Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:46:25.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural evolution and emergent group-level traits through social heterosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2014

Peter Nonacs  and
Karen M. Kapheim
Peter Nonacs
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095. [email protected]://www.eeb.ucla.edu/index.php
Karen M. Kapheim
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801. [email protected]://www.igb.illinois.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Smaldino proposes emergent properties of human groups, arising when individuals display both differentiation and organization, constitute a novel unit of cultural selection not addressed by current evolutionary theory. We propose existing theoretical frameworks for maintenance of genetic diversity – social heterosis and social genomes – can similarly explain the appearance and maintenance of human cultural diversity (i.e., group-level traits) and collaborative interdependence.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 266 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Boomsma, J. J. (2013) Beyond promiscuity: mate-choice commitments in social breeding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 368:20120050.Google Scholar
Hughes, W. O. H, Oldroyd, B. P., Beekman, M. & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2008) Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality. Science 320:1213–16.Google Scholar
Nonacs, P. (2011a) Monogamy and high relatedness do not preferentially favor the evolution of cooperation. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11:58.Google Scholar
Nonacs, P. (2011b) Kinship, greenbeards, and runaway social selection in the evolution of social insect cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108:10808–15.Google Scholar
Nonacs, P. & Kapheim, K. M. (2007) Social heterosis and the maintenance of genetic diversity. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20:2253–65.Google Scholar
Nonacs, P. & Kapheim, K. M. (2008) Social heterosis and the maintenance of genetic diversity at the genome level. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:631–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonacs, P. & Kapheim, K. M. (2012) Modeling disease evolution with multilevel selection: HIV as a quasispecies social genome. Journal of Evolutionary Medicine 1:235553.Google Scholar
Wray, M. K., Mattila, H. R. & Seeley, T. D. (2011) Collective personalities in honeybee colonies are linked to colony fitness. Animal Behaviour 81:559–68.Google Scholar