Cooperation: In Our Genes?

Science is continuing to find evidence that the evolutionary process has been integral to the development of life on earth. This appears to put science into conflict with the Bible’s account of God’s creative process, forcing us to choose between the two: evolution or creation, science or faith. In this article, I want to discuss one way in which evolution could rather be seen as compatible with a creative process which is all God’s, set in motion by him and showing evidence of his fingerprints. The concept of cooperation is an exciting lens through which to view the creative evolutionary process as it embodies scriptural principles of love, relationship, and agape.

So, how do we see the fingerprints of God in an evolutionary process that has been characterized by the “selfish gene”?

To do so, we need to explore the concept of cooperation as a necessary component of evolution alongside competition. While competition alone has long been touted as the primary relationship between organisms, cooperation is now shown to be equally important. Not only is it important, but it is essential for the increasing complexity that has occurred in nature. I myself am compelled by evidence for cooperation in evolution since it can help us to infer a relational God as the source of a creative evolutionary process. Perhaps what we know about God can help us to see his fingerprints in the natural world elucidated by science.

Cooperation is evident at a biological, material level in cells which function cooperatively within a single organism, such as a fish. However, it becomes more meaningful in organisms that intentionally behave cooperatively – and perhaps even altruistically – towards one another, like dolphins. Yet, the altruistic behaviour of human beings seems to be streaks ahead of that seen in animals, and the self-sacrificing behaviour embodied for Christians by the term ‘agape’ is unique. Such attitudes of mind and of corresponding behaviour seem to go beyond what can be explained by innate instinct or fellow-feeling, to reflect the divine: the fingerprints of God.

Science and Scripture

As we know, science is empirical. That is, it can only tell us about things that can be observed and tested. It cannot tell us anything about the veracity of philosophical or religious ideas, and specifically, it can’t tell us whether God exists. So, any inference from the observation of cooperation in nature as to its meaning or purpose, is no longer under the aegis of science. Science answers questions about ‘how’, but philosophy and religion address the question of ‘why.’

Darwin’s scientific observations led him to formulate a thesis of evolution based on natural selection. This he understood to be a competitive struggle for existence. Having as yet no genetic knowledge to underpin his conclusions, his theories were based on his observation of the breeding of such animals as cattle, dogs, and pigeons, but also included his observation of the cultural environment of human beings. He noted that cooperative behaviour occurred often in nature in such animals as elephants, baboons, and pelicans. He was convinced that this cooperative behaviour evolved further in human beings.

It wasn’t until later that the knowledge of genetics (as described by Mendel) led to a modification of the Darwinian theory, described by “Neo-Darwinism.” The discussion and description of the evolutionary process thenceforward became focused on the gene.

Turning to Scripture, God tells us in such passages as Psalm 19, Romans 1, and Job 38-41 that what we see in nature witnesses to his existence, to his glory, and to his sustaining care for all in his cosmos. When science therefore points to evidence of cooperation in nature, we can choose to see – in that cooperation – the fingerprints of a relational God and his Golden Rule. Jesus said, In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you (Matt 7:12); and, love your neighbour as yourself (Mk 12:28-31).

Competition and cooperation

Interpreting the first chapters of Genesis, mainstream Christianity believed that all was created by the fiat of an all-powerful God ex nihilo (out of nothing) and over a very short period of time. Darwin’s theory of evolution revolutionized this perception forever, and archeology has helped us to understand those early chapters of Genesis in the cultural context of the ancient Near East. Still the narrative describing the grandeur and power of Yahweh setting up his cosmic temple is awe-inspiring, and serves to reinforce our belief in a God who is Creator and Sustainer of the universe.

In contrast to this grand and lofty narrative which lacks any hint of violence, the dominating metaphor of the evolutionary process became Alfred Lord Tennyson’s Nature, red in tooth and claw.¹ In his poem, In Memoriam (1850), Tennyson explores the tension between the apparently violent history of the earth and the concept of a God of love evidenced in his creation. In canto 56 he exclaims:

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed

This violent, poetic portrayal of nature’s competitive interactions was subsequently endorsed in the scientific language of Dawkins’ “selfish gene.” How could such a violent, competitive, selfish process be one that God would use? It sounds very much as though it is in antithesis to his character.

More recent understanding of the evolutionary process is showing us that competition is not the sole operative mechanism of nature, but is complemented by cooperation. Mathematical biology uses something called ‘game theory’ to explain how cooperation can be a viable and necessary mechanism in such an apparently violent and selfish process. We will explore this shortly. First, note that, as we examine the history of the universe in general and of our earth in particular, there is a trend towards increasing complexity: from the Big Bang to self-conscious, rational human beings. And yet, increasing complexity would not seem to be a path naturally favoured by competitive evolutionary processes alone. Martin Nowak says:

The two fundamental principles of evolution are mutation and natural selection. But evolution is constructive because of cooperation. New levels of organization evolve when the competing units on the lower level begin to cooperate. Cooperation allows specialization and thereby promotes biological diversity. Cooperation is the secret behind the open-endedness of the evolutionary process. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of evolution is its ability to generate cooperation in a competitive world. Thus, we might add “natural cooperation” as a third fundamental principle of evolution beside mutation and natural selection.²

Thus, Nowak says, not only is cooperation interwoven with competition, but it is pivotal for the development of increasing biological complexity. Cells, or even the elements of cells, could not have banded together to form a greater functioning whole without cooperating with each other. Certainly we know that competition alone only tends to drive individuals apart and kibosh collaborative effort. We can see, for example, the large numbers of co-operating cells which make up our complex human bodies. Cells which don’t co-operate are called cancer cells, and they inevitably lead to the destruction of the body!

Cooperation and altruism

I now want to cite Martin Nowak and Sarah Coakley’s definitions for the terms ‘cooperation’ and ‘altruism’ as elucidated in their book Evolution, Games, and God since they are pertinent to my argument.³

Cooperation is a form of working together in which one individual pays a cost (in terms of fitness, whether genetic or cultural) and another gains a benefit as a result.

This definition explains that if cells or organisms ‘cooperate’ they each ‘give up’ their own unique niche and superior reproductive potential, in order that the other may benefit.

Altruism is a form of (costly) cooperation in which an individual is motivated by good will or love for another.

Altruism is defined here as a subset of cooperation that applies to humans (and perhaps higher mammals), who have the cognitive abilities enabling intentional behaviour. Altruism implies that the cooperator in fact suffers some significant loss, some negative impact from the altruistic act, more than by co-operation alone. However, biologists tend to define altruism in terms of behaviour, regardless of intention, and therefore their use of the term differs from the one given here. Thus, in social insects like ants or bees, workers contribute to the good of the hive without regard for their own well-being or reproductive success, but rather work to ensure the reproductive success of the queen. Their behaviour is directed to this end, but we have no idea about their intentions.

The prisoner’s dilemma

We will now move on to discuss Game Theory, which uses mathematical models to explain the interactions that occur in evolution as well as in human behaviour. Game Theory has been pivotal in helping us to understand how cooperation can occur in evolution, as well as how cooperation can survive and flourish in its competitive, selfish environment.

A game called the Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) is one of the basic models used in game theory.⁴ This model describes the opposing behaviours of defection and cooperation – selfishness and selflessness. There are two players, who can each choose to cooperate with the other (which means acting selflessly to benefit the other player), or they can each choose to defect (which means making a selfish choice that benefits themselves but not their partner). The choices made by each of the players either to cooperate or defect affects the payoff (benefit) that the other player receives.

In a single game of PD, when the two players don’t know each other – they have no relationship and just want the best outcome for themselves — it pays to defect (that is, to be selfish and (as criminal suspects) incriminate the other). The gamble to cooperate – and hope that the other cooperates, too – may result in you receiving the greater penalty if the other is selfish and incriminates you. A single game rewards selfishness, and so would generally be dominant, reinforcing the ‘selfish gene’ concept.

However, things change if the game is repeated with the same partner. Then, one builds a relationship that allows one to change one’s responses based on the partner’s responses, including the ability to forgive. One such successful strategy is called Tit-for-Tat.

A real-life example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma played out in World War I. When German and British soldiers confronted each other in trench warfare, they knew that their actions would impact each other repeatedly for a lengthy but uncertain period of time. Thus, although the generals of each side wanted the enemy annihilated, the frontline soldiers developed an informal live-and-let-live cooperative strategy to minimize retaliation and maximize survival. This unspoken pact allowed, for example, ceasefires when work parties removed the dead from no-man’s land, and the well-known 1914 Xmas ceasefire. However, any defection by one side from the informal pact – such as unexpected bombing of the other side – resulted in reprisals and more deaths. Cooperation was thus beneficial to both sides, but defection caused more loss of life.

In a mixed population of Cooperators and Defectors, Defectors are more likely to dominate and take over the group. We might think about how this would apply in different populations and groups around the world. Sometimes it seems as though Defectors dominate and eliminate cooperation. However, a population comprising only Cooperators has the highest fitness, as they are all helping each other to survive and reproduce, whereas one comprising only Defectors has the lowest fitness – there’s no cooperation there, but only mutual selfishness and destruction.

It would therefore seem that natural selection – with its selfish bent – would encourage individual ‘selfish’ defection leading to the extinction of Cooperators, as they would continually lose fitness advantage and not replicate successfully against the Defectors.

So how would Cooperators get some help in improving their fitness to establish themselves in a population?

Nowak’s five rules of evolutionary cooperation

Building on previous work on game theory, the mathematical biologist Martin A. Nowak has summarized five rules that explain the mechanisms which allow cooperation to survive in evolutionary processes.⁵ These rules apply at both a biological level, and (in human beings) at a cultural level (while genes are evident throughout nature, ‘culture’ describes the practices and norms of groups of human beings). The impact of culture is as important in the development of humans as is the gene. This is the familiar ‘nature vs nurture’ argument – genes and culture impact and affect each other.

It’s not a one-or-the-other dichotomy. Cooperation and defection can occur at either the genetic and cultural levels (or both). Cultural norms and taboos strongly urge compliance and cooperation of individuals within the group, but defection – the failure to conform – results either in punishment, or in Defectors taking over the group.

The first of Nowak’s rules is “kin selection” (known as Hamilton’s rule). This rule describes the cooperation that occurs between organisms as a result of their relatedness; that is, the closer they are related to each other the more likely they are to help each other in order to perpetuate their shared genes. We experience in everyday life how important the ties of family are – each of us would go out of our way to help family members, probably usually more than strangers (yet humans also regularly go beyond ties of relatedness when helping others). An animal example is that of red squirrels, which rear orphaned pups who are related to them, despite the possible cost to their own offspring of an extra mouth to feed.

The second mechanism is “direct reciprocity”, also called “reciprocal altruism”, which occurs between non-related organisms. “If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours,” or, “you may benefit from my help today, but hopefully I will benefit from yours next time.” Repeated interactions between individuals allow identification of both Cooperators and Defectors. While this type of interaction is commonly seen between human beings, it’s thought that other primates, bats, birds, and cetaceans (dolphins, whales & porpoises) may use direct reciprocity as well. An example is the sharing of blood by vampire bats. If a bat fails to get any food on a night’s hunting, another bat will regurgitate and share with the expectation of reciprocity on another occasion.

The third mechanism, “indirect reciprocity,” no longer relies on personal interactions but on reputation. The Harvard biologist, David Haig said, For direct reciprocity you need a face. For indirect reciprocity you need a name.⁶ We are all aware that others watch our behaviour, and gossip ensures that their judgements are shared socially, destroying and creating reputations. We are more likely to help those who have good reputations for helping others and for benefiting the community, but we may think twice about helping those who appear to be free-loaders.

The fourth mechanism of “network reciprocity” recognizes that some individuals interact more with each other than with others. We know that we usually tend to mix in the same social groups, perhaps usually shop in the same stores, etc. So, networks of people who are Cooperators are able to help each other and prevail against Defectors.

The fifth mechanism is “group selection” or “multilevel selection.” This recognizes that there are not only differences in behaviour between the individuals within groups, but also that there are differences in behaviour between whole groups. Individual interactions favour Defectors, but group interactions favour cooperative groups that will have higher fitness and growth than groups containing Defectors. When groups of Cooperators outnumber (and resist invasion by) Defectors, they become stable, and are able to become increasingly complex. Stable cooperative societies are critical for healthy human interaction.

Often individuals face a social dilemma when they want to avoid the costs of cooperating, while still continuing to benefit from the advantages of belonging to the group. These are called ‘free riders’, and we are familiar with such people who try to take advantage of the system. There are animal examples of free riders. With both musk oxen (which defend their young against predation by wolves) and meerkats (which act as sentinels to warn of danger) those in the front line incur a personal risk for the benefit of the group. So there is temptation to defect, that is, to not take a turn in protecting the group but instead to rely on others in the group for protection. Free-riders have even been noted in simple organisms like bacteria.

I’m sure we can all think of examples of all five mechanisms in our relationships and community life. We can ask ourselves the question, “Do I tend to cooperate or defect when I interact with individuals and groups in my work and social life?”

Wired to cooperate

Interestingly then, Stephen Kosslyn discusses the fascinating finding that our brains may be wired to cooperate.⁷ He notes that we each have limitations when it comes to our memory capacity, our perceptions of the environment which result in different experiences, and our reasoning capacity. He observes that, in order to overcome these limitations, our brains enable us to ‘use’ another person as a social prosthesis, that is, to extend and complement our abilities. So, for example, we engage with another person to organize an activity, or we discuss a difficult relationship with a counsellor in order to better understand our own emotions and responses. By lending and pooling their intellectual resources with us, another individual enables us to become more than we can be alone. We cooperate for benefits that are not achievable alone.

However, while our brains may be wired to cooperate, the levels of altruism and agape – the self-sacrificing behaviour of which humans are capable – still defy scientific explanation and are thus discussed in the realms of philosophy and theology.

Agape

British theologian Sarah Coakley worked closely with Martin Nowak at Harvard University on the evolutionary cooperation research program. She has a teleological view of the world, that is, a view of the world filled with purpose and meaning, whose mechanisms of cooperation intimate a divine providence.⁸ She sees the fingerprints of a loving God in this process.

She understands God to permeate the universe, but without disrupting the freewill and freedom of its natural processes which he put in place. We know that he gave human beings free will, so is it stretching things too far to presume that he did the same for nature?

Sarah Coakley highlights cooperative gain-through-loss, embedded throughout the evolutionary process, as “the rich purple line of sacrifice.” She understands the losses suffered as a result of cooperation as being integral to the whole of the creative evolutionary process. She thus understands sacrificial altruism in human beings as completing and fulfilling the evolutionary development of co-operation. This is reflective of a God who understands and participates in suffering, especially through the crucifixion of his son.

The evolving new creation

In conclusion, I have briefly discussed the topic of cooperation as an important mechanism in the evolutionary process. So important that, without it, the complexity that we experience in nature today – especially as evidenced in ourselves as human beings with all that we are capable of – would not have occurred.

I have suggested that this cooperation is evidence of God’s fingerprints in the natural world, and as such we can still call it “his creation” even though the process may look different than we thought Genesis was explaining to us.

As Charles Kingsley, a friend of Darwin’s and a priest in the Church of England, said,

We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things: but behold, He is so much wiser than even that, that He can make all things even make themselves.⁹

We wonder at the conflicting mix of competition, suffering, and violence; and yet also of cooperation, empathy, altruism, and agape, evidenced in the evolutionary process. And we remind ourselves that God is working with his New Creation in the same way today.

The new creation is evolving slowly over time and involves the same messiness – the same mix of selfishness and selflessness, cooperators and defectors – the same expansive use of time to achieve his ends – and the same freewill, which is non-deterministic but allows the process of new creation to develop.

Surely this evolutionary process of new creation is enabled by the unity of the Spirit – by the altruistic, sacrificial love embodied by Jesus – and by the creative work of the Father.

And thus, we look to the increasing complexity of this ‘new’ creative process, that will culminate in the unified Body of Christ in the perfected cosmos.