The line between give and take
             I think there are a few reasons for the conflict between selflessness and self-interest. The best real world illustration of this conflict is seen in the formation of a firm. The entrepreneur has the idea that in most cases requires help in its execution. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, but without the cooperation of many people nobody except a few hundred would have one. In cooperating the entrepreneur must be willing to compensate the people who are involved in production. This includes laborers, supervisors, and executives who all must share in the revenues in exchange for their service. The trade-off between selflessness and altruism can be seen in any firm with the simple observation that the entrepreneur can trade some of his profits for increased productivity and conversely squeeze his employees for more profits. There is obviously an equilibrium of sorts such that the entrepreneur with take profits past a point of diminishing marginal returns on productivity provided that that point is profitable, competitively stable, and acceptable to the employees. If there is an optimum compensation point it is then easy to see how a "balance" can be struck between selfishness and altruism. In Lord of the Flies the absence of opposition to Jack allows for selfishness to dominate. Jack's cooperative acts were structured to better his position. In doing this he had to provide for the people he commanded. This is another example of an "equilibrium point." The difference between this scenario and the corporate example above is the absence of competition. Axelrod's most applicable views to this scenario are seen in his game theory approach. In cooperation altruism and selfishness are aligned such that both are met at acceptable levels.
             Continuing with the "equilibrium" idea, Lord of the Flies demonstrates this...