Group selection as Dawkins dismisses it is different to group selection as I use the term. Terms like 'for the good of the species' are involved in his concept of group selection, but not in mine. I will use terms like 'not to the detriment of the group' where the group is of fundamental importance to the perpetuation of the genes in the individuals in the group.

Dawkins describes the gene as being the persistent entity which survives through successive generations of selection of individuals. Individuals are 'survival machines' for genes. I say... then where individual survival machines thrive better in a group, doesn't the group form an 'outer shell' for the genes? The well being of this 'outer shell' is important to the genes in the individuals in the group.

Behaviours of individuals in the group where those behaviours benefit the individual but cause the eventual failure of the group are not of ultimate benefit to the genes concerned. Where a group becomes extinct because of some genetic effect that gives advantage to the individual but dooms the group, the group has been selected against.

There is a rule here... I don't know how to phrase it.

"Genes in individuals in 'mutually beneficial'* groups will only survive where behaviours of individuals which benefit the individual are not of detriment to the group."

Does that sound right?

Ha! - odd implication - The stronger the group is, the stronger the individual within it can be without compromising the group on which they depend. This suggests that individuals working for 'the good of the group' are actually raising the threshold to which they can advantage themselves. Perhaps another angle for examining altruism?

*'mutually beneficial'... not the right term. What is the right term?