The Dance of Eternity (23)

In the previous post while introducing epigenetic cultural transmission I considered the difficulty of intergenerational transmission of acquired traits while keeping an eye on both genetic mutation and epigenetic inheritance when biological individuals pass traits to the next generation. This time, let's zoom out from individual-to-individual inheritance and think about inheritance at the biological population level (= information transmission/cultural inheritance).

Evolution of Individuals and Social Groups

While there are benefits to applying insights from biological evolution research to the evolution of corporate organizations, as the example of eugenics shows, there are also dangers in overly simplistic applications. Recall that in "The Dance of Eternity (16)", we thought about how to capture the diversity of genes existing in individuals by superimposing it on the diversity of organizational members and the hierarchical diversity of ideas within an individual's mind.

The fact that evolution has multi-layered aspects at the gene (individual) level and the population level has been discussed for a long time. Biological evolution theory includes concepts such as "group selection" and "multilevel selection," and thinking about at which level of natural selection—individual, group, or some higher unit—is particularly important when applying it to the transmission of know-how and culture in companies.

Group Selection

Group selection theory posits that natural selection acts on "groups" rather than individuals. Since an individual's environmental fitness is influenced by the fitness of the group as a whole, by considering the target of natural selection to be the group rather than the individual, "altruistic behavior," where an individual prioritizes the survival of the group over themselves, can be rationally understood. Based on this way of thinking, a group with many altruistic members is more likely to have an advantage over a group composed of selfish individuals.

As of the summer of 2025, the selfish behavior of "nation-first" and "citizen-first" (strategies that compete for territory with others based on a zero-sum premise), which is all the rage (!) around the world, is evaluated from the perspective of such research as a "myopic strategy that is detrimental in the long run" in game theory terms, even if it might yield results in the short term.

George C. Williams and V.C. Wynne-Edwards delved into the concept of group selection to explain the nature of animals stabilizing their living environment by collectively controlling their behavior. They argued not for the easy-to-understand image of "survival of the fittest = selfish and strong individuals survive", but rather that "(seemingly roundabout) social/altruistic behavior is actually more advantageous for promoting evolution". They claimed that even behavior not directly linked to individual survival can bring benefits to the group as a whole, allowing that group to gain an advantage.

Such group selection theory has been consistently criticized by researchers of gene-centered evolutionary theory. Simply put, the argument is that "selfish individuals" should be (short-term) advantageous within a group, so "long-term benefits" cannot ultimately survive. W.D. Hamilton and Richard Dawkins argued that the true unit of selection is not the group but the "gene," and Dawkins in particular, in his famous book "The Selfish Gene", concluded that "evolution occurs at the gene level, and group-level behavior is merely a result of that".

Multilevel Selection

Researchers who thought it inconsistent to assume that evolution works at only one level—gene, individual, or group—proposed multilevel selection. They believe that natural selection acts simultaneously on multiple levels such as genes, individuals, and groups. This is the idea that evolution proceeds through interactions between these levels, and Edward O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson hold this position. They argue that individual behavior is shaped not only by the gene's desire for self-preservation but also by the dynamics of the group and ecosystem to which the individual belongs.

However, as is immediately apparent, while it sounds good to say this theory captures the evolutionary process comprehensively and macroscopically, the trade-off is that it does not dissect and understand the multi-layered nature and reciprocity, leading to the regret that it cannot clarify how selection acts at each level and what effects it has, and Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith have criticized such ambiguity, countering that "the primary unit of selection can only be the gene!"

Kin Selection and Reciprocal Altruism: Theories of Group Selection and Multilevel Selection

To answer the question that remains despite the criticisms of Dawkins and Maynard Smith, "why does altruistic behavior not disappear in evolution (if it is irrational)?", theories such as "kin selection" and "reciprocal altruism" have emerged.

Since evolution is a process in which new traits appear through genetic mutation and are passed down through generations via the filter of natural selection, as Dawkins says, we should basically focus on changes at the individual level, but the question remains: "why is altruistic behavior seen in many animals when selfish behavior should be more advantageous?".

W.D. Hamilton proposed the kin selection theory in 1964, which is the idea that "individuals do not pass on their own genes directly, but rather seek to ensure the survival of their own genes indirectly by helping close relatives (kin) who share the same genes".

In social insects like ants and bees, only the queen reproduces, while worker ants and bees spend their entire lives helping the queen without reproducing themselves. This is considered a strategy to pass on genes to the next generation indirectly by helping a closely related individual, the "queen," instead of leaving direct descendants. This is called "Hamilton's rule," which states that "altruistic behavior is selected when the benefit, weighted by the degree of relatedness, exceeds the cost to the individual."

Belding's ground squirrels, a type of prairie dog, perform alarm calls to notify nearby companions when natural enemies or predators approach. Even though the individual that emits the call risks being discovered by the predator (i.e., decoy behavior) and thus puts its own life in danger, it attempts to ensure the survival of its genes by saving nearby related individuals.

In lion prides, related females cooperate in hunting and raising cubs, thereby increasing the survival rate of the group as a whole.

Behavior that sacrifices oneself for the benefit of the group can be viewed as a survival strategy that recognizes the group as a kind of "superorganism," an extension of the individual, and attempts to maintain it as a reproductive unit. Even altruistic behavior that appears self-sacrificial at first glance is interpreted as nothing more than an expression of highly sophisticated genetic selfishness.

Trust as a condition for 'give and take' beyond kinship

However, in the biological world, cooperative behavior that transcends kin selection is frequently observed. An interesting example of this is the behavior of vampire bats. They live by consuming the blood of other animals, but they do not always manage to find food every night. In groups of bats living under such constraints, it is observed that lucky bats that have satisfied their hunger through hunting regurgitate and share blood with hungry companions who failed to hunt. This is a classic example of "reciprocal altruism," which is said to be based on the expectation that "I am giving now, but by doing so, I will likely be helped myself in the future." This mechanism of mutual aid acts as a form of insurance for biological groups that goes beyond kinship.

However, this mechanism is accompanied by the risk of "freeloading." If selfish individuals appear who take but do not reciprocate, the system will collapse. Thus, in vampire bat colonies, a mechanism is in place where selfish individuals who do not follow the rules of reciprocity are penalized by not being given food next time, thereby maintaining reciprocity within the group.

Bottlenose dolphins also cooperate in groups with unrelated individuals to herd and hunt schools of fish. Cooperating in groups not only increases the efficiency of the group but also strengthens social bonds. When this happens, it takes on the appearance of a survival instinct as a group, which cannot even be called an instinct to sense kinship and leave the genes of close relatives.

Taking it a step further, there is also a cooperative strategy called symbiotic relationships between different species. Acacia trees provide ants with shelter and food, and in return, the ants protect the trees from herbivores. Cooperative and symbiotic relationships across species are seen countless times and are a good example of flexible and adaptive strategies in biological evolution.

The balance between selfishness and altruism

The theories of group selection and multilevel selection emphasize the "balance between selfishness and altruism." While selfish behavior brings benefits to the individual in the short term, it threatens the long-term survival of the group if it becomes excessive; conversely, altruistic behavior, which appears costly to the individual at first glance, can strengthen group cohesion in the long term and lead the group to an advantage in the struggle for survival. This balance is maintained by social mechanisms such as the one in the vampire bat example: "reward altruism, punish selfishness."

Cultural evolution theory

I have cited examples of social insects like ants and bees, and mammals like bats and dolphins. Of course, humans are also social animals, so in addition to embodying group selection, multilevel selection, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism, human society has an even higher layer of evolution where "cultural elements" are inherited across generations. This is the "previous article" I mentioned, which is "cultural evolution."

Cultural anthropologists Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson systematized cultural evolutionary theory in their 1985 book 'Culture and the Evolutionary Process,' arguing that human behavior and social norms are transmitted culturally through learning and imitation, not just genetics, and also influence the evolution of altruism within groups. In human society, altruism and cooperation are encouraged by cultural and social pressures, and cooperative norms are solidified by learning from elders, leaders, and role models.

Groups that are more cooperative are more likely to survive in highly competitive environments, so such cooperative cultural values are reinforced. As explained by game theory, cooperation between humans can occur even without immediate rewards (immediate value exchange = transactions) and is supported by culturally evolved values such as long-term trust and mutual aid.

The discussion on reciprocity is profound; more recently, Adam Grant, who published the bestseller 'Give & Take,' discusses it using the terms Taker, Matcher, and Giver (I will post details and my thoughts on this in a separate article later). Historically, Aristotle, while speaking about human virtues, included a passage stating that the structure where 'the recipient of a gift has an obligation to return it' creates cooperative relationships and trust in society. Furthermore, various thinkers like Marcel Mauss in 'The Gift' and Nathaniel Branden in 'The Psychology of Self-Esteem' have eloquently argued for the importance of 'the humility and sense of indebtedness that comes from being kept alive by others.' Zen and Buddhism also emphasize this sense of indebtedness, acknowledging that 'I am kept alive thanks to many other beings.' This is a stance that goes against the recent political trend of 'XX First!'

Criticisms of Cultural Evolutionary Theory

There are also criticisms of cultural evolutionary theory. The first is the criticism that it underestimates the role of genetic evolution. Evolutionary psychologists argue that altruistic behavior has a genetic foundation first, which is linked to cultural factors, thereby emphasizing the dependency of culture.

Additionally, questions have been raised about the assumption that the process of cultural transmission is always stable. Since cultural norms change frequently, there is room for debate regarding how they are maintained and what their evolutionary significance is. Looking at recent political trends, the fluctuation of the cultural transmission process itself is quite obvious, so if one is told that oversimplification is forbidden, that is certainly true.

Problems regarding the overlap or confusion between cultural evolutionary theory and group selection theory are also pointed out. The current situation is that it is not necessarily clear how these relate to each other and where they diverge.

The idea at the core of cultural evolutionary theory that prioritizing the group's interests over the individual's sacrifice contributes to the long-term survival of the group also carries the risk of being abused by totalitarian ideologies. Historically, totalitarian regimes have used the logic that the development of the 'state' or 'nation' should take precedence over individual happiness to suppress individual rights. While cultural evolutionists do not support such totalitarianism, it cannot be denied that intentional confusion is possible.

On the other hand, the theory of cultural evolution emphasizes that cooperation and altruism bring benefits to both individuals and groups in the long term, and acknowledges the room for compatibility between free will and diversity in the evolutionary process. The basic position is that cooperation should be voluntary, not forced.

In future discussions, I will delve into how these theories of group selection, multi-level selection, and cultural evolution can be applied to understanding and controlling human behavior within corporate organizations.