Can the welfare system change our genome?

[Wmhoerr]

If we take Homo sapiens to be about 300,000 years old from the last species branch, then for the majority of this time our evolution was of the “red in tooth and claw” type. That is, people helped themselves rather than others. Many philosophers argue that any altruistic genes for “pure” altruism (as distinguished from genetic and reciprocal altruism; see earlier posts) would not survive for long in a population. That is, while such genes may survive for a generation or two, any new genes for pure altruism will soon die out. I see no problems with this argument.

But in the last few thousand years, the welfare system has grown considerably. It is far more difficult to die these days. Any person with mutations for pure altruism would have a high chance of survival. Over time, welfare systems should allow any genes for pure altruism to spread in a population. This could be the most important change in the history of our evolution. We would significantly change as a species.

As organisms adapt to their environments through the process of the differential survival of offspring, by adding a welfare system for all, the environment of new offspring is now altered from the traditional environments of our past. Just as you cannot throw pollutants in the air and expect the climate to remain the same, you cannot put welfare systems into evolving human populations and expect the genome to remain the same. Changes may take a considerable time but eventually we could become a kinder species.

[Steve3007]

Incidental point:
The idea of a "gene for" something is a bit simplistic. Genes aren't designed in order to meet some particular goal, as an engineer might design a particular part for a machine. But you probably already know that and are using "gene for..." as a convenient shorthand, so that's fine.

Wider point:
Yes, and that's not just true of altruism. Natural selection works by frequent "untimely" death and the hardness of life. For example, it's only very, very recently in the history of our species that the death from disease of infants became rare. It's not just the welfare system. It's modern science, agriculture, medicine etc. But remember that Evolution by Natural Selection works on timescales that are vastly longer than the timescales over which human societies and technologies develop.

[LuckyR]

My guess is that altruism correlates with intelligence which correlates with educability. Since education level correlates with decreased fecundity, altruism should be selected against and will likely die out or at least become rarer than it is today.

[Steve3007]

My guess is that altruism correlates with intelligence which correlates with educability. Since education level correlates with decreased fecundity, altruism should be selected against and will likely die out or at least become rarer than it is today.

I know of no evidence that altruism correlates with intelligence, although obviously it depends what you mean by intelligence. Educability also correlates with the existence of educational opportunities within a given society. Education level correlates with decreased fecundity because, among other things, education empowers people (particularly women) such that the power and security conferred by being the head of a large group of young, physically fit people with strong genetic ties to oneself (children) is less necessary.

[Sculptor1]

If we take Homo sapiens to be about 300,000 years old from the last species branch, then for the majority of this time our evolution was of the “red in tooth and claw” type.

This is a vast fallacy promulgated by those that have not taken the trouble to look into the evidence. Humans are characterised more by their co-operation, than their violence. Co-operation being individuals of the same group is characteristic of the highly successful mammalian adaptation.

That is, people helped themselves rather than others. Many philosophers argue that any altruistic genes for “pure” altruism (as distinguished from genetic and reciprocal altruism; see earlier posts) would not survive for long in a population. That is, while such genes may survive for a generation or two, any new genes for pure altruism will soon die out. I see no problems with this argument.

The thing about selective advantage is that it is only advantageous when it is, and not when it is not. The genome does not know one way or the other. Altruism either works or not. Sometimes its effects can be negative, at other times it can be neutral.
It's only success that matters. For individual humans and other animals the altruism is totally genuine as it feels good to do it, that's why dogs look after their puppies.

But in the last few thousand years,

That long - I think not. I'd hardly call the grain dole of ancient Babylon a welfare system. Who the hell grew the grain in the first place? Was it the elites sitting in their palaces (built by peasants), or was it the peasants who are eagerly awaiting for the grain to be doled back out the them? I think you might want to define "welfare"

the welfare system has grown considerably. It is far more difficult to die these days. Any person with mutations for pure altruism would have a high chance of survival. Over time, welfare systems should allow any genes for pure altruism to spread in a population. This could be the most important change in the history of our evolution. We would significantly change as a species.

We've heard this all before from Thomas Malthus.

As organisms adapt to their environments through the process of the differential survival of offspring, by adding a welfare system for all, the environment of new offspring is now altered from the traditional environments of our past. Just as you cannot throw pollutants in the air and expect the climate to remain the same, you cannot put welfare systems into evolving human populations and expect the genome to remain the same. Changes may take a considerable time but eventually we could become a kinder species.

I think the main problem is that the rich do not contribute fully to society, but generation by generation live in the earnings of the people. Maybe we would do better if we were to EAT THE RICH?

[LuckyR]

My guess is that altruism correlates with intelligence which correlates with educability. Since education level correlates with decreased fecundity, altruism should be selected against and will likely die out or at least become rarer than it is today.

I know of no evidence that altruism correlates with intelligence, although obviously it depends what you mean by intelligence. Educability also correlates with the existence of educational opportunities within a given society. Education level correlates with decreased fecundity because, among other things, education empowers people (particularly women) such that the power and security conferred by being the head of a large group of young, physically fit people with strong genetic ties to oneself (children) is less necessary.

Well, I also know of no evidence but common sense tells us that selfishness only requires a first order of computation ("me hungry, me need food") whereas thinking of the benefits to others requires at least a second order level of thought, thus why it is not as commonly seen among animals as humans.