Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 75–98 | Cite as

Extensive social choice and the measurement of group fitness in biological hierarchies



Extensive social choice theory is used to study the problem of measuring group fitness in a two-level biological hierarchy. Both fixed and variable group size are considered. Axioms are identified that imply that the group measure satisfies a form of consequentialism in which group fitness only depends on the viabilities and fecundities of the individuals at the lower level in the hierarchy. This kind of consequentialism can take account of the group fitness advantages of germ-soma specialization, which is not possible with an alternative social choice framework proposed by Okasha, but which is an essential feature of the index of group fitness for a multicellular organism introduced by Michod, Viossat, Solari, Hurand, and Nedelcu to analyze the unicellular-multicellular evolutionary transition. The new framework is also used to analyze the fitness decoupling between levels that takes place during an evolutionary transition.


Consequentialism Group fitness Evolutionary transitions Fitness decoupling Multilevel selection Social choice 


  1. Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1984) Social criteria for evaluating population change. J Public Econ 25:13–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackorby C, Bossert W, Donaldson D (2005) Population issues in social choice theory, welfare economics, and ethics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossert W, Weymark JA (2004) Utility in social choice. In: Barberà S, Hammond PJ, Seidl C (eds) Handbook of utility theory. Volume 2: extensions. Kluwer, Boston, pp 1099–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossert W, Qi CX, Weymark JA (2012) An axiomatic characterization of the MVSHN group fitness index. Cahier No. 16-2012, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitativeGoogle Scholar
  5. Calcott B (2011) Alternative patterns of explanation for major transitions. In: Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) The major transitions revisited. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 35–51Google Scholar
  6. Clarke E (2011) Plant individuality and multilevel selection theory. In: Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) The major transitions revisited. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 227–250Google Scholar
  7. Damuth J, Heisler IL (1988) Alternative formulations of multilevel selection. Biol Philos 3:407–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Grafen A (2007) The formal Darwinism project: a mid-term report. J Evol Biol 20:1243–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herron MD, Michod RE (2007) Evolution of complexity in the volvocine algae: transitions in individuality through Darwin’s eye. Evolution 62:436–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kirk DL (2005) A twelve-step program for evolving multicellularity and a division of labor. BioEssays 27:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewontin RC (1970) The units of selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Margulis L (1998) Symbiotic planet: a new view of evolution. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. W. H. Freeman/Spektrum, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1999) The origins of life: from the birth of life to the origin of language. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Michod RE (1999) Darwinian dynamics: evolutionary transitions in fitness and individuality. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Michod RE (2005) On the transfer of fitness from the cell to the multicellular organism. Biol Philos 20:967–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michod RE (2011) Evolutionary transitions in individuality: multicellularity and sex. In: Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) The major transitions revisited. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 169–197Google Scholar
  19. Michod RE, Nedelcu AM (2003) On the reorganization of fitness during evolutionary transitions in individuality. Integr Comp Biol 43:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Michod RE, Viossat Y, Solari CA, Hurand M, Nedelcu AM (2006) Life-history evolution and the origin of multicellularity. J Theor Biol 239:257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller SM (2010) Volvox, chlamydomonas, and the evolution of multicellularity. Nat Educ 3(9):65Google Scholar
  22. Okasha S (2006) Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Okasha S (2009) Individuals, groups, fitness and utility: multi-level selection meets social choice theory. Biol Philos 24:561–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Okasha S (2011) Optimal choice in the face of risk: decision theory meets evolution. Philos Sci 78:83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ooghe E, Lauwers L (2005) Non-dictatorial extensive social choice. Econ Theor 25:721–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roberts K (1995) Valued opinions or opinionated values: the double aggregation problem. In: Basu K, Pattanaik P, Suzumura K (eds) Choice, welfare, and development: a Festschrift in honour of Amartya K. Sen. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 141–165Google Scholar
  27. Sen AK (1970) Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  28. Weymark JA (2006) The normative approach to the measurement of multidimensional inequality. In: Farina F, Savaglio E (eds) Inequality and economic integration. Routledge, London, pp 303–328Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Bossert
    • 1
  • Chloe X. Qi
    • 2
  • John A. Weymark
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Economics and CIREQUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Boston Consulting GroupBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations