How cooperation between members of different groups arises

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is generally believed that purely human phenomena, such as culture, traditions, and social norms, are necessary to make cooperation between different societies possible. At the same time, animals that lack such phenomena are typically considered social only in relation to their own group and hostile toward members of other groups. Of course, the importance of these phenomena should not be underestimated, but they may well be unnecessary for the emergence of cooperation between groups.

As demonstrated by research on pygmy chimpanzees, or bonobos—humans’ closest genetic relatives—they exhibit high levels of tolerance between members of different groups. They can travel, rest, and feed together. Resource exchange between groups is not uncommon among bonobos. Moreover, it has been noted that individuals who exhibited more pro-social behavior within their own group were also more pro-social toward members of other groups. At the same time, such cooperation does not arise under the influence of any culture or social norms. One could say that this is simply a natural state for bonobos.

It is also worth comparing bonobos with common chimpanzees. The latter are quite hostile to strangers; in their case, intergroup clashes can even end in lethal violence. Why does such a difference arise? If one compares the neurophysiology of common and pygmy chimpanzees, the latter are found to have twice the density of serotonergic neurons in the amygdala of the brain. Additionally, it is worth noting the relationship regarding aggression between serotonin, oxytocin (a hormone that promotes only intra-group pro-sociality, or so-called parochial altruism), and testosterone (a sex hormone). Common chimpanzees exhibit high testosterone reactivity, which reduces their tolerance and provokes a drive to fight for higher status. And as is known from studies, the function of the serotonergic system (which is more pronounced in bonobos) includes inhibiting the pro-aggressive influence of testosterone. Pro-sociality is also stimulated by oxytocin, and it should be noted that the serotonergic system can exert an influence on its release.

It should also not be forgotten that cooperative-communicative skills, which emerged in the early stages of human evolution, were key to the emergence of various forms of human cultural cognition, including language. Therefore, it is entirely possible to assume that pro-sociality and cooperation arise not simply because of culture. Rather, all these phenomena have common evolutionary roots. The basis for their emergence may well be the development of a violence inhibition mechanism and the strengthening of serotonergic function during evolution. Such adaptation is necessary for peaceful coexistence and the prevention of lethal violence, which in many circumstances is extremely detrimental to the entire population. Furthermore, the observation of such adaptation in an extremely strong form in bonobos indicates that “constant wars between neighboring groups are not necessarily a legacy of humanity and do not seem evolutionarily inevitable.”

How does Libertarianism relate to the Effective Altruism movement?

Howard Roark

A small introduction for the readers. Effective altruism is a family of approaches to the task of changing the world for the better. Within this doctrine, it is considered how to achieve maximum effect with minimum means, what considerations to follow when setting goals, and how to motivate oneself toward altruism. Howard Roark is a character from Ayn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead,” who advocates egoism as the highest moral value.

Of course, both of these concepts coexist quite well, and I won’t have to write tons of text about it, because Mikhail Pozharsky was recently so altruistic that he released a video about it. The engine of altruistic behavior is egoism. And the effective altruism movement is a pretty good confirmation of this. First, a person finds it insufficient to show off with luxury yachts and begins to spend on charity. Then it becomes crowded in this area, and he begins to show off that he spends on charity more effectively than others. You, allegedly, throw in mega-bucks without much point—you might as well have used them to light cigarettes—but I, spending ten times less, have actually helped a bunch of people with real problems; here is the proof, here is the methodological analysis, and here is where to send donations.

What else links effective altruism and Ayn Rand’s egoism is the conviction of many effective altruism adepts that for a successful person, for example, it is more effective not to volunteer personally, but to pay for the work of professionals, because he is more useful in his own position, where he earns the money to pay those very professionals. From here, it is literally one step to the idea that the best way to help people overall is the construction of a maximally free society, where everyone engages in what brings maximum benefit to others—simply because such behavior is best rewarded in a free market.

Effective altruists