Why are we altruistic?

Joint action in nature characterizes not only relatively young zoological species with relatively developed cognitive abilities, such as humans, bonobo chimpanzees, dolphins or crows, and not only species among whom this action is a product of instinct, such as ants and termites. Cooperation underlies the simplest forms of life.

Why does man show altruism? Is altruism part of human biology, a consequence of man's evolutionary past, or does it arise from the factors that distinguish man from the living world - his consciousness, the social structures he designed, the religions he created? Anthropologist and zoologist Pyotr Kropotkin, followed by philosophers John Dewey and Mary Midgeley, believed that cooperation is the rule in nature, not the exception: a bird pretends to be injured to lure a predator away from its chicks; An animal feeding orphaned chicks of another animal; Baboon sacrifices himself in the fight against Cheetahs to save the rest of the pack.

These three thinkers were products of an environment with revolutionary, socialist and egalitarian ideals. Kropotkin's thought arose from the spirit of the anarchist Russian revolutionaries of the late 19th century; Dewey was one of the pioneers of early 20th century American progressivism; Midgely is among the critics of speciesism, the concept that humans are superior to other zoological species. She claims that the zoological species (species) have a right to life and dignity as man claims for himself, regardless of their degree of self-awareness. It is easy to dismiss these thinkers as idealists who let their views dictate their findings.

But not only many philosophers believe that most of the struggle for survival in nature does not take place through confrontation but through cooperation. Biologist Stephen J. Gold tells about populations that improve their chances of survival by acting together against the forces of nature: wild horses in the steppes of Mongolia that gather in circles to protect foals from predators; Squares in deserts struggling to find water; Ants and termites that establish huge colonies. The competition between individuals - in the same zoological species or against other species - is secondary compared to the cooperation in the struggle for survival in a flood or desert, in an arid, frozen or hardened environment. According to the findings of many other researchers, including Jane Goodall and France de Waal, both in the wild and in captivity, animals consistently demonstrate compassion, altruism, empathy and fairness.

Joint action in nature characterizes not only relatively young zoological species with relatively developed cognitive abilities, such as humans, bonobo chimpanzees, dolphins or crows, and not only species among whom this action is a product of instinct, such as ants and termites. Cooperation underlies the simplest forms of life. In the cells of all eukaryotic animals (eukaryotes, those with a nucleus) - from flies and worms of all kinds to whales and humans - DNA also exists outside the nucleus, in the mitochondria of the cell. How did this happen? About four billion years ago, the mitochondrion began to cooperate with a prokaryotic cell (without a nucleus and organelles). The mitochondria processed oxygen and converted it into energy, and the cell with the membrane gave it protection. So these two organisms, which four billion years ago were separate, improved their ability to survive and reproduce. From this fusion, the eukaryotic cell was formed from which all animals evolved. This is how life recorded one of its most turbulent leaps: not on the path of competition and mutual hunting but on the path of merging and symbiotic action. From its beginning, and in its essence, evolution is expressed in cooperation and not in competition.

An individual who shows selfishness and takes advantage of the altruism of his teammates should have an advantage. He should be able to control more resources, mate more times, produce more offspring and thus bring about the spread of the trait of egoism in the group, until altruism disappears. But if the strategy of selfishness is the most effective, why does altruism still exist? Because sometimes the most effective strategy for self-replication and spreading the genes is not selfishness but cooperation, mutual aid and sharing of resources. Selfishness may be an obstacle to survival in situations where there is an advantage to coordinated action - for example, when mutual aid or coordinated command and control is required when competing for natural resources. Giving up interests, resources, power or authority in favor of group action may improve the individual's chances of survival. Selfish behavior, which weakens the chances of survival of other organisms in the group, may also weaken the chances of survival of the individual exhibiting this behavior.

Although human societies compete with each other for resources, every society is essentially a cooperative structure. The bureaucratic nation-state, the large industries and the technology and space companies are social and economic structures that are fed by the sharing of ideas and technologies as well as by a continuous flow of information as much as possible. The person in these structures obeys the law and accepts the principles (and sometimes also the worldview) of the society in which he lives. These bodies - the person, the society, the state, the economic firm - do indeed act by the power of consciousness and not out of instinct, but in terms of their action they are not much different from the mitochondria that four billion years ago merged with a prokaryotic cell and created the first eukaryotic cell.

Is altruism in nature no more than an involuntary instinct? Is there a difference between an instinctive action (complex and contributing to the ability to cooperate as it may be) and actions that originate from the still undeciphered wonder of consciousness that is aware of itself and the consciousnesses around it? It is possible that the conscious altruistic action was born from certain forms of cooperation between people and it is possible that it was formulated from cases where the built-in expectation of cooperation was disappointed and a feeling of being hurt was created. Over time, this feeling was developed into a super-concept of the right thing to do, and from this concept both altruism and personal and social morality developed. According to Blackmore, self-aware minds have created their beings in a way that disconnects them from the biological evolutionary process. These beings led to the development of huge societies, with their religious and social frameworks, and it was these societies that gave birth to what is now known as "morality". This interpretation places a complete gap between humans and animals, no matter how altruistic they may be. Does this singular point, where we developed consciousness, thwart any attempt to find an evolutionary explanation for the more complex human behaviors, including morality?

Human consciousness is only hundreds of thousands of years old. The human societies we created have only existed for tens of thousands of years. The religions we designed and the moral rules they dictate have existed even less than that - a few thousand years. If altruism has existed in nature for hundreds of millions of years at the very least, did consciousness also exist in the living world even before the development of the evolutionary branch on which Homo Sapiens sits? Do the proteins that perform the basic chemical action of folding - have a purpose? Does the protein "want" to fold? Did the mitochondria and the prokaryotic cell "consciously decide" to merge? Biologist Ursula Goodenough believes that we should at least consider this possibility, which seems ridiculous at first glance. Mary Midgley went against this view, arguing that consciousness is only the property of more developed life forms:

"The more the action is not automatic, not self-evident, the stronger must be the general desire that will lead to its execution. Mammals are more intelligent than the bees in terms of their understanding of the things that benefit the offspring, but this fact, does not mean that they can surpass the bees, who raise offspring automatically. Mammals should want to do good for their offspring. And they should want it more, not less, than bees, because they are freer, much more, and can easily abandon their offspring if they so desire, something that obviously can never happen to a bee [emphasis in original].” According to Midgely, the more complex the creature is and acts not only by the power of its basic drives, the more likely it is to act by the power of awareness, intention or will.

The action of the mitochondria may not be related to "consciousness", but what about dogs or cats? And what about hamsters? and repairs? And seaweed? Where is the line between unconscious animals and conscious animals? And if an animal has consciousness, does it also deserve rights that are granted by law to every person with consciousness? In 1977, dolphins were released from captivity by animal rights activists. In their trial, the activists argued that the dolphins are legal "persons" and therefore their captivity is illegal. The judge rejected their argument stating that only a person is a legal person. But the meaning of the term "person" was never uniform. In different periods this term was used to describe different essences. During the era of slavery in the United States, slaves were not considered "persons" entitled to legal standing. Until the beginning of the 20th century, this status was also denied to women, in some cases. For about two hundred years, the term "persons" has also included economic companies and not just human beings. If this term, according to its original meaning in Latin ("mask"), is so flexible, fluid and interpreted according to the context and the period, why not also include animals in it? This year (2013), India enacted a law according to which dolphins are "non-human persons", with legal rights.

Recent history can also provide us with a basis for conjecturing about the evolutionary origins of altruism. War is an unusual situation in human history. The rule is social systems of mutual aid and cooperation in view of the limitations imposed by climate and environmental conditions. Only in one war in history did more than one percent of the entire human race perish - World War II. Such a number of casualties, 55 million dead, is completed by humanity today in about four months. It is not natural reproduction alone that is responsible for the population explosion, but primarily the preservation of the social, religious, political and economic frameworks that make it possible to spread and maintain among billions of people the technology and medicine that prevent infant mortality and extend life expectancy.

Sharing is a crucial feature of human consciousness. Altruism - not selfishness - is the prevailing rule among human societies, whether it is formulated in ancient religious rules of conduct, in modern humanism or in anti-humanism, according to which animals also have a right to equality before the law and the protection of the law. Humans preserve social frameworks, economic systems and common belief patterns, much more than they go to war to destroy these orders. And they manage to do this despite multiplication and an increase in population density to an extent that has no precedent among any other zoological species.

Is altruism as much a part of us as murderous instincts are? Do we work to do good to others because this is embedded in our genes, and not just by virtue of our cultural choices? Such a view may be a source of discouragement. We would like to think of ourselves as good or special, "the crown of creation". But man may emerge strengthened from the understanding that, being connected in his evolutionary past to the entire animal world, he is part of a magnificent biological chain not only when he goes to war but also in his most noble behaviors: even when he helps, shares and sympathizes.

Sources
Ardry Robert, African Genesis
Margulis Lynn, What is life? (University of California Press, 1995)
Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine (Kinneret ZBM, 2009)
Schwartz Eilon, At Home in the World: Human Nature, Ecological Thought and Education after Darwin (NY: State University of New York, 2009), p. 94.
Steven Pinker, The better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined; Yuval Noah Harari, From Animals into Gods: A Brief History of Humankind; (Yuval Noah Harari, A Brief History of Humanity)
Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: History's Age of Hatred (London: Allen Lane, 2006)