In this blog post, we’ll examine why an altruistic life remains a valid survival strategy even today, using group projects and the free-rider problem as examples.
Group Projects and the Free-Rider Problem
For college students, group projects are like a rite of passage to truly experience college life. Group projects are such an essential part of college life that it’s hard to say you’ve had a proper college experience without going through this process. However, as is often the case with unavoidable tasks, group projects rarely leave behind only good memories. From assignments that are too overwhelming for any single person to handle, to coordinating schedules among team members, to the pressure of potentially causing trouble for others, and even the stress caused by team members who do not participate diligently—just recalling memories of group projects often feels frustrating and exhausting.
Among these issues, the one most frequently discussed is the existence of the so-called “free rider.” A free rider, as the term implies, is someone who reaps benefits without contributing; in group activities, it refers to a person who fails to properly fulfill their role yet still reaps the same benefits from the results produced by the entire team.
Why do free riders exist? From an economic perspective, humans are described as beings with a tendency to maximize their own interests, and it is explained that they can maximize personal gain through selfish behavior. Therefore, those who act altruistically are bound to suffer losses and may be at a disadvantage in the competition for survival. If we apply this logic from an evolutionary perspective as well, altruistic people would gradually lose their place in society. This is because if everyone else acts selfishly to gain benefits, a person acting altruistically alone is highly likely to suffer losses.
So, is it ultimately impossible to reduce the number of free riders in group activities? Furthermore, is there no reason to live an altruistic life—that is, no reason to live a righteous life?
Why hasn’t altruism disappeared?
If the logic that selfish people are bound to survive were entirely correct, there should be almost no altruistic people in today’s society. This is because if only the “selfish gene” had survived, altruistic humans should not have survived. However, this is not the case in reality. In modern society, many people still live their lives with consideration for others.
‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’ introduces various hypotheses to explain this contradiction. The repeated reciprocity hypothesis and the communication hypothesis are prime examples. By drawing on these hypotheses, we can also consider ways to reduce free-riders in group activities.
Group projects typically take place over an extended period, allow for communication among team members, and involve the division of labor. Considering these characteristics, a “group project reward and penalty system” could be an effective way to reduce free-riding. This system involves conducting peer evaluations about three to four times during the project, awarding points to cooperative team members and deducting points from free-riders, with these scores factored into the final evaluation. Each team member starts with one bonus point and one penalty point, and must award the bonus point to one other team member (excluding themselves). Bonus points are counted as +1 and penalty points as -1, and the total is shared among the team members.
How can this system encourage cooperation among team members?
Let’s take another look at the characteristics of group activities. Group activities proceed over an extended period through the division of labor across multiple stages. The overall assignment consists of several sub-tasks, and to complete each sub-task, members divide the work and carry out their assigned duties. In other words, activities are carried out repeatedly on a sub-task basis. Since people act to maximize their own interests, they tend to adopt certain strategies in these recurring situations.
Research on repeated games has shown that one of the strategies yielding the highest long-term performance is the so-called “Tit for Tat” strategy. This strategy involves cooperating in the next round if the opponent cooperated in the previous round, and responding in kind if the opponent was uncooperative. Since acting uncooperatively increases the likelihood of suffering losses later on, it is more advantageous to continue cooperating if the opponent is cooperative.
Therefore, given the repetitive nature of group activities, it is effective to encourage this strategy to function naturally. Furthermore, during the repeated performance process, each team member must be able to assess their own benefits based on whether they cooperate. By conducting multiple rounds of mutual evaluations to award and share reward and penalty points, each member can see the consequences of their actions, and this process serves to encourage sustained cooperative behavior.
However, the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis has the limitation that it is most effective when repetition continues for a sufficiently long period. Since group assignments have a fixed end date, mechanisms are needed to compensate for this limitation.
Group activities also have an important characteristic in that they allow for communication among team members. The level of cooperation among people can vary significantly depending on whether communication takes place. According to the Communication Hypothesis, even in situations resembling the Tragedy of the Commons, people exhibit far more cooperative behavior when they can communicate with one another than when they cannot. This effect is comparable to that of systems designed to punish uncooperative individuals.
Through dialogue, people develop a sense of community—focusing on “us” rather than “me”—and come to consider not only their own interests but also the interests of the group as a whole. Maximizing the effects of this communication can help reduce free-riding. In the reward-and-penalty system described earlier, requiring the awarding of reward points while making penalty points optional can enhance this effect. This is because once a sense of community is established, an atmosphere conducive to cooperation—rather than mutual punishment—is more likely to emerge.
In this way, an approach that maximizes both individual and collective interests through cooperation reduces free-riding and enables more effective group activities.
Is an altruistic life still a survival strategy today?
Even if we look only at group projects, situations requiring cooperation with others constantly arise in our daily lives. From collaboration at work and joint research in graduate school to planning trips with friends, we live our lives carrying out various joint tasks. Therefore, the problem of free-riders is no longer limited to group projects but can be considered an issue affecting our lives as a whole.
So why shouldn’t we become free riders in these collaborative processes? Why should we live altruistically?
When looking solely at typical cooperative situations, reaping the rewards of others’ hard work might seem like the greatest benefit to an individual, since it allows one to gain more with less effort. However, this strategy is not advantageous for an individual’s long-term survival. Even if it appears to maximize immediate gains, it can ultimately reduce one’s chances of survival.
As the saying goes, “Scatter and die; unite and live.” Selfish behavior ultimately isolates one from others and, in the long run, threatens survival. Unlike other animals, humans are not endowed with exceptional physical abilities. We have no thick fur to protect us from the cold, nor do we possess claws or strength powerful enough to subdue predators. Nevertheless, the reason humans have achieved remarkable success in nature is not merely because we can use tools, but because we have created shared benefits and solved survival challenges through cooperation.
Ultimately, in human history, altruistic behavior has been not simply a matter of morality, but a matter of survival.
So, even today—in an era of spreading individualism and material abundance—can an altruistic life still serve as a survival strategy?
Today, the meaning of survival has expanded far beyond what it was in the past. Moving beyond mere survival, a stable life, mental well-being, healthy relationships, and continuous growth have all become crucial elements of survival. As society develops, people seek a higher quality of life, yet uncertainty about the future still persists. In such an environment, a successful survival strategy becomes even more important.
Even though the meaning of survival has changed, the fact that humans are social beings remains unchanged. Selfish behavior that isolates oneself is of no help whatsoever to survival today. Mental stability, happiness, and a humane life all gain meaning only within a society where we form relationships with others. Receiving a good education and pursuing a stable life are also, ultimately, processes for forming better relationships and living within society.
Therefore, to maintain good relationships with others, it is important to live with the right attitude even now. Ultimately, an altruistic life can be said to remain a valid survival strategy even today.
Why Do Group Activities Continue?
Group activities can be a stressful experience for many people. Nevertheless, they remain an important educational method in college education. Why do group activities continue, even though they can lead to losses due to free riders, cause psychological distress, and even foster distrust toward others?
The reason is that humans cannot survive alone in modern society. In fact, the more complex society becomes, the greater the importance of cooperation. Humans have no choice but to form relationships and interact with others to survive, because we are not beings capable of solving every problem on our own.
Today, the standards for “living a dignified life” have become much higher than in the past. In times like these, the ability to cooperate with others is not an option but a necessity. This is not merely because it is morally right, but because it is a strategy essential for survival.
Humankind has long adopted this strategy, and the situation remains largely unchanged today. Even though systems designed to prevent free-riding are not perfect, people have managed to live in relatively stable cooperation. Ultimately, the reason altruistic behavior has become established as a moral principle can be seen as deeply connected to the human instinct for survival.
Why do group activities persist? Why must we live altruistic lives?
The reason is that they serve as a process for learning the methods of cooperation that have sustained human civilization thus far and for cultivating the attitudes necessary to continue living together in the future. Ultimately, group activities are not merely assignments; they are a crucial process through which we internalize the ways in which humans survive within society.
