How did the human species evolve compassion? Someone who is likely to lay down his life for someone else is less likely to reproduce. Sure if a mother gives up her life for her child, the child will pass on the gene. But I’d like to make a distinction between love and compassion. The woman that sacrificed her life for her child did so because she LOVED her child. But the man who jumps in front of a truck to save a baby might do so even if he doesn’t know the baby, or the baby’s family. THAT is compassion. Feeling for somebody you don’t know. The ability to feel the emotions of THAT persons loved ones. So the first caveman to feel compassion was willing to go to great lengths to protect other people. He had a better chance of dying because he wasn’t looking out for number 1. Everybody else was looking out for number 1 so they had a greater chance of survival. Yet, despite the DIS-advantage that compassion gives to the individual, evolution has ADDED that trait to our species. Sure it ensures the survivability of the species so it is a benefit to the species, but it isn’t a benefit to the individual. Which is a prerequisite for Darwinian evolution. After the individual mates and has kids, the compassion he feels is more likely to become love. He will take care of the tribe because they are his family, not because he has compassion. So someone please tell me how compassion became a characteristic of humanity. What is the advantage that compassion gives to the individual?
You are assuming that evolution is responsible for this sort of altruism; it could instead be a result of social conditioning.
Compassion leads to helping others which often leads to that person later helping you. Maybe the real question is, what would be the reason for evolution to a feeling that reciprocity is expected.
Look up “kin selection” and “altruism” in relation to evolution.
An animal which risks its life to save three siblings or about nine cousins has as good or better genetic representation in the next generation than if that animal bred itself.
Evolution acts on species, not on individuals per se. It is in the interest of the species for individuals to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, especially if said individuals have bred first.
Yes it IS, as I said, in the interest of the species for individuals to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, but if they sacrifice themselves before they breed, their genetics won’t enter the gene pool. Individuals are LESS likely to breed if they have compassion. Maybe that’s not true today, but it is true before compassion was a common trait. Don’t confuse compassion for love. Once they have bred, they are more likely to save those they love than they are to save strangers. Then compassion doesn’t exist for them, in a broad sense, which is what evolution works on. That’s not to say that they won’t have the compassion gene (if there is such a thing). And maybe that’s the answer. Those with compassion didn’t necessarily die. Compassion isn’t necessarily a weakness trait, one that ensures that they die. But it does give the individual and his genes a disadvantage. And THAT is what counts in evolution. Or maybe compassion IS given to us by society.
As to siblings, a mutation doesn’t necessarily occur to all siblings. It begins with one individual. The compassion “gene” had to begin with one human, or one of human’s ancestors.
I agree that the OP assumes this. It’s not an unreasonable assumption, I believe, because not all species that are capable of learning can be conditioned to show compassion. Turtles, fish, paramecium can all be trained, but do not show the same proclivity for compassion as do primates. Hence there is some inborn ability within humans and other social animals to be compassionate.
Other evidence exists. Primates raised in highly traumatizing circumstances are never able to show normal compassion. You might argue that this shows that compassion is learned, but it really shows that there is a critical period in brain growth for the development of the ability in question. The existence of a “critical period” shows that the ability is not a result of generic learning, it is a specialized function. If compassion was based on mere “conditioning”, then it could be learned at any time, which is not the case.
The OP makes an error by assuming that only the individual’s survival determines whether a trait is passed on to successive generations. If we assume that one individual, “Eve” had a mutation that gave her primal Compassion for the first time, the existence of that gene did not necessarily make any difference at the time. All she had to do was to survive and reproduce like everybody else. This is easy to imagine – it is not necessary to suppose that her compassion caused her to sacrifice herself before reproducing, or that all her offspring sacrificed themselves for the sake of the tribe before they could reproduce. After all, teenagers want to have sex before they know what compassion really is. That’s all that’s required.
That individual would pass her gene, along with other benign mutations from her mates, to the next generations. The accumulation of thousands of mutations over millions of years makes the difference we see today. If the gene eventually (perhaps years later) results in an individual sacrificing herself to improve the survival of her group, then the group – not the individual – will continue to pass the gene on to the next generations. If that group survives better than other groups who don’t have the mutation, then you have natural selection at work.
As altruism (or, “compassion”) has been documentd in species as diverse as bees, seagulls, and snails, I would have to presume any “compassion gene” appeared very early in the history of life.
Altruism, whether it be kin selection, reciprocation, manipulation, or group selection (each of which involves different patterns for what individuals donate what resources to whom and under what circumstances) is a behavioural response to a given life strategy. It appears among almost every group of animals with any type of social structure
No human specific origin or explanation seems needed.
Keep in mind that, for most of history, most of the people a person interacted with would be relatives to some degree. That guy who lives next to you is a member of your clan/tribe, and even if you don’t know exactly how you’re related, you probably are. There are no real strangers. So a gene comes along which encourages you to be compassionate to everyone you meet, because it’s easier to do that than to encourage you to be compassionate to everyone who’s a third cousin twice removed or closer, and it gives about the same effect.
There is an innate reflex to save people from harm despite personal harm. This isn’t learned.
I’d go with the theory that one tries to protect one’s group (yes, species, but more specific).
Natural selection does, in fact, operate on individuals, not species. Species may well evolve, but it is primarily the action of natural selection acting upon individuals which drives evolution.
That “inborn ability” could simply be a form of reasoning, wherein an individual recognizes what is good for the group, and is able to act accordingly.
Alternatively, if such altruism were truly genetic in nature, then it should be possible for an indiviudal to develop altruistic tendencies regardless of upbringing. If it must be learned, then it points to being a social phenomenon and not a wholely biological one.
Note that group selection is a rather conjectural hypothesis. Some points against it actually occuring in nature can be found here. It has, for the most part, been discredited (“reciprocation” likewise has little evidence to support it).
Here is a good summary (it’s a .pdf document) of the various theories which attempt to explain altruistic behaviors. Kin selection is currently the best-supported theory, but does not adequately (in my opinion) explain such human behaviors as were I to decide to run in front of a truck in order to save a stranger.