"Malcolm"  wrote in message
news:ceru6j$4c7$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> "Perplexed in Peoria"  wrote
> >
> > This is also wrong.  At least as Hamilton defined inclusive fitness in
> > 1964.  He defined it as something like (K + rb - c), where K would be
> > the fitness that an organism would have if all social interactions were
> > excluded (and the costs of those interactions).
> >
> The problem is that the formula works fine if only one interaction is
> possible, but it gets more complex when the recipient recycles some of the
> resources back to other relatives, some of whom may be more closely related
> to the donor than to him.

You raise some very complex issues here.  I'm not sure I completely have a
handle on them, but here is a tentative answer:

The kinds of "feedback" issues that you raise shouldn't really matter, as
long as everything remains linear.  That is, it should be possible to take
the attitude: "I will worry about MY inclusive fitness; let the other guy
worry about HIS inclusive fitness.  If his fitness maximization strategy
happens to benefit me or mine, well that is just fine, it is gravy.  But
I am not going to consider such feedbacks in determining my own behavior."

And, if b and c are small relative to the baseline fitness K, then everything
IS linear to a very close approximation.  But if b and c become large relative
to K, then there is the possibility of non-linear feedback effects, and the
whole model is in danger of breaking down.  I think Hamilton's rule  is a good
quantitative model for small unilateral favors to relatives.  But for more
extreme forms of altruism, such as caste sterility in the social insects,
I remain a little skeptical that it is much more than a useful heuristic.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/6/04 6:19:27 AM