For evolutionists: where did bravery come from?

Question

This is a question I've been pondering for a long time. Evolution depends on Natural Selection which says that the strong survive, allowing them to pass on their superior characteristics to their descendants. Throughout history there have been men and women who's bravery has led to their deaths. Shouldn't the bravery "trait" for lack of a better would, have been eliminated in the first organisms that exhibited it. Certainly bravery has not been conducive to survival in the past. It was certainly the bravest men that died in the French resistance of WWII (which may explain much about their current disposition). So how did bravery find its way into the human genome? Sure, it may help society as a whole, but it endangers the individual, and should therefore have been eliminated long ago.

Wow, I must say I am impressed by all of the good answers I'm getting.

So bravery is an acquired characteristic, not a congenital one.

Now that that is established, who taught early humans how to be brave? After all, the bravest were probably more injury (or death) prone. Wouldn't that discourage the others from exhibiting similar characteristics?

I'm not trying to be impertinent. I just think these are interesting questions.

I must have missed the part in evolutionary theory about group survival. How does evolution explain traits that, while they may help the group survive, result in the death or debilitation of the individual? As far as evolution is concerned it is the individual that matters, not the collective specie. Organisms don't mutate collectively.

While some of you are telling me bravery is a choice, others are telling me its an paternal instinct. But this leads to another question that's been on my mind. How did sexual reproduction develop? Surely it's more conducive to the survival of a specie to be able to duplicate itself without a partner. Wouldn't sexual reproduction require a ridiculous genetic coincidence among two organisms of the same specie?

Answer 1

Preservation of species is a stronger drive (usually) for individuals than self preservation. That fits perfectly with evolutionary theory. It is seen over and over by others giving their lives to save others. This is what is seen as bravery in its truest sense.

Answer 2

The whole point of natural selection is that traits select themselves, by their survival. Your example of French resistance is a good one, however, if the men and women who died were defending their children, then their genetic material survived. Nothing else matters.

I believe that some aspects of bravery are inherited, not just learned. If a man or woman has the "bravery gene" (for want of a better term), then their children will most likely have it. The same gene will also be an advantage in a difficult situation, say, when faced with a life or death situation facing a wild animal. Running may encourage a lion to chase and eat you or a member of your family. Fighting may discourage it and to go and look for an easier meal - after all, lions don't want fights, they want food, or it will allow his family to escape and survive. The fact remains that, whether the brave person lives or dies, his genetic material, including the "brave gene" will have a better chance of survival to the next generation. The fact that it helps society as a whole is irrelevant to the argument, it is the fact that his genetic material has survived in individuals and their offspring that is important.

You should also not discount the possibility that sexual selection is involved here. A brave man will have a better chance of more offspring than a coward, because he will be seen as a better mate by females, particularly in a tribal situation, where direct conflict between males may be used to decide partners. Bravery could in this way have been carried on through the generations.

Answer 3

Survival of the fittest is the tagline of Darwinian evolution, yes, but you have to remember that evolution occurs not only via survival of those most fitted to reproduce, but through accidents (a large chunk of a population gets wiped out; this is called genetic drift) and things like sexual selection (choosing mates for appearance and behavior rather than actual genetic 'fitness'). Evolution is not directed change; we are not as a species getting better over time or anything like that; rather, evolution is a shift in the frequency of alleles over time - in plain speak, a number of things including 'fitness', accidents, etc, influence who passes on their unique set of genes to the next generation.
So even *if* bravery were a genetic trait, it would still have a reasonable chance of being passed on, because it's not only the best and the fittest who survive to reproduce viable offspring. And *if* bravery were a genetic trait, it would have arisen the same way as any other trait - mutation (i.e. a new combination of the molecules that make up DNA).

But, bravery is no more a genetic trait than any other personality trait is. It's a learned behavior, and as such, cannot be bred in or bred out of the human species.

Nice question though. You're definitely thinking - that's a good thing. :)

Answer 4

Terracine was the only one answering here that had an answer that made sense. Selection says that " the fit survive ", which means those who leave progeny. The reciprocal altruism theories of Robert Trivers has explained the evolutionary rise of such traits as " bravery ", from at least 1972. Why would the trait be eliminated if you were sacrificing yourself for your genetic heirs? These heirs survive and contain the trait for altruism. It is no stretch to see that our local population, such as the French you mentioned, would sacrifice themselves for the local population. There is a direct linkage between what is ultimate, evolved in our natures and what plays out in the proximate, everyday world. This altruistic theory has been empirically supported, with the quantification of the difference in altruistic response dependent on the degree of relatedness of the organisms involved.

Answer 5

Some of the answers are very impressive and informative.

I would agree genuine bravery whether genetic or learned by all species promote their survival and improvement.

However, the word bravery is subjective.

I suggest reading of some Brecht literature.

While bravery as altruism is by all means respected, quite often ruling authorities brainwash young recruits as brave men to protect their honour. We know better, the ruling authorities need cannon fodder, so they can indulge in their corrupt manipulation of masses a few days longer.

So, examples of bravery being successful or wasteful need far greater scrutiny. Yet as a genuine attempt promotes evolution in the long run.

Answer 6

Just a small point. You're assuming that brave individuals are more likely to die early. Possibly, but isn't it also possible that brave individuals are actually more likely to succeed and survive than others, i.e., through strength of will, fortitude, intelligence, etc.

Bravery doesn't automatically lead to someone's death. In fact, I would argue the opposite, that one is more likely to succeed, even if there is the possibility of dying in risky situations. So even if bravery were an inherited characteristic (and I agree with the acquired argument, that it is a cultural trait overlaid on biological mechanisms) it wouldn't 'die out'.

Answer 7

Around 4 million years ago there were several mutations in the throat and jaw, that gave us the ability to acquire speech. This enabled the weaker 'people' to gang up on the bullies and either drive them out, or kill them. So we have two sources of bravery. Those who were driven out survived by learning new techniques, or applying known processes to new situatons. The other source is from those who remained in the group who learned that cooperation is the key the survival and would sacrifice themselves for the group. Since this sacrificial attitude generally came from the leaders, they had already passed on their genes before they died.

Answer 8

The strong and brave survive. By having brave people protecting the weak, the society as a whole has a much better chance of surviving. Cowards may survive by running away, but they will also not survive since they will lose their homes and their country because they are not brave. The only hesitation I have is that I can't figure out how there are any French left.

Answer 9

You are dealing with probabilities. In situations where man has been almost totally killed the ones who survived weren't brave, they were lucky. And brave is the term you give someone who knows he is going to die. A child who has terminal cancer is only being brave to ward off the fear that is so obvious. You have the term brave interpreted and used out of context. Brave is the word given someone after all other avenues have closed and thus facing reality and knowing what to do about it is the opposite of letting fear overtake you. I was once in a battle where I was lucky not to get hurt. Observers could have thought my actions were brave in that I did not run where all who did run were harmed badly. I wasn't brave. But I wasn't going to let fear get the better of me. The use of instincts can be called brave if they do something like what I did but I wouldn't call that brave. I was scared but I stood my ground.

Answer 10

Good question. Bravery isn't its own intity. It is on a chart with cowardice. Bravery at the top, cowardice at the bottom and everyone that ever lived somewhere in the middle. If you are too brave you will most likely die, just like you said. However if you are too cowardice, no one will mate with you, which is the same as dying. Evolution has kept the masses in the middle where it's safe, and only a few are cowards or too brave.