That is not Kropotkin's analysis; it is a very commonplace current "evolutionary biology" analysis.

I don't really want to get into the whole argument here -- it's one of those that we will go on forever with.

But the Kropotkin point of view would probably point out that humans as a species (and any species, in fact) have improved survivability and natural selection when we cooperate with those in our communities/populations without regard for family relations.

That may be true but we do not observe it in nature. Most mammals would prioritize their own offspring over others. "Without regard" is very rare to see

I think what "we observe in nature" is debatable. Kropotkin was taking part in that debate, although it was over 100 years ago.

But apparently in 1998, respected evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould found Kropotkin to be "no crackpot" too. (Article found from wikipedia reference).

https://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.ht...

There's plenty of cooperation between population members not directly related observed in nature, that's literally what Kropotkin's whole book is about.

Nature ecologies are so full of examples of mutual aid across all types of life that we are still discovering new relationships everyday. I'd like to see an updated collation of all these findings since kropotkin's writigs. Any suggestions?

I think the main thing missing from this simplistic analysis (which I would tie back to Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and the gene-centric view of evolution it proposed) is that organisms don't need to just replicate themselves, but also their environments. I mean look at lichen. A small colony of organisms from completely different domains of life and they would die without each other yet that algae would obviously prefer to replicate the fungi it partners with over some other species of algae. Bison need to keep grasslands healthy, worms need to keep the soil organisms alive, mycorrhizal fungi need to keep plants alive, plant roots have a large toolbelt of chemical dances it does JUST to cultivate the specific soil bacteria they like, our gut bacteria have it in their interest to keep us humans thriving and interacting socially, myrmecophyte trees attract and support ant life, capitalism needs to replicate artificial scarcity, parasitic plants like dodders actually provide a whole host of benefits to its hosts like acting as an above-ground communication network, beavers practice "niche construction", most "weeds" occupy a specific niche where they grow in disturbed soils only to "work themselves out of a job" by conditioning the soil to better health allowing for ecological succession to take place (e.g. dandelions decompacting soil), and your dog would very likely kill another dog (extremely genetically similar as they are) in order to save your life.

In the 1990s a cholera outbreak in South America created an interesting natural experiment. In some countries it was a deadly disease that spread through waterways. But in places with better hygiene, it couldn't spread through those typical pathways. So it eventually evolved into a much milder form in order to allow people to go out and socialize so it can continue to spread

This is why every single deadly pandemic has been zoonotic in origin. The black plague, covid, hiv, etc all came from other animals. It's a matter of maladaption. All the diseases that have been closely associated with humans for thousands of years have instead evolved to... not kill us. Some of them even became an essential part of our microbiome. Even herpes, a rather ancient human "parasite", actually plays some beneficial roles in our immune system. The microbial universe is a prime example of how organisms need not only replicate themselves but also the environments in which they thrive