Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 34:43 | Cite as

The evolution of cooperation in finite populations with synergistic payoffs

  • Rafael VenturaEmail author
Article
  • 138 Downloads

Abstract

In a series of papers, Forber and Smead (J Philos 111(3):151–166, 2014, Biol Philos 30(3):405–421, 2015) and Smead and Forber (Evolution 67(3):698–707, 2013) make a valuable contribution to the study of cooperation in finite populations by analyzing an understudied model: the prisoner’s delight. It always pays to cooperate in the one-shot prisoner’s delight, so this model presents a best-case scenario for the evolution of cooperation. Yet, what Forber and Smead find is highly counterintuitive. In finite populations playing the prisoner’s delight, increasing the benefit of cooperation causes selection to favor defection. Here, I extend their model by considering the effects of non-linear payoffs. In particular, I show that interesting subtleties arise when payoffs are synergistic. Indeed, analysis reveals that increasing the benefit of cooperation does not always favor the spread of defection if payoffs are synergistic. I conclude by drawing some general considerations about robustness analysis in evolutionary models.

Keywords

Cooperation Prisoner’s delight Finite populations Synergy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Alex Rosenberg, Rory Smead, Hannah Read, and especially two anonymous referees for helpful feedback on previous drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Allen B, Nowak MA, Wilson EO (2013) Limitations of inclusive fitness. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(50):20135–20139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archetti M, Scheuring I (2011) Coexistence of cooperation and defection in public goods games. Evolution 65(4):1140–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonner JT (2009) The social amoebae: the biology of cellular slime molds. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Feldman MW (1978) Darwinian selection and “altruism”. Theor Popul Biol 14(2):268–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forber P, Smead R (2014) An evolutionary paradox for prosocial behavior. J Philos 111(3):151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forber P, Smead R (2015) Evolution and the classification of social behavior. Biol Philos 30(3):405–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamilton WD (1971) Selection of selfish and altruistic behavior in some extreme models. In: Man and beast: comparative social behavior, pp 57–91Google Scholar
  8. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 54(4):421–431Google Scholar
  10. Maynard-Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck H-J, Marotzke J (2006) Stabilizing the Earth’s climate is not a losing game: supporting evidence from public goods experiments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(11):3994–3998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miller MB, Bassler BL (2001) Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 55(1):165–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nowak MA, Sasaki A, Taylor C, Fudenberg D (2004) Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations. Nature 428(6983):646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Orzack SH, Sober E (1993) A critical assessment of Levins’s the strategy of model building in population biology (1966). Q Rev Biol 68:533–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Packer C, Scheel D, Pusey AE (1990) Why lions form groups: food is not enough. Am Nat 136(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smead R, Forber P (2013) The evolutionary dynamics of spite in finite populations. Evolution 67(3):698–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Taylor C, Fudenberg D, Sasaki A, Nowak MA (2004) Evolutionary game dynamics in finite populations. Bull Math Biol 66(6):1621–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tomasello M, Melis AP, Tennie C, Wyman E, Herrmann E, Gilby IC, Hawkes K, Sterelny K, Wyman E, Tomasello M, Melis A (2012) Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation: the interdependence hypothesis. Curr Anthropol 53(6):673–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Veelen M (2009) Group selection, kin selection, altruism and cooperation: when inclusive fitness is right and when it can be wrong. J Theor Biol 259(3):589–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weisberg M (2006) Robustness analysis. Philos Sci 73(5):730–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weisberg M, Reisman K (2008) The robust Volterra principle. Philos Sci 75(1):106–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yip EC, Powers KS, Avilés L (2008) Cooperative capture of large prey solves scaling challenge faced by spider societies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(33):11818–11822CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations