<p>The question can be viewed through the lens of Game</a> Theory:</p>
<p>
[quote]
..."Game theory provides a model for social organizations and cooperation between individuals. It assumes that people are rational actors. Game theory uses a theoretical construct that sets aside affection or altruism or a sense of solidarity as factors in cooperation. In the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma of game theory, people will rationally cheat each other and engage in opportunism unless something prevents them from doing so. In game theory, cheating and cooperation are rational choices. If I cheat you today, I won’t be able to cooperate with you tomorrow. The theory is intuitively correct for bilateral relationships, but obviously doesn’t explain why a thousand people might choose to cooperate. If it did, then we’d have lots of cooperation and very little government, because people would always fear that someone would see them acting badly (cheating) and tell others, so no one would rationally choose to cheat...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And through the lens of [url=<a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_4_166/ai_n6151880%5DEvolution%5B/url">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_4_166/ai_n6151880]Evolution[/url</a>] as well:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection seems to describe a brutal world in which creatures compete ruthlessly to promote their own survival. Yet biologists observe that animals and even lower organisms often behave altruistically. A vervet monkey who spots a leopard, for instance, warns his fellow monkeys, even though the call may attract the leopard's attention to the individual. A vampire bat that has hunted successfully shares nourishing blood with a fellow bat that failed to find prey.</p>
<p>Such behavior is obviously beneficial for the species as a whole. However, natural selection postulates that successful organisms act to propagate their own genes. If selfish animals can take advantage of more-generous peers, how has any generous behavior survived the mill of natural selection? Darwin himself pondered this puzzle. Focusing on human evolution, he wrote in 1871 that "he who was ready to sacrifice his life, ... rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature."</p>
<p>Somehow, the altruistic behaviors observed in the wild must benefit the giver as well as the receiver. However, pinpointing how this works in animal populations is a huge challenge. In most cases, it's impossible to measure precisely how an animal's cooperative behavior affects its chances for survival and reproduction.</p>
<p>Now, theoretical research is starting to fill in the picture of how cooperation may survive natural selection. Some of the most illuminating ideas are coming from game theory, the field of mathematics that studies strategic behavior in competitive situations...
[/quote]
</p>