25 January to 1 February

'I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins' (J.B.S. Haldane)

In a recent reflection Ayeray Medina Bustos decried all forms of self-destruction as morally wrong, and not sensible. Her inclusion of altruism surprised me, since from an evolutionary perspective altruistic behaviour (or reciprocation) is perfectly sensible for the successful survival of our genes. A mathematical model known as Hamilton's Rule elegantly explains the familial rationale. Simply stated: accepting harm to one's own reproductive fitness may help to ensure reproductive opportunities for others who carry the same genes. If behaviour of this kind was maladaptive, the genes that support such behaviour would not have persisted; and it could not have evolved. 

Altruism has not only survived, but also evolved, so that we now reward it in many different forms, including courage and self-sacrifice. Not only that, but altruism is increasingly encouraged among non-kin, suggesting an adaptation to our increasingly complex, enlarged social networks, when compared with our 'small-group' pasts. Indeed, it is increasingly understood that our decisions and behaviours reverberate through the concentric circles of our social acquaintanceships, and they profoundly affect others; that is precisely the point of altruism. So is this just egoism? Well, from a selfish gene perspective, perhaps it is, but it certainly doesn't make altruism non-sensible.

Nick Wattie, PhD student, Carnegie Faculty of Sport and Education.