Homo virtuous? Humans are capable of incredible kindness and cruelty.

What drove the evolution of our moral compass, asks Kate Douglas A FEW years ago, I attended a conference on animal behaviour in Atlanta, Georgia. The end of the meeting party included a trip to the zoo and while we roamed freely between the caged beasts the conference organisers conducted a whimsical poll to discover what animals people thought were the "best" and "worst". As you might expect the nominations were eclectic, but one name cropped up more frequently than any other Homosapiens. More striking still, humans were equally likelyto end up in the"best" and "worst" categories. Some respondents even chose humans for both. There is no getting away from it: Homo sapiens is both the basest of animals and the most noble. Ours is a species capable of horrific cruelty, genocide, war, corruption and greed. Yet we can also be caring, kind. fair and philanthropic - more so than any other creature. What lies behind this dual nature? Our capacity for good and evil has exercised philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, but today some of the most exciting ideas are coming from an understanding of our evolution. In recent years, researchers have addressed such thorny questions as: why would altruism evolve, how did human conscience emerge, why does it feel good to be nice and what causes us to give in to prejudice and hatred? The potential power of these insights is intriguing. By understanding the kinds of environments that foster the saint rather than the sinner, we can try to create societies that promote our better nature. It's not Just a pipe dream. Some evolutionists are already putting their theories into practice . The key to virtue is altruism. Anyone can do the right thing given enough incentive, but what distinguishes genuinely good deeds is their selfless nature - a rare phenomenon in the wild. Although colonial insects such as bees and ants can show an impressive level of self -sacrifice, the individuals are so closely related that helping others is tantamount to being selfish, at least in evolutionary terms, since it ensures the survival of their own genes. Relatedness can also explain why many birds, and some other animals, will help rear each other`s offspring It is far harder to find generosity extending outside the family.

Even our closest evolutionary cousin the chimpancee is basicaly selfish, although in one experimet chimps displayed a smaII amount of altruism similar to that found in young children, being just as likely to pass an object to an unfamiliar chimp even if some physical exertion was required. (Bioloqy . vol 5, p 184). In a nice twist to our preconceptions, vampire bats offer one of the very few bonafide exceptions to the rule, Sharing blood meals with their roost -mates (Nature, vol 3O, p 181). Yet humans do appear to behave selflessly. Since the 1980s behavioural economists have used games to assess our altruistic tendencies. I: ifs[ ca me the `. Ult i Illa{ UIll g~lIllc ". whcrc in player A is given some money and told to s plit it with a second anonymous player B. If B accepts the split, both keep the ir sllare, if Ilot, ne filler get s a c ent . It is f rec mone y, so B s ho UId accep t any a mount no matter how smaII and A shoUld offer as little as possible. But that is not what happens.Instead, in university labs around the world, the most common offer is 50 per cent, with an average of around 45 per cent. Even in a refined version of the experiment called the "dictator game", where A can choose either to give half or 10 per cent and B has no option to reject, three quarters of people make the more generous offer. It would appear that humans are very nice (and not very logical). But are we really? Generosity may flourish in the sanitised environment of the lab, but experience suggests that people behave somewhat differently in the messy maul of the real world. And, sure enough, the evidence for virtue is less convincing out there. In one study, collectors of sports cards offered dealers a fixed amount of money in exchange for their best card at that price. John List from the University of Chicago found that when the transactions were done under his watchful eye, dealers played fair, coming up with a card that was worth what the collector had offered. But when dealers were not told they were taking part in an experiment, many ripped off their customers. Such cheating was particularly rife when they were off their home turf, away from their day-today customers (/ouma/ of Political Economy, vol 114, p 1). Why be nice? Anyone who considers humans to be the worst of animals will conclude that people behave well only if they think they are being watched, proving that there is no such thing as altruism. Another interpretation is that we simply need to redefine virtue in biological

terms. After all, altruism cannot be without benefit for the do gooder, otherwise it would not have evolved by natural selection in the first place. Working on this principle, evolutionary biologists have come up with a variety of explanations for human niceness. The first possibilx"ty is rather disheartening" Traditional hunter-gatherer groups tend to consist of closely related individuals, with kin constituting around a quarter of the members (Science, vol 331, p 1286). Individuals who helped their close relatives ended up passing on more genes, including those pushing us to help our own flesh and ~blood. So, like bees in a hive, we have evolved strong nepotistic instincts and, by this argument, niceness to non~relatives is simply a case of overspill. However, it takes time and energy to help others, so evolution would have favoured > 10 November 2012 | NewScientist | 43

"An individuaFs moral compass is not fixed, In a toxic culture almost everyone is capable of evil, from bullyilng and corruption to torture and terrorism" of these costly ty provided sts Recip to do right by oth behaviour of -they starve to death after without a blood meal, so sharing mate that is likely to return the favo strategy to help them pull through ~periods. Humans live in groups, are highly dependent on others, and we remember who owes us a favour, so we are perfectly placed to benefit from reciprocal altruism. Indeed, it might explain why List's sports-card dealers tended to play fairer on their home turf, where they are likely to bump into customers again. It's not just our ~ e acquaintances we have to worry about when considering the judgemental eyes of others. Humans are incredibly nosy: we like nothing better than to watch those around us and then gossip about our insights to others. This is how reputatx'ons are made and destroyed G and reputations matter. Virtues such as generosity, fairness and conscientiousness are universally valued and people seen to display them are rewarded - others like these individuals, want to do business with them and are ~more sexually attracted to them. So a good reputation can boost your chances of survival

and reproduction. Taking this to its logical conclusion, Christopher Boehm from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, argues that over the course of evolution rumour and hearsay may have ~forced us to become more altruistic - albeit in a biological self-serving sort of way. Besides offering benefits for the individual, altruism would also have determined the way groups competed over resources. Those that pulled together would have beaten groups whose individuals were more selfish, ensuring their survival. This "group selection" has been a controversial idea, but it is increasingly honour, shame and guilt, giving them moral moral judgements are weighed, and they tip the balance in favour of virtue; vice may be in your better interests, but it is associated with negative emotions, whereas virtue prompts positive ones. The pleasure we get from performing a good deed is probably induced by a cocktail of neurochemicals but one seems particularly important. Normally associated with feel' good activities such as sex and bonding, the link between oxytocin and morality was discovered a decade ago by Paul Zak at Claremont Graduate University in California His experiments reveal, among other things, that people with more oxytocin are more generous and caring, and that our oxytocin level increases when someone puts trust in us~ Zak describes oxytocin as"the key to moral ~behaviour". The mama-bear Ef|hfEfct So it would appear we have a neurobiological mechanism that tricks us into placing other people~s interests above our own. This makes us less selfish but, perversely, is also behind some of our most heinous behaviour.That's because the flip side of niceness to members of one's group is nastiness to outsiders. This xenophobia is underpinned by oxytocin too (Science, vol328, p 1408) and is sometimes 44 I NewScientist |10 November 2012

called the "mama-bear effect" because it ~mirrors a parent~s urge to defend her offspring against a threat. As a result, the very system that keeps people working for the good of others can promote atrocities such as racism, genocide and war. One consequence of this evolved conscience is that our concepts of "good" and"evil" are not universally shared, but rooted in the

values of our culture. Take fairness. In modern Morality is a moveable western cultures, we tend to equate it with feast depending. on our equity - one for me and one for you - but other society's culture and cultures have different ideas. When researchers our circ~umstances took the ultimatum game to 15 traditional societies around the world, they found that Perhaps the ~most promi nent of them is prosociality of the entire neighbourhood." the average offer of player A ranged from David Sloan Wilson at Bin ghamton University That is exactly what Wilson is trying to do. 15 per cent in one society to 58 per cent in in New York state. For the past few years he One approach involves giving resident~s another (NewScientfst, 10 March 20 01, p 38). has been applying what we have learned about the opportunity to create parks on local The fact that~ people adapt to the values of the evolution of morality to his home city. wasteland. These serve both to improve the their culture makes morality a movable feast. Like any city, Binghamton has neighbourhoods physical environment, which Wilson finds has What~s more we are all members of multiple where anti'social behaviour i s rife and others a strong influence on moral behaviour, and cultures - from our closest family to the where people actively w ork to ~help each other. provide a common goal to ~build cooperative whole nation G so even an individual's moral He has mapped these peaks a nd valleys of communities. Another project aims to make compass is not fixed. Undoubtedly, some prosociality and found when people move the classroom more cooperative and appealing people are more predisposed to virtue neighbourhoods they adapt their behaviour to underperforming students by implementing than others but in a toxic culture almost to fit the local culture . This is exactly what Nobel-p~ economist Elinor Ostro m's everyone is capable of evil, from bullying you would expect, given the factors that principles of group cooperation. Wilson has and corruption to torture and terrorism. influence our moral behavi our."f eople may also set up the worl~d's first evolutionary On the plus side, the converse IS~ also true: want to be prosocial but in an environment think tank, the Evolution Institute, to bring the right cultural context brings out the good where others are not you los e out," says these ideas to policy~ makers worldwide. in us. That may not seem like a revolutionary Wilson. His conclusion is ra dical."There~s Evolutionary insights underline the insight, but some people believe it could make no point trying to make indiv iduals more importance of other measures to promote the world a better place. prosocial, y ou need to increase the virtuous cultures, too. One is t o encourage ~ transparency, since we know that being watched puts us on our best behaviour, if only to enhance our reputations. Also crucial is the rule of law, including swift and just punishment for non-compliance (New Scientist, 5 November 2011, p 42). Less obvious, but highlighted by the study of 15 traditional societies, is economic development."Modern market economies promote freedom, dignity, tolerance and democracy," says Gintis. Even globalisation presents an opportunity for

good. People's wider social and information networks mean that the boundaries between groups are breaking down, reducing our xenophobic tendencies. It will be interesting to see how far evolutionary theory in action can bring out the best in us. What is not in doubt is that our worst side will remain. Evolution has made us both altruistic and selfish - good and evil - and we cannot be otherwise. "It's impossible for us," says Edward O. Wilson. "If virtue was the only evolutionary force we would be angelic robots." Kate Douglas is a feature editor with New Scientist 10 November 2012 | NewScientist | 45