In the study of the origin of biological altruism the eusocial insects have played a prominent role, so much so that it’s generally acknowledged that current perceptions of altruism and its effect on the evolution of social behaviours came mainly from studies of these particular social arrangements. Conclusions such as the following from West Gardner and Griffin (2006) about the role of worker ants are typical; “They altruistically give up the opportunity for reproduction, and instead spend their time helping to rear the offspring of the queen. As the queen is usually their mother, they are rearing brothers and sisters, and so kin selection can explain this altruism. A similar life cycle occurs in the termites, many wasps and bees, as well as some aphids and thrips. Together, these social insects provide some of the clearest examples of altruism.”
Is that statement an accurate account of the process?
Biological altruism is defined as an act that decreases the fitness of the altruist and increases the fitness of the recipient. Fitness is defined as the capacity to produce viable offspring. These definitions lead to a problem with altruism in regard to kin.
Parental care is referred to in all discussions about inclusive fitness as altruism. But a parent cannot perform an altruistic act for offspring because such an act cannot decrease it’s fitness within the meaning of the term “fitness”. Any positive interaction with offspring is a fitness act. The action cannot be one that decreases fitness as it’s a demonstration of fitness. It is clearly ludicrous to argue that a mother who feeds her child is reducing her fitness because the act reduces her capacity to raise children. So kin altruism cannot apply to offspring.
Which leads to an interesting scenario.
The same applies for the reverse situation. When a worker bee feeds the queen, or feeds pupae, she cannot lower her direct fitness as she has no direct fitness. She is sterile. She does have indirect fitness however, as she can contribute to the production of adult offspring. The act of feeding the queen or pupae is an indirect fitness act, a demonstration of indirect fitness as it contributes to the production of adult offspring of the queen. Because feeding the queen or pupae is a fitness act, a contribution to the fitness of kin, it is a demonstration of fitness. As such it cannot be seen as lowering fitness, therefore such acts are not altruistic. So in the case of eusocial insects, kin altruism is not only inapplicable to queen and offspring, it is entirely inapplicable throughout the colony because the worker caste, being sterile, cannot lower fitness. Even the act of dying while defending the colony is a contribution to the production of offspring and is therefore a fitness act devoid of altruism.
No altruism in a bee-hive? Now that’ll set the bees a-buzzin’!
Subscribe to the newsletter
[x]
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
Apply for a column: writing@science20.com
Donate or Buy SWAG
Please donate so science experts can write
for the public.
At Science 2.0, scientists are the journalists,
with no political bias or editorial control. We
can't do it alone so please make a difference.
We are a nonprofit science journalism
group operating under Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code that's
educated over 300 million people.
You can help with a tax-deductible
donation today and 100 percent of your
gift will go toward our programs,
no salaries or offices.
- Bizarro Vegan Dr Paul Saladino Gives Diet Advice Just As Dangerous For Babies
- DEI Without Compromise: Embracing Diversity in the LISA Global Scientific Collaboration. A ESA NASA Project.
- Cancel Culture Prevents The Best Researchers From Engaging With The Food Industry
- The Fall Of Scientific American Redux
- Move Over - The Talk I Will Not Give
Interesting insights from outside Science 2.0
© 2024 Science 2.0