What do you think?
Rate this book
The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness
In a world supposedly governed by ruthless survival of the fittest, why do we see acts of goodness in both animals and humans? This problem plagued Charles Darwin in the 1850s as he developed his theory of evolution through natural selection. Indeed, Darwin worried that the goodness he observed in nature could be the Achilles heel of his theory. Ever since then, scientists and other thinkers have engaged in a fierce debate about the origins of goodness that has dragged politics, philosophy, and religion into what remains a major question for evolutionary biology.
The Altruism Equation traces the history of this debate from Darwin to the present through an extraordinary cast of characters—from the Russian prince Petr Kropotkin, who wanted to base society on altruism, to the brilliant biologist George Price, who fell into poverty and succumbed to suicide as he obsessed over the problem. In a final surprising turn, William Hamilton, the scientist who came up with the equation that reduced altruism to the cold language of natural selection, desperately hoped that his theory did not apply to humans.
Hamilton's Rule, which states that relatives are worth helping in direct proportion to their blood relatedness, is as fundamental to evolutionary biology as Newton's laws of motion are to physics. But even today, decades after its formulation, Hamilton's Rule is still hotly debated among those who cannot accept that goodness can be explained by a simple mathematical formula. For the first time, Lee Alan Dugatkin brings to life the people, the issues, and the passions that have surrounded the altruism debate. Readers will be swept along by this fast-paced tale of history, biography, and scientific discovery.
The Altruism Equation traces the history of this debate from Darwin to the present through an extraordinary cast of characters—from the Russian prince Petr Kropotkin, who wanted to base society on altruism, to the brilliant biologist George Price, who fell into poverty and succumbed to suicide as he obsessed over the problem. In a final surprising turn, William Hamilton, the scientist who came up with the equation that reduced altruism to the cold language of natural selection, desperately hoped that his theory did not apply to humans.
Hamilton's Rule, which states that relatives are worth helping in direct proportion to their blood relatedness, is as fundamental to evolutionary biology as Newton's laws of motion are to physics. But even today, decades after its formulation, Hamilton's Rule is still hotly debated among those who cannot accept that goodness can be explained by a simple mathematical formula. For the first time, Lee Alan Dugatkin brings to life the people, the issues, and the passions that have surrounded the altruism debate. Readers will be swept along by this fast-paced tale of history, biography, and scientific discovery.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published August 21, 2006
12 people are currently reading
210 people want to read
About the author
Lee Alan Dugatkin
23 books32 followersBorn in 1962, Lee Alan Dugatkin is a professor and distinguished university scholar in the department of biology at the University of Louisville. His main area of research interest is the evolution of social behavior.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 11, 2022
Is man altruistic or selfish? The anarchist thinks that all men are good, a clearly delusional belief. But it seems ludicrous to say that altruism cannot happen when one sees heroic warriors and laboring mothers. Is there is a solution to the problem of altruism?
Yes, and it is called Hamilton's Rule. An organism will sacrifice itself for others in proportion to its genetic relatedness to the other organism and that other organism's future ability to reproduce. This is why we find parents so "irrationally" loving of their children — it is not irrational at all. It is a way to help their genes reproduce in the next generation. Hamilton's Rule is also why child abuse is so much more prevalent for adopted children and stepchildren. They are not genetically related to their parents, and therefore their parents have less of an incentive to treat them well.
But Dugatkin does not take his theory to its ultimate implications, a sad commonality among most university academics. If parents help their children more than any other child (no matter how poor and suffering) and we morally allow that, what must we also allow? Think: what groups of people are we related to more closely, other than our children? Our genetic group, i.e. our ethny! Hamilton's Rule shows how it is adaptive to selectively help and favor your ethny over other ethnies. It explains why ethnic conflict cannot be stopped by any propaganda and why ethnic diversity correlates .75 with ethnic conflict internationally (Vanhanen).
If I am a professor, then it is highly likely that I am an atheist. It is highly likely that I believe in evolution, and therefore I should believe in Hamilton's Rule (how evolution works). Therefore, I should believe in the implications of Hamilton's Rule. I should help my children more than strangers' children. But I should also help my genetic group, my ethny, over all others! That does not mean I hurt other ethnies (just as I do not hurt other children), but I should certain favor them over all others. I can do just that if I am part of a "historically disadvantaged group". I can make clubs and celebrate my ethny all day long. But if I am European? Oh no! Watch out! Europeans are forced to be genetically maladaptive in the modern social environment. They cannot help their own and therefore, ceterus paribus, are destroying their own gene pool. This is the rational view to take. Newspeak such as "racism" should not prevent one from preserving one's genome, from being an adaptive biological being. Is wrongthought or genetic suicide worse?
(See Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests for a more comprehensive look at this concept)
Yes, and it is called Hamilton's Rule. An organism will sacrifice itself for others in proportion to its genetic relatedness to the other organism and that other organism's future ability to reproduce. This is why we find parents so "irrationally" loving of their children — it is not irrational at all. It is a way to help their genes reproduce in the next generation. Hamilton's Rule is also why child abuse is so much more prevalent for adopted children and stepchildren. They are not genetically related to their parents, and therefore their parents have less of an incentive to treat them well.
But Dugatkin does not take his theory to its ultimate implications, a sad commonality among most university academics. If parents help their children more than any other child (no matter how poor and suffering) and we morally allow that, what must we also allow? Think: what groups of people are we related to more closely, other than our children? Our genetic group, i.e. our ethny! Hamilton's Rule shows how it is adaptive to selectively help and favor your ethny over other ethnies. It explains why ethnic conflict cannot be stopped by any propaganda and why ethnic diversity correlates .75 with ethnic conflict internationally (Vanhanen).
If I am a professor, then it is highly likely that I am an atheist. It is highly likely that I believe in evolution, and therefore I should believe in Hamilton's Rule (how evolution works). Therefore, I should believe in the implications of Hamilton's Rule. I should help my children more than strangers' children. But I should also help my genetic group, my ethny, over all others! That does not mean I hurt other ethnies (just as I do not hurt other children), but I should certain favor them over all others. I can do just that if I am part of a "historically disadvantaged group". I can make clubs and celebrate my ethny all day long. But if I am European? Oh no! Watch out! Europeans are forced to be genetically maladaptive in the modern social environment. They cannot help their own and therefore, ceterus paribus, are destroying their own gene pool. This is the rational view to take. Newspeak such as "racism" should not prevent one from preserving one's genome, from being an adaptive biological being. Is wrongthought or genetic suicide worse?
(See Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests for a more comprehensive look at this concept)
June 1, 2022
Refreshingly well explained, there is no evidence of altruism in nature.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 2, 2023
Discusses the historical evolution of the scientific study of altruism, and the key scientists who analyzed it, focusing mainly on how arguments evolved over time.
March 12, 2008
it was ok. pretty much didn't learn anything more than the review - so i'd suggest just reading the review and not worrying about the whole book. oh and it has quite a few typographical errors and i just don't like books with those.
January 8, 2008
It is a book about how scientists in the post-Darwinian world explain altruism or compassion, if you will. Costs, benefits, and kinship all play a part in this phenomenon. I am captivated by its omnipresence in the animal world. Don't let the word 'equation' scare you.
July 26, 2007
Don't read it if you don't like biology...or being bored occasionally.
March 1, 2008
i reviewed this book here:
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/scie...
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/scie...
Read
March 8, 2013Featured on Skeptically Speaking show #202 on March 1, 2013, during an interview with author Lee Alan Dugatkin. http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/episode...
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews