Read on Twitter
The "problem of altruism" in biology and the "collective action problem" in political science both begin from an individualist theory of maximization, then see abundant unselfish behavior as a surprise. https://twitter.com/NatureNews/status/1356736664215965699
The leading explanations seek to show that altruism is secretly selfish.
Putting aside the predictive value of these models for a moment, such models of secret selfishness play a tremendous ideological role in capitalist market societies.
We are told, you may feel altruistic or be moved by solidarity, but "deep down" it's just your genes selfishly protecting their own reproduction.
This article proposes that various explanations based on the survival and flourishing of the collective are the same as those based on survival of the individual, but are they really?
It's not hard to come up with nonhuman scenarios of selflessness, and human ones abound.
We're told we should disregard these in favor of a theory that is fruitful primarily because it "solved the problem of altruism"
But altruism is an intractable problem only to those who regard individual selfishness as natural.
But altruism is an intractable problem only to those who regard individual selfishness as natural.
The same mindset creates the problem and validates the solution.
But only by shifting the unit of selection downward from organism to gene. No clear reason why shifting it upward to colony, community, or species is more problematic/less credible.
But only by shifting the unit of selection downward from organism to gene. No clear reason why shifting it upward to colony, community, or species is more problematic/less credible.
… besides fundamentally ideological/cultural preferences for individualism.
