It is hard to imagine that anyone thinks of goodness as a problem, but evolution pioneer Charles Darwin did. The little worker bees that sacrificed themselves to protect their hives -- the ultimate example of animal goodness -- kept Darwin up at night.
If Darwin's ideas about evolution and natural selection were correct -- and, of course, they are -- then this sort of altruism should be extraordinarily rare in nature. If increased reproduction is the ultimate end all and be all of evolution by natural selection, then altruists should disappear -- and fast.
But they don't disappear, and Darwin was so puzzled by this that he spoke of altruism as a problem that could prove fatal to his whole theory of evolution.
Then a solution to this nasty conundrum hit Darwin like a ton of bricks. Worker bees weren't helping just any old bunch of bees, they were protecting their hive. And their hive contained special individuals: blood relatives.
Blood relatives are, by definition, very similar to one another. So even though the little worker bees may have been giving up their lives, by doing so they were potentially saving hundreds of blood relatives. In modern parlance, we'd say that the worker bees were helping blood kin, because blood kin are genetically related. By helping your blood relatives, you are indirectly promoting the reproduction of copies of your own genes -- copies that just happen to reside inside your kin.
Darwin wasn't the only scientist who was fascinated with the question of the evolution of goodness. His good friend and colleague, Thomas Henry Huxley, was as well. Huxley got himself into a heated argument over whether blood kinship could or could not explain altruism.
Huxley's opponent was Prince Peter Kropotkin, ex-page to the Czar of Russia, naturalist and arguably the most famous anarchist of the 19th century. Huxley argued that all goodness could be traced to blood kinship, while Kropotkin argued that goodness and blood kinship were completely divorced from one another.
Neither was right, as it turned out, but it would take almost a hundred years before a shy, reserved and brilliant British biologist named William Hamilton would settle all the arguments about blood kinship and altruism by coming up with a simple, but elegant mathematical equation.
Instead of asking whether blood kinship is the single factor explaining altruism, Hamilton approached the question from a different perspective. He began by defining three terms: the genetic relatedness between individuals (labeled r), the cost of an act of goodness (c), and the benefit that a recipient obtained when someone was nice to him or her (b). Using some beautiful mathematics, in the early 1960s Hamilton discovered that altruism and blood kinship are not linked by an all-or-nothing relationship.
Instead, what is now known as "Hamilton's Rule" states that altruism evolves whenever r times b is greater than c. In other words, if enough relatives receive benefits from altruism to outweigh the cost of altruism, then altruism spreads; otherwise, it does not.
Phrased in the cold language of natural selection, blood relatives are worth helping in direct proportion to their genetic (blood) relatedness, weighted by how great a benefit they received.
Literally thousands of experiments with both nonhumans and humans show the power of Hamilton's Rule. This little equation is evolutionary biology's version of E = mc2.
Over and over, we see that an analysis of the costs and benefits of altruism, along with the genetic relatedness of interactants, allows us to predict the presence or absence of altruism.
Hamilton's Rule, of course, does not explain all altruism. Another large chunk of goodness falls under the category of "reciprocity." Individuals are sometimes willing to be altruistic to someone now in the expectation that they will, in turn, be helped when we they need it.
Evolutionary biologists have been almost as interested in this type of altruism, as they have been in kinship-based altruism. Amazingly enough, it was Hamilton, along with the political scientist Robert Axelrod and the evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, who formalized the models behind the evolution of reciprocity.
Following up on work done by Trivers in the early 1970s, in 1981, Axelrod and Hamilton used the mathematics of game theory to predict when so-called "reciprocal altruism" should evolve. Again, scores of empirical studies have followed up the model.
Reciprocity can be complex, but an evolutionary perspective has cleared the path to understanding, just the same way it did in the case of blood kinship and altruism.
If goodness is a problem, then the answer -- or at the least part of the answer -- can be found in evolutionary biology.
Lee Alan Dugatkin is a professor of biology and distinguished university academic in the biology department at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When Panama severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan and recognized China in 2017, Beijing achieved one of its most important diplomatic victories in Central America. However, nearly a decade later, Panama is demonstrating that diplomatic recognition does not necessarily eliminate Taiwan from a country’s political system. Panama and Taiwan had diplomatic relations for more than 100 years and the goodwill between the countries was displayed last week when Panama’s National Assembly established an interparliamentary exchange group with the Legislative Yuan. Forty-five of the assembly’s 71 lawmakers joined the group, representing more than 60 percent of the legislature. Its members include National Assembly President Shirley
Ten years ago, when I was an undergraduate at National Chung Hsing University (NCHU), there was a referendum on whether to remove a statue of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from the campus. I wrote to the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) urging faculty, staff and students to vote for its removal. Eventually, the statue was removed from the university. Today, I am filled with emotion at seeing students at Soochow University democratically remove their own statue of Chiang, a figure of authoritarian rule, after it was on display for 48 years The timing is noteworthy, with the nine-in-one local elections approaching.
Beijing has for decades insisted that Taiwan is a matter to be settled between China and the US — or, preferably, by China alone. The strategic environment around Taiwan is making that increasingly difficult. The clearest evidence this week came not from Washington or Beijing, but from Tokyo. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Tuesday met with US President Donald Trump before his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Taiwan is expected to feature prominently in US-China talks, particularly as Beijing presses Washington over arms sales to Taipei. However, focusing only on what Trump might or might not concede misses the
If Taiwan falls, the true battle moves from the beaches into the concrete streets. Western analysts fixate on the invasion phase. They end wargames when missiles stop flying and submit policy papers after the fate of a beachhead is decided. This narrow focus ignores the grim reality of “the day after.” To address this blind spot, the Irregular Warfare Center (IWC) published a seminal study on March 5, 2026, titled China’s Way of Occupation: Implications for Taiwan. Authored by Jan K. Gleiman and others, the report analyzes Beijing’s actions in Tibet, Xinjiang (East Turkestan), and Hong Kong to expose a chilling playbook
RSS