Hacker News Reader

Re exclusivity: The article portrayed it as a debate over which one is the cause. Does group altruism exist because we desire to help kin, or does kin altruism exist *because we desire to help the group?

Group selection sounds more reasonable (by being more easily implementable at a sub-conscious level) to me.

View on HN

I think what rcthompson was asking is why can't both kin altruism and group altruism exist as primary causes? If there's a genetic (as opposed to memetic) basis, it's conceivable* that there is a single gene that, if mutated, would cause individuals to care about the group, but not direct kin any more than the group at large, or to care about close kin, but not the larger group. Given how much of biology is layers of overlapping, cooperative systems, I would guess this is the most likely idea: that both kin selection and group selection are active, to varying degrees in different populations.

* Though unlikely

Yes, that's what I meant: I don't see why either one has to be the cause of the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com