Are We Born Selfish or Altruistic?

BY SOFO ARCHON

Is human nature selfish or altruistic?

At first glance, humans seem inherently selfish. After all, if they were not, why would they constantly strive to maximize personal gain—whether in the form of money, possessions, or power—often at the expense of others?

The belief that human nature is essentially selfish is held by many—if not most—people. But it is not only laypersons who hold this view; even distinguished scientists share it, including the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who popularized the theory of the “selfish gene.”

Dawkins bases much of his theory on evolutionary psychology, the field that seeks to explain psychological traits from an evolutionary perspective. A common view in this field is that, in prehistoric times, humans lived in fierce, competitive, life-or-death conditions, where they had to struggle against one another to gain access to resources necessary for survival. By behaving selfishly, they increased their chances of surviving and passing on their genes.

According to some evolutionary psychologists, this explains why modern humans are selfish: through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution (Homo sapiens, according to recent findings, is at least 300,000 years old) we have been biologically and psychologically programmed to act in self-interested ways. This theory may sound plausible until we consider historical and archaeological evidence.

Contrary to what many people, including distinguished scientists, assume, humans lived mostly at peace with one another for over 95% of their time on Earth.

Before the Neolithic Revolution—that is, the wide-scale transition of many human cultures from hunting and gathering to agriculture and settlement, which occurred around 12,000 years ago—humans lived primarily in nomadic, hunter-gatherer groups of up to 150 members. At that time, the world was sparsely populated (some estimates suggest the global population was no more than half a million around 15,000 years ago), food was generally abundant, and humans were relatively healthy, as evidenced by the skeletons of ancient hunter-gatherers.

Based on this, it seems highly unlikely that they would have fought over resources—or for any other reason. While this does not mean conflicts never occurred, it strongly suggests that, in general, humans coexisted peacefully without the need for constant competition or organized violence.

The case for prehistoric humans living mostly at peace is further supported by anthropological research. Anthropologists who, in the 20th century, lived with and closely studied some of the world’s few remaining “immediate-return” hunter-gatherer groups—groups that do not store food but consume it soon after obtaining it, as prehistoric humans did—found them to be highly egalitarian.

Such groups do not accumulate property or possessions, share resources freely, and lack hierarchical power structures. In this social environment, individuals have little need or desire to compete with or oppress one another. Even when conflicts do occur—which is rare—the rest of the group intervenes, punishing or ostracizing the offender. As one might expect, this defense mechanism makes selfish or competitive behavior especially risky, as it could threaten one’s very survival.

Therefore, it does not really make sense that selfishness would have provided an evolutionary advantage. On the contrary, altruism would have. Collaborating and sharing resources appears to have been the most effective way to survive and stay safe. If this is the case, what then explains the pervasive selfishness of modern society? To answer this, we need to examine the conditions that drove humans to become increasingly selfish.

As humans transitioned into agricultural societies, their behavior changed markedly compared to that of hunter-gatherers. They began to claim private ownership of land (which, by the way, would have been inconceivable to hunter-gatherers, who regarded land as a sacred gift of nature to be shared) along with animals and other “resources.” This led to social and economic disparities, as resources were no longer abundant for everyone. In an environment of increasing scarcity, humans were compelled to act selfishly to survive and gain a competitive advantage.

Fast-forward a few thousand years, and the same competitive ethic persists—arguably more strongly than ever. Modern humans live in conditions of economic scarcity, where nearly everyone must compete for money and resources. From a young age, we are taught that there are “winners” and “losers,” and that success requires being competitive. Combined with a materialistic culture that judges people based on possessions, it becomes clear why humans today often behave selfishly.

Of course, this does not mean that humans are inherently selfish. As we have seen, for most of human history they were primarily altruistic. But what it shows is that human nature is highly malleable, and the environment in which we live largely shapes how it is expressed. In a competitive environment, we are likely to act selfishly; in a collaborative one, we are likely to act altruistically.

In other words, every human contains the potential for both selfishness and altruism, and the traits that emerge are largely determined by the environment we live in. It is therefore within our power to design social conditions that promote the behaviors we wish to see in ourselves and others, rather than those we do not.