Chapter 3 
Survival of the most cooperative
WeÕre usually not in the habit of agreeing with Creationists. But in their attempts to discredit evolution, they put forward one skeptical argument where we think they might actually have a point. ItÕs about the Darwinian notion of Òsurvival of the fittestÓ.
Who are the ÒfittestÓ? Why, they are, almost by definition, those who survive. 
If you take survival of the fittest as a hypothesis, then itÕs hard to make the case that, if a particular trait seems to be manifest in a lineage, it must therefore confer a survival advantage. Evolutionary biologists use the latter kind of backward reasoning all the time. You canÕt say that the reason they survived is because they were the fittest, and also that the reason that they were the fittest was because they survived. ItÕs circular.
So, if itÕs not the ÒfittestÓ, what does evolution select for? A novel answer is given in Robert WrightÕs 2000 book, Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny [Wright 2000], echoed by many modern evolutionary theorists:
Evolution selects for positive-sum games. 
A zero-sum game is one where, whatever one player wins, another loses. A positive-sum game is one in which, one playerÕs win can also result in a win for others. Wright uses the term nonzero. But here weÕll use the term positive-sum since negative sums donÕt make much sense.
What positive-sum selection means is that if you compare two situations of interaction between organisms, one that is zero-sum, with another that is positive-sum, the positive-sum situation ÒwinsÓ. Here, winning means that the species involved will get an advantage in survival and reproduction, especially in the long run. 
The situations which count as Òsurvival of the fittestÓ are generally zero-sum situations. If thereÕs a predator-prey relationship, then whenever the predator gets better at catching prey, the prey get worse at surviving. Similarly, if the prey get better at avoiding predators, the predators get worse at surviving. Zero sum. 
Situations of symbiosis and other kinds of inter-organism cooperation are positive-sum situations. Many examples of symbiosis evolved from predator-prey relations, when the prey evolved an Òif you canÕt beat Ôem, join ÔemÓ strategy. Wright also extends the same argument to evolution of the history of human societies via memes, ideas that evolve as they are transmitted socially. 
Meme evolution follows a parallel path to gene evolution. A superficial reading of Darwin leads to the impression that he emphasizes the role of competition between organisms, especially through the process of natural selection. Those that are best equipped to outcompete their peers succeed in the competition for food, sexual partners and other resources. They are more apt to survive and reproduce, and therefore are the fittest.
Darwin was perhaps less appreciative of the complementary role played by cooperation between organisms. There are plenty of examples. Perhaps the greatest is multicellular organisms, including us. In the process of evolution, bacteria learned to form colonies to support each otherÕs survival, and later, cooperate to form multicellular plants and animals. It is now thought that mitochondria, the energy generator for cells, evolved from independent bacteria invading cells, that joined forces with their hosts. 
There are many examples of symbiosis between different species. The clownfish feeds on natural enemies of the sea anemone, which in turn provides waste products that feed the anemone. Startling new discoveries of the human microbiome show that we live in cooperation with huge numbers of microbes, especially in our intestines, that are essential to our ability to digest foods and for our immune system [Hattori 2009].
Cancer
Atkipis et al. [Atkipis 2015] provide fresh insight into the causes of cancer. It outlines five different mechanisms by which cells cooperate with each other, common to organisms throughout the evolutionary tree. It then hypothesizes that cancer is the result of a breakdown of one or more of those cooperative mechanisms. 
Cancer occurs when cells reproduce uncontrollably. Normal cells have a mechanism of programmed cell death have been evolved to assure that cells die at the Òright timeÓ to promote survival of the larger organism of which they are a part. A mutation can cause the programmed cell death mechanism to malfunction. In the short term, the mutated cells proliferate wildly, so theyÕre successful in creating a tumor, but in the long term they cause the death of the entire organism, including the cancer cells that started it. 
The authors of this article donÕt mention the PrisonersÕ Dilemma, but letÕs recast it in those terms: Cells normally cooperate with one another to maintain a healthy organism (Reward), which paradoxically, includes the cooperation of dying at just the right time. A cell that has a genetic defect, instead, can defect. It can gain a short-term advantage in survival (Temptation) by not dying at the appropriate time, thereby creating a tumor. But in the long-term, it hastens the death of it and its cohort (Punishment). The cause of cancer is cells defecting against one another. 
Finkel, Serrano and Blasko in Nature [Finkel 2007], hypothesized that bodily changes in animals due to aging are also a part of this cooperative mechanism. Since mutations accumulate as time goes on, as a cell gets older, the chances of it mutating, and turning cancerous, increase. So the cell slows down the reproduction rate to reduce the chances of cancer. Basically, the reason we get old is to decrease the chances that we might get cancer.
Group selection is a common occurrence in evolution. If a group of organisms are competing with each other, theyÕre playing a zero-sum game. TheyÕll waste resources competing and miss out on the opportunity cost of cooperation. They wonÕt be as good at surviving and reproducing as groups of organisms that have evolved to cooperate with one another [Marean 2015]. Evolution uses the same algorithm for selecting amongst groups as it does for individuals.
Arguably, the reason humans have evolved big brains and language is to cooperate with each other and form societies. Not (or at least not only) to fend off sabre-tooth tigers or for an arms race for mates. And so cooperation has evolved in the human race. 
So, it seems that evolution actually has two strategies: a competitive one, and a cooperative one. What inßuences whether nature takes a competitive or cooperative path?
Scarcity = Competition; Abundance = Cooperation
ItÕs our contention that one of the major determinants of whether cooperation or competition dominates in evolution is the relative scarcity vs. abundance of resources. Scarcity encourages competition. Abundance encourages cooperation. Why?
Remember, the TRaPS Inequality is
Temptation > Reward > Punishment > SuckerÕs Loss
Scarcity, by definition, means thereÕs not enough to go around. In evolutionary terms, that means, given the available resources, some organisms will live and others will die. In the worst case, then, getting the SuckerÕs Loss means: you die. Since some organisms will live, those most likely to live will be those who get the most, i.e. the Temptation. ThatÕs a powerful motivator to try to make sure you get the Temptation and not the SuckerÕs Loss. The suckers will get eliminated from the gene pool. 
Now, depending upon exactly how bad the scarcity is, and what the needs of the organisms are, the line constituting the live-or-die boundary can occur at different levels of resources. LetÕs start by looking at the case where the scarcity is so bad that a single organism canÕt survive unless it gets the Temptation. 
WeÕll represent that by showing Temptation, where the organism lives, with a smiley face. The rest of the outcomes, where the organism dies, have a skull-and-crossbones. 

So the cooperate-or-defect choice the organism is faced with is:

Then, the organism is forced to defect in the hope-against-hope that the other will play the Sucker and die as a result, thereby enabling the first one to survive. ThereÕs no point in trying to cooperate, because the best you could do would be the Reward. Not enough. Evolution will select for competition.
But from the group selection point of view, itÕs not great. Since weÕve posited that in this condition of scarcity, there arenÕt enough resources to ensure survival of all, and weÕve evolved the species for competition, an organism will likely defect. Then they get the Punishment, taking the chance that the entire species will go extinct. But in this case, the species has to take that risk. ItÕs got no other choice. ThemÕs the breaks when youÕve got scarcity. 
Next is the case where both the Temptation and Reward levels permit survival, but the Punishment and SuckerÕs Loss donÕt. 

This scenario supports a mix of cooperation and competition. The choices are:

Mutual cooperation results in the Reward. ThereÕs no reason to take the further risk of defecting in order to try to get the Temptation rather than the Reward, since even the Reward is sufficient. But we still donÕt have quite enough for everybody, so somebodyÕs got to play the Sucker. We can tolerate some mutual defection, their Punishment also joining the ranks of the losers. We still need at least some competition to determine who loses out, as long as that doesnÕt generate too many more losers than needed to account for the deficit implied by the scarcity. And certainly we donÕt need the level of competition that might risk extinction. ThatÕs much better from the group selection point of view. 
Then, weÕve got the case where even the Punishment is enough resources to live on, and youÕll only die if you get the SuckerÕs Loss. 

Again, no point in defecting, trying for the Temptation, if the Reward is enough. And we need fewer losers than before, therefore less competition, since the scarcity deficit is smaller. This shifts the tradeoff even further towards cooperation.

If all the levels are survivable, then we donÕt have scarcity at all, by definition. ThereÕs no natural selection pressure forcing competition. 
Surplus resources can improve the organismsÕ lifestyle, invest in long-term security, and increase opportunities for reproduction. As weÕve seen in the classic Iterated PrisonerÕs Dilemma, cooperation is the best group strategy.
Sometimes, you hear arguments to the contrary. Some will argue that, instead, itÕs scarcity that forces cooperation. In tribal human societies, cooperation on a hunt is more important in times of scarcity than abundance. If they donÕt cooperate in the hunt, everyone will starve. There are slime molds that live as single-cell organisms in times of abundance, but form colonies in times of scarcity. 
But these are not PrisonerÕs Dilemma situations. They donÕt satisfy the TRaPS Inequality, in particular the requirement that Temptation > Reward.
Imagine youÕre trying to decide whether to cooperate with a fellow tribe member on a hunt. If everything goes wellÑthe hunt succeeds and you divide up the proceeds (Reward)ÑthatÕs better than possible mutual starvation (Punishment). So weÕve got Reward > Punishment.
But thereÕs a critical moment when youÕve just killed the animal together, you have to cooperate with your partner to divide up the meat. Your partner has to be trustworthy. Yes, you cooperated on the hunt. But what counts here is the entire process, which includes both the hunt and divvying up the spoils. If theyÕre not trustworthy, they might think that the advantage of getting it all rather than just a share, is worth defecting (Temptation > Reward). In that case, youÕre out of luck. Remember, theyÕve got a spear. 
Scarcity makes this situation worse, as the difference between 100% of the meat and just 50% of the meat might make more of a difference in survival in times of scarcity, so itÕs more tempting to defect. They even might be more worried that the scarcity might cause you to defect, so they might be willing to take the chance that youÕd both be disabled by the fight (Punishment > SuckerÕs Loss). ManyÕs the caper movie where a thief and their partner pull off the heist, and one thief is gleefully counting the money when they turn around to face their partnerÕs gun.
So, cooperating with reliably trustworthy partners still makes sense, perhaps even more so, in times of scarcity. But cooperating with possibly untrustworthy partners makes less sense the worse the scarcity is. 
Mullinaithan and Shafir have written an excellent book on the psychology of Scarcity [Mullainathan 2013]. Scarcity has both benefits and disadvantages. The benefit is that it causes focusÑit causes people to concentrate on whatÕs most important, and ignore what doesnÕt require immediate attention. It encourages risk-taking that counters peopleÕs usual risk-averse bias.
The disadvantage is that focus causes people to be blindsided to peripheral threats and opportunities that might suddenly become important. For example, firefighters on the way to a fire are focused on getting to the fire as fast as possible, so they tend to forget to put on seat belts. The shocking statistic is that 25% of firefighter deaths are in traffic accidents on the way to the fire. 
People who experience scarcity of money (poverty), time (chronically stressed people), or other essentials are less rational, in general make poorer decisions, and are less cooperative with each other. They defect more often in PrisonersÕ Dilemma experiments.	
Over time, scarcity and abundance cause different kinds of feedback loops. Scarcity causes agents to waste resources on fighting with each other, which uses up resources that could have been used for reducing the scarcity in the first place. ThatÕs the Òguns vs. butterÓ tradeoff. ItÕs a negative feedback loop.
On the other hand, abundance permits agents to cooperate and the reward of cooperation leads to further riches. The surplus not necessary for immediate needs can be ÒinvestedÓÑto fund longer-term activities that might pay off sometime in the in the future. Or it can serve as ÒinsuranceÓ to protect against possible future scarcity. Both of these are likely to lead to more abundance in the future. This is a positive feedback loop.
WeÕve already talked about how the PrisonerÕs Dilemma can be viewed as a short-term vs. long-term tradeoff. Especially in situations of scarcity, we can find ourselves on the knife-edge between cooperation and competition. The fact that each creates self-reinforcing feedback loops makes it all the more critical that we make the right choices.
Past scarcity and future abundance
So, if scarcity vs. abundance is a crucial factor, where is the human race? Historically, from the Stone Age to recent times, humanity has lived under conditions of scarcity. Even when hunting or early agriculture succeeded in providing abundance for a period of time, it usually was followed by a population explosion and/or wars that reduced conditions back to a basic level of scarcity. Malthus was pessimistic that humanity was doomed to remain in this condition. For most of humanityÕs history, no more than a small percentage of the population could be assured of having its basic life needs met in a reliable fashion. 
Now, things are different. At present, we have a mixed situation that has pockets of first-world abundance and pockets of third-world poverty that are pretty much just as bad as the Stone Age. In general, as Pinker argues [Pinker 2011], things are getting better. We have relatively fewer wars and a fewer percentage of people are living in poverty than ever before.  
This is largely due to technological innovation. Agricultural technology feeds people. Communication, computing, and collaboration technologies used in large organizations allow people to work together effectively to be productive and solve problems. Political techniques like modern representative democracy and markets (though weÕll criticize them handily later) work better than earlier forms of anarchy, dictatorship, feudalism, and Communism. But this is all historically very recent. 
Our societies have evolved with scarcity in mind. Our social and economic structures are designed for conditions of scarcity. As we have seen, that means that they have been set up assuming zero-sum competition. Because our educational systems teach that scarcity is inevitable, some people canÕt even imagine that it could be otherwise. 
Our perception of reality is out of date. Much of humanity has changed from an environment of scarcity to one of abundance, but our self-knowledge hasnÕt changed. Education, like most other institutions is conservative. By updating our understanding of our situation, we can facilitate cooperation. 
Because of the feedback loops, increasing cooperation will lead to abundance, making it easier to cooperate, and so on. ItÕs our contention that now, the primary cause of war, poverty, and other societal ills is exactly the assumption that weÕll always have war and poverty. Because of that, we get trapped in the negative feedback loop of defection. 
If we can believe itÕs possible, or even likely, to have abundance, cooperation will both aid in achieving it, and also make it easier to cooperate. They key factor in bringing this about is educating people. That very change in mindset will itself launch the evolutionary process that will cause it to happen. 
While there are still modern-day Malthusians, we believe that the march to abundance will not only continue, it will accelerate. WeÕre computer scientists by trade, and we know how it will happen. The key enabling technology in software is Artificial Intelligence, and in hardware, personalized digital manufacturing. In subsequent chapters, weÕll expand upon how these developments will result in the prospect of abundance. 
For progress, we need our social institutions to transition from a scarcity mindset, encouraging competition, to an abundance mindset, encouraging cooperation. 
Recap
Take a deep breath. WeÕre just about done with the theory section of the book. Think about what youÕve learned. 
YouÕve got the basic conceptual tools of game theory for thinking about the tradeoff between cooperation and competition. You understand that evolution, especially under conditions of abundance, encourages cooperative, positive-sum situations. 
WeÕre now in a position to fully state the central argument of the book. Here it goes.
¥	Understanding the tradeoff between cooperation and competition is crucial to many important problems in economics, politics, social relations, and other areas. Neither cooperation nor competition is best under all circumstances. 
¥	Many important situations can be described by the pattern of the PrisonerÕs Dilemma. If each agent considers just its own point of view in the short term, it will decide to defect (that is, to compete or choose not to cooperate). But from a more global, long-term view, the right decision is to cooperate, which leads to the best results for the group, and ultimately, for individuals.
¥	One important factor that controls which way the tradeoff goes, is the relative scarcity or abundance of resources. Scarcity encourages competition. Abundance encourages cooperation.
¥	Historically, with few exceptions, humanity has lived under scarcity. 
¥	Due to information technology, especially AI and Makerism, we now have the possibility of replacing past scarcity with future abundance. Humanity is on the verge of having the capability to provide for everybodyÕs physical needs. We will refer to this as post-scarcity.
¥	Unfortunately, as a result of historic scarcity, we have developed zero-sum social, economic, and political institutions. They are obsolete. We have traditionally prioritized competition over cooperation. That ends or we do. 
¥	But improving technology alone wonÕt get us to abundance automatically. If we keep our present zero-sum economic and political structures, even the Òbigger pieÓ wonÕt improve the lives of most of humanity. It wonÕt be distributed evenly, as shown by the Ultimatum Game, and present inequality. 
¥	We need to change our zero-sum, competitive mindset and institutions to positive-sum, cooperative attitudes and structures. This will both create abundance, and also make it easier to cooperate. WeÕll get on a positive feedback loop. 
¥	Then weÕll all live happily ever after.