No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Agriculture increases individual fitness
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2016
Abstract
We question the need to explain the onset of agriculture by appealing to the second type of multilevel selection (MLS2). Unlike eusocial insect colonies, human societies do not exhibit key features of evolutionary individuals. If we avoid the mistake of equating Darwinian fitness with health and quality of life, the adoption of agriculture is almost certainly explicable in terms of individual-level selection and individual rationality.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
Bogaard, A., Charles, M., Twiss, K. C., Fairbairn, A., Yalman, N., Filipović, D., Demirergi, G. A., Ertuğ, F., Russell, N. & Henecke, J. (2009) Private pantries and celebrated surplus: Storing and sharing food at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, central Anatolia. Antiquity
83(321):649–68.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. & Choi, J.-K. (2013) Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
110(22):8830–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, E. (2013) The multiple realizability of biological individuals. The Journal of Philosophy
110(8):413–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, D. & Engel, M. S. (2005) Evolution of the insects. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmary, E. (1995) The major transitions in evolution. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, T. R. & Brady, S. G. (2008) Major evolutionary transitions in ant agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
105(14):5435–40. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0711024105.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2015) Optimizing engines: Rational choice in the Neolithic?
Philosophy of Science
82(3):402–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, K. (2005) The evolutionary ecology of despotism. Evolution and Human Behavior
26(1):106–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testart, A., Forbis, R. G., Hayden, B., Ingold, T., Perlman, S. M., Pokotylo, D. L., Rowley-Conwy, P. & Stuart, D. E. (1982) The significance of food storage among hunter-gatherers: Residence patterns, population densities, and social inequalities [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology
23(5):523–37.Google Scholar
Watkins, T. (2005) From foragers to complex societies in Southwest Asia. In: The human past, ed. Scarre, C., pp. 200–33. Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Watkins, T. (2010) New light on Neolithic revolution in Southwest Asia. Antiquity
84(325):621–34.Google Scholar
Target article
The economic origins of ultrasociality
Related commentaries (26)
Agriculture and the energy-complexity spiral
Agriculture increases individual fitness
Autonomy in ants and humans
Biological markets explain human ultrasociality
Contributions of family social structure to the development of ultrasociality in humans
Differences in autonomy of humans and ultrasocial insects
Differentiation of individual selves facilitates group-level benefits of ultrasociality
Does ultrasociality really exist – and is it the best predictor of human economic behaviors?
Human agricultural economy is, and likely always was, largely based on kinship – Why?
Human and ant social behavior should be compared in a very careful way to draw valid parallels
Humans are ultrasocial and emotional
Laying the foundation for evonomics
Malthus redux, and still blind in the same eye
On the effectiveness of multilevel selection
Rome was not built in one day: Underlying biological and cognitive factors responsible for the emergence of agriculture and ultrasociality
Social insects, merely a “fun house” mirror of human social evolution
The continuing evolution of ultrasocial economic organization
The convergent and divergent evolution of social-behavioral economics
The day of reckoning: Does human ultrasociality continue?
The similarity and difference between ant and human ultrasocieties: From the viewpoint of scaling laws
Ultrasociality and the division of cognitive labor
Ultrasociality and the sexual divisions of labor
Ultrasociality without group selection: Possible, reasonable, and likely
Ultrasociality, class, threat, and intentionality in human society
Ultrasociality: When institutions make a difference
“If it looks like a duck…” – why humans need to focus on different approaches than insects if we are to become efficiently and effectively ultrasocial
Author response
Disengaging from the ultrasocial economy: The challenge of directing evolutionary change