Non-kin altruism among non-human animals is rare, & altruism fares poorly in computer simulations — when altruistic individuals emerge in a community characterized by self-interested behavior, selfishness triumphs.
Group selection could explain the prevalence of human altruism but probably only if the ancestral environment included high levels of violence and inbreeding.
Sam Bowles showed in 2006 that genetic analyses of tribes still living a Stone Age life suggests there was enough inbreeding to make group competition a driver of genetic change.
In ancient graves excavated previously, Bowles found that up to 46% of the skeletons from 15 different locations around the world showed signs of a violent death. More recently, war inflicted 30% of deaths among the Ache, 17% among the Hiwi, & just 4% among the Anbara. Combat between groups accounted for about 14% of all deaths in these hunter-gatherer societies.
After estimating the rate that altruism would reduce an individual’s chances of reproducing, Bowles plugged the numbers into a model of intergroup competition where an individual’s altruism would also improve a group’s chances of combat triumph. In the absence of war, a gene imposing a self-sacrificial cost of as little as 3% in forgone reproduction would drop from 90% to 10% of the population in 150 generations. Bowles predicts that much higher levels of self-sacrifice — up to 13% in one case — could be sustained if warfare were brought into the equation.
“Did Warfare Among Ancestral Hunter-Gatherers Affect the Evolution of Human Social Behaviors?” By Samuel Bowles
“Altruism’s Bloody Roots,” by Brandon Keim
“Ancient warfare: Fighting for the greater good,” by Ewen Callaway
“Blood and treasure,” The Economist