In general, it is accepted that if I do a favour for you then you owe me a favour in return. For example, if I buy a drink for you then it is your turn to pay next time. This seems perfectly reasonable because I could end up paying all the time.
But this does not make sense. If I help you with your drink and you then you help me with mine then there are two helps. However, if I help you and you help someone else and then that one helps another, then there is the possibility of an infinite number of helps. My original help may result in many helps for me and others. On a purely selfish basis, it is good for me not to expect a specific help to be reciprocated. But it is also good for society because everyone who subscribes to this principle would be helping everyone else.
So, why are we indoctrinated to see reciprocation as normal? Primates groom each other to aid bonding. Helping each other is expected, even at this stage of development. However, reciprocation is not expected. The primate doing the grooming is not expecting to be groomed by their groomer1 . We need to look further up the evolutionary tree for the origins of reciprocation.
Reciprocation is a behaviour and will therefore not appear in the archaeological record. However, early homo sapiens sapiens would have been unlikely to survive without some form of reciprocation since these bonds would be needed to survive, especially once there was any level of specialisation. Trading is a form of reciprocation. "I will give you this arrow-head in return for that bit of antelope", would be one person reciprocating a favour with another. We can therefore assume that reciprocation started early.
The barter economy had its drawbacks. It required one person to reciprocate directly with another. This held back trade because it took time complete all the transactions in a way agreeable to both parties. Going back to the person who was a skilled arrow-head maker, they would need to barter for each arrow-head separately. I may want an arrow-head, but the maker does not like the type of meat I caught today. The maker would have to find a different hunter whose meat was tastier. This maker then runs the risk of not being able to make a trade because the tasty meat is not available.
Commodities could then become a medium of exchange. The arrow-head maker could exchange their products for the unappetising meat, knowing that this meat can be exchanged with those who are foraging for berries and nuts. The concept of personal reciprocation would have become broader. This would be start of one person not reciprocating with another directly, the start of one person helping another without expecting that help to be reciprocated directly. This becomes a form of money.
The concept of money (coins and notes) would have come much later. The rise of religions came well before that. Some religions used reciprocation to justify harming others. The concept of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth made taking revenge acceptable, or possibly even encouraged. How many have died as a result of religious wars? The current US president is using revenge as a way of justifying starting a war in the Middle East and kidnapping and killing leaders of countries who are not playing fair3. People are still dying because of reciprocation.
Let us suppose that people could be persuaded away from reciprocation. How would that affect us personally and what changes would that bring in society?
For a start, you would not owe me a drink just because I bought one for you. You would still be expected to buy a drink, but not necessarily for me (in fact, preferably not for me). You might buy one for those two over there instead. You would not feel embarrassed because you were bought a drink when you did not have the means to reciprocate. It is that occasion when you genuinely did leave your wallet at home or it is the wrong time of month. Social interactions would become simpler and there would be fewer opportunities for conflict. Suspicion about why someone was doing something for you and emotional blackmail would be easier to resist. People might consider reciprocation so old fashioned.
The helps do not need to be of the same kind. If I buy you a drink then you do not have to buy a drink for someone else. Maybe you could help someone with their shopping, or do some odd jobs around their house, etc. Being willing to help, without the need for immediate and personal reciprocation would lead to a kinder, more caring society. This is not just wishful thinking. It is what happens in small communities all over the world. The village mentality shows what could be. The difference would be that this way of thinking is carried into more populated areas.
Society would be changed too. We have normalised the police, fire brigades and hospital workers. Even teachers and social services would fall into this category. They are seen as "just" doing their job, rather than providing unreciprocated helps. They could now be seen as those leading the non-reciprocating society. Charities would also fall into this category. They do not demand payment and make no distinction between those they help. Yes, they all require payment, but that is from society rather than those they help directly. There will be others who I have missed who exemplify the the principle of non-reciprocation.
Is it likely that reciprocation will be erased? Probably not, because there are those who are selfish and would take advantage of the kindness of others. But I wish it would curl up and wither.
1 Hartshorne, S. (2006). An Evolutionary Perspective of Grooming as an Occupation. Journal of Occupational Science, 13(2–3), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2006.9726505
2 Wray, L. Randall (1993) The Origins of Money and the Development of the Modern Financial System. Working Paper No. 86. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.
3 Weller, Mark (2026) With Iran attacks, President Trump is making the use of force the new normal – and casting aside international law. Chatham House (https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/03/iran-attacks-president-trump-making-use-force-new-normal-and-casting-aside-international retrieved 11th Oct 2026)