How have altruistic people, often referred to as “pushovers” in modern society, been able to survive from an evolutionary perspective?

Explain the evolutionary reasons and social roles that allow altruistic people called “pushovers” to survive and thrive, despite their disadvantage in individual selection, through the hypothesis of group selection.

 

The term “pushover” is often used metaphorically to describe someone who is easy to take advantage of. A pushover is someone who takes over a group task by themselves or someone who naively gives away their hard-earned money to others. The reason we call them pushovers with a negative connotation is probably because there’s an underlying idea that if you only do altruistic things, you’ll never succeed in life. Success in this context is similar to survival in natural selection, and we know that altruism is a disadvantage in natural selection. So, according to evolutionary theory, it should have become extinct over time. Nevertheless, there are clearly altruistic people in the modern world, so how do we explain this enigma of altruism? Why has Pushover been able to survive in this harsh world? It has a lot to do with the complexity of human society. In particular, the group selection hypothesis provides a clue.
The group selection hypothesis is a hypothesis about the unit of natural selection. When we talk about natural selection, we usually think of it as a process in which the most competitive individuals survive and the less competitive ones are culled out, resulting in a majority of individuals with favorable traits. In fact, there is an implicit assumption that natural selection occurs on an individual basis, meaning that within a population, there are “individuals” with different kinds of traits, and the number of “individuals” with traits that are suitable for the environment increases. The group selection hypothesis questions this assumption, noting that natural selection can also occur on groups rather than individuals: if individual selection occurs, in which the traits of individuals determine the survival of individuals, then group selection occurs, in which the traits of groups determine the survival of groups, by the same principle. The group selection hypothesis explains that altruism is a disadvantageous trait in individual selection, but an advantageous trait in group selection.
If we define altruism as a behavior that benefits others at the expense of the actor, then altruism is not a strategy that would survive under individual selection. If an individual is supposed to increase his or her chances of survival by doing something that is beneficial to him or her, but does so at the expense of others, it is a literal pushover, which is unfavorable in terms of individual selection. However, if we look at it from the perspective of group selection, the story is different. If we compare a group of altruistic people, A, with a group of selfish people, B, we can see that A has an advantage over B in group competition. In the event of an invasion or war, Group A will unite to fight back, while Group B will be busy running away. Similarly, in the event of a natural disaster or difficult situation, it is clear that Group A will be able to cope better than Group B. This is because they will be able to survive on an individual and group level. This shows that survival traits may be different for individuals and groups. In individual selection, ‘pushovers’ are disadvantaged for survival, but in group selection, ‘pushovers’ are favored for survival.
Thus, human altruism can be explained by the fact that the unit of natural selection can also be a group. Over a long period of time, groups with a large number of altruistic individuals survive and become altruistic. In fact, if you look at human history, it’s entirely possible for groups to be the unit of natural selection, not just individuals. Conflicts between ancient primitive tribes were more likely to be won by the more altruistic group, leading to the extermination of the losing tribe, which may have been a direct result of group selection. The fact that hunting was an important aspect of survival and that cooperation was important in hunting also suggests the possibility of group selection.
But there’s still a problem. Just because group selection occurs doesn’t mean that individual selection doesn’t occur. What happens if individual selection favors the disappearance of altruism and collective selection favors the survival of altruism, and they happen simultaneously? The speed at which selection occurs becomes important. The speed of the selection process means how quickly traits that are adapted to the environment increase and traits that are not adapted to the environment decrease. Many scholars point out that the speed of group selection will not keep up with the speed of individual selection because competition within groups will be much more frequent than competition between groups. Therefore, the speed problem – that faster individual selection will dominate over group selection – remains a limitation of group selection, which does not fully explain altruism.
The group selection hypothesis explains why altruism has survived despite being a disadvantageous trait in natural selection. The group selection hypothesis states that the unit of selection is the group rather than the individual, and it is easy to see that altruism is a survival disadvantage under individual selection, but a survival advantage under group selection. Furthermore, the history of humanity provides ample evidence of group selection. The group selection hypothesis logically solved the problem of altruism, and the simple principle that ‘pushers’ lose but ‘pushers’ win helped us understand the mystery of altruism. On the other hand, as mentioned, it does not solve the problem of the speed of selection, which remains a limitation of the group selection hypothesis.
However, another reason altruism is evolutionarily important is the formation of social bonds and cooperation. As social animals, humans need cooperation to survive and thrive. Cooperative behavior builds trust between individuals, which can lead to a more stable and harmonious society. These social bonds strengthen group cohesion and contribute to effective cooperation to achieve common goals. By strengthening these social bonds, altruistic behavior can positively impact the survival and prosperity of not only individuals, but also groups as a whole.
Altruism is therefore more than just an evolutionary survival strategy. It is an intrinsic component of human society, an important behavioral principle that benefits both individuals and groups. Altruistic behavior persists because it is supported by these multi-layered evolutionary, social, and psychological factors. Altruism is not simply a disadvantageous trait from an evolutionary perspective, but an integral component of human society, and we need to understand and appreciate it more deeply.