Do selfish organisms prosper better than selfless organisms?

by Elsewhere 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    Here is an article about a thought provoking experiment...

    http://www.physorg.com/news67694761.html

    Survival of the selfless - scientists find cheats don't always prosper
    Selfishness is not necessarily the best survival trait for microorganisms, according to researchers studying the comparative effectiveness of ‘cheating’ and ‘cooperating’ strains of yeast. Writing in the journal Nature today, the team reports that studies of lab-grown yeast populations suggest the benefits of cheating are eventually counterbalanced by the costs. This contradicts classic evolutionary theory, which states that in a competition for common resources the long-term winner will always be the individual acting selfishly rather than the one working as part of a group.
    To test this theory, scientists set up a series of competitions between two strains of yeast. The strains are identical apart from the genes that determine whether they convert energy from resources such as sugar rapidly or if they convert it efficiently.

    In one corner were the ‘cooperators’, which produce energy efficiently by taking in sugar slowly and fully converting into energy all that they ingest. This method maximises resources available to the group by avoiding any waste.

    Against them were the ‘cheaters’, which produce energy rapidly by quickly taking in all the sugar they can and only partially converting it into energy. While this ensures swift energy production for the individual, it is a wasteful method that reduces resources available for the group as a whole.

    The researchers were surprised to find that in a well-mixed population the cooperators were not excluded by the cheats. Further experiments and mathematical modelling established that this is because cheats accumulate toxins as a direct result of taking in resources more quickly than they can digest them, which limits the level of energy they derive from the sugar. This enables the cooperators to hold their own, meaning that the two different strains could coexist over the long-term without either being excluded. Lead researcher Dr Craig MacLean of Imperial College London says:

    “This evidence that a cooperative group can resist invasion by exploitative cheats is unexpected and gives us greater insight into how cooperation evolves. This is important because we live in a world in which cooperations exists at every level, from genes working together to build functioning individuals to individuals forming societies.”

    The researchers suggest that the ideal organism type would be one that can switch between selfish and efficient metabolism. Dr MacLean adds:

    “While microbes are obviously not capable of rational thought, they can change their behaviour rapidly in response to simple environmental cues. The possibility that one type could become both a cheater and a cooperator depending on what’s needed at the time is intriguing. We hope examining social conflict at the level of individual cells will shed more light on this.”

    Source: Imperial College London
  • jstalin
    jstalin

    This contradicts classic evolutionary theory, which states that in a competition for common resources the long-term winner will always be the individual acting selfishly rather than the one working as part of a group.
    I don't know where that "classic" theory came from, but we see examples of the superiority of cooperation all the time in nature. Packs of animals roaming, rather than individuals, is a perfect example. The survival of the young due to the selfless behavior of mothers is everywhere in nature.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    This is an interesting study. It applies not just in the early evolutionary stages, but also in the later ones. A study of the different human races shows that certain ones tend to be more cooperative and others more combative/competitive, ie, not helping those of their own group as much. It appears that the more cooperative ones tend to do better over longer periods of time while the more competitive groups have brief periods of ascendency, where they exploit or hyjack the cooperators, and then fall back again.

    S

  • Cellist
    Cellist

    Carl Sagan had a chapter in one of his books dealing with this subject. There was an experiment with people done. The conclusion was that; the people who where initially nice, then consistently punished and forgave the selfish (and punished again if they didn't learn), were the ones who came out the winners in the end. I don't own the book, so I can't quote from it.

    Cellist

  • steve2
    steve2

    Yes we do. Now buzz off selfless one and let me prosper.

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    I find these sorts of experiments interesting. The idea of "group selection" has been around for some time, although most biologists now use the term "multilevel selection", or they're more specific like "deme selection" or "clade selection".

    I'm not sure what study Carl Sagan was writing about. I have yet to read his book Broca's Brain, does that sound like its it? Anyways, the study sounds roughly parallel to what's called the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Basically, if its likely that a prison would never deal with someone else ever again, they'll sell them out (cheat) if given a tempting opportunity (being set scott free). But if its likely that the person will be called on it in the future, either by the same person who was betrayed or his companions, then its better to cooperate with the other prisoner and both of them say nuttin' to the feds. Ratting on the other might get ya whacked. So in a way, cooperation can logically develop even on a basis of self-interest. If anyone likes to read more about it I think Wikipedia had a nice writeup on this.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    The real question should be : Do selfish genes prosper better than selfless genes?

    And the answer to that is an unequivocal yes. Those genes that behave in a way that maximises their own survival will outperform those who do not. The method a gene uses to maximise its survival may include behaviour that is detrimental to a particular individual with those genes.

    The definitive work on this subject is still The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Don't make the all-too-common mistake of just reading the title!

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Oh, selfless orgasms definately are better than selfish orgasms...

    As for shellfish orgasms, well, they've clammed-up about it... gone all crabby I think... of course, if it's limp it isn't possible... and I'm sure the smallest winkles don't give good ones...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit