Cultural and reproductive success and the causes of war: A Yanomamö perspective

The evolution of democratic peace in animal societies

A major goal in evolutionary biology is to elucidate common principles that drive human and other animal societies to adopt either a warlike or peaceful nature. One proposed explanation for the variation in aggression between human societies is the democratic peace hypothesis. According to this theory, autocracies are more warlike than democracies because autocratic leaders can pursue fights for private gain. However, autocratic and democratic decision-making processes are not unique to humans and are widely observed across a diverse range of non-human animal societies. We use evolutionary game theory to evaluate whether the logic of democratic peace may apply across taxa; specifically adapting the classic Hawk-Dove model to consider conflict decisions made by groups rather than individuals. We find support for the democratic peace hypothesis without mechanisms involving complex human institutions and discuss how these findings might be relevant to non-human animal societies. We suggest that the degree to which collective decisions are shared may explain variation in the intensity of intergroup conflict in nature.

The evolution of peace

While some species have affiliative and even cooperative interactions between individuals of different social groups, humans are alone in having durable, positive-sum, interdependent relationships across unrelated social groups. Our capacity to have harmonious relationships that cross group boundaries is an important aspect of our species' success, allowing for the exchange of ideas, materials, and ultimately enabling cumulative cultural evolution. Knowledge about the conditions required for peaceful intergroup relationships is critical for understanding the success of our species and building a more peaceful world. How do humans create harmonious relationships across group boundaries and when did this capacity emerge in the human lineage? Answering these questions involves considering the costs and benefits of intergroup cooperation and aggression, for oneself, one's group, and one's neighbor. Taking a game theoretical perspective provides new insights into the difficulties of removing the threat of war and reveals an ironic logic to peace - the factors that enable peace also facilitate the increased scale and destructiveness of conflict. In what follows, I explore the conditions required for peace, why they are so difficult to achieve, and when we expect peace to have emerged in the human lineage. I argue that intergroup cooperation was an important component of human relationships and a selective force in our species history beginning at least 300 thousand years. But the preconditions for peace only emerged in the past 100 thousand years and likely coexisted with intermittent intergroup violence which would have also been an important and selective force in our species' history.

Leaders of war: modelling the evolution of conflict among heterogeneous groups

War, in human and animal societies, can be extremely costly but can also offer significant benefits to the victorious group. We might expect groups to go into battle when the potential benefits of victory (V) outweigh the costs of escalated conflict (C); however, V and C are unlikely to be distributed evenly in heterogeneous groups. For example, some leaders who make the decision to go to war may monopolize the benefits at little cost to themselves ('exploitative' leaders). By contrast, other leaders may willingly pay increased costs, above and beyond their share of V ('heroic' leaders). We investigated conflict initiation and conflict participation in an ecological model where single-leader-multiple-follower groups came into conflict over natural resources. We found that small group size, low migration rate and frequent interaction between groups increased intergroup competition and the evolution of 'exploitative' leadership, while converse patterns favoured increased intragroup competition and the emergence of 'heroic' leaders. We also found evidence of an alternative leader/follower 'shared effort' outcome. Parameters that favoured high contributing 'heroic' leaders, and low contributing followers, facilitated transitions to more peaceful outcomes. We outline and discuss the key testable predictions of our model for empiricists studying intergroup conflict in humans and animals. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.