authors:
- Bowles, Samuel
- Gintis, Herbert
content: 'Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis bring together a wide range of evidence
in their discussion on the origin and nature of human cooperation and society. Humans
are cooperative, not only for mutual gain, but also altruistically. We care for
one another. This entails not only the welfare of each other, but also in the upholding
of norms that are part of the particular culture we live in. How did the peculiar
behavior evolve?
The most common explanations invoke kin and reciprocity. Kin relationships can and
do underlie altruistic behavior among many species. Reciprocity is rare among animals,
but could in principle be invoked for some types of altruism. But Bowles and Gintis
conclude that these do not sufficiently explain human cooperative behavior. Social
preferences such as cooperating with unrelated people even in cases when reciprocity
is unlikely, and the propensity to punish free-riders and cheats even when doing
so is costly, require other explanations.
The discussion is exhaustive, and in parts exhausting. The authors recapitulate
very technical treatments of models and simulations, primarily relating to evolutionary
theory and game theory approaches to cooperation. However, the reason is that they
wish to show that the effects of kin and reciprocity cannot quantitatively account
for the full extent of human cooperation. It is one thing to argue the qualitative
effects, but another to show that the numbers add up. Bowles and Gintis goes through
the formulae and numbers in detail, which is necessary, but heavy going for an amateur.
The authors argue that more is required to explain the evolution of human cooperation.
Their answer is the co-evolution of institutions and group-mindedness, where culture
and group competition act as critical factors. The driving force was the between-group
competition that operated during Homo sapiens early evolution. This included the
survival (or not) of groups of people in the harsh environment by inventing and
maintaining the appropriate tools (in a wide sense) to deal with the challenges.
It also included the inter-group competition and conflicts that could determine
which one survived and which not.
Bowles and Gintis write that the "individual motives and group-level institutions
that account for cooperation among humans include not only the most elevated, including
a concern for others, fair-mindedness, and democratic accountability of leaders,
but also the most wicked, such as vengeance, racism. religious bigotry and hostility
towards outsiders." The ability to be good as well as evil has been our blessing
and curse since our species evolved. It is our heritage.'
date: '2021-07-24'
edition:
published: '2013'
publisher: Princeton University Press
goodreads: '17130597'
html: '<p>Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis bring together a wide range of evidence
in their discussion on the origin and nature of human cooperation and society. Humans
are cooperative, not only for mutual gain, but also altruistically. We care for
one another. This entails not only the welfare of each other, but also in the upholding
of norms that are part of the particular culture we live in. How did the peculiar
behavior evolve?</p>
<p>The most common explanations invoke kin and reciprocity. Kin relationships can
and do underlie altruistic behavior among many species. Reciprocity is rare among
animals, but could in principle be invoked for some types of altruism. But Bowles
and Gintis conclude that these do not sufficiently explain human cooperative behavior.
Social preferences such as cooperating with unrelated people even in cases when
reciprocity is unlikely, and the propensity to punish free-riders and cheats even
when doing so is costly, require other explanations.</p>
<p>The discussion is exhaustive, and in parts exhausting. The authors recapitulate
very technical treatments of models and simulations, primarily relating to evolutionary
theory and game theory approaches to cooperation. However, the reason is that they
wish to show that the effects of kin and reciprocity cannot quantitatively account
for the full extent of human cooperation. It is one thing to argue the qualitative
effects, but another to show that the numbers add up. Bowles and Gintis goes through
the formulae and numbers in detail, which is necessary, but heavy going for an amateur.</p>
<p>The authors argue that more is required to explain the evolution of human cooperation.
Their answer is the co-evolution of institutions and group-mindedness, where culture
and group competition act as critical factors. The driving force was the between-group
competition that operated during Homo sapiens early evolution. This included the
survival (or not) of groups of people in the harsh environment by inventing and
maintaining the appropriate tools (in a wide sense) to deal with the challenges.
It also included the inter-group competition and conflicts that could determine
which one survived and which not.</p>
<p>Bowles and Gintis write that the "individual motives and group-level institutions
that account for cooperation among humans include not only the most elevated, including
a concern for others, fair-mindedness, and democratic accountability of leaders,
but also the most wicked, such as vengeance, racism. religious bigotry and hostility
towards outsiders." The ability to be good as well as evil has been our blessing
and curse since our species evolved. It is our heritage.</p>
'
isbn: '9780691158167'
language: en
lastmod: '2021-07-24'
path: /library/bowles-2011.html
published: '2011'
rating: 4
reference: Bowles 2011
reviewed: '2021-07-24'
subjects:
- human-evolution
- morality
- science
title: 'A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution'
type: book
year: 2011