FOR most people the phrase 鈥渟urvival of the fittest鈥� evokes a picture of nature red in tooth and claw, a brutal struggle which the strongest individuals are destined to win. In fact, in biological terms the 鈥渇ittest鈥� can mean the cleverest, the best camouflaged, the most attractive 鈥� or even the nicest.
Altruism has proved to be an incredibly successful evolutionary strategy, from cells sacrificing themselves for the good of the body to worker bees鈥� devotion to their colony.But how does this trait evolve?
Ask most biologists and they鈥檒l tell you that altruism is just a form of self-interest that evolves on a 鈥渢it-for-tat鈥� basis or because helping relatives boosts the survival of one鈥檚 own genes. But there is a different explanation: that it came about because altruistic groups outcompete selfish groups, even though selfish individuals beat altruistic ones within groups.
Advertisement
The idea that underlies this 鈥� that selection can take place at the level of groups 鈥� was widely rejected in the 1960s, but on page 42 David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson argue that the reasons for rejecting it have since turned out to be false. If they are right, it follows that evolution can act for the greater good of groups, species and even entire ecosystems, rather than only being about individuals or the genes they carry. It鈥檚 an appealing idea, which could help bring about a profound shift in the popular perception of the nature of evolution.
There is a lesson here for those who misinterpret 鈥渟urvival of the fittest鈥� as a justification for unrestrained market forces: selfish people make their group less fit. So why not try altruism instead?
