https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-good-for-th...
Though the pendulum swings. The case isn't clear-cut, and the argument for group-level selection (or even symbiotic or more general multi-species co-evolution) is strong.
I think a definition of "group selection" which includes either multicellular organisms or social insects would be extremely unusual, and basically misses the whole debate. Nobody is confused about why oak leaves sacrifice themselves every autumn.
There must be some interesting game theory to keep everyone aligned for that long.
"Desire to have children" is a good example of something that does not obviously select for any particular genes. Many people who don't have children (or have only one) simply don't feel they can afford it, or (e.g. in China until recently) live somewhere where having extra children is a liability; while money is indeed heritable, selection against the poor or legally disadvantaged is not natural selection. Similarly, selecting for people who believe in a particular religion that encourages reproduction, etc. These things are not correlated with genetic markers to begin with so this "selective" process will just lead to more drift, or (if the population shrinks sufficiently) result in bottleneck events that lead to even more genetic homogeneity without selecting for any useful traits.
I'm not saying sexual selection isn't a thing, incidentally--but I am saying that there's very little evidence that sexual selection is the primary driver of whether humans reproduce.
This is qualitatively different from "real" natural selection, which requires a combination of any or all of: significant external stressors, significant untapped resources, a lot of generations, and a high population or mutation rate. We can see that humans are not under especially significant selective pressure when we consider that despite huge death tolls and a very strong negative effect on ability to reproduce, it will take a very long time (IIRC, on the order of 1000 years) before a large majority of people in any area of the world are naturally resistant to HIV.
Which can certainly imply doing things bad for the individual but good for their kin group. Although I don't know about this Inuit story.
[0]: "American Anthropology, 1888-1920: Papers from the American Anthropologist" ISBN 0803280084 page 479
> The guest may stay and enjoy the wife's society as long as he lists, whilst the husband has no shame in the matter, but indeed considers it an honour. And all the men of this province are made wittols of by their wives in this way.
Source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Travels_of_Marco_Polo/Boo...
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)...
A Historical-Genetic Reconstruction of Human Extra-Pair Paternity
Specifically, we observe that estimated EPP rates among married couples varied by more than an order of magnitude, from 0.4% to 5.9%, and peaked among families with a low socioeconomic background living in densely populated cities of the late 19th century. Our results support theoretical predictions that social context can strongly affect the outcomes of sexual conflict in human populations by modulating the incentives and opportunities for engaging in extra-pair relationships.
It reminds me of one joke about ancient Norsemen not caring about blatant signs of infidelity like the children having different skin and hair color so long as their sons were strong.