In this blog post, we’ll explore why altruistic behavior persists even when it appears to be self-defeating, using group selection theory to examine the reasons behind it.
As we go through life, we encounter many “kind people.” People who hand over a thousand won without hesitation to a beggar on the subway, those who donate to the Salvation Army’s red buckets during the holiday season, and those who volunteer their time every week—countless people help one another. These “kind people” are also easily found in the classroom. Take, for example, the student who carries books for a classmate with an injured leg, or the students who arrive early every morning to clean the classroom. It is common to encounter “good people” like this in our daily lives. But why do they engage in such altruistic behavior? After all, few people specifically acknowledge their donations, and it would likely be more beneficial to use that money to buy something they need for themselves. Even in the classroom, helping an injured student might cause them to be late for class themselves—wouldn’t it be more advantageous to go ahead for their own sake? Similarly, even if they come early in the morning to clean the classroom, it will soon get messy again. Why do they choose to act this way, even though such acts of kindness for others actually require sacrifice and cost on their part?
One theory that explains this altruistic behavior is “group selection theory.” Similar to the concept of “survival of the fittest,” this theory posits that individuals who adapt well to a given environment survive, while those who do not are eliminated. However, the difference between “group selection theory” and the theory of survival of the fittest is that the unit of survival is not the individual but the group. In other words, even if an individual struggles to adapt to the environment on their own, they can survive as a member of a group if that group adapts well to the environment. Let’s explain this in simpler terms. Imagine an island where people live who cannot bend their arms. On this island, selfish people do not share food with others and think only of what they can get for themselves, while altruistic people share food with others. In this scenario, the altruistic people constantly feed others, while the selfish people keep taking food. Ultimately, when viewed individually, the selfish people would be the ones who survive.
However, the situation changes if we assume there are two islands. What would happen if one island had many selfish people and the other had many altruistic people? While the selfish people would survive better on their respective islands, when comparing the two islands, the island inhabited by the altruistic people is likely to have a more prosperous life. This is because while a selfish group’s overall competitiveness declines as each member pursues only their own interests, a group composed of altruistic people strengthens its competitiveness through mutual cooperation. Over time, the group that survives will ultimately be the island where the altruistic people have gathered. Thus, while selfish behavior may seem advantageous when viewed individually, the core of group selection theory is that altruistic behavior is more advantageous when viewed at the group level.
This phenomenon can easily be observed in everyday life. For example, imagine a high school class where some altruistic students clean the classroom every morning, while other selfish students do not clean and simply wait for others to do it. While the altruistic students spend their time cleaning every day, the selfish students use that time to do other things they want to do. As time goes on, the altruistic students are likely to give up their altruistic behavior or start acting selfishly when they see that the selfish students are enjoying a more comfortable school life. In other words, from the individual perspective of “survival of the fittest,” the altruistic students may be weeded out. However, the story changes from the perspective of group selection theory. Let’s assume that a clean classroom provides a more stable and pleasant environment than a dirty one. After a week, if we compare the classroom that was cleaned with the one that wasn’t, one will remain clean, while the other will have turned into a pigsty.
As another example, imagine two groups of swimmers with similar skill levels. The selfish group will focus solely on their own swimming techniques during practice. In contrast, the altruistic group will observe each other’s techniques, point out weaknesses and areas for improvement, and exchange feedback. Ultimately, when both groups compete in a swimming competition, the altruistic group is likely to achieve better results.
On the surface, it may seem as though altruistic individuals will fall behind and be weeded out in competition among selfish people. Up close, altruistic people might appear to be at a disadvantage and even foolish. However, from a broader perspective, altruistic people are making wiser choices for the survival of the group. Group selection theory provides a compelling explanation for why altruistic people exist.
