I’m tinkering around in NetLogo with a model I made representing the dynamics of selfishness and altruism. In my model, there are two types of agents (“turtles” in NL parlance), red selfish turtles and blue altruistic turtles. The turtles wander around the world, and occasionally participate in a prisoner’s-dilemma-like game with nearby turtles. When a turtle cooperates, their partner receives a reward, at the cost of losing some percentage of that reward themselves. When a turtle defects, they keep all their resources, and their partner gains none. The turtles steadily lose resources over time, and if they reach 0 resources, they die.
(I tried to include an image of this, but I can’t seem to upload images right now)
From these rules in this setup, it follows that since the only way to receive resources is if someone cooperates with you, and you are steadily losing resources, a population of only defectors will quickly die out under these rules.
I tried tinkering with different factors to see what happens in different circumstances, specifically with an eye for situations where altruism may have a long-term benefit over selfishness ( I find this particularly interesting to look for, since in many situations, selfishness beats altruism in nature, but instances of altruism to strangers do nonetheless happen in nature ). Of course, the lower the penalty for altruism, the more rewarding altruism becomes. The speed of the turtles also matters—when turtles move very slowly, there can develop small pockets of altruists that avoid selfish turtles for a while simply based on geography, but as turtles speed up, location stops mattering, and most turtles will spend some time around most other turtles—which can be a boon for selfish turtles looking for altruists to feed off of.
However, the variable that seemed to give the biggest advantage to the altruists was how much resources a turtle can store before it gets full, and no longer seeks additional resources. In my earlier runs, turtles could store large surpluses of resources, and selfish turtles could survive for quite a while after the altruists had all died, simply off of their savings. However, when I lowered the maximum level of savings, the absence of altruists would lead to selfish turtles dying much sooner, leaving completely empty parts of the map, which the selfish turtles could then escape to and claim for themselves. Simply by dividing the maximum savings by 3, I went from a situation where all turtles would eventually die (due to the altruists going extinct), to a scenario where selfishness eventually dies out, leaving behind a population of 100% altruists- but not before wild fluctuations where population can go as low as 15 turtles, before the map fills up entirely, then going back down to 15, and repeating for a while.
when turtles move very slowly, there can develop small pockets of altruists that avoid selfish turtles for a while simply based on geography, but as turtles speed up, location stops mattering, and most turtles will spend some time around most other turtles—which can be a boon for selfish turtles looking for altruists to feed off of.
Some people who grew up in a village and later moved to a big city probably feel like this.
People who live in a city have a way to deal with this: interact with members of your subculture(s), not with strangers. In absence of geographical distances, we can create social ones.
However, the variable that seemed to give the biggest advantage to the altruists was how much resources a turtle can store before it gets full, and no longer seeks additional resources.
Isn’t this the same thing from a different perspective? I mean, the important thing seems to be how far you can travel on a full stomach. That can be increased by either moving faster or having a greater stomach.
In absence of geographical distances, we can create social ones.
I like this thought
Isn’t this the same thing from a different perspective? I mean, the important thing seems to be how far you can travel on a full stomach. That can be increased by either moving faster or having a greater stomach.
I agree that a bigger stomach allows for a bigger range, but this is not the only effect it has—a bigger stomach also allows for survival long after there are literally no providers left, which means that there can be areas that are rich in selfish characters, and if any stray altruists do wander by, they will further feed this group, whereas with a smaller stomach, these areas will be barren, providing a breeding ground for altruists that can then lead to a resurgence of altruists, temporarily spared from the selfish ones.
I’m tinkering around in NetLogo with a model I made representing the dynamics of selfishness and altruism. In my model, there are two types of agents (“turtles” in NL parlance), red selfish turtles and blue altruistic turtles. The turtles wander around the world, and occasionally participate in a prisoner’s-dilemma-like game with nearby turtles. When a turtle cooperates, their partner receives a reward, at the cost of losing some percentage of that reward themselves. When a turtle defects, they keep all their resources, and their partner gains none. The turtles steadily lose resources over time, and if they reach 0 resources, they die.
(I tried to include an image of this, but I can’t seem to upload images right now)
From these rules in this setup, it follows that since the only way to receive resources is if someone cooperates with you, and you are steadily losing resources, a population of only defectors will quickly die out under these rules.
I tried tinkering with different factors to see what happens in different circumstances, specifically with an eye for situations where altruism may have a long-term benefit over selfishness ( I find this particularly interesting to look for, since in many situations, selfishness beats altruism in nature, but instances of altruism to strangers do nonetheless happen in nature ). Of course, the lower the penalty for altruism, the more rewarding altruism becomes. The speed of the turtles also matters—when turtles move very slowly, there can develop small pockets of altruists that avoid selfish turtles for a while simply based on geography, but as turtles speed up, location stops mattering, and most turtles will spend some time around most other turtles—which can be a boon for selfish turtles looking for altruists to feed off of.
However, the variable that seemed to give the biggest advantage to the altruists was how much resources a turtle can store before it gets full, and no longer seeks additional resources. In my earlier runs, turtles could store large surpluses of resources, and selfish turtles could survive for quite a while after the altruists had all died, simply off of their savings. However, when I lowered the maximum level of savings, the absence of altruists would lead to selfish turtles dying much sooner, leaving completely empty parts of the map, which the selfish turtles could then escape to and claim for themselves. Simply by dividing the maximum savings by 3, I went from a situation where all turtles would eventually die (due to the altruists going extinct), to a scenario where selfishness eventually dies out, leaving behind a population of 100% altruists- but not before wild fluctuations where population can go as low as 15 turtles, before the map fills up entirely, then going back down to 15, and repeating for a while.
Some people who grew up in a village and later moved to a big city probably feel like this.
People who live in a city have a way to deal with this: interact with members of your subculture(s), not with strangers. In absence of geographical distances, we can create social ones.
Isn’t this the same thing from a different perspective? I mean, the important thing seems to be how far you can travel on a full stomach. That can be increased by either moving faster or having a greater stomach.
I like this thought
I agree that a bigger stomach allows for a bigger range, but this is not the only effect it has—a bigger stomach also allows for survival long after there are literally no providers left, which means that there can be areas that are rich in selfish characters, and if any stray altruists do wander by, they will further feed this group, whereas with a smaller stomach, these areas will be barren, providing a breeding ground for altruists that can then lead to a resurgence of altruists, temporarily spared from the selfish ones.