A study of social networks in the hunter-gatherer Hadza people in Tanzania illuminates the evolutionary origins of humans' unique style of cooperation in groups. See Letter p.497
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
PHOTOSTOCK-ISRAEL/ALAMY
References
Henrich, N. & Henrich, J. Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).
Silk, J. B. et al. Nature 437, 1357–1359 (2005).
Marlowe, F. W. Evol. Anthropol. 14, 54–67 (2005).
Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H. & Christakis, N. A. Nature 481, 497–501 (2012).
Hamilton, W. D. in Biosocial Anthropology (ed. Fox, R.) 133–156 (Malaby, 1975).
Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. & Henrich, J. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 431–444 (2011).
McNamara, J. M., Barta, Z., Fromhage, L. & Houston, A. I. Nature 451, 189–192 (2008).
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. Proc. Br. Acad. 88, 119–143 (1996).
Marlowe, F. W. in Foundations of Human Sociality (eds Henrich, J. et al.) 168–193 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2004).
Silk, J. B. et al. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 197–204 (2010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Henrich, J. Hunter-gatherer cooperation. Nature 481, 449–450 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/481449a
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/481449a
Peter Gibson
The general approach to cooperation (Henrich: NATURE, 26, Jan 2012, Vol. 481, p 449-450) and particularly humans makes the assumption that cooperation really exists. However, if one substitutes ?exploitation? for ?cooperation? the arguments remain the same. Henrich does touch upon various theories of social behaviour. However, there is no reason to see the behaviour he and others describe as social, in the sense of social insects. Humans and primates can be seen simply gathering together for mutual exploitation much as occurs in shoals of fish and flocks of birds. The arguments on both sides are somewhat tired nowadays but in our daily lives we behave as though cooperation is a fiction. Ones beliefs are to a degree formed when we are children and we learn to believe in society. The overriding belief is social science dogma: society is benign and benefit of all. This is Wynn Edwards and Margaret Mead story. People will give up a kidney of others, to use Henrich?s example. The problem is we know we have two. The reality of the delusion sets in later. The most serious problem with the idea of cooperation is it is self-serving. We put our hands in other people?s pockets for their good.
Most studies on cooperation resort to incredible complicated and contrived tests the outcome of which are portrayed as a maze of lines in heavy ink and colour. They look desperate. I feel these studies are going nowhere because we are still uncertain whether we are driven solely by self-interest. No one really wish to face that and as a result people potters about hoping to come up with a justification for cooperation. The more unintelligibly the more convinced people are. The most serious offenders are economists (Archetti et al – Economic game theory for mutualism and cooperation – Ecology Letters, Vol. 14, pp. 1200-1312, Dec 2011) and we all know how successful they are.