Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:22:51.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological markets explain human ultrasociality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2016

Mark Sheskin ,
Stéphane Lambert  and
Nicolas Baumard
Mark Sheskin
Affiliation:
Institut Jean-Nicod CNRS UMR 8129, Institut d'Etude de la Cognition, Ecole Normale Supérieure – PSL Research University, 75005 Paris, France. [email protected]@[email protected]://marksheskin.comhttps://sites.google.com/site/nicolasbaumard/
Stéphane Lambert
Affiliation:
Institut Jean-Nicod CNRS UMR 8129, Institut d'Etude de la Cognition, Ecole Normale Supérieure – PSL Research University, 75005 Paris, France. [email protected]@[email protected]://marksheskin.comhttps://sites.google.com/site/nicolasbaumard/
Nicolas Baumard
Affiliation:
Institut Jean-Nicod CNRS UMR 8129, Institut d'Etude de la Cognition, Ecole Normale Supérieure – PSL Research University, 75005 Paris, France. [email protected]@[email protected]://marksheskin.comhttps://sites.google.com/site/nicolasbaumard/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The evidence Gowdy & Krall (G&K) provide is more consistent with a biological markets explanation of human ultrasociality than a group selection explanation. Specifically, large-scale societies provide a better biological market for cooperation than do small-scale societies, allowing individuals to increase their fitness. Importantly, many of the quality-of-life costs G&K discuss (e.g., patriarchy) are not fitness costs.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e113
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

André, J. B. & Baumard, N. (2011) The evolution of fairness in a biological market. Evolution 65(5):1447–56.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. (2013) Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 34(3):164–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumard, N., Hyafil, A., Morris, I. & Boyer, P. (2015) Increased affluence explains the emergence of ascetic wisdoms and moralizing religions. Current Biology 25(1):10–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumard, N. & Sheskin, M. (2015) Partner choice and the evolution of a contractualist morality. In: The moral brain, ed. Decety, J. & Wheatley, T.. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1998) Reproductive skew, concessions and limited control. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(7):288–92.Google Scholar
Debove, S., André, J.-B. & Baumard, N. (2015) Partner choice creates fairness in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282(1808):20150392. (Online article).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delton, A. W., Krasnow, M. M., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2010) Evolution of fairness: Rereading the data. Science 329(5990):389–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diamond, J. (1997) Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. (2004) Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 53(1):3–35.Google Scholar
Nettle, D., Colléony, A. & Cockerill, M. (2011) Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city. PLoS One 6(10):e26922.Google Scholar
Noë, R. & Hammerstein, P. (1994) Biological markets: Supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 35(1):1–11.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2012) The false allure of group selection. An Edge original essay. (Online publication, originally posted on Edge site on June 18, 2012). Available at: http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection Google Scholar
Sherman, R. A., Figueredo, A. J. & Funder, D. C. (2013) The behavioral correlates of overall and distinctive life history strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105(5):873–88.Google Scholar
Sheskin, M. & Santos, L. (2012) The evolution of morality: Which aspects of human moral concerns are shared with nonhuman primates? In: The Oxford handbook of comparative evolutionary psychology, ed. Vonk, J. & Shackelford, T. K., pp. 434–49. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar