Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:09:45.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hamilton’s Two Conceptions of Social Fitness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jonathan Birch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hamilton introduced two conceptions of social fitness, which he called neighbor-modulated fitness and inclusive fitness. Although he regarded them as formally equivalent, a reanalysis of his own argument for their equivalence brings out two important assumptions on which it rests: weak additivity and actor’s control. When weak additivity breaks down, neither fitness concept is appropriate in its original form. When actor’s control breaks down, neighbor-modulated fitness may be appropriate, but inclusive fitness is not. Yet I argue that, despite its more limited domain of application, inclusive fitness provides a distinctively valuable perspective on social evolution.

Type
50 Years of Inclusive Fitness
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 848 - 860
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

This article is based on my contribution to the symposium “50 Years of Inclusive Fitness” held at the 2014 PSA meeting in Chicago, IL, November 6–9. I am very grateful to my fellow contributors (Ullica Segerstrale, Patrick Forber, Rory Smead, Dave Queller, and Samir Okasha) and also to Andrew Buskell, Ellen Clarke, James Marshall, and a reading group at Australian National University. This work was supported by a Philip Leverhulme Prize from the Leverhulme Trust.

References

Birch, Jonathan. 2012. “Collective Action in the Fraternal Transitions.” Biology and Philosophy 27:363–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Jonathan 2013. “Kin Selection: A Philosophical Analysis.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Birch, Jonathan 2014a. “Hamilton’s Rule and Its Discontents.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65:381–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Jonathan 2014b. “Has Grafen Formalized Darwin?” Biology and Philosophy 29:175–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Jonathan 2016. “Natural Selection and the Maximization of Fitness.” Biological Reviews 91:712–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Jonathan, and Okasha, Samir. 2015. “Kin Selection and Its Critics.” BioScience 65:22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Steven A. 1998. Foundations of Social Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Steven A. 2013. “Natural Selection.” Pt. 7, “History and Interpretation of Kin Selection Theory.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 26:1151–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Andy. 2009. “Adaptation as Organism Design.” Biology Letters 5:861–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, Andy, West, Stuart A., and Wild, Geoff. 2011. “The Genetical Theory of Kin Selection.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 24:1020–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, Alan. 1982. “How Not to Measure Inclusive Fitness.” Nature 298:425–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, Alan 1984. “Natural Selection, Kin Selection and Group Selection.” In Behavioural Ecology, 2nd ed., ed. Krebs, John R. and Davies, Nicholas B., 62–84. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davies, Nicholas B. 1999. “Formal Darwinism, the Individual-as-Maximising-Agent Analogy, and Bet-Hedging.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 266:799–803.Google Scholar
Davies, Nicholas B. 2006. “Optimization of Inclusive Fitness.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 238:541–63.Google Scholar
Davies, Nicholas B. 2014. “The Formal Darwinism Project in Outline.” Biology and Philosophy 29:155–74.Google Scholar
Hamilton, William D. 1964. “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:1–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, William D. 1970. “Selfish and Spiteful Behaviour in an Evolutionary Model.” Nature 228:1218–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, James A. R. 2015. Social Evolution and Inclusive Fitness Theory: An Introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John. 1983. “Models of Evolution.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 219:315–25.Google Scholar
Price, George R. 1970. “Selection and Covariance.” Nature 227:520–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Queller, David C. 1985. “Kinship, Reciprocity, and Synergism in the Evolution of Social Behaviour.” Nature 318:366–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queller, David C. 2011. “Expanded Social Fitness and Hamilton’s Rule for Kin, Kith and Kind.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:10792–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sober, Elliott. 1984. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Peter D., and Frank, Steven A.. 1996. “How to Make a Kin Selection Model.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 180:27–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, Peter D., Wild, Geoff, and Gardner, Andy. 2007. “Direct Fitness or Inclusive Fitness: How Shall We Model Kin Selection?” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20:301–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenseleers, Tom, Gardner, Andy, and Foster, Kevin R.. 2010. “Social Evolution Theory: A Review of Methods and Approaches.” In Social Behaviour: Genes, Ecology and Evolution, ed. Székely, Tamás, Moore, Allen J., and Komdeur, Jan, 132–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
West, Stuart A., and Gardner, Andy. 2013. “Inclusive Fitness and Adaptation.” Current Biology 23:R577–R584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar