Darwinian evolution does not entail that animal life is ruthlessly competitive
Evidence
We do not know whether animals trust each other, but we may ask whether the conditions of their social life favoured the evolution of what we understand to be trust in humans. More directly, we can discover whether they behave in ways that benefit others. Since they often do so, we may also ask what favoured the evolution of such behaviour and under what conditions cooperation is likely to occur in those animals that show it. The answers to such questions are important because so many non-biologists believe that the social behaviour of animals consists of nothing but strife and manipulation. If animal nature is the result of the competitive process of Darwinian evolution, then surely it must also be ruthlessly competitive. Such a conclusion does not follow from an acceptance of Darwinism. It is also a travesty of what biologists have observed and what most now believe. — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 236
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the reader’s Luhmann framing: cooperation without internal trust states undermines the assumption that trust is prerequisite for cooperation. — connects to: Current behavior need not reflect past evolutionary competition; Cooperation might evolve spontaneously without anyone manipulating it; Social Darwinism projected industrial class competition onto evolution, not Darwin’s idea. — Rebecca A. Martusewicz, Jeff Edmundson, and John Lupinacci, EcoJustice Education: Toward Diverse,…, 1160
- SEED: Could feed an essay on how ‘survival of the fittest’ is routinely misread as validation of ruthless competition, in biology and in social Darwinist discourse.
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 236
Broader Connections
- Current behavior need not reflect past evolutionary competition
#expands(0.85) - Cooperation might evolve spontaneously without anyone manipulating it
#corroborates(0.80)