Comments on: Altruistic chimpanzees clearly help each other out

By: Blog: The Spirit of Giving | Kylemilhoan's Blog

Blog: The Spirit of Giving | Kylemilhoan's Blog — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 12:22:23 +0000

[...] fact of nature, even in the animal kingdom. This was first observed in 2007, when a group of chimps in Uganda was found helping unrelated chimps, and even human handlers, with no desire for payback. [...]

By: Free Radical

Free Radical — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:13:41 +0000

I was involved in a discussion recently on another science blogging website where a writer (whose principle concern was actually discrediting Richard Dawkins’ “selfish gene” theory) argued that even in HUMAN society, true altruism – that is to say, sacrifice of that which one does not have in excess – is too rare in nature to have an impact on evolution. I found that ridiculous, said so, and was glad to read this article afterwards. Way to go.

By: Lilian Nattel

Lilian Nattel — Sun, 24 May 2009 21:50:39 +0000

It’s very interesting–and shows again that humans are on a continuum with other animals and not unique.

By: Russell

Russell — Sat, 23 May 2009 21:24:13 +0000

Except for humans, I doubt animals ever “consider the issue of reproduction” when having sex.
Has anyone studied whether there is a connection between generosity and the portion of its life during which an animal depends its parents? Both chimpanzee and human parents decide how much to invest in the care of their children. Parents might be more inclined to and better care for generous and helpful children, with the evolutionary pay-off that they can better raise more children. Of course, juveniles soon become more interested in their own mates and children than their parents and siblings. There’s obviously a tension, well-known to the in-between generation. Intuitively, though, it seems the larger portion of life dependent on parents would provide stronger selection for generous behavior.

By: Fox1

Fox1 — Sat, 23 May 2009 21:19:07 +0000

Evolutionary and game theory alike predict that selfish behaviour should be the rule with altruism the exception, and animal experiments have largely supported this idea. Nature, ‘red in tooth and claw’, is painted as a fierce competition between selfish individuals and their even more selfish genes.

Isn’t that actually not true of game theory as long as scenarios are iterative and the actors maintain memory of previous “episodes?”

By: Thomas Kluyver

Thomas Kluyver — Sat, 23 May 2009 21:18:29 +0000

It doesn’t sound like they’re ruling out reputation effects. Chimps are surely intelligent enough to recognise and remember individuals, so even without the immediate prospect of repayment, helping could be advantageous in the long run if it makes others more likely to help you.

By: Marc Abian

Marc Abian — Sat, 23 May 2009 19:59:57 +0000

You negleted to mention the impacts this study would have in relation to the feasibility of helper chimps

By: Sean Craven

Sean Craven — Sat, 23 May 2009 18:00:20 +0000

This is really interesting stuff, especially when considered in conjunction with studies on altruism in infants.
In my experiences with small children the impulse to help is strong and inborn — they are responding as much to an inner desire to help as to the needs of others.
What I’m suggesting is that there may be a selfish component to altruism, that it’s an itch that we like to scratch.
Which doesn’t diminish it, in my opinion. I think you have a very good point to make about the desire to eliminate the values placed on behaviors.
To go further, I’d suggest that one of the reasons for public hostility to the sciences is that people feel trivialized by these kinds of analysis. I disagree with that position but it does take some thought to be able to accept the legitimacy of both human value systems and the knowledge that they’re essentially the result of a complicated chemical reaction.