FACTOID # 23: Wisconsin has more metal fabricators per capita than any other state.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 
   
 
WHAT'S NEW
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Inclusive fitness

Inclusive fitness encompasses conventional Darwinian fitness with the addition of behaviors that contribute to an organism’s individual fitness through altruism. An organism’s success, from the gene's point of view, ultimately depends on leaving behind the maximum number of replicas of its genes present within a population. Until 1964 it was generally believed this was done only by leaving the maximum number of viable offspring possible. However, in 1964 W. D. Hamilton showed that since relatives of an organism are likely to share more genes in common (not to be confused with "common genes," the opposite of scarce genes), an organism also may increase its own fitness by keeping its collateral relatives viable. The two strategies are not mutually exclusive. The two goals may compete for time and resources and trade off with each other, and an organism may pursue a judicious mix of the two. Also, pursuing the second strategy may serve to accomplish the first because the relatives (though not necessarily the same ones) may in turn help to raise the organism's own offspring. Inclusive fitness, therefore, refers to how many replicas of your genes owe their existence to your behavior, including both selfish and altruistic. More precisely, inclusive fitness is the number of genes so replicated divided by the number of genes per genome. Inclusive fitness therefore takes into account both the passing of genes from an organism to its offspring and the inheritance of the same genes among relatives and their offspring. Kin selection is a kind of selection more easily understood by considering inclusive fitness. Fitness (often denoted in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory. ... This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. ... For other meanings of this term, see gene (disambiguation). ... This article is about the British biologist Bill Hamilton. ... Kin selection refers to changes in gene frequency across generations that are driven at least in part by interactions between related individuals, and this forms much of the conceptual basis of the theory of social evolution. ...


The most obvious examples of increased inclusive fitness can be observed in the altruistic behaviors of parents. To ensure that their genes remain in the gene pool, organisms attempt to give rise to the maximum number of offspring that are sure to survive. Once the offspring are produced, the parents’ reproductive success is determined by the number of offspring. Natural selection therefore favors any genes that code for behaviors that lend themselves to increased fitness. Possibly having a genetic basis, innate behaviors that cause parents to sacrifice their well-being, either in the actual birthing process or in aiding their young, increase the parents’ fitness, which makes them more evolutionarily successful. The gene pool of a species or a population is the complete set of unique alleles that would be found by inspecting the genetic material of every living member of that species or population. ... Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on. ... The Galápagos Islands hold 13 species of finches that are closely related and differ most markedly in the shape of their beaks. ... The suckling of a newborn at its mothers nipple is an example of an instinctive behavior. ...


Increasing an organism’s inclusive fitness can also involve altruistic behavior towards relatives that have a probability of sharing genes in common. For example, Belding ground squirrels give alarm calls to warn the population of ensuing dangers. By emitting the alarm, the Belding ground squirrel puts itself in increased danger by giving away its location. In the process, however, the squirrel protects its relatives that live within the population. In further studies, it has been shown that willingness of the squirrel to put itself at risk is directly proportional to how closely related it is to members of its population. Therefore, if protecting the other squirrels in the immediate area will lead to the passing on of more of the squirrel’s genes than the squirrel could leave by reproducing on its own, the squirrel is willing to sacrifice itself, which leads to greater inclusive fitness.

Contents

Evidence of inclusive fitness in humans

Human behavior is generally much more complicated than other organisms making it difficult to define human behavior in general organism terms. However, evidence for human altruistic behavior leading to increased inclusive fitness has been observed. While there exists clear evidence towards increased inclusive fitness through altruistic behaviors on behalf of parents and children, much sacrificial behavior by humans is generally done in the hope of reciprocation at some point in the future. Therefore, increasing inclusive fitness in humans is not necessarily dependent upon relatedness. Rather, it is commonly based on reciprocal altruism. In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a form of altruism in which one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of future reciprocation. ...


Inclusive fitness in the family structure

Inclusive fitness may also be applied to the familial structure. Parents are frequently self-sacrificing towards their children with the hope that children will carry on the family genes. Frequently, the amount of altruistic behavior displayed by parents to increase their inclusive fitness is related to the amount of parental investment initially involved. Robert Trivers theory of parental investment predicts that the sex making the largest investment in lactation, nurturing and protecting offspring will be more discriminating in mating and that the sex that invests less in offspring will compete for access to the higher investing sex. ...


It is common for some people to express concern when parental investment (parental care) is said to contribute to inclusive fitness. This concern exemplifies the surprisingly large degree of confusion and obfuscation over such a profound and fundamental concept as IF. The distinctions between, kind of beneficiaries nurtured (collateral versus descendant relatives), and, kind of fitnesses used in our parsing events in nature to understand the goings on, are orthogonal concepts. This orthogonality, can best be understood in a thought experiment in which we consider a model of a population of animals such as tangle web spiders or crocodiles in which a gene, called a, codes for parental care, and its other allele, called A, codes for an absence thereof, thus aa homozygotes care for their young, and AA homozygotes don't, and the heterozygotes behave like aa homozygotes if a is dominant, and like AA homozygotes if A is dominant, or exhibit some kind of intermediate behaviour if there is partial dominance. Among these spiders and reptiles, some species or populations exhibit parental care, whilst closely-related species or populations lack it, so this is somewhat reasonable. However, other kinds of animals could be considered in which all individuals exhibit parental care, but variation among them would be in how much, or well, they do. Robert Trivers theory of parental investment predicts that the sex making the largest investment in lactation, nurturing and protecting offspring will be more discriminating in mating and that the sex that invests less in offspring will compete for access to the higher investing sex. ... In philosophy, physics, and other fields, a thought experiment (from the German Gedankenexperiment) is an attempt to solve a problem using the power of human imagination. ... Genera Latrodectus Argyrodes Theridion Steatoda The tangle-web spiders or comb-footed spiders (family Theridiidae) are a large group (over 2000 species in nearly 80 genera) of haphazard web-builders found throughout the world. ... Genera Mecistops Crocodylus Osteolaemus See full taxonomy. ...


If we parse nature such that life begins at conception, then, other things being equal, the only differences between how well different individuals do will be based on how much care they got as pre-weaned babies, since all mothers will conceive the same number of kids, but some will take care of them, or care for them better, and thus more of them will live, but the differences in mortality will count as part of the offsprings' fitnesses. Thus the variations in fitness among the animals will be part of their L(x) curves. Ceteris paribus is a Latin phrase, literally translated as with other things [being] the same, and usually rendered in English as all other things being equal. ... In actuarial science, a life table (sometimes called a mortality table) is a table of statistics giving information related to: the average probability of survival or death at different ages, remaining life expectancy the proportion of the original birth cohort still alive. ...


But if we parse nature such that life begins at weaning, and the pre-weaned offspring is part of the mother until weaned, sort of like a fetus, then the number of offspring weaned successfully, will be sort of a littersize, and the variations in success among individuals will be considered part of the mother's M(x) curve.


Simply put, L(x) is the probability of still being alive at age = x, and M(x) is fecundity at age x.


These are just 2 ways of keeping track of the bookkeeping, and the animals are exactly the same regardless how we keep track of them.


However, if we regard life as beginning at weaning, the heterozygote will have the same fitness as the homozygote with the dominant gene, and fitness will be a constant function of genotype. If life begins at conception, the 3 kinds of genotyped individuals will have different fitnesses, not only from each other but from generation to generation.


Fitnesses calculated in the life-begins-at-conception world will be examples of "personal fitnesses" or reproductive successes, whereas fitnesses calculated in the life-begins-at-weaning world will be examples of "inclusive fitnesses."


Both kinds of fitnesses can be used to parse reality in models or real populations with or without altruism toward collateral relatives. An older kind of fitness, called "classical fitness", doesn't consider social interactions at all. Altruistically-reared offspring aren't counted here as incrementing the fitness of the altruist or the beneficiary, but classical fitness, is simply, a carryover from earlier days when thought didn't go this deep in this direction.


This understanding is completely identical to that of W. D. Hamilton, whose philosophy is embodied in this discussion and terminology. This article is about the British biologist Bill Hamilton. ...


As enunciated by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, with personal fitness, the increments of fitness are counted with the bearers, and with inclusive fitness they are counted with the carers. Clinton Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. ... 1976 (MCMLXXVI) was a leap year starting on Thursday. ... Original book cover from the painting The Expectant Valley by zoologist Desmond Morris The Selfish Gene is a very popular and somewhat controversial book on evolutionary theory by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. ...


The mathematics simply becomes easier to use inclusive fitnesses, when studying model or real populations in which altruism toward collateral relatives is common or present, but the use of an inclusive fitness approach doesn't ipso facto imply collateral altruism is occurring, nor the use of personal fitnesses imply it isn't.


The size of the increment is always one in a personal-fitnesses-parsing, but a fraction between zero and one during an inclusive-fitness parsing.


Since first cousins are related by approximately 1/8 on average, raising one kid for your first cousin automatically increments your inclusive fitness by 1/8, but has a probability of 1/8 of incrementing your personal fitness by 1. This is because the probability is 1/8 your cousin will rear a kid of yours, for you, if you rear one for one of your cousins. This is not reciprocity, but rather just due to the laws of statistics.


There are complicating factors. One is that the relatedness coeeficient will rarely be exactly 1/8. Another is that there are two kinds of inclusive fitness, "corrected" and "uncorrected," explained in the reference below (Orlove 1979).


This concept is exactly equivalent to the law of karma in Vedic (Hindu, Buddhist, Jaine) Philosophy. Karma or Karm(Sanskrit: कर्म from the root kri, to do, meaning deed) or Kamma (Pali: meaning action, effect, destiny) is a term in several eastern religions that comprises the entire cycle of cause and effect. ...


The increment to inclusive fitness is valuable for its own sake, not necessarily because it is a promise of a higher personal fitness.


This is because a cousin (say) has copies of one's own genes every bit as much as an offspring does, just not as many of them.


The mathematical account, especially as given by Hamilton (1964) can look quite daunting, however, it isn't so bad if you keep trying to read it. 1964 (MCMLXIV) was a leap year starting on Wednesday (the link is to a full 1964 calendar). ...


Corrected and uncorrected fitness, along with other concepts, are verbally explained, however in: Stories with Bill Hamilton in them. (This account was written in the spirit of the Pliny the Younger letter to Tacitus when he said "You will use the important bits, for it is one thing to write a letter, another to write history, one thing to write to a friend, another to write for the public. Farewell." Eyewitness Account of the Disaster at Pompeii. And it wasn't expected to be published verbatim in an anthology, so you will have to read around the typos.)


You can also find simulations to test these thoughts at the website Simtel.net, and download the package with the simulations: [1], and to decompress the source code should you ever wish to read it, using: [2]


These probabilities of reciprocity will be coefficients of relatedness in species where there is only altruism toward relatives, but when strangers are involved they can be estimates of reciprocation, which depend on being, as if, more closely related than average at the altruism influencing portions of the genome, based on past behaviour, in a stranger. Again whether personal- or inclusive fitness approaches are used affects the observees, not a jot, but the observer's comprehension a great deal. In population genetics, Sewall Wrights coefficient of relationship or relatedness is the probability that at a random locus, the alleles there will be identical by descent. ...


If any of this seems weird or counter-intuitive, you might want to take a look at a less involved at-first-counterintuitive mathematical problem called the Monty Hall problem. In search of a new car, the player picks door 1. ...


Some people would consider IF fundamentally important, which it is, but for a reason, some of them would question and many wouldn't, which is that they believe that the ultimate test for whether some one is a true mutualist, i. e., a true friend, would be based on whether they were increasing your inclusive fitness. Others might say it is based on whether they are increasing your personal fitness. Sometime increasing one would decrease the other, but advocates for these ideas would say someone was purloining you if they were decreasing your fitness. Some would argue it doesn't matter which kind of fitness they choose to increase as long as it is one of them and consistent. And many would argue such a value system shouldn't be based on fitness at all.


Complicating factors would include, what if you include the meme as well as the gene in your argument? It has been suggested that Memetic engineering be merged into this article or section. ...


What about conflicts within individuals between genes, between memes, and between genes and memes?


From thoughts along these lines we might derive the test as to whether humans are spiritual beings, or mere automata. If some person or organisation of persons had an endeavour which generated a pollutant, a chemical, or waste product laden with parasites or pathogens. An automaton (plural: automata) is a self-operating machine. ...


In order to clean up their operation they have two choices:

  • 1. nutralise the pollutant, rendering it harmless, or
  • 2. dilute it so thoroughly as to equally distribute it in the atmosphere, or ocean, where it would harm people slightly, or alternatively, not so slightly but randomly and rarely, but the harm or risk would be equally distributed around the world.

In order to be consistent, a believer in Inclusive fitness, in the sense as a utility function, but one with a moral imperative, would argue that if people based the choice of pollution control on which was cheaper, then the chooser would be an automaton without a spirit. Similarly, if a person were willing to pay extra to go for the nutralisation option, then spiritual humanity exists.


Considering IF at all opens moral dilemmas in slightly, but only slightly, less grand questions, like, "Do you inform a person who has been sterilised that it isn't so bad, if their identical twin is still alive?" If you don't tell them they may die forlorn. If you do what would it do to the twin's marriage?


Some people might look down on celibate people as inferior; a positive spin-off of IF Theory is that their ammunition evaporates under it.


Another positive spin-off of IF would be to challenge those among us who would have considered people from India as savages, or primitive, and Karma as a mumbo-jumbo concept, but praise Bill Hamilton as if he were Einstein or Darwin, which he deserves, but there is no place for putting down people of foreign cultures. William Provine, In a lecture, and an attempt to present a cynical view of the cosmos, told his audience that only one to 3 of them would have their bloodlines extant in a thousand years thence, due to random events. IF Theory shows this doesn't matter another jot. The explanation is simply that if bad luck eliminates some bloodlines, it will enhance others, and if it is truly random, if you lose your bloodline, other ones carrying the same genes in the same numbers will exist somewhere. And if you believe genes don't matter, then there is no reason to get upset from the onset. Professor William B. Provine is an American historian of science, particularly of evolutionary biology and population genetics. ...


Another spin-off of IF Theory is parent-offspring conflict as discovered by Robert L. Trivers in 1974 and popularised and reviewed by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. Robert Trivers theory of parent-offspring conflict (1974) predicts that because the genetic interests of parents and offspring are not identical, offspring will be selected to manipulate their parents in order to ensure higher investment, and that, conversely, parents will be selected to manipulate their offspring. ... Robert L. Trivers, (born 19 February 1943) is an American evolutionary biologist and sociobiologist, most noted for proposing the theories of reciprocal altruism (1971), parental investment (1972), and parent-offspring conflict (1974). ... 1974 (MCMLXXIV) was a common year starting on Tuesday. ... Original book cover from the painting The Expectant Valley by zoologist Desmond Morris The Selfish Gene is a very popular and somewhat controversial book on evolutionary theory by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. ...


Basically, a parent is trying to maximise its number of grandchildren, but one of its offspring would give up the chance to have n kids only if the benefit to one of its siblings for doing so provided more than 2n nieces or nephews. So if the benefit to cost ratio is between 2 and 1 there is a conflict.


Trivers predicts that if the parent can't be around forever to coerce an offspring into being a worker, aka a helper, at a sibling's nest, then if the benefit to cost ratio is between 2 and 1, the parent needs to get it higher than 2, so the offspring will be a voluntary worker.


Since increasing the productivity of the more productive child is impractical, the parents' best bet is to lower the reproductive capability of the offspring, without harming its somatic skills, such as walking or finding food.


Trivers argues that if Sigmund Freud had lived after 1964, he would have explained intra-family conflict, and castration complex as resulting from resource sharing issues, and economics rather than sexual or incestuous jealousy. Sigmund Freud (May 6, 1856–September 23, 1939; IPA pronunciation: []) was an Austrian neurologist and the co-founder of the psychoanalytic school of psychology. ... 1964 (MCMLXIV) was a leap year starting on Wednesday (the link is to a full 1964 calendar). ... In Psychoanalysis, the term castration complex refers to fear of losing ones penis among male children. ...


See also

The gene-centric view of evolution, gene selection theory or selfish gene theory holds that natural selection acts through differential survival of competing genes, increasing the frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation. ... Kin selection refers to changes in gene frequency across generations that are driven at least in part by interactions between related individuals, and this forms much of the conceptual basis of the theory of social evolution. ... Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on. ...

Sources

  • Campbell, N., Reece, J., et al. 2002. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco, California. pp. 1145-1148.
  • Rheingold, Howard, “Technologies of cooperation” in Smart Mobs. Cambridge, MA : Perseus Publishing, 2002 (Ch. 2:pp 29-61)
  • Dawkins, Richard C. 1976 The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press (Discussion of carers and bearers in relation to inclusive and personal fitnesses, and bugbear of parental investment as part of inclusive fitness occurs herein)
  • Hamilton, W. D. 1964 The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour I and II, J. Theor. Biol. v7, pp 1-16, and 17-52
  • Hamilton, W. D. 1975, Innate Social Aptitudes of Man: an Approach from Evolutionary Genetics, in Robin Fox (ed.), Biosocial Anthropology, Malaby Press, London, 133-153 (IF including altruism to fellow altruists among strangers discussed herein)
  • Hamilton, W. D. Narrow Roads of Geneland I and II, 1995 Freeman I 2001 Oxford Press II (biography of WDH and anthology of his writings)
  • Orlove, M. J. 1975 A Model of Kin Selection not Invoking Coefficients of Relationship J. Theor. Biol. v49 pp289-310 (Isomorphism between Karma and Kin Theories discussed herein)
  • Orlove, M. J. 1979 A Reconciliation of Inclusive Fitness and Personal Fitness Approaches: a Proposed Correcting Term for the Inclusive Fitness Formula, J. Theor. Biol. v81 pp577-586 (Karma-Theory/Kin-Theory equivalence moves from conjecture to theorem status here)
  • Trivers, R. L. 1971 The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism, Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35-57
  • Trivers, R. L. 1972 Parental Investment and Sexual Selection in B. Campbell (ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179) Chicago, Il: Aldine
  • Trivers, R. L. 1974 Parent/Offspring Conflict, American Zoologist, 14 249-264 (Bigtime importance of If in understanding intra-family conflict)
  • Sherman, P.W. 2001. “Squirrels” (pp. 598-609, with L. Wauters) and “The Role of Kinship” (pp. 610-611) in Encyclopedia of Mammals, D.W. Macdonald (Ed.). Andromeda, U.K.

 
 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m