What prompted Good King Wenceslas to look out on that feast of Stephen? And why should he have cared that the poor man was gathering winter fuel? Modern evolutionary theory agrees with market economics that we are inherently selfish and unlikely to give if we don't expect to receive. But new research challenges that model. \nThe origin of altruism goes to the heart of the gene/culture debate that was launched in 1975 with the publication of EO Wilson's Sociobiology and, a year later, Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene. \nSociobiology claims that human nature -- and by extension human society -- is rooted in our genes: we are, according to Dawkins, "lumbering robots" created "body and mind" by selfish genes. This is anathema to social scientists and biologists such as Steven Rose, who see human nature as far more malleable. \nAltruism is not confined to humans, but when animals give presents it is nearly always to close kin. The mathematical biologist JBS Haldane is credited with discovering the mechanism known as kin selection, when he declared that he would lay down his life for two brothers or eight cousins. Haldane's familial benevolence was based on the fact that two of his brothers or eight of his cousins would carry just about all his genes. So helping your relatives ensures that your (shared) genes live on. \nKin selection may account for pack behavior, but it fails to account for human benevolence, which is often extended well beyond the family. It is not only Blanche DuBois who can depend on the kindness of strangers. Codes of hospitality are a common feature of human societies -- from the desert-dwelling Bedouin to the Arctic Inuit. \nTo explain non-kin-directed altruism, an assortment of gene-based mechanisms has been proposed, ranging from reciprocal altruism (you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours) to signalling theory (conspicuous kindness to attract mates). But none can fully explain human generosity. What did Good King W. hope to gain from bringing flesh and wine when the frost was so cruel outside? He could hardly have expected the poor man to reciprocate. And tramping about in all that crisp and even snow was unlikely to improve his mating options. \nKindness and cooperation underpin much of human society. From the Kyoto agreement to arms controls or the state of public toilets, they all depend on individual willingness to commit resources to a common good. But no one has come up with a satisfactory evolutionary explanation of why we do it. \nIn a recent Nature paper, Ernst Fehr and Urs Fischbacher of the University of Zurich evaluated the evidence from a series of cunning experiments. In the ultimatum game, two subjects are asked to share a pot of money, say US$100. One of them (we'll call him Steven) decides the cut -- who gets what. The other (we'll call him Richard) can either accept his share or cry foul, in which case neither of them takes any of the money away. \nThe players play only once so there isn't an opportunity for reciprocal altruism. If Richard is behaving entirely selfishly (programmed by his selfish genes), he should accept whatever Steven is prepared to give. But generally he doesn't. If Steven donates less than US$25, Richard generally refuses his share and they both leave the table empty-handed. Richard is prepared to forsake his (albeit smaller) share in order to punish Steven's selfishness. \nAnother experiment looks at public-good altruism. Here a group of subjects are each given a sum, say US$10, which they can either keep for themselves or pay some amount -- a tax -- toward the public good. \nThe taxman (we'll call him Gordon) is generous enough to double the tax revenue and give an equal share back to each member of the group, whether or not they paid into the tax kitty. It makes sense for the group to donate everything to Gordon who doubles and redistributes it. But instead of getting US$20 the group members discover they only take away US$12 or US$15. Someone's not paying his or her share of the tax but still claiming the reward. At the next round, knowledge that some neighbors are freeloaders prompts group members to reduce the tax they are prepared to pay. The process of cooperation decay continues until nobody is prepared to pay anything. \nAvoiding cooperation decay is the aim of governments and international institutions. Fehr and Fischbacher claim that the key to promote what they call strong reciprocity is rewarding generosity with kindness, but punishing cheaters, even at the expense of the punisher. This is why Richard refused to accept Steven's offer, though his genes might have been telling him to take the money and run. Similarly, if public-goods experiments allow subjects to punish cheats (even if the punishment is costly for the punisher), cooperation flourishes. \nStrong reciprocity promotes kindness and discourages cheats, but is it a product of our genes or in our culture? It can't be entirely genetic since different human societies (with very similar genes) vary greatly in their tolerance of cheating. Fehr and Fischbacher argue for gene-culture co-evolution: cultural and institutional environments promote social norms that favor the selection of genes that promote cooperation. \nMaking strong reciprocity work at both a local (discouraging anti-social behavior) and international level (persuading the Americans to sign the Kyoto agreement) would be beneficial to society and the world. And I for one feel much happier singing Good King Wenceslas' praises when I know he wasn't just a lumbering robot, the slave of his selfish genes. \nJohnjoe McFadden is professor of molecular genetics at the University of Surrey, UK, and author of Quantum Evolution.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
An article on the Nature magazine Web site reports that 22 scientists last month wrote to the daily Dagens Nyheter criticizing Sweden’s no-lockdown response to COVID-19. However, evidence-based analysis shows that a lockdown is not a one-size-fits-all strategy and Sweden is showing the world a sustainable way for everybody to fearlessly live with the virus, which is an inevitable situation that everyone must face and accept for a while. The biggest myth about lockdowns is that they are the only solution when an epidemic worsens. A lockdown is a measure to cordon off a seriously affected area so that people in
On Monday, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) spoke during the opening ceremony of this year’s World Health Assembly (WHA). For the first time in the assembly’s history, attendees, including Xi, had to dial in virtually. Xi made no acknowledgement of the Chinese government’s role in causing the COVID-19 pandemic, nor was there any meaningful apology. Instead, he painted China as a benign force for good and a friend to all nations. Except Taiwan, of course. The address was a reheated version of the speech Xi gave at the 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Xi again attempted to step into the