E-Letter responses to:

special/news: Elizabeth Pennisi How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve? Science 2005; 309: 93 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Turnabout Is Fair Play

Brian F. Hall   (6 July 2005)

There is already a good answer to the evolution of cooperation

Peter R Marreck   (6 July 2005)

Turnabout Is Fair Play 6 July 2005
Brian F. Hall, Web copy editor Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Turnabout Is Fair Play	There is an explicit assumption here I'd like to challenge, by flipping the question: "How did competitive behavior evolve?" Since all behaviors, we/biologists assume, have to evolve, there is no inherent basis for giving competition ground-floor status. In the primordial biotic soup scenario, e.g., evidence seems to show microbes freely swapped extrons and genes and RNA tricks, etc. So that would suggest that "co-operation" is more basic than competition.
There is already a good answer to the evolution of cooperation 6 July 2005
Peter R Marreck, web/database developer Respond to this E-Letter: Re: There is already a good answer to the evolution of cooperation	I read the book aptly titled "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod. It answers this question pretty well and basically argues that cooperation will develop when there is a chance for future interactions. This explains both why two entities who just met each other tend to cooperate, as well as why cooperation continues to sustain itself when a defection would be more immediately profitable. It also explains why situations where there is very low probability of future interaction (from a personal perspective, "'m thinking real- estate transactions) seem to be very likely to fall apart, also explaining why human relationships tend to fail very early on and a million other things where beings have to compromise in order to profit for themselves.