It's enough to make one ponder switching to the other side, where the picking is easier. Here's where Bowles and Gintis's extremely interesting argument comes in. They start from the premise that, if there is a human nature, it came from evolution. Homo economicus should not, therefore, be assumed to represent human nature, because evolution may have given rise to other traits. They then adduce historical and anthropological evidence suggesting the long-term presence of Homo reciprocans and buttress that with a wide array of contemporary evidence suggesting that the traits of homo reciprocans persist today.
Several things follow from their thesis.
This is not a trivial difference. Indeed, if their analysis is correct, we may be on the verge of developing a truly scientific approach to egalitarian politics. An egalitarian politics based on actually-existing human nature has a great deal more scientific promise. Of course, we are just at the beginning of such an approach, and I would be remiss if I didn't make a few critical comments in the interests of moving forward. To begin with, as a student of public opinion, I found Bowles and Gintis's use of polling data somewhat glib.