
Group Selection.........................................................................................................................................21
What Remains to be Explained?................................................................................................................25
CHAPTER 2: THE NEW REPLICATOR................................................................................................29
The Misunderstood Metaphor....................................................................................................................31
Familial Evasion and Dipteran Mastication..............................................................................................32
Replication and Lamarckian Acquisition..................................................................................................34
CHAPTER 3: THE MEMETIC ACCOUNT OF ALTRUISM....................................................................38
Memetic and Genetic Interaction..............................................................................................................39
Kev and Gav...............................................................................................................................................41
Greed is Good!...........................................................................................................................................42
The Coevolution of Memes and Genes.......................................................................................................43
A Modest Altruistic Act..............................................................................................................................46
The Ultimate Altruistic Act........................................................................................................................48
Group Selection Revisited..........................................................................................................................52
CHAPTER 4: EXPLANATION AND CAUSATION.................................................................................58
The Ontology of Cause...............................................................................................................................58
Wittgenstein's Meme..................................................................................................................................61
Information Transfer.................................................................................................................................63
CONCLUSION: HAS THE 'PARADOX' BEEN RESOLVED?..................................................................68
A Possible History of Altruism..................................................................................................................69
The Real Question.....................................................................................................................................72
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................................74
INDEX..............................................................................................................................................................81
4

Preface

My original intention with this work was for it to be an evaluation of the 'paradox of
altruism' and the theories that have attempted to resolve it. The hypothesis advanced
by Susan Blackmore in The Meme Machine was the inspiration and was to be the
main focus of this dissertation. As the writing and research on this subject advanced,
however, I started to develop ideas (or rather memes) of my own. As consequence, I
have not only evaluated current evolutionary theories of altruism, but also thrown in
my own 'ten cents worth' as it were, and forwarded hypotheses of my own. Of most
note, is the major role I have given group selection (of memes) in the evolution of
altruism. This was not my original aim. Indeed, I had always considered group
selection to be at best an extremely minor force in evolution. It still probably is when it
comes to biological evolution, but as my work progressed it became apparent that
memetic group selection has considerable explanatory power. Consequently, this
thesis is not only an examination of the 'paradox of altruism'; it also builds upon
current theories.

There are a few points to note regarding the consistency of referencing in this thesis.
If there is no page number given, it is for one of three reasons:

1. I have taken some references from The Science Show on the ABC's Radio
National as well as the documentary series Evolution. So there is obviously no
page number to give. For example, '(Dawkins, 2000)' is a reference to The
Science Show. (Transcripts are available from the ABC's web site.)

2. '(Forge, 2002a)' refers to a chapter from his yet to be published book Science
and Responsibility, and '(Forge, 2002b)' refers to a personal communication with
my supervisor John Forge.

3. All other references without page numbers are from online material.
5
Otherwise all references have page numbers. I use quite a few footnotes for either
interesting digressions that may or may not be directly relevant to the main text, or to
qualify or add to a point that I am making.

This thesis is grounded in the world of science, yet it is essentially philosophical. Thus
parts of it are quite speculative. This, I believe, is what makes the most interesting
science writing – the most interesting. Many of the authors in the bibliography who do
this have been my inspiration. With regard to writing about biology and evolution, of
most note are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, Matt Ridley,
Edward Wilson, and of course the man who started it all, Charles Darwin. To them I
give my thanks and to the reader I highly recommend their works. They understand (or
understood) that good science has never been just about unearthing 'facts'. It is about
unearthing our place in the cosmos. Philosophy ignorant of science is often vacuous –
it lacks the 'knowledge' to find the wisdom it so boldly proclaims to love. And science
ignorant of philosophy is often insipid and soporific – it lacks the 'wisdom' to know
what knowledge is worth knowing.

Though I have been inspired by the writings of those above, inspiration has its
greatest effect when it is personal. First and foremost, I would like to thank my
supervisor Assoc. Prof. John Forge for, not only his encouragement and support, but
also for his ability to see the 'overall picture' and place things in the right context and
the right order. (And also for giving me the freedom to tackle the topic of my choice in
my own way.) I also would like to thank my parents, Jef and Kathy Clark, for their
genes and memes, without which I would not have been able to write this. In particular
my father for his help in clarifying some of my ideas. He has always been my
intellectual sounding board, and even when I was 'knee high to a grasshopper' he has
always treated me as capable of understanding the most interesting and important
ideas of science and philosophy. I also need to thank two friends, Evan Chalk and
Ben Retschlag. Both of them helped shape and select many of the memes in this
thesis, and Evan started me down this path by lending me his copy of Matt Ridley's
The Origins of Virtue and buying me a copy of The Meme Machine as a birthday
present. Knowing these two has tripled my research capabilities. The one person who
I owe the greatest thanks, who inspires me to be the best I can, is my beautiful wife
Catherine. She has given me incredible support, not just in my academic endeavours,
but in all the areas of my life. May we pass on many memes (and maybe some genes)
in the years to come.
6
7

Introduction: The Problem Stated

"[With Darwin] Nature became a seething slum, with everyone scrambling to get
out, rushing to break from the rat-pack. Only the few survived, bettering
themselves by creating new dynasties. Most remained trapped on the breadline,
destined to struggle futilely, neighbours elbowing one another aside to get ahead,
the weak trampled underfoot." (Adrian Desmond & James Moore, 1991: 449).

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we
expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (Adam Smith, 1776:
27).

"It is extremely doubtful whether the offspring of the more sympathetic and
benevolent parents, or of those who were the most faithful to their comrades,
would be reared in greater numbers than the children of selfish and treacherous
parents belonging to the same tribe. He who was ready to sacrifice his life, as
many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no
offspring to inherit his noble nature. The bravest men, who were always willing to
come to the front in war, and who freely risked their lives for others, would on an
average perish in larger numbers than other men. Therefore it hardly seems
probable, that the number of men gifted with such virtues, or that the standard of
their excellence, could be increased through natural selection, that is, by the
survival of the fittest..." (Charles Darwin, 1871: 130).

The ‘Paradox of Altruism’

A young man, riding his horse in the country, comes across a leper. Perhaps feeling a
sense of pity, he springs from his horse, throws his arms around the leper and kisses
his hand. He gives the man what money he can afford and rides on, beginning what
would become a long vocation in aiding lepers (Chesterson, 1923: 60). Swearing off
all worldly goods, this same man then lived with a self-inflicted paucity of possessions
compared to even the most wretched and downtrodden; he grovelled for the blackest
and worst bread he could get and even swapped clothes with a beggar (Chesterson,
8
1923: 76-77). How do we explain such altruism? For this young man was indeed an
altruist throughout his entire life.

I’m not sure that it is possible to explain altruism of the likes of St Francis of Assisi,1
but the example of his life leads to the more general question: "Why are humans
altruistic?" Not all humans are altruistic of course, but we can still ask why are some
humans altruistic and, at the very least, why do most humans seem to have some kind
of altruistic tendency? The answer may seem obvious to many people, but for
biologists and philosophers who have an understanding of Darwinian theory, the
'paradox of altruism' is a seemingly grave problem. Indeed, it can been can be seen
as the central theoretical problem with regards to the biological basis of behaviour
(Wilson, 1975: 3). It is the central problem because altruism is an act performed by an
individual that increases another individual's welfare, at the expense of its own
(Dawkins, 1976: 4).2 Within the ‘nature is red in tooth and claw’ Darwinian paradigm,
altruism is a behaviour that, seemingly, should not be able to evolve as an adaptive
strategy. Yet, unless we think altruism is a frequently occurring ‘accident’, apparently it
has.

What kind of account/explanation have evolutionary theorists attempted to build? If
altruism was restricted to only certain periods of time, and to only certain locations, it
would then appear that altruism is only a product of specific local factors, such as
culture, economics, religious beliefs, etc. However, altruism seems to be universal, in
that it can be seen in some shape or form in all human societies (Ridley, 1996: 6-7).
We need a form of explanation which accounts for this. As we shall see, humans are
the products of evolution. So any explanation needs to take into account of, or at least
not be in direct conflict with, Darwinian theory.

1
There are many incidents in his life that led to such extreme altruism, including religious
dreams and visions, which he believed dictated his destiny, that of a life of altruism. Sadly, and
ironically, the order which St. Francis founded, the Franciscans, came to represent much of
what he despised, including the direction of the Inquisition in many countries. Of course, many
notable men were Franciscans: Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus and William of Occam (Russell,
1946: 442-443).

2
This accords well with our usual understanding of what an altruist is, namely, someone who
puts the interests of other before his or her own. Altruistic acts need to be distinguished from
acts that would be considered morally right or wrong, for moral acts normally encompass
everyone's interests, including the agent (Singer, 1993: 11-12). From the universal standpoint,
the perspective of an ethicist, altruistic acts can seem superfluous.
9
Human Nature

Central to the evolutionary perspective is the following premise – there is a
fundamental human nature. This fundamental nature is elusive, as culture plays such
a large role in shaping behaviour. But there must be a fundamental human nature, or
(as pointed out by Ridley 1993: 3 & 1996: 6) a psychiatrist would not be able to
assume that a patient understands love, envy, fear, anger, laughter, dreaming etc.,
which are universal themes in all human cultures. In 1945, the American
anthropologist George P. Murdock listed the universals of culture for every one of the
hundreds of societies studied at that time. He found that there were sixty-seven
universals, including cooking, sport, gift-giving, medicine, luck superstition, religious
ritual, games... the list goes on (Wilson, 1998: 162). There seems to be a core base of
behaviours and emotions that are not solely the products of culture. These
fundamentals are simply the product of being human. Once we accept this, we must
also accept that this fundamental nature is a product of human evolutionary history.3

Humans are products of evolution. We still have, as David Buss calls it, stone-age
minds in a modern environment. He comes to this belief because human recorded
history is an 'eye blink' compared to human evolutionary history. For the last several
million years our hominid ancestors (including our direct Homo sapien ancestors) lived
in hunter-gatherer groups (Buss, 2000). From this line of reasoning, we can conclude
that our brains have been adapted to suit this lifestyle, and have only just recently
(comparatively speaking) been thrust into this new non-hunter-gatherer world of our
creation. There simply hasn't been enough time for natural selection to work on
civilised humans in any discernible way.4

Another way of demonstrating this is by considering the percentage of hominid
evolution that has not been of the hunter-gatherer variety. Hominids separated from
ancestral apes between 10 and 6 million years ago and the first stone artefacts date

3
Though not all these behaviours are necessarily the products of evolution (Wilson, 1998:
162).

4
Some minor evolutionary changes have occurred. 70% of Western Europeans by descent
have a lactose tolerance, compared to only 30% of non-Europeans. Evolutionary theory
suggests that because Dairy production started in Western Europe a few thousand years ago,
Western Europeans have evolved a tolerance for lactose to a greater extent than non-
Europeans (Ridley, 1999: 192-193). Of course, psychological changes are not minor.