Philosophical discourse on nepotism, Hamilton's rule, and survival of the fittest

Spencer’s “survival of the fittest’ doctrine would be a truism if we could prove the theory of natural causality. We can’t by any means known to me. Science takes it as a working assumption. So did Hume, and so do |. If God intervenes only a little, so that laws of nature comes close to reality most of the time, we're still in business. My critique of Hamilton’s rule proposed that nepotism meets resistance when it conflicts with nepotistic goals of others. I proposed a modus vivendi through agonistic rules. Hamilton’s parasite theory with Zuk, written 18 years later, gives the game plan. Nepotism, meaning kin selection through Hamilton’s rule, is in the common interest to a point. It speeds up proof of best genes to beat the current parasites by testing female genes as well as male ones. Healthier mothers and sisters and aunts carry more fitness to invest in more young. And females in most K-selected species, including humans, perform most care of the offspring and siblings and nepotes (nephews and nieces) that receive it!°. Male competition alone does not determine best current genes to nature’s satisfaction. Female breeding competition and nepotistic investment help prove them farther. All agonistic rules are about keeping the contest fair and deciding when proof is enough. Long-term success against future as well as current parasites needs most losers, not all, to go to the bench (low frequencies; source demes in my version) rather than to extinction. Most losers survived to enter the contest because they 10 The burden is about 50-50 in pair-bonding birds. Fathers look to be the only caregivers in territorial fish such as sticklebacks. Chapter 7 Petty’s Idea 2/3/16 29 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011088