It's possible that I misunderstood your point as well. But my basic position is that co-operation, at least as far as individuals are concerned, is more important in smaller groups that are more widely dispersed, whereas with larger groups in closer proximity an individual might be more successful by being less altruistic, for instance through the Free Rider problem.
Basically, I think that in smaller groups the individual is best served through co-operating with other members, and by being mindful of their needs, and close proximity in general would increase interaction and foster stronger bonds. And with less such groups in a general area (spread thin), competition for resources is less intense and there is less need for conflict. When a population outgrows local resources, conflict is likely to ensue, and world history has seen several very violent migrations due to the original area of a people getting over-populated. Aggressive or treacherous conduct may serve well when there is extensive competition, and competition increases with population.
In a modern western society (large numbers of people and groups in an area), basic survival is pretty much guaranteed by the state through social security, law enforcement and so on, so there is no need for real co-operation anymore to secure survival. And if one wants to be really successful, altruism is IMO not the way to go, rather one would need to be ready to use their elbows and judiciously trample over people in their path as they climb their way up the ladder. I imagine the best traits to assist in this can be morally questionable.
Okay. So viewing this through a carrot-and-stick approach, your view is that people will be drawn to self-moderate their behaviour and co-operate voluntarily through the realization that working together with others is likely to bring more potential benefits than not, and that there is little to no need for the big stick of government to enforce such co-operation. I hope I understood your position correctly.
Fair enough, I guess. Though I personally imagine such an arrangement has a big chance of resulting in a rather predatory society wracked with instability, as the haves will monopolise power and influence, and the have-nots will viciously compete, to improve their lot or to simply survive. This is assuming we're talking about a society of millions of people, many with no means to support themselves.
