Wilson calls this “the fundamental problem of social life” and provides the following group
selection solution:
Imagine not one but many populations that vary in their
proportions of solid citizens and shirkers. Even if shirkers
fare better than solid citizens within each population,
populations with an excess of solid citizens fare better than
populations with an excess of shirkers. In short, there is
a process of natural selection at the group level that
favors solid citizens, just as there is a process of natural
selection at the individual level (within each group)
favoring shirkers. Group-level adaptations will evolve
whenever group-level selection is stronger than individual-
level selection.
35
Part of the problem in this debate is the all-too-human tendency to dichotomize. Instead of
viewing this as a forced choice between individual selection and group selection, we can
readily adopt a hierarchical theory of evolution, where we recognize and acknowledge
both forces at work. A second challenge is in how we define certain terms, such as altruism
and cooperation, and the temptation to force these categories into either-or choices, where
people are (generally/situationally /purely) altruistic or selfish, cooperative or competitive. As
descriptive terms, altruistic and cooperative are not reified things; they are behaviors.
And like all behaviors, there is a broad range of expression, from a little to a lot. Here
again a fuzzy logic analysis helps clarify this complex human phenomenon. Depending on
the circumsta nces, some people in some situations are .2 altruistic and .8 nonaltruistic (or
selfish), or .6 cooperative and .4 noncooperative (or competitive). Fuzzy fractions apply to
individual and group selection as well. Individuals and groups can be altruistic and
nonaltruistic, cooperative and noncooperative in degrees of expression changing over
varying circumstances. It all depends on the situation. In this context, it might be useful to
settle the group selection debate, at least provisionally, by acknowledging that group
selection might work in a limited set of circumstances for some species. Group selection is not
in opposition to individual selection; it is complementary, giving whole populations a selective
advantage over other whole populations.
In applying group selection to the origins of religion, Wilson argues that “Religions exist
primarily for people to achieve together what they cannot achieve alone. The mechanisms
that enable religious groups to function as adaptive units include the very beliefs and
practices that make religion appear enigmatic to so many people who stand outside of
them.” Going inside religion, Wilson argues, allows us to see what their practical function
is—the group itself becomes a living organism, subject to the forces of natural selection.
“Through countless generations of variation and selection, they acquire properties that
enable them to survive and reproduce in their environments.”36 He notes as support, for
example, anthropological studies of meat sharing practiced by all modern hunter-gatherer
communities around the world. It turns out that these small bands and tribes—which can
cautiously be used as a model for our own Paleolithic ancestors—are remarkably
egalitarian. Using portable scales to precisely measure how much meat each family within
the group received after a successful hunt, anthropologists discovered that the immediate
families of successful hunters got no more meat than the rest of the families i n the group,
even when this was averaged over several weeks of regular hunting excursions. “Hunter-
gatherers are egalitarian, not because they lack selfish impulses but because selfish
impulses are effectively controlled by other members of the group,” Wilson explains. “In
human hunter-gatherer groups, an individual who attempts to dominate others is likely to
encounter the combined resistance of the rest of the group. In most cases even the
strongest individual is no match for the collective, so self-serving acts are effectively
curtailed.”37
How gossip, morality, and group selection link together can be seen in studies of a number of
hunter- gatherer societies. Anthropologist Chris Boehm, for example, has demonstrated the
use of gossip to ridicule, shun, and even ostracize individuals whose competitive drives
and selfish motives interfere with the cooperative needs and altruistic tendencies of the
