The natural selection of altruistic traits

Proponents of the standard evolutionary biology paradigm explain human “altruism” in terms of either nepotism or strict reciprocity. On that basis our underlying nature is reduced to a function of inclusive fitness: human nature has to be totally selfish or nepotistic. Proposed here are three possible paths to giving costly aid to nonrelatives, paths that are controversial because they involve assumed pleiotropic effects or group selection. One path is pleiotropic subsidies that help to extend nepotistic helping behavior from close family to nonrelatives. Another is “warfare”—if and only if warfare recurred in the Paleolithic. The third and most plausible hypothesis is based on the morally based egalitarian syndrome of prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which reduced phenotypic variation at the within-group level, increased it at the between-group level, and drastically curtailed the advantages of free riders. In an analysis consistent with the fundamental tenets of evolutionary biology, these three paths are evaluated as explanations for the evolutionary development of a rather complicated human social nature. This paper (in a series of drafts) has profited from comments by Michael Boehm, Donald T. Campbell, Bruce Knauft, Jane Lancaster, Martin Muller, Peter J. Richerson, Gary Seaman, Craig Stanford, George Williams, Edward O. Wilson, David Sloan Wilson, and two reviewers for Human Nature. Christopher Boehm is a professor of anthropology and the director of the Jane Goodall Research Center, University of Southern California. His research interests in political anthropology concern egalitarianism, feuding, warfare, and conflict resolution (humans and chimpanzees). In biosocial anthropology he is interested in altruism, group selection, and decisions.