Is Evolution Teeming with Unseen Teamwork? (Second in Diablog Series)

Many believe that evolution plays only ruthless "red in tooth and claw" games. But that view tends to ignore that nature is teeming with unseen or underappreciated teamwork. 

Is Evolution Teeming with Unseen Teamwork? (Second in Diablog Series)

This is the second in a diablog series between David Sloan Wilson (DSW, head of The Evolution Institute, author of Does Altruism Exist) and me (JB).

JB: Our first diablog covered how evolution keeps score. Let’s now look at the built-in logic of nature’s games.

Evolutionists often use a selfishness vs. altruism frame that, strictly speaking, doesn’t seem logically complete. Its neat “self OR other” carving excludes cooperation wherein both “self AND other” gain (not at each other’s expense). And “self or other” logic doesn’t help distinguish useful kinds of “others” (teammate, co-breeder, friend, foe, food, etc.).

Genes compete “selfishly” against their rivals (alleles) for a single slot in future generations. But if they don’t cooperate well with every other gene in their body/vehicle/team, they reduce their own survival prospects. Evolution seems at this level to have a built-in “for the team” logic — or at least a “not at the expense of the team” logic.

Within vehicles, the game isn’t zero-sum like Monopoly; it’s like a rowing crew — I can’t win unless my teammates win. And my gaining at my teammates’ expense likely weakens the boat. That sort of selfishness can become self-sinking.

DSW: I must hammer home the relentless logic of relative fitness. Natural selection works only on fitness differences, and multilevel selection theory locates the relevant differences in a nested hierarchy.

Typically, the relevant fitness for a gene in an organism isn’t different than for the other genes in the same organism. They are all in the same boat, and their fitness at the team/body/vehicle level is what counts.

But sometimes genes do increase at the expense of other genes within the same organism (intragenomic conflict), just as members of sports teams sometimes play to advance selfish interests at the expense of the team. That creates opposing levels of selection.

In your Monopoly and rowing examples, selection at one level is unopposed by selection at other levels, which makes them evolutionary no-brainers. However, fitness differences can exist between (a) genes within organisms, (b) individuals within groups, (c) groups within multigroup populations ... and so on.

Many people (including scientists) reason about evolution by heuristically imagining an individual choosing between two traits. They assume that what will evolve is what the individual would choose. Thus, a rower considering rowing hard or slacking off can see that she’ll only benefit if her team wins. So it’s smarter to row hard and that’s also what’s naturally selected.

But in more complex cases the relevant fitness differences aren’t as clear, and can exist at multiple levels. Individual heuristic thinking can’t substitute for a proper model.

JB: OK, so we agree that evolution’s games aren’t always simply competitive. Built-in cooperative elements complicate life, and create openings for counterproductive selfishness. Certain relative fitness gains (if harmful to necessary others/teammates) can sink your own boat. And such team/vehicular relationships exist not only in evolution; they’re common in politics, economics, and everyday life. Let's stop ignoring their logic.

For the next post in this diablog series click here (Lessons of Cancer = Evolutionary Civil War).

For the previous post click here (Have We Been Wrong-Footed By Evolution?).

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

Every 27.5 million years, the Earth’s heart beats catastrophically

Geologists discover a rhythm to major geologic events.

Credit: desertsolitaire/Adobe Stock
Surprising Science
  • It appears that Earth has a geologic "pulse," with clusters of major events occurring every 27.5 million years.
  • Working with the most accurate dating methods available, the authors of the study constructed a new history of the last 260 million years.
  • Exactly why these cycles occur remains unknown, but there are some interesting theories.
Keep reading Show less

Babble hypothesis shows key factor to becoming a leader

Research shows that those who spend more time speaking tend to emerge as the leaders of groups, regardless of their intelligence.

Man speaking in front of a group.

Credit: Adobe Stock / saksit.
Surprising Science
  • A new study proposes the "babble hypothesis" of becoming a group leader.
  • Researchers show that intelligence is not the most important factor in leadership.
  • Those who talk the most tend to emerge as group leaders.
  • Keep reading Show less

    The first three minutes: going backward to the beginning of time with Steven Weinberg (Part 1)

    The great theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg passed away on July 23. This is our tribute.

    Credit: Billy Huynh via Unsplash
    • The recent passing of the great theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg brought back memories of how his book got me into the study of cosmology.
    • Going back in time, toward the cosmic infancy, is a spectacular effort that combines experimental and theoretical ingenuity. Modern cosmology is an experimental science.
    • The cosmic story is, ultimately, our own. Our roots reach down to the earliest moments after creation.
    Keep reading Show less
    Surprising Science

    Ancient Greek military ship found in legendary, submerged Egyptian city

    Long before Alexandria became the center of Egyptian trade, there was Thônis-Heracleion. But then it sank.