Here’s my shaky hypothesis, which I put together from many casual (and possibly flawed) readings of several different sources:

Before we begin to understand altruism, which I define as an impulse beyond our conscious control, we have to first understand such impulses- which I think have are fundamentally emotional in nature. (We do not have direct control over our emotions, although we can influence them indirectly- which is a story for another day.)

Emotions were likely developed through random mutation, and they worked because they communicated intent that is beyond an individual’s control. I think this is best illustrated through examples.

Example:
Suppose we are goatherds, and you steal one of my goats. It would be irrational for me to fight you to the death for it, because my life is worth more than a goat. So you could rationally steal the goat and get away with it. My hands would be tied by good sense.

But then anger comes in. Anger is beyond my control. Anger makes me want to kill you for your transgression, even if I lose everything in the process, and it won’t let me stop and listen to reason.

As such, angry, raging goatherds would be able to survive more easily than calm, rational ones.

In some circumstances- typically in simple, zero-sum situations (I win if you lose), it’s rational to have impulses that are beyond your conscious control. No compromise. I will kill you. Fuck off.

On a relevant but tangential note, I believe this is fundamental to the US’s foreign policy. It might have been irrational to stay in Vietnam, and subsequently, in Iraq, but it would be even more costly (in the long run) for them to admit defeat. That would mean relinquishing their top-dog status. They’re broadly invested around the world, and the value of their investments rests partially on their promise that they will commit to them, rain or shine. If the US pulls out of a war when the going gets tough, it communicates weakness to its allies.

It’s interesting to think about how this signalling mechanism mirrors emotions in individuals- many nations act strangely in the global sphere because of pressures from internal politics- I believe that a lot of crazy behaviour from Iran, and the border skirmishes  between North and South Korea, and between Thailand and Cambodia, etc- is mostly a consequence of a need to maintain appearances, an illusion of power.

—

Let’s move on to group dynamics. Altruism functions within the context of a group.

Let’s say we have a bunch of random people in Tribe A, all of whom are motivated purely by calculated self-interest. They’re mercenaries- they band together ONLY because it suits them. If the boat starts sinking, I’m splitting, and I’ll betray you if it makes it easier for me to survive.

Random mutation again. Some people in Tribe B, through some accidental mis-wiring of sorts, feel a sense of emotional protectiveness over each other. These buggers would risk their lives to save each other, at the expense of their own. They don’t actually need a valid reason to do it, it could have been completely random. (Although I’m guessing it wasn’t so.)

As individuals, their survivability goes down. But as a group, their survivability goes up.

In an inter-tribe skirmish, the tribe that sticks together wins. That’s tribe B.

If there are 10 tribes scattered across the plains, a tribe that sticks together could rape, loot and pillage its neighbouring tribe, with frenzied bezerker rage. The rational, thinking tribe of philosophers, if it ever existed, would have been decimated.

This tribal logic consistently appears  to explains a lot of things- the rise of patriarchy, shamanism, religion- anything that rallies people together around a cause that’s greater than themselves enhances their collective survivability. It’s no longer about individual versus individual, it’s about group vs. group.

Altruism exists because it was rational for these individuals to genuinely care for each other beyond their rational decisions. It’s the same reason we go “I’m hungry” instead of “I need more nutrients”, and we go “dayumn, look at dat ass” rather than “hmm, my new neighbour appears to have characteristics that would be useful in procuring offspring.”

We might not actually be interested in eating, or having offspring, or whatever. But the impulses remain. We were cavemen for tens of thousands of years, and social creatures for many times more than that- and modern life is less than a few measly generations old.

TL;DR:

The impulse for altruism boosts survivability of individuals within the context of social groups.

Hence, it is consistent with Darwinian natural selection.

Additional thoughts:

What I’ve been interested in is- as environments get more complex and intertwined, fight-or-flight impulses decrease your survivability, and negotiation and compromise improve it. We no longer live in disparate, independent tribes- we are now a global community, a global species, and our interactions have to change accordingly. The conditions for “victory” change with the landscape- your anger is worth less now. Your selfishness does not serve you as well as it might have served your ancestors. 

(It’s interesting to think about the Pelopponesian war- how Sparta defeated Athens, which ultimately weakened all of Greece. Such tribal logic only boosts survivability in limited tribal contexts- but when you look at broader and more complex situations, it appears that things like diversity and adaptability matter more in the long run.)

If my fickle and unsubstantiated intuition holds true, natural selection (given existing and future circumstances) should discourage rash impulsiveness and select instead for calm, measured and empathetic people who are capable of seeking co-operation and compromise, who live with empathy and compassion.

I might be wrong, but given the seeming impossibility of finding a clear answer, it what I choose to believe in. You could call it faith. I think of it as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe we have the power to create such a future for ourselves, now more than ever before. 

Relevant Links:

• The Evolution Of Co-operation, by Robert Axelrod
• War, the evolutionary cause of altruism, by Samuel Bowles