Does Division of Labor Complicate Evolution's Trade-Offs?

Division of labor creates a need for others. And it logically connects your interests with the interests of those needed others (which complicates evolutionary trade-offs). 

Does Division of Labor Complicate Evolution's Trade-Offs?

This is diablog 5 between David Sloan Wilson (DSW, head of The Evolution Institute and author of Does Altruism Exist?) and me (JB). Earlier diablogs covered: (1) how evolution keeps score (relative fitness), (2) its built-in team aspects, (3) its self-destructive competitions, (4) its blind logic.


JB: “Relative fitness” is a key evolutionist idea, but it’s quite abstract. So let’s examine a concrete resource like food, in a team-hunting situation that complicates self-centered fitness gains.

To be logically viable, food allocation should fuel teammates enough to perform effectively in future hunts. Hence, selfish consumption hits logical limits. Not sharing enough food with teammates could hurt your own survival chances.

Does it make evolutionary sense that some organized groups relying on division of labor face similar logical limits to selfishness? In such organizations, as in organisms, the survival of the parts depends on the health of the whole. And relative fitness differences don’t arise, or perhaps can’t get too large?

Despite evolution being unintelligent, Orgel’s Second Rule applies: “Evolution is cleverer than you.” Its blind trial-and-error processes can create amazing “solutions.”

DSW: Your use of the word “logical” seems to be based not on logical relations but on a “good outcome,” which you seem to define as “good for me over the long term, without regard for others.”

Other criteria for defining “good outcome” are possible, e.g., “better than others in my group” or “best for my group.” It is plausible that a person could be guided by any of these (or other) criteria. Why do we observe people using some criteria and not others?

Presumably, there’s a Darwinian contest among criteria. A multilevel analysis of this contest shows that pure within-group selection would favor the “better than others in my group” criterion; pure between-group selection would favor the “best for my group” criterion; and mixed within- and between-group selection might favor the “good for me over the long term, without regard to others” criterion (with flexible criteria depending upon the social context).

I’d like to stress that the “good for me over the long term, without regard to others” criterion is far from culturally universal. It looms so large in our culture because of the currently dominant economic paradigm and its view of our species as Homo economicus, omniscient, entirely self-regarding, absolute utility-maximizing agents. But Homo economicus is a fiction that might well end up ruining society — the very outcome that the fictional Homo economicus would have enough sense to avoid!

To summarize, your very concept of “logical” needs a multilevel evolutionary perspective. 

JS: You’re right...“logical” or “rational” usually entail assumptions about desired outcomes. But my intended assumptions + logic = “If my survival is desirable, and if surviving requires collaboration, I can’t ignore the interests of teammates.” It would be illogical (counterproductive to my survival) to hog food so that my team was too weak to hunt well.

Focusing on relative fitness obscures this sort of logical (absolute) limit on self-maximization.

In any self-deficient species, self-interest becomes entangled with the interests of needed others.

For the next post in this diablog series, click here (Paleo-Economics Shaped Our Moralities). 

Earlier diablogs covered: (1) how evolution keeps score (relative fitness), (2) its built-in team aspects, (3) its self-destructive competitions, (4) its blind logic.

Illustration by Julia Suits, The New Yorker Cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions.

Did early humans hibernate?

New anthropological research suggests our ancestors enjoyed long slumbers.

Credit: Gorodenkoff / Adobe Stock
Surprising Science
  • Neanderthal bone fragments discovered in northern Spain mimic hibernating animals like cave bears.
  • Thousands of bone fragments, dating back 400,000 years, were discovered in this "pit of bones" 30 years ago.
  • The researchers speculate that this physiological function, if true, could prepare us for extended space travel.
Keep reading Show less

Does science tell the truth?

It is impossible for science to arrive at ultimate truths, but functional truths are good enough.

Credit: Sergey Nivens / 202871840
  • What is truth? This is a very tricky question, trickier than many would like to admit.
  • Science does arrive at what we can call functional truth, that is, when it focuses on what something does as opposed to what something is. We know how gravity operates, but not what gravity is, a notion that has changed over time and will probably change again.
  • The conclusion is that there are not absolute final truths, only functional truths that are agreed upon by consensus. The essential difference is that scientific truths are agreed upon by factual evidence, while most other truths are based on belief.
Keep reading Show less

A canvas of nonsense: how Dada reflects a world gone mad through art

Using urinals, psychological collages, and animated furniture to shock us into reality.

A Dadaist artist is painted with the ashes of burned banknotes during the financial crisis.

Credit: MICHELE LIMINA via Getty Images
Culture & Religion
  • Dada is a provocative and surreal art movement born out of the madness of World War I.
  • Tzara, a key Dada theorist, says Dada seeks "to confuse and upset, to shake and jolt" people from their comfort zones.
  • Dada, as all avant-garde art, faces a key problem in how to stay true to its philosophy.
Keep reading Show less
Surprising Science

Study: Tripping might not be required for psychedelic therapy

Two different studies provide further evidence of the efficacy of psychedelics in treating depression.