I don’t see Darwin explicity stating that humans (as social primates) evolved a “do it for the group” instinct. Rather he postulates an “instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts” To me that implies reduce aggression, increased sociality, increased social intelligence, etc. which is what we would expect individuals to benefit from in a social setting because of the multi-part game that a social milieu is, essentially. His is not (in this quote) an explicitly non-group selectionist argument, but it is not an explicit group selection argument either.

It is impossible, though, to really assess Darwin’s group-selectionist orientation or lack thereof because in his day the concept was not clearly articulated.

We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

(which is also a very subtle paleolithic pun)

It’s called “lynksys” or something.

That’s the router equivalent of “I’m soooooo drunk!”

If things go too far wrong and you end up dead your reputation and the admiration outlives you. Throw yourself on a grenade and your a candidate for The Metal of Honor. Heroic action is a way of gaining status and avoiding anonymity.

Another side to this is that some people fear, and or loath, the idea of growing old. A friend watched his father die slowly of Alzheimer’s. He found out he is genetically predisposed to the disease, and colon cancer. His desire to live to a ‘ripe-old-age’ is tarnished and his tolerance for risk increased. He has given up his car for a motorcycle. Taken up skydiving. Learned to scuba dive. Got divorced. Took up dating wild women. At work he volunteers for all the most hazardous jobs.

Irony is he is, by all accounts, having a ball.

Much of our present economic system seems to be intent on inducing feelings of inadequacy in consumers. Inadequacy that the system tells you can be corrected by buying the right car, or living in a bigger house, or wearing the right clothing. The disappointment felt after you get the stuff and find out your still the ugly duckling serves to reinforce the feeling of weakness.

It also shifts value away from what you are to what you do and, more specifically, how much money you make. Status, money and power are the brass ring. People are often willing to lean out very far, and risk extinction, to grab it.

To me this makes far more sense than the classic model of trading ones life to protect some greater percentage of your genetic identity.