Evolution of discrimination in populations at equilibrium between selfishness and altruism

Why cooperation is not running away

A growing number of experimental and theoretical studies show the importance of partner choice as a mechanism to promote the evolution of cooperation, especially in humans. In this paper, we focus on the question of the precise quantitative level of cooperation that should evolve under this mechanism. When individuals compete to be chosen by others, their level of investment in cooperation evolves towards higher values, a process called competitive altruism, or runaway cooperation. Using a classic adaptive dynamics model, we first show that when the cost of changing partner is low, this runaway process can lead to a profitless escalation of cooperation. In the extreme, when partner choice is entirely frictionless, cooperation even increases up to a level where its cost entirely cancels out its benefit. That is, at evolutionary equilibrium, individuals gain the same payoff than if they had not cooperated at all. Second, importing models from matching theory in economics we, however, show that when individuals can plastically modulate their choosiness in function of their own cooperation level, partner choice stops being a runaway competition to outbid others and becomes a competition to form the most optimal partnerships. In this case, when the cost of changing partner tends towards zero, partner choice leads to the evolution of the socially optimum level of cooperation. This last result could explain the observation that human cooperation seems to be often constrained by considerations of social efficiency.

Genetic polymorphisms between altruism and selfishness close to the Hamilton threshold rb = c

Genes that in certain conditions make their carriers altruistic are being identified, and altruism and selfishness have shown to be heritable in man. This raises the possibility that genetic polymorphisms for altruism/selfishness exist in man and other animals. Here we characterize some of the conditions in which genetic polymorphisms may occur. We show for dominant or recessive alleles how the positions of stable equilibria depend on the benefit to the recipient, b, and the cost to the altruist, c, for diploid altruists helping half or full sibs, and haplodiploid altruists helping sisters. Stable polymorphisms always occur close to the Hamilton threshold rb = c. The position of the stable equilibrium moves away 0 or 1 with both increases in c, the cost paid by the altruist, and increasing divergence from the Hamilton threshold, and alleles for selfishness can reach frequencies around 50%. We evaluate quantitative estimates of b, c and r from field studies in the light of these predictions, but the values do not fall in the regions where genetic polymorphisms are expected. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see as genes for altruism are discovered whether they are accompanied by alternate alleles for selfishness.

The early evolution of cooperation in humans. On cheating, group identity and group size

The evolution of cooperation is difficult to understand, because cheaters — individuals who profit without cooperating themselves — have a benefit in interaction with cooperators. Cooperation among humans is even more difficult to understand, because cooperation occurs in large groups, making cheating a bigger threat. Restricting cooperation to members of one’s own group based on some tag-based recognition of non-group members (allorecognition) has been shown to stabilise cooperation. We address how spatial structure and group size affect the opportunities for cheating such tag-based cooperation in a spatially explicit simulation. We show that increased group diversity, under conditions of limited dispersal, reduces the selective opportunities for cheaters. A small number can already be sufficient to keep cheating at a low frequency. We discuss how marginal additional benefits of increased group size, above the benefits of local cooperation, can provide the selective pressure to reduce the number of group identities and discuss possible examples.