ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024
Reducing global inequality increases local cooperation: a simple model of group selection with a global externality.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complex systems perspective in assessing risks in artificial intelligence.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2024Article
- Evolution and sustainability: gathering the strands for an Anthropocene synthesis.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Review
- Long-distance social relationships can both undercut and promote local natural resource management.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Review
- Reducing global inequality increases local cooperation: a simple model of group selection with a global externality.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Characteristic processes of human evolution caused the Anthropocene and may obstruct its global solutions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Group-structured models often explain the evolution of prosocial activities in terms of selection acting at both individual and group levels. Such models do not typically consider how individuals' behaviours may have consequences beyond the boundaries of their groups. However, many behaviours affect global environmental variables, including climate change and ecosystem fragility. Against this background, we propose a simple model of multi-level selection in the presence of global externalities. In our model, group members can cooperate in a social dilemma with the potential for group-level benefits. The actions of cooperators also have global consequences, which can be positive (a global good) or negative (a global bad). We use simulations to consider scenarios in which the effects of the global externality either are evenly distributed, or have stronger influences on either the rich or the poor. We find that the global externality promotes the evolution of cooperation only if it either disproportionately benefits the poor or disproportionately reduces the payoffs of the rich. If the global externality primarily harms the poor, it undermines the evolution of prosocial behaviour. Understanding this effect is important given concerns that poorer households are more vulnerable to climate change impacts. This article is part of the theme issue 'Evolution and sustainability: gathering the strands for an Anthropocene synthesis'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.