[jrochkind1]

I think Kropotkin would agree with you rather than GP -- you are making arguments that would in fact be dear to Kropotkin. Check out his books for yourself if interested.

His work on this subject was in large part a response to the influence of "darwinism" at the time, where it became commonplace to think that "evolution" meant that we were evolved to compete with each other viciously, that selfish competition was our evolutionary inheritance, that this was somehow proven by darwin that we were "naturally" inclined to brutal competition between individuals. (I think a lot of this thought is still commonplace, including in "evolutionary psychology.")

Kropotkin argued that this is a misreading of natural history and the effects of evolution, that in fact cooperation is just as much/more a factor in natural selection, in survivability, that all creatures were in fact "evolved" to cooperate -- including humans, and for sure there are many many places where intensive cooperation is visible in human history.

(He specifically wrote about "indigenous" societies being based on cooperation -- which I think is an over-simplification, "indigenous" societies historical and present are very diverse rather than uniform on this axis -- see _Dawn of Everything_ for a contemporary anarchist scholarly take on this diversity -- but that was Kropotkin's scholarly anarchist take at the time). (If humans have in modern times often chosen on a mass scale to mistreat and kill each other even though they are "naturally" cooperative, it is not because of some evolutionary predestination).

Is what I get as a summary of one of Kropotkin's theses. I think he would fully agree that cooperation is one of the defining characteristics of humanity, would fully agree that humans are "built for cooperation". Cooperation as fundamental and foundational to evolution, and to animal as well as human life (humans understood as animals in the post-darwin world) was, like, his whole thing.

Check out the wikipedia section in his entry, for confirmation that my interpretation is common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin#Cooperation_an...

I think GP's comment here is a mischaracterization. I am worried that y'all are going to get the wrong idea about Kropotkin here!

[He was thinking and writing in the Victorian era, and his approach to "science" is characteristic, it wouldn't be accepted as a proper "scientific" approach today. It is still, though, I agree with OP article, interesting and useful philosophy, which provides a challenge to what we can realize are some assumptions not scientifically validated of even contemporary "evolutionary psychological" thinking].

[cuteboy19]

There would be no point in competing with someone who has the same genes as you since it is the genes that drive evolution. Going further, the more different the genes the more you would want to compete.

So this means that you would cooperate most with your parents then your siblings, then your family, tribe, race and species.

[jrochkind1]

That is not Kropotkin's analysis; it is a very commonplace current "evolutionary psychology" analysis (as well as probably a common 19th century "social darwinism" analysis!)

I don't really want to get into the whole argument here -- it's one of those that we will go on forever with.

But the Kropotkin point of view would probably point out that humans as a species (and any species, in fact) have improved survivability and natural selection when we cooperate with those in our communities/populations without regard for family relations.

[cuteboy19]

That may be true but we do not observe it in nature. Most mammals would prioritize their own offspring over others. "Without regard" is very rare to see

[jrochkind1]

I think what "we observe in nature" is debatable. Kropotkin was taking part in that debate, although it was over 100 years ago.

There's plenty of cooperation between population members not directly related observed in nature, that's literally what Kropotkin's whole book is about.

In the realm of "thought experiment", which is what "evolutionary psychology" seems to love these days: If game theory says that "tit for tat" is often the best strategy, then it's not hard to explain how creatures might evolve to do that. And if creatures are doing "tit for tat" then it is simple to explain how they might evolve to help other members of the popuation, regardless of genetic relation -- who would then help them. Thereby improving the genetic success of both participants. Organisms cooperating with other members of their population mutually improves the survival rate of all of their genes.

but here I am having the argument I said I wouldn't. You know the way to get me -- dropping statements about what "we observe" as if it is universally agreed upon and settled and not subject to debate or question -- without even a citation!

[annadiru]

Nature ecologies are so full of examples of mutual aid across all types of life that we are still discovering new relationships everyday. I'd like to see an updated collation of all these findings since kropotkin's writigs. Any suggestions?

[culi]

I think the main thing missing from this simplistic analysis (which I would tie back to Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and the gene-centric view of evolution it proposed) is that organisms don't need to just replicate themselves, but also their environments. I mean look at lichen. A small colony of organisms from completely different domains of life and they would die without each other yet that algae would obviously prefer to replicate the fungi it partners with over some other species of algae. Bison need to keep grasslands healthy, worms need to keep the soil organisms alive, mycorrhizal fungi need to keep plants alive, plant roots have a large toolbelt of chemical dances it does JUST to cultivate the specific soil bacteria they like, our gut bacteria have it in their interest to keep us humans thriving and interacting socially, myrmecophyte trees attract and support ant life, capitalism needs to replicate artificial scarcity, parasitic plants like dodders actually provide a whole host of benefits to its hosts like acting as an above-ground communication network, beavers practice "niche construction", most "weeds" occupy a specific niche where they grow in disturbed soils only to "work themselves out of a job" by conditioning the soil to better health allowing for ecological succession to take place (e.g. dandelions decompacting soil), and your dog would very likely kill another dog (extremely genetically similar as they are) in order to save your life.

In the 1990s a cholera outbreak in South America created an interesting natural experiment. In some countries it was a deadly disease that spread through waterways. But in places with better hygiene, it couldn't spread through those typical pathways. So it eventually evolved into a much milder form in order to allow people to go out and socialize so it can continue to spread

This is why every single deadly pandemic has been zoonotic in origin. The black plague, covid, hiv, etc all came from other animals. It's a matter of maladaption. All the diseases that have been closely associated with humans for thousands of years have instead evolved to... not kill us. Some of them even became an essential part of our microbiome. Even herpes, a rather ancient human "parasite", actually plays some beneficial roles in our immune system. The microbial universe is a prime example of how organisms need not only replicate themselves but also the environments in which they thrive