Charity in the Context of Evolution

[Unity]

Why is it that in this competitive world, acts of charity persist? I mean, it doesn't seem likely that is recent mutation, otherwise it would be rarer. It is not conducive to the survival of the organism. In fact, if one regards a charitable act logically it is counterproductive to survival. Yet every single day people anonymously give away food or money to people less fortunate who could not possibly reciprocate.

This is an odd predicament, because I largely believe in evolutionary theory simply because it makes so many things fall into place.

So I want to hear the explanation from the evolutionists (and the creationists as well if so inclined, although I'm pretty sure I know the response). If we are indeed, “survival machines” how do you see charity fitting in?

[drkitten]

Why is it that in this competitive world, acts of charity persist? I mean, it doesn't seem likely that is recent mutation, otherwise it would be rarer. It is not conducive to the survival of the organism. In fact, if one regards a charitable act logically it is counterproductive to survival. Yet every single day people anonymously give away food or money to people less fortunate who could not possibly reciprocate.

Dawkins addresses this to some extent in the Selfish Gene. We are nice to other people because they share our genes. Especially in the savannahs and such, where small groups of proto-monkeys evolved into proto-humans, there is a very good chance that you are related to every other member of your species that you encounter (since the small groups are usually related).

Your sister, for example, shares half of your genes. If you can do something nice for her, that's the equivalent (from a genetic perspective) of your doing something half as nice for yourself. Most of the time, these acts of "altruism" (the terms scientists usually use when discussing this) don't actually put the donor at risk, but can have a tremendous help to the recipient. For example, if I have food I don't need, it will either go to waste,... or I can use it to feed my sick and hungry sister who might otherwise starve. The "cost" to me is negligible, the benefit to her may be substantial, especially if she goes on to have a dozen children, all of whom share a quarter of my genes.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why is it that in this competitive world, acts of charity persist? I mean, it doesn't seem likely that is recent mutation, otherwise it would be rarer. It is not conducive to the survival of the organism. In fact, if one regards a charitable act logically it is counterproductive to survival. Yet every single day people anonymously give away food or money to people less fortunate who could not possibly reciprocate.

This is an odd predicament, because I largely believe in evolutionary theory simply because it makes so many things fall into place.

So I want to hear the explanation from the evolutionists (and the creationists as well if so inclined, although I'm pretty sure I know the response). If we are indeed, “survival machines” how do you see charity fitting in?

Why would you think charity is not conducive to survival?

I suppose if we take a narrow view and look only at individual humans as competing against each other, that might be true. But that is not how humans are built. Each individual survives because we band together in social units. We would not have survived without social cohesion. Charity is one aspect of the social cohesion that permits our survival.

[Dancing David]

There are many answers to this:

These are all suggestions for how it might lead to reproductive success

1.We are very weak creatures and our chances of survival and reproduction are lower when we are solitary.

2. In hunter gathering, horticultural and preindustrial agriculture there is going to be a surplus of food when it is available and a acute shortage most of the time. The ability to harvest the surplus and store it is crucial. This is more easily done when there are many humans working together.

3. If you consider most of human history survival is more crucial than competition, you will find a lot of crap about the naked ape and competition in humans. It is crap. Economically there is a very large benefit to cooperative behavior. The pay off for aggresion only comes into play after the development of agriculture and advanced storage technologies. There is very little pay off before that point. Surviving has a much higher pay off then the cost of aggression.

4. The pay off for cooperative behavior is higher than aggression, even with strangers. Most societies prior to modern times have a high standard of tolerance for strangers. In most prehistorical contexts there is a very high potential detriment to aggression. There is a very high pay off for cooperation. Being kind and helpful to strangers reduces the risk of detrimental harm, infection and healing are very dangerous. You can break your legs easily enough without fighting other humans.

[Dr Adequate]

Yet every single day people anonymously give away food or money to people less fortunate who could not possibly reciprocate. But when we evolved, all the people we ever interacted with could reciprocate.

[Dancing David]

Why would you think charity is not conducive to survival?

I suppose if we take a narrow view and look only at individual humans as competing against each other, that might be true. But that is not how humans are built. Each individual survives because we band together in social units. We would not have survived without social cohesion. Charity is one aspect of the social cohesion that permits our survival.

This certainly a real problem for economics, it makes sense that economies that share wealth, without detriment, are going to have a higher proportion of health and weal. But most economist have a major investment in being in a system that does have economic disparity.

Increasing the minimum wage does more to raise the economy than most economists will tell you. And you do not have to have income limits or other punitive restraints to have a healthy economy. One of the reasons many people hate marxist economics is that it does say "follow the money" and to not get involved in philosophical politics. Humans tend to forget that they are social creatures once they aggregate in huge groups. It is easy to say "those people", "those neighborhoods" and "their problems" when you drive cars and convince yourself that those neighborhoods are not your neighbors. I hate it when there are shootings in my town, it is not inevitable that there will be gun violence. It is not tolerable to have it happen in "those neighborhoods" because I happen to live in one.

But those in power usually have the benefit of money and power but they act as though that is their god given right and they did not get there through a very unfair system. However the cost of ignorance is rising , if you allow your neighbors to suffer the you will ultimately pay the cost. Reductionism is a very useful thought tool but we are all connected and the choices we all make influence the reality of the world.
Reproductive success can be very short sighted as well. That is part of natural selection, it will favor those who detriment themselves and those who detriment others as long as they have reproductive success.

[Unity]

Dawkins addresses this to some extent in the Selfish Gene. We are nice to other people because they share our genes. Especially in the savannahs and such, where small groups of proto-monkeys evolved into proto-humans, there is a very good chance that you are related to every other member of your species that you encounter (since the small groups are usually related).

Your sister, for example, shares half of your genes. If you can do something nice for her, that's the equivalent (from a genetic perspective) of your doing something half as nice for yourself. Most of the time, these acts of "altruism" (the terms scientists usually use when discussing this) don't actually put the donor at risk, but can have a tremendous help to the recipient. For example, if I have food I don't need, it will either go to waste,... or I can use it to feed my sick and hungry sister who might otherwise starve. The "cost" to me is negligible, the benefit to her may be substantial, especially if she goes on to have a dozen children, all of whom share a quarter of my genes.

That makes alot of sense for many cases. But when someone makes an anonymous donation to a charity they have no idea who is going to get it. If it were food that would go to waste, surely. But it seems to me it would make more sense to give those resources to those who could reciprocate, vs. the weakest ones. I'm thinking something along the lines of "Make a Wish" as a strong example in that case.

[Unity]

Why would you think charity is not conducive to survival?

I suppose if we take a narrow view and look only at individual humans as competing against each other, that might be true. But that is not how humans are built. Each individual survives because we band together in social units. We would not have survived without social cohesion. Charity is one aspect of the social cohesion that permits our survival.

Yes, but there is an inherent advantage there. Anonymous charity (which is the only true way to be charitable IMO) is closer in material terms to lighting your money on fire than it is to fostering teamwork.

[cyborg]

The desire to eat is good. But sometimes I can over eat. Recognising that fact doesn't necessarily mean I can control the impulse.

The desire to give is good. But sometime I can over give. Recognising that fact doesn't necessarily mean I can control the impulse.

See Dr A. Just because there is, or may well be, no reciprocation doesn't mean we suddenly stop feeling the need to engage in altruism.

[drkitten]

That makes alot of sense for many cases. But when someone makes an anonymous donation to a charity they have no idea who is going to get it.

Yes, but that's not how evolution works. The idea of organized charities is an extremely recent development to which the human genome has not had enough time to respond. (There are enough other examples of that floating around as well; the sweet tooth that kept us searching for high-energy sugary foods on the savannah today causes tooth decay, diabetes, and malnutrition.)

But it seems to me it would make more sense to give those resources to those who could reciprocate, vs. the weakest ones.

As has already pointed out, when this behavior evolved, everyone with whom we interacted could reciprocate.

[Roboramma]

There's also the "conspicous consumption" angle.

Charitable giving can confer status on the giver, particularly when the receiver is truely in need and what's given is a really meaningful amount.

By giving a lot a person shows that he has the ability to give a lot. It shows his ability to acquire resources, or to go on and prosper after giving them up. Charity, thus, could be a fitness indicator - something that can be import in acquiring status, mates, friends, etc.

As to "anonymous charity" - for whatever reason (and I won't address that right now) people have more respect for those who give without expecting some return. Those who give and make a big deal of it are seen as only giving in expectation of reciprocation, or because others will confer status on them ("wow, you're so great, you gave so much") - they're showing off.
Because of this tendancy, those who don't make a big deal of giving could, at least in some situations, tend to gain more benefit from giving. Because others might notice even when they aren't being ostentacious, and when they do notice will also put stock in that lack of ostentaciousness, they gain extra status, or whatever.
So, a tendancy to feel good about giving without making a big deal about it - as well as a tendancy to like others noticing - could evolve. And that could lead to at least some engaging in anonymous giving, something that would be far more difficult to keep "anonymous" in the environment in which we evovled because, well, people like to gossip.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, but there is an inherent advantage there. Anonymous charity (which is the only true way to be charitable IMO) is closer in material terms to lighting your money on fire than it is to fostering teamwork.


Others have already responded quite nicely, so let me take this time to increase my post count by +1.

[Unity]

Others have already responded quite nicely, so let me take this time to increase my post count by +1.

LOL! I knew I'd get some love on this board. By the time I finished my first two responses the tally was 9 posts.

I'm just a man, people! Those are great points, BTW. I'll have to collect myself (read do the job I'm being paid to do for awhile) but I can feel my brain expanding already.

[jimbob]

"The Origin of Virtue" by Matt Ridley is another good starting point.

Frans der Waals books e.g. "Our inner Ape" are also interesting...

[Unity]

But when we evolved, all the people we ever interacted with could reciprocate.

I can see the theory behind that, but it seems to me that a pattern of increasing competition creating an elevated way of thinking (kind of in the way I'm attempting to elevate myself now) creates a new "team" of fitter individuals, and then that team would dominate/eliminate more universally cooperative ones.

For example, when the Europeans after fighting amongst themselves developed guns. They were obviously much more effective killing tools than bow and arrows so when they came to America they easily laid waste to the Native Americans who fought for their way of life.

While this is only one case, it happens throughout history and therefore it seems would've happened in prehistory as well.

In "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins writes of the rebel "Bad Boy" type who takes advantage of altruism, so it would appear that unless we were always in a place where resources were in some way adequate for the group as a whole, that the "Bad Boy" genotype would take over quite readily and quickly, creating a new more selectively altruistic team.

Of course I'm merely speculating and I'm quite sure there are holes, but clues do point to this as a recurring theme, at least in my mind right now...but that's why I'm here. :)

[cyborg]

In "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins writes of the rebel "Bad Boy" type who takes advantage of altruism, so it would appear that unless we were always in a place where resources were in some way adequate for the group as a whole, that the "Bad Boy" genotype would take over quite readily and quickly, creating a new more selectively altruistic team.

Think about it: if everyone was selfish then society would collapse and we would live as isolated beings.

Clearly there is a certain tolerance any social group can have for selfish members - and one should note the mechanisms that exist that remove/punish such members when they are discovered.

There is indeed nothing new under the sun - even ants have these sorts of problems when they get members of the colony who go awry and have to be sorted out.

When reasoning about such things one needs to think about society as a higher level organism borne out of the actions of individuals.

[Unity]

The desire to eat is good. But sometimes I can over eat. Recognising that fact doesn't necessarily mean I can control the impulse.

The desire to give is good. But sometime I can over give. Recognising that fact doesn't necessarily mean I can control the impulse.

See Dr A. Just because there is, or may well be, no reciprocation doesn't mean we suddenly stop feeling the need to engage in altruism.

So the desire to give is a compulsion where willpower is how it's prevented? That's an interesting viewpoint.

I've heard similar things, but never in reference to charity. I may be misunderstanding you, if so please clarify. But is this statement akin to "pity is weakness"? If that is what you believe you are certainly entitled I don't have a direct counter.

The only thing I can say is that self-destructive behavior whether based on genetics or environment is typically, almost universally viewed as negative...like in your overeating example, whereas being charitable is not generally viewed as weak or stupid.

Or maybe it is by more people than care to admit it.

Dr. A?

[cyborg]

So the desire to give is a compulsion where willpower is how it's prevented? That's an interesting viewpoint.

Willpower is an illusionary concept for the most part as far as I'm concerned. We don't generally call compulsions to eat and drink bad until they have deleterious effects, but they are compulsions we cannot avoid all the same.

Willing yourself not to eat is a pretty damn hard thing to do to say the least.

I've heard similar things, but never in reference to charity. I may be misunderstanding you, if so please clarify. But is this statement akin to "pity is weakness"? If that is what you believe you are certainly entitled I don't have a direct counter.

Pity is weakness? Hardly. I'm merely pointing out that there can always be alternate consequences for a rule that is beneficial in one context yet not in another.

There is clearly no particular material benefit to me in giving apart from the emotional satisfaction - but then that's not really any different to anything else. I get emotional satisfaction from eating and such - that's the mechanism that evolved to get me to do things that are good for my survival.

whereas being charitable is not generally viewed as weak or stupid.

Well, if you were to give EVERYTHING away then it would be.

Most people don't think that's a good idea (even if they belong to a religion that says it is *cough*Christianity*cough*).

[Unity]

There's also the "conspicous consumption" angle.

Charitable giving can confer status on the giver, particularly when the receiver is truely in need and what's given is a really meaningful amount.

By giving a lot a person shows that he has the ability to give a lot. It shows his ability to acquire resources, or to go on and prosper after giving them up. Charity, thus, could be a fitness indicator - something that can be import in acquiring status, mates, friends, etc.

As to "anonymous charity" - for whatever reason (and I won't address that right now) people have more respect for those who give without expecting some return. Those who give and make a big deal of it are seen as only giving in expectation of reciprocation, or because others will confer status on them ("wow, you're so great, you gave so much") - they're showing off.
Because of this tendancy, those who don't make a big deal of giving could, at least in some situations, tend to gain more benefit from giving. Because others might notice even when they aren't being ostentacious, and when they do notice will also put stock in that lack of ostentaciousness, they gain extra status, or whatever.
So, a tendancy to feel good about giving without making a big deal about it - as well as a tendancy to like others noticing - could evolve. And that could lead to at least some engaging in anonymous giving, something that would be far more difficult to keep "anonymous" in the environment in which we evovled because, well, people like to gossip.

I've heard of the first part before, but never gave it much thought. The part about the anonymous deal is new to me, though. Very interesting.

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking that there are more effective ways of conferring status or fitness with cash (which we've also done throughout history and I'm sure I don't need to elaborate) but you have definitely given me something to chew on, many thanks. :)

[Unity]

Think about it: if everyone was selfish then society would collapse and we would live as isolated beings.

That's not what I was getting at, I was referring to being selective about altruistic behavior such that even then the most benefit is realized, not complete selfishness per se.

When reasoning about such things one needs to think about society as a higher level organism borne out of the actions of individuals.

Agreed, that's been one of the realizations I've had too. I'm still trying to reconcile everything, but it's been the best model I have so far.

[Unity]

Willpower is an illusionary concept for the most part as far as I'm concerned. We don't generally call compulsions to eat and drink bad until they have deleterious effects, but they are compulsions we cannot avoid all the same.

Willing yourself not to eat is a pretty damn hard thing to do to say the least.


Tell me about it. I fight that battle every day. That has to be one strong illusion!

Pity is weakness? Hardly. I'm merely pointing out that there can always be alternate consequences for a rule that is beneficial in one context yet not in another.

There is clearly no particular material benefit to me in giving apart from the emotional satisfaction - but then that's not really any different to anything else. I get emotional satisfaction from eating and such - that's the mechanism that evolved to get me to do things that are good for my survival.

OK, I think I get it. It's not willpower but an unconscious basis for a conscious decision.

Well, if you were to give EVERYTHING away then it would be.

Most people don't think that's a good idea (even if they belong to a religion that says it is *cough*Christianity*cough*).

I agree there too but that's pretty extreme. Unless you were to give away everything to the church, they would think it's a great idea!

[Unity]

Oops, didn't mean to ignore you, David. I was confusing you with Wasp:Others have already responded quite nicely, so let me take this time to increase my post count by +1.
Honestly, the chance reduce the load was appealing at that point.

There are many answers to this:

These are all suggestions for how it might lead to reproductive success

1.We are very weak creatures and our chances of survival and reproduction are lower when we are solitary.

2. In hunter gathering, horticultural and preindustrial agriculture there is going to be a surplus of food when it is available and a acute shortage most of the time. The ability to harvest the surplus and store it is crucial. This is more easily done when there are many humans working together.

3. If you consider most of human history survival is more crucial than competition, you will find a lot of crap about the naked ape and competition in humans. It is crap. Economically there is a very large benefit to cooperative behavior. The pay off for aggresion only comes into play after the development of agriculture and advanced storage technologies. There is very little pay off before that point. Surviving has a much higher pay off then the cost of aggression.

4. The pay off for cooperative behavior is higher than aggression, even with strangers. Most societies prior to modern times have a high standard of tolerance for strangers. In most prehistorical contexts there is a very high potential detriment to aggression. There is a very high pay off for cooperation. Being kind and helpful to strangers reduces the risk of detrimental harm, infection and healing are very dangerous. You can break your legs easily enough without fighting other humans.

I think these have been danced (no pun intended) around over the course of this thread. I'm going to have to disappear again for a little bit, but will make a comparison and see what peices are missing when I get back for this post and elaborate a little bit on others.

[Thabiguy]

Yet every single day people anonymously give away food or money to people less fortunate who could not possibly reciprocate.

Why do so many people go to church every Sunday, doing nothing productive and wasting time that they could spend gathering resources? What sense does that make from the evolutionary perspective? Why do masses of people watch Superbowl? What evolutionary advantage do they gain from that? Why do they celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas, exhausting themselves and actually spending valuable resources for no apparent survival benefit at all? Speaking of which, why are people willing and happy to spend enormous amounts of money on a wedding ceremony? What is the evolutionary explanation for that?

It is important to realize that ever since the dawn of civilization, human behavior has been dramatically influenced by living in societies and cultures. Considering evolutionary reasons and motivations from the viewpoint of individuals or species - or more accurately, genes - is no longer sufficient to explain complicated emergent patterns. In addition to genetics, memetics comes to play, governed by its own evolutionary rules. Indeed, I would argue that in the aforementioned cases, including the American tradition of giving money to charity (according to this article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm), the practice is much less widespread elsewhere), memetic reasons, i.e. cultural influence, are the dominant factor, and genetics plays little role.

I also find it important to point out that charity, as in "people anonymously give away food or money", is NOT altruism. As in, sacrificing oneself for another. You don't normally hear, "I'm sorry, son, I know you're hungry, but we can't buy you food, as we've given the money to charity instead". Or, "you know what, honey, let's sell our car and give the money to charity; I'm sure we'll manage without it and certainly there are people whose needs are much more urgent". I'm not saying that this never happens, but it's definitely not typical.

Much more commonly, the scenario would be an individual with well-secured basic needs and abundant resources giving away a fraction of their surplus. And that seems more like a rather innocent form of entertainment than something "counterproductive to survival" in any perceptible way.

[T'ai Chi]

One story is as good as another..

[cyborg]

Ah, and here's T'ai to interject with wrongness. Best ignore him.

[CFLarsen]

One story is as good as another..

Nonsense.

[CFLarsen]

Ah, and here's T'ai to interject with wrongness. Best ignore him.

Not just "wrongness".

Willful, deliberate, religious ignorance.

[jimbob]

Two ideas.

Firstly that we evolved as cooperators, and thus with a tendancy to cooperate; and, interestingly a desire to punish non-cooperators, even at our own inconvenience*.

Secondly in order to determine intentions, some form of empathy was most efffective, and as a side-effect, combined with our co-operative natures, meant that charitible acts would feel good. This can extend to pets as well.

Of cases where animals have been recorded as behaving "altruistically" towards humans, e.g Binti Jua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binti_Jua) I think most are of "cute looking" social species, I suspect that we look cute to them too...

*Of course in prisoner's dilemma type experiments, economists tend to behave "rationally", i.e. unlike other people. Ironically two economists playing such repeated games together tend to do less well than two moral "normal" humans, who tend to cooperate. They also seem surprised at being punished when it is not rational for the punisher. This makes sense if you look at the long term, over many years living in close proximity. Cooperating with a noncoperator is a mug's game.

[DanishDynamite]

Why is it that in this competitive world, acts of charity persist? I mean, it doesn't seem likely that is recent mutation, otherwise it would be rarer. It is not conducive to the survival of the organism. In fact, if one regards a charitable act logically it is counterproductive to survival. Yet every single day people anonymously give away food or money to people less fortunate who could not possibly reciprocate.

This is an odd predicament, because I largely believe in evolutionary theory simply because it makes so many things fall into place.

So I want to hear the explanation from the evolutionists (and the creationists as well if so inclined, although I'm pretty sure I know the response). If we are indeed, “survival machines” how do you see charity fitting in?
I suspect charity has little to do with inate human characteristics and a lot to do with culture.

In the US, for example, donating to charity is seen as normal and good. In Denmark, with an elaborate social security system, there is no perceived need to donate as we are already fleeced through taxation and furthermore don't need to step over homeless people on our way to work.

That being said, there are many reasons for the Selfish Gene to apparently be unselfish in some situations.

[Dr Adequate]

The desire to eat is good. But sometimes I can over eat. Recognising that fact doesn't necessarily mean I can control the impulse.

The desire to give is good. But sometime I can over give. Recognising that fact doesn't necessarily mean I can control the impulse.

See Dr A. Just because there is, or may well be, no reciprocation doesn't mean we suddenly stop feeling the need to engage in altruism. I thought that that was exactly the point that I was making.

[Thabiguy]

I thought that that was exactly the point that I was making.

I think cyborg meant "see what Dr A. wrote; just because...", not "you see, Dr A., just because...".

[godless dave]

Why would you think charity is not conducive to survival?

I suppose if we take a narrow view and look only at individual humans as competing against each other, that might be true. But that is not how humans are built. Each individual survives because we band together in social units. We would not have survived without social cohesion. Charity is one aspect of the social cohesion that permits our survival.

And you don't see much altruistic behavior among most species of sharks or spiders. All the great apes are social animals, none more so than chimpanzees, our closest relatives.

[cyborg]

I think cyborg meant "see what Dr A. wrote; just because...", not "you see, Dr A., just because...".

Bingo.

[Unity]

Well, I have found an answer satisfactory to me amongst these pages...at least for now (I can't stop that voice in my head which keeps saying, "Well, what about this?").

When arguing these points with myself, I was looking for the most likely course, thinking that charitable acts (as defined O/P) were very common.

However charity does not appear to be as widespread as I thought. If that is the case, then these behavioral tangents are far more explainable. It is no longer necessary to find the most likely course, but rather some course which explains it, which is obviously not difficult at all.