Friday, February 22, 2013

Evolution and the Family


Good parents love and take care of their children. Good children love and respect their parents. Why? What does a mother owe to young whiny short people whom she already carried for nine months only to have them tear out of her and grow up to spend all her money? Why does a father bail his sons out of jail every time they get caught smashing windows at the old library?
                The evolutionary reason for parents putting up with their children is known as the theory of kin selection. In his article about family love and impartiality, Yong Li notes that Confucian teachings allow a man to cover-up his son’s crimes, even though it is usually immoral to cover-up a person’s crime, because “recently more and more scholars of Confucianism advocate evolutionary theory to understand the family-oriented ethics in the Confucianist tradition” (Li 243).  He refers to kin selection as “the process by which behavior of individuals decreases their own fitness but increases that of their kin” because “kin selection assumes that organisms are vehicles for copying of genes” (243). So by this theory, people care for their children because these offspring carry parts of themselves, and without their children, their legacy would die. Every person is like the monarch of great country, making sure the heirs are skilled enough to obtain the throne. If they merely banished disappointing princes and princesses, then no one is left to take over the kingdom once the ruling king or queen die, and everything they created during their rule falls to ruin and chaos.
This family has low fitness and most likely 
will not live to carry on their genetic heritage
 to future generations.

                However, there is more to family than carrying a legacy of good genes. Family members are supposed to empathize with each other, and “empathy is an evolved, biological capacity of the human species, and probably of other mammalian species, such as the apes” (Li 247). On top of that, “The cultivation of this capacity involves inter-subjective interaction, which may or may not require the presence of the family” (247). The ability to empathize makes a person more fit in human populations. How many times have people watched the news where some young man or woman has committed an atrocity, fallen from social graces, and thereby ruined their lives? How many times has the news explained that the person came from a broken home with ill-fitted or absent parents?
                Parents have a duty to raise their children properly because they need to give those children the means of developing empathy so they will be fit to survive socially in human society. Parents also have the incentive to put in the effort and make the necessary sacrifices to raise them right, because then their genes will be passed on by these descendants.

Word Count: 451

Li, Yong. "Evolution, Care, and Partiality." Asian Philosophy. 21.3 (2011): 241-249. Print.

19 comments:

  1. What an interesting way to characterize the human family: kin selection and empathy. However, I think this characterization can be expanded to other animals such as primates and canines because studies have been shown species of these families show empathetic emotions. On a side note, sometimes a non-mating animals such as a fox will act take care of another foxes young when they are not related. How would you explain this surrogate care in terms of Confucianism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to "Adoption in Japan: Comparing Policies for Children in Need" by Peter Hayes and Toshie Habu, the Confucian belief of adoption strongly focuses on keeping children as close to the family as possible, even if that means that children have to live with members of the extended family such as uncles, aunts, or cousins. Perhaps in the case of animals, when the exact blood relations are not clear, animals such as the fox will take care of the young that resemble them, which hints that they share similar genes even if they didn't come from the exact same ancestry. The closer the connection, the more likely the animal will be empathetic.

      Delete
  2. Some mammals (as well as other animals) will abandon their offspring after birth, though scientists are not sure why. How does this fit into the idea of kin selection?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kin selection, while beneficial, is a form of biological altruism, which itself is strange in the survival of the fittest. Sacrifices must be made in order to care for the offspring, sacrifices that will decrease the fitness of the individual organism. Some organisms favor their own survival over that of their young because they are not altruistic.

      Delete
  3. Are empathy and kin selection learned behaviors that come as a result of the genetic similarity between parents and their offspring or does the literature suggest that these behaviors are instinctive?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was also wondering whether this article is suggesting that empathy and other positive characteristics are heritable. Since evolution is based on the natural selection of favorable and heritable genes, is this type of behavior passed through genes?

      Delete
    2. In a physical sense, the parts of the brain that are responsible for emotion, empathy and reasoning are in a way inheritable since there is actually a genetic code to produce that part of the body. In a behavioral sense, it is more of an acquired trait.

      Delete
  4. Would you say this is more or less effective than leaving your offspring but having many because you know most will die (just like sea turtles)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say that caring for offspring is more effective for the species that have developed empathy, because the loss of children may actually hurt, cause sadness and possibly decrease the parents' fitness. Also, the young of empathetic species might have zero chance of survival if left completely unattended and unprotected. In a historical sense, humans used to have many children for economic survival purposes and the knowledge that they were not all expected to survive.

      Delete
  5. How do adoptive and foster parents fit into this theory? These parents raise children that are not their genetic offspring and cannot continue their legacy in terms of genes, but they care for the children just the same. How does this type of family fit in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adoption and foster families in the case of humans are interesting cases. In the case of government-arranged foster parents, usually there is a monetary incentive to care of children that are not one's own, especially if the foster child might return to his or her original parents. As for adoption, the child the parents chose may have connected to them based on similarities or there was something that the parents could relate to about the child.

      Delete
    2. I feel like culture plays a substantial role in empathy and kin selection and it could be the force behind adoption and fostering.

      Delete
  6. The kin selection theory does help explain why parents are likely to bail their children out of situations that they wouldn't do for other people, however how does it help explain the fact that children who are supposed to be respectful towards their parents often are not. Defiant children make it more difficult for parents to be able to foster their genes, so why do children do it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think this subject can also be viewed from a Darwinian standpoint. Perhaps human beings evolved this inclination to stay in communities and families (the ultimate sense of community) as a way to increase survival. By staying in groups, especially kinds bound by the familial loyalties, our ancestors probably maximized sharing of resources and protection from predators. Maybe that's how adoptive and foster parents fit in. If they raise future 'protectors' and food gatherers in a new generation, they could maximize their survival (not saying this is intentional, but rather instinctual). Anyway, great article!

    ReplyDelete
  8. People often talk about different parenting cultures in the East and West, but I've never considered it in terms of evolution. I think it's interesting scholars are linking Confucianism ideals of togetherness with evolutionary theory. Also, I think there are too many factors outside of family relations that could impact one's empathy and thus fitness. The argument for family -> empathy -> fitness doesn't seem to be extremely compelling without further information.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was just wondering if this is just in terms of humans that become attached to their children? I mean at the end of the day each species is just trying to successfully procreate and pass on their genes successfully. So parents caring for and nurturing their children might just be another example of them making sure that their genes are strong and healthy and able to pass on their own genes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting article about kin selection. My guess is that environment plays a heavy role in parent/child interactions and behavior as well. Does this mean that those who are not caring for their children in this way are deviating from their own nature?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is logical to think of families in terms of biology like kin selection, but I personally believe that all animals also have senses of morality that override just the basic need to survive and reproduce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It might be true that all animals have senses of morality, but the real question is where does this morality come from? Is morality a product of evolution or is it perhaps a man-made idea of what humans ought to do? Personally, I think that morality by itself is unable to simply override basic the basic need to survive and reproduce, but the concept of morality is so embedded into the human brain at such an early age that it can act as such a strong force.

      Delete