If altruism can result in the destruction of the individual with altruistic genes, why does this behavior not disappear? Provide a specific example

What will be an ideal response?

ANSWER:
From an evolutionary psychological perspective, altruism is beneficial because sacrificing your life to save a close blood relative might actually increase the likelihood that your alleles would be passed along to subsequent generations. In other cases where altruism is not directed toward a blood relative, reciprocal altruism may be beneficial. With reciprocal altruism it is customary to help another individual when you can reasonably expect the other individual to return the favor at some future date. Reciprocal altruism is likely to flourish in situations where individuals are in regular contact with one another.

Altruism can extend to entire social organizations, regardless of the degree of relatedness. Among the Emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri), survival of the chicks in the hostile Antarctic cold depends not only on an individual parent but on the larger huddle formed by other parents. Human survival similarly depends on collective abilities, rather than individual success. Because of our long period of dependency in childhood, along with our rather puny fighting equipment in the form of teeth or claws, we humans are especially in need of our social structures for survival. To the extent that genes build structures consistent with social tendencies, they are more likely to survive into future generations. Darwin noted that tribes that worked together to aid one another and to sacrifice for the common good would be victorious over other tribes - exemplifying natural selection.