Or, if the dogs are intelligent, they could split those 19 bones to 20 pieces...
Let's assume you are talking about sharing, as that's what the original point was about. Specifically the sharing of 19 bones among 20 dogs, by dividing up the bones.
Assumign by 'naive' you mean wrong, are you saying that it is simply a more optimal situation for one dog to go hungry?
Does the one dog always go hungry, or does one dog (but a different one each time) go hungry?
Do we just let the one dog go hungry each time intentionally, so that in future no dog goes hungry? What if then one day there are only 18 bones for 19 dogs? Do we let that dog die too?
What if a group of 18 dogs is required to take down an animal that provides enough bones, but we let the two other dogs die because sharing is naive?
Well, that pretty fundamentally calls into question rather a lot of all the principles civilisation is founded upon and which permeate nature, even (nature!).
So you better provide some amazing scientifically backed proof of that statement. No, Atlas Shrugged is not scientific proof.
You still haven't made a point.
Is the intelligent action the action that is most likely to benefit the group?
Is a group of 20 fed dogs stronger than a group of 20 dogs where one goes hungry and becomes a weak or unstable element?
Seems like you're just trying to somehow rally against equality and/or sharing, by associating them with naivité, like you have some knowledge others do not, because you don't like those words, rather than trying to actually discuss the concepts they represent, specifically in this context, properly.
The dog can die. It isn't my problem.
Once there are only 19 dogs left, the number of bones will simply be reduced to (slightly more than) 18, because the prevailing ideology is that there must be 5% unemployment. (This is greatly simplified, of course, but that's the gist of it.)
Eventually you'll stop being lucky. And in any case, it's not always the same dog who gets unlucky. So yes, it is your problem, or at least it will be.
You don't 'give away' resources, they are transformed into other resources. Would you give up the ability to own seven cars for the knowledge that you'll never live under a bridge, no matter what? Many people would.
We are a social species that attained our dominant position on the planet through co-operation.
Then you'll get used to share your 5% , after some time he'll want to have 6.75% and you'll think- well , compared to 5% additional 1.75% is nothing for my safety! After some time other dogs will start to look with keen eyes on lazy dog lifestyle.
Considering the number of times this has happened in human history, any ideas of kingly invincibility you may have are unlikely to be realistic.
All complex life on earth exists because of cooperation. Competition drives some feature drift, but the biggest step changes happened because of the increase in complexity made possible by cooperation.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It's the nature of any gamble, and life certainly is one.
What am I saying people should do?
Conflict is adverted, and every dog continues to work together, as they all feel like participants in a mutually beneficial relationship between themselves as individuals, and the group as a whole.