Altruism

The word 'altruism' comes from the Italian altrui, was coined in 1851 by August Comte to refer
to benevolence (kindness). Although not everyone agrees today on what precisely altruism
involves, the most basic definition is seeking the welfare of others. This definition is often
extended, however, to include the necessity of some personal sacrifice on the part of the altruist;
Edward O. Wilson defined altruism as "self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of
others".

There is also an idea of reciprocal altruism, which is self-sacrificing behavior with the
expectation that the favor will be returned eventually. If this behavior is motivated by the desire
for future reward, it does not really fit the generally accepted definitions of altruism.

In nonhuman animals, altruism is mainly seen in the form of one animal sacrificing or risking
its life to save another. Studies of animals by researchers like Hamilton who worked with bees
who sacrifice themselves to allow the queen to produce offspring with their genetic makeup have
led to an evolutionary explanation of altruism. One explanation of altruism in the animal
kingdom is kin selection that an animal will sacrifice its own life only if as a result, its genes have
a greater chance of being passed on.

E.G.

The animal world also is filled with animals that appear to help other creatures. Vampire bats
are pretty altruistic, too, regurgitating blood for members of the group that haven’t eaten. In
numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’
birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give
alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in so doing, they
attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.

How Altruism is necessary?

An evolutionary explanation for altruism was provided by Hamilton's concept of inclusive

fitness. The argument is that since related individuals share genes with each other (kin
selection), a sacrifice of reproductive chances by one individual might actually increase the
overall chances of that individual's genes being passed on.

If the altruism benefits a relative carrying the same genes. Hamilton's formula indicates that
inclusive fitness increases if the altruist's cost is less than the benefit to the beneficiary x the
coefficient of relatedness between them.

c < b x r (higher inclusive fitness) where c = cost of altruist, b = beneficiary’s gain, r =

relatedness of altruist and beneficiary.

[ kin selection, a type of natural selection that considers the role relatives play when
evaluating the genetic fitness of a given individual. It is based on the concept of inclusive fitness,
which is made up of individual survival and reproduction (direct fitness) and any impact that an
individual has on the survival and reproduction of relatives (indirect fitness). Kin selection
occurs when an animal engages in self-sacrificial behaviour that benefits the genetic fitness of its
relatives. The theory of kin selection is one of the foundations of the modern study of social
behaviour. British evolutionary biologist W.D. Hamilton first proposed the theory in 1963 and
noted that it plays a role in the evolution of altruism, cooperation, and sociality; however, the
term kin selection was coined in 1964 by British evolutionary biologist Maynard Smith.

inclusive fitness, theory in evolutionary biology in which an organism’s genetic success is

believed to be derived from cooperation and altruistic behaviour. Inclusive fitness theory
suggests that altruism among organisms who share a given percentage of genes enables those
genes to be passed on to subsequent generations. In this way, an altruistic act that supports the
survival of a relative or other individual theoretically enhances the genetic fitness of both the
recipient of the act and the altruistic organism. The propagation of shared genes was believed to
be an underlying mechanism for the evolution of eusociality (cooperative behaviour
characterized by division of labour and group integration that is found in certain species of
animals, mainly social insects).

The idea of inclusive fitness was first proposed in 1932 by British geneticist J.B.S.
Haldane in The Causes of Evolution.]

Reciprocal Altruism (Mutualism)

Though much altruism in nature is kin-directed, not all: there are also many examples of
animals behaving altruistically towards non-relatives, and indeed towards members of other
species. Kin selection theory cannot help us understand these behaviours. The theory of
reciprocal altruism developed by Trivers (1971) is one attempt to explain the evolution of
altruism among nonkin.

The basic idea is straightforward: it may benefit an animal to behave altruistically towards
another, if there is an expectation of the favour being returned in the future. The cost to the
animal of behaving altruistically is compensating by the likelihood of this return benefit,
permitting the behaviour to evolve by natural selection. For obvious reasons, this evolutionary
mechanism is termed ‘reciprocal altruism’ or it can be stated as 'You scratch my back and I'll
scratch yours'.

For reciprocal altruism, there is no need for the two individuals to be relatives, nor even to be
members of the same species. However, it is necessary that individuals should interact with each
more than once, and have the ability to recognize other individuals with whom they have
interacted in the past. If individuals interact only once in their lifetimes and never meet again,
there is obviously no possibility of return benefit, so there is nothing to be gained by behaving
altruistically. However, if individuals encounter each other frequently, and are capable of
identifying and punishing ‘cheaters’ who have refused to behave altruistically in the past, then
reciprocal altruism can evolve. A nonaltruistic cheater will have a lower fitness than an altruist
because, although he does not incur the cost of behaving altruistically himself, he forfeits the
return benefits too - others will not behave altruistically towards him in the future. The concept
of reciprocal altruism is closely related to the Tit-for-Tat strategy. This evolutionary mechanism
is most likely to work where animals live in relatively small groups.

E.G.

Trivers (1985) describes a remarkable case of reciprocal altruism between organisms of different
species, a phenomenon known as ‘mutualism’ or ‘synergism’. On tropical coral reefs, various
species of small fish act as ‘cleaners’ for large fish, removing parasites from their mouths and
gills. This is not pure altruism on the part of the cleaners, for they feed on the parasites which
they remove. So the interaction is mutually beneficial - the large fish gets cleaned and the
cleaner gets fed.
However, Trivers notes that the large fish sometimes behave altruistically towards the cleaners.
If a large fish is attacked by a predator while it has a cleaner in its mouth, then it waits for the
cleaner to leave before fleeing the predator. This is clearly altruistic - surely the large fish would
be better off just swallowing the cleaner and fleeing straight away. Trivers explains the larger
fish's behaviour in terms of reciprocal altruism. Since the large fish often returns to the same
cleaner many times over, it pays to look after the cleaner's welfare, i.e. not to swallow it, even if
this increases the chance of being wounded by a predator. In short, the larger fish behaves
altruistically towards the cleaner, by allowing him to escape before fleeing, because there is an
expectation of return benefit - getting cleaned again in the future.