[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!