Radiolab – “The Good Show” (December 14, 2010)
Podcast by WNYC Studios
Hosts: Jad Abumrad & Robert Krulwich

Episode Overview

In “The Good Show,” Radiolab tackles the paradox of altruism and goodness: Why, in a world seemingly shaped by the “survival of the fittest,” does selfless, generous, or heroic behavior—sometimes at great cost to the doer—arise and persist? Is niceness a quirk, a strategic choice, or is it embedded in the fabric of evolution and society? Through the lens of evolutionary biology, mathematics, real-world heroism, and the study of cooperation, the program investigates if and how goodness “pays”—and how true selflessness might manifest.

Segment 1: The Problem of Goodness in Nature

(Start ~05:00)

Key Discussion Points

• Introduction via Richard Dawkins: The episode opens with Richard Dawkins’ sobering reflection on the cruelty of natural selection—suffering, predation, and the “savage beauty” that results from countless deaths shaping evolution.
  • “...the total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.” (Dawkins quoted, ~05:56)
• Pose the Central Question: If natural selection is so brutal, where does kindness or altruism fit in? Do acts of goodness sculpt species and societies too?
  • “Wasn’t there a nice cheetah once that went over to the antelope and said, hi, have a sandwich together...maybe something about the cheetah had something to do with an act of kindness?” (Robert Krulwich, ~07:01)
• Transition: The hosts set out to investigate whether “niceness” is merely an anomaly, or a powerful force shaping life.

Segment 2: George Price and the Mathematics of Altruism

(~10:00 – 26:00)

Key Discussion Points

• The Story of George Price:
  • Introduction to Price: An enigmatic, restless genius, Price was involved in fields ranging from chemistry (worked on the Manhattan Project) to medical research and artificial intelligence.
  • His Obsession: Central question—why do families, or acts of help among kin or even strangers, occur in a world governed by “survival of the fittest”?
• The Amoeba Example:
  • Hosts describe the slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum, where 20% sacrifice themselves so others can spread (15:43). This biological altruism is an evolutionary puzzle.
• Darwin’s Dilemma: Darwin recognized that “altruism” in nature—acts apparently against an individual's self-interest—was a major challenge to his theory.
  • “...the greatest mystery and the greatest riddle. And if I can't answer it, then my theory isn't worth anything.” (Hosts, ~17:30)

Hamilton’s Rule & Kin Selection

• Mathematical Solution:
  • Genetics explains why altruism might flourish among relatives—probabilities of gene sharing mean helping kin can indirectly propagate one’s own genes.
  • Scenario: Risking life for siblings or cousins is “mathematically” justified by the percentage of genes in common. (Discussion with Carl Zimmer, 19:40-21:30)
    • “The math has already been done by evolution on Genesis. And those are the genes you got.” (Carl Zimmer, 21:27)

Price Equation

• Price’s Mathematical Breakthrough:
  • George Price formalized these evolutionary math relationships—his “Price equation” proved how natural selection might favor seemingly altruistic acts if they boost the success of shared genes.
  • “W times delta Z equals the covariance of wi zi plus e. We call it E wi, delta zi.” (Discussion, 23:55)
  • Tragic Twist: Price’s own realization that “there can never be true selflessness” haunted him. He tried to disprove his own math through radical acts of charity and self-sacrifice, ultimately bankrupting himself and living among London’s homeless. He died by suicide, a deeply troubled man desperate to “prove” true altruism could exist.

Notable Quotes

• “My math means that there cannot ever be true selflessness and I can't accept a world like that.” (Oren Harmon, 25:57)
• “[Price] was going to fight the self-preservation instinct and he was going to win, to sort of beat the mathematics that he himself had written.” (Robert Krulwich, 26:40)

Segment 3: Civilian Heroism—Real-World Goodness

Carnegie Hero Fund Stories (~27:00 – 46:00)

Key Discussion Points

• Host Interviews Walter Rutkowski (Carnegie Hero Fund): The Carnegie Medal celebrates civilians who voluntarily risk their lives to save others. What makes a hero act?

Three Vivid Stories of Everyday Heroes

Laura Schrake:

• As a 21-year-old, saw a woman being mauled by a bull. Without pause, climbed through an electric fence to save her (~31:30).
  • “No, I can't really say that. I did not [weigh my options]. No. It was just, here's the problem. Here's what I need to do. And something needed to happen.” (Laura Shrake, 34:20)

William David Pennell:

• Rushed out barefoot to save three teenagers from a burning car, re-entering the flames multiple times.
  • “Just try to help. I did what any normal person would do...” (William Pennell, 39:28)

Wesley James Autry:

• Leapt onto NYC subway tracks to save a stranger having a seizure, pinning him between the rails as a train passed over them—despite his daughters watching from the platform.
  • “For some strange reason, a voice out of nowhere said, don't worry about your own. Don't worry about your daughters. You can do this.” (Wesley Autry, 44:10)
  • “I felt like I was the chosen one.” (Wesley Autry, 47:50)

Exploration: Can Heroes Explain Themselves?

• Most can’t articulate a conscious decision; “compelled to act” is a common theme.
• Autry, however, attributes his action to fate—citing a prior brush with death as a sign he was “spared for a purpose.”
  • “Don't say you wouldn't do this or you wouldn't do that until you're put in that situation.” (William Pennell, 51:55)

Segment 4: The Strategy of Niceness—Tit for Tat and the Evolution of Cooperation

(~47:00 – 1:11:30)

Key Discussion Points

• Robert Axelrod’s Prisoner’s Dilemma Tournament:

  • Setup: Computer scientists submit strategies for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma—a simulation of cooperation or defection among players.
  • Winning Program: “Tit for Tat”—be nice first, then do what your opponent did last time (cooperate if they cooperated, defect if they defected). Simple, robust, and effective.
    • “Two lines of code? ...First line of code: be nice. Second line: just does what the other player did on the previous move.” (Discussion, ~1:02:00)
    • “It elicits cooperation if the opponent has any inclination to cooperate, but it doesn’t take any guff, and it wins.” (Host, 1:04:30)

• Application to Human History:

  • WWI “Live and Let Live” Systems: Real-life “tit for tat” played out along the Western Front where informal ceasefires (like the famous Christmas Truce of 1914) spread when both sides reciprocated small acts of mercy. Retaliation cycles could start if the peace was broken.
    • “Implicit in line two [of tit for tat] is a threat. If you mess with me, I'm gonna mess with you.” (Host/narration, 1:09:28)
  • “One of the weaknesses of the tit for tat strategy...is these echoes. Not just echoes of good, obviously, but echoes of violence could get bad.” (Axelrod, 1:14:20)
  • Moral Recipe: Modify “tit for tat” with a touch of “forgiveness” (sometimes not retaliating) to break cycles of retribution—a mathematical rationale for mercy, or “nine parts Moses, one part Jesus” (hosts, 1:16:13).

Notable Moments / Quotes

• “It’s a strategy that just seems to be woven into the fabric of the cosmos. It works for computers, it works for people, it probably works for amoeba. Okay? It just works.” (Hosts, 1:16:59)
• “I think a person has to choose to be kind.” (Robert Krulwich, 1:19:49)

Episode Closing Thoughts

• There may not be a single, satisfying answer as to why people are good or heroic.
• Mathematics and evolutionary logic provide compelling, if sometimes cold, frameworks—but real acts of goodness are messy, ambiguous, and unique.
• True selflessness—if it exists—remains a deep, perhaps unanswerable, part of the human condition, but cooperation and kindness are not anomalies: they are often practical, enduring strategies for survival—and for civilization itself.

Key Timestamps

• 05:00 — Dawkins’ grim depiction of nature’s cruelty
• 10:00 — Introduction to George Price & evolutionary altruism
• 19:00 — Amoeba example; the kin selection problem
• 23:50 — Price equation explained
• 27:00 — Carnegie Hero Fund stories: real-world heroism
• 34:20 — Laura Shrake’s bull rescue experience
• 39:28 — William Pennell’s car fire rescue
• 44:10 — Wesley Autry’s subway rescue and personal philosophy
• 47:45 — Robert Axelrod explains the Prisoner’s Dilemma
• 1:02:00 — “Tit for Tat” strategy and tournament result
• 1:12:00 — WWI “Live and Let Live” system and the Christmas truce
• 1:14:20 — Pitfalls of endless retaliation in “tit for tat”
• 1:16:10 — Recipe for effective morality: “nine parts Moses, one part Jesus”

Memorable Quotes & Attribution

• “It’s got a kind of savage beauty.” — Dawkins (quoted by Jad, ~06:15)
• “My math means that there cannot ever be true selflessness and I can't accept a world like that.” — George Price (via Oren Harmon, ~25:57)
• “Just try to help. ...I did what any normal person would do.” — William Pennell, 39:28
• “For some strange reason, a voice out of nowhere said, don't worry about your own. Don't worry about your daughters. You can do this.” — Wesley Autry, 44:10
• “Be upright, forgiving, but retaliatory. ...It’s not something that’s handed down by our teachers or by God, but that it’s something that came from biology.” — Steve Strogatz, 1:11:00
• “I don't think a hero question—why were you a hero?—I don't think that any three of these heroes...had the answer.” — Jad Abumrad, 49:20

Tone & Style Observations

• The episode mixes science, philosophy, math, and touching human stories, often with wit and warmth. Hosts occasionally tease each other—lightening the dense material—and personal testimonies are presented with empathy and reverence.

Summary Takeaway

“The Good Show” thoughtfully explores why acts of kindness and selflessness persist in a cutthroat world, revealing that niceness is not an evolutionary accident or only a “feel good” ideal, but often a deeply embedded and effective strategy for individuals and societies. Yet, the search for pure selflessness, both mathematically and experientially, remains a riddle—a space where science, history, and the human heart collide.