Search

Many evolutionary models explain why we cooperate with non-kin, but few explain why cooperative behaviour and trust vary. Here, we introduce a model of cooperation as a signal of time preferences, which addresses this variability. At equilibrium in our model (i) future-oriented individuals are more motivated to cooperate, (ii) future-oriented populations have access to a wider range of cooperative opportunities, and (iii) spontaneous and inconspicuous cooperation reveal stronger preference for the future, and therefore inspire more trust. Our theory sheds light on the variability of cooperative behaviour and trust. Since affluence tends to align with time preferences, results (i) and (ii) explain why cooperation is often associated with affluence, in surveys and field studies. Time preferences also explain why we trust others based on proxies for impulsivity, and, following result (iii), why uncalculating, subtle and one-shot cooperators are deemed particularly trustworthy. Time preferences provide a powerful and parsimonious explanatory lens, through which we can better understand the variability of trust and cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowak et al. argue that inclusive fitness theory has been of little value in explaining the natural world, and that it has led to negligible progress in explaining the evolution of eusociality. However, we believe that their arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and a misrepresentation of the empirical literature. We will focus our comments on three general issues., Human Evolutionary Biology

• Cooperation cannot evolve through partner choice when resources are scarce. • When partners are themselves resources, partner choice can lead to cooperation. • Partner choice can lead to the evolution of cooperation if the environment is wealthy. The effects of partner choice have been documented in a large number of biological systems such as sexual markets, interspecific mutualisms, or human cooperation. There are, however, a number of situations in which one would expect this mechanism to play a role, but where no such effect has ever been demonstrated. This is the case in particular in many intraspecific interactions, such as collective hunts, in non–human animals. Here we use individual-based simulations to solve this apparent paradox. We show that the conditions for partner choice to operate are in fact restrictive. They entail that individuals can compare social opportunities and choose the best. The challenge is that social opportunities are often rare because they necessitate the co-occurrence of (i) at least one available partner, and (ii) a resource to exploit together with this partner. This has three consequences. First, partner choice cannot lead to the evolution of cooperation when resources are scarce, which explains that this mechanism could never be observed in many cases of intraspecific cooperation in animals. Second, partner choice can operate when partners constitute in themselves a resource, which is the case in sexual interactions and interspecific mutualisms. Third, partner choice can lead to the evolution of cooperation when individuals live in a rich environment, and/or when they are highly efficient at extracting resources from their environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Interactions between individuals such as hosts and pathogens are often characterized by substantial phenotypic plasticity. Pathogens sometimes alter their exploitation strategies in response to defensive strategies adopted by their host and vice versa. Nevertheless, most game-theoretic models developed to explain the evolution of pathogen and host characteristics assume that no such plasticity occurs. Allowing for phenotypic plasticity in these models is difficult because one must focus on the evolution of pathogen and host reaction norms, and then allow for the potentially indefinite reciprocal changes in pathogen and host behaviour that occur during an infection as a result of their interacting reaction norms. Here, we begin to address these issues for a simple host–pathogen system in which the pathogen exhibits a level of virulence and the host exhibits a level of immune clearance. We find, quite generally, that plasticity promotes the evolution of higher levels of cooperation, in this case leading to reduced levels of both virulence and clearance. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]