Yes, that could happen in a mathematical model. But try to think about the actual conditions our ancestors lived in instead. Members of a tribe were highly interdependant on each other for survival. Specialization of skills and the fair exchange of, for example, well made axes for applied knowledge of medicinal plants, was crucial for the survival of the individuals and the group. Sharing of food, a very basic foundation of human bonding in all known societies, was also crucial for survival. A tribe of egoists would see members who fell ill even from common illnesses which one can recover from in a week die instead of recover. They would not survive the week without food. Intra-tribal conflict would be nearly constant with a high resulting mortality rate. Those who failed to make a kill or went foraging in a desolate area would go hungry. There is a huge list of activities that our ancestors carried out that a tribe of egoists could not or would not, but which allowed us to survive. Survival of a tribe was far from a given and many perished without any intervention from an attack by another tribe. More than a few egoists in a tribe could easily select it out of the evolutionary game. A tribe of all egoists would not survive long enough to be wiped out in warfare and have its women taken as sex slaves. Children would not thrive or survive to adulthood as only their own parents would protect them, and if the father was hunting and the mother fell ill then the child would be doomed.
There are lots of ways in which the very concept of a tribe of egoists can be shown to be absolutely absurd given that this tribe would actualy have to eat and heal the sick and raise the young and make shelter and protect itself from predators.
We are interdependant and therefore egoists are not the norm and we have evolved many systems to detect them and stop them. |
incomplete modeling new - Carmi - 2003-04-30
incomplete modeling new - Carmi Turchick - 2003-05-07