Evolution favours altruism

[Anomalocaris]

@Chuck, as far as i know, evolutionarily, whatever qualifies as altruistic is an act that causes harm to one individual (the one acting) but benefits the group/species. Selfishness would be an act that benefits that individual, whether or not it benefits others is not taken into consideration.

There is a dichotomy because I think because many people don't understand how altruistic behaviours can be explained by evolution as the ones who behave that way are likely to die. Selfish behaviours are more easily explained.

In evolution, the only good is success in passing on of some portion of the individual's own genes. Nothing that doesn't serve this goal is relevant per se. Not happiness, not health, not one's group or species.

If it appears the individual is, as you say, causing harm to the individual but benefiting the species, then either the individual is an aberration soon to be weeded out by evolution, or it only appears to do so because you didn't look closely enough. In the second case, the individual is in reality engaged in a sophisticated behavior that, while appearing to also benefit the group and species, is in reality driven solely by the ability of some pseudoultruistic behavior to improve the odds of one's own success in passing on one's own genes.

So in nature, there is no true ultrism. There is only appearence of ultruism which serves the good of the individual.

What the discovery referred to here said was in effect, selfishness is not served by appearing to be blatantly selfish all the time. Selfish interests are some times better served by acting as if one is ultruistic.