"The Selfish Gene"

[gembird]

One of my uni modules this term is Animal Behaviour, and the book in the thread title (by Richard Dawkins) is one of the books the lecturer has suggested as reading material. Basically, the selfish gene relates to altruism and how it occurs in all sorts of species. It's suggested (not just by Richard Dawkins, I might add) that altruistic behaviour, ie helping others, is a way of ensuring the survival of not only yourself, as you then expect a favour in return, but the species as a whole.

So, my question to you is: Do you think this happens in humans? Or, as conscious beings, is it something else that makes us do good things for one another?

Personally, I feel that it is the same principle; if we help someone else when they are in trouble, they might do the same for us if we ourselves were in danger. If we all have that same instinct to preserve both our own bodies and other people, there are more of us left to carry on the species for another generation- a kind of survival instinct. But now it's over to you lot- I hope we can get something interesting out of this, I'm not used to starting debates!

[Splush]

It makes sense to me, I think most commonly accepted morals can be linked to evolutionary advantages. Our species has presumably lived in groups/tribes throughout its entire evolution and tribes would have died out if they were murdering each other, committing incest and such, so it makes sense that the genes that make us cooperative creatures would have survived. Presumably if we hadn't been social animals it would have been quite the opposite.

I saw an interview with Dawkins a while back which touched on this subject and he said that even he couldn't quite explain the evolutionary roots of all moral/altruistic behaviours, and suggested that it's a whole new branch of evolutionary science waiting to be studied.

I haven't read that book myself but I read The Blind Watchmaker and it's fantastic the way he describes evolution, he makes it so elegantly simple but somehow staggeringly amazing at the same time. As much as I've enjoyed his recent work about atheism it frequently makes him come across as an arsehole which is a shame because he's quite a charmer when he's concentrating on science.

[lilparp]

I think it does happen in humans, but not necessarily always in the hope that something will be received in turn. For instance extremely rich philanthropists probably want to give money to those less fortunate than them for reasons of maybe feeling better about themselves, or maybe, as many people, for moral/religious reasons.

I think this is a really interesting topic, looking forward to seeing how it develops :)

[feeshy]

There's a lot of debate about evolution of social/colony behavoir (mainly in insects but it sort of applies across the board) at the moment, New Scientist has had a few articles about it lately.

A thought I've had is that we're not a fast reproducing species (in the sense that there's usually only one baby, and it takes a long time before the baby is independant), and so it's essential to help each other in some way for the species as a whole. Sort of like elephants. While in, for example, mice, the death of a few percent of the population isn't a big deal, as breeding is so rapid, in humans is could have a much greater effect. I know that isn't applicable now, in our modern society, but perhaps the way we live has also contributed. There's no need to be continually reproducing, so intead of contributing more people to the species we look after each other to a degree.

[Dick Champion]

Apologies in advance, as this is likely to be a rather long post. I tend to go on a bit when it comes to topics like this. See this thread for a pertinent example.

Basically, the selfish gene relates to altruism and how it occurs in all sorts of species. It's suggested (not just by Richard Dawkins, I might add) that altruistic behaviour, ie helping others, is a way of ensuring the survival of not only yourself, as you then expect a favour in return, but the species as a whole.

That's not exactly the argument of the Selfish Gene. As I understand it, Dawkins is promoting the gene-centred theory of evolution. Broadly, this holds that the unit of evolution is the gene - as opposed to the individual, group or species - and that those genes whose phenotypic* effects favour their own successful propogation will be selected over competitors that do not. The majority of the time, this process results in genes that benefit the organism. Genes that improves an organisms likelihood of survival and - more importantly - reproduction, will improve their chances of being passed on.

However, one consequence of this process of 'gene selection' is that adaptations are bound to occur that benefit the genes themselves and not necessarily their host organisms. There are many examples, one of which is individual altruism.

There are many physical copies of any one gene in the world and, from the point of view of a gene, it does not matter which particular copy is replicated. One way in which a gene could be favoured by selection is to promote altruism towards other organisms that contain the same gene. Here's a quick example:


An organism, lets call him Clive, contains a gene that promotes altruistic behaviour.
Another organism - Cecil - also contains a copy of the same gene.
Clive confers a benefit (B) to Cecil at a cost (C) to himself.
The transaction is beneficial to the gene as long as the benefit to Cecil outweighs the cost to Clive. (B > C)
In practice, it is impossible for Clive to know whether or not Cecil carries that gene.
Thus, to be successful, the gene must take into account the probability (p) that Cecil does indeed carry a copy of itself.
Therefore, the transaction is beneficial if pB > C.
It follows that any action substantial costs require a higher value of p.


Kinship ensures high values of p. Between siblings, p = 1/2. Between cousins, p = 1/8. Thus, we would expect a higher degree of altruism between brothers than between cousins.

Another way of ensuring a high value of p is recognition. Dawkins used the analogy of green-beard altruism to illustrate this point: a gene that codes for both green beards and a propensity to treat other people with green beards favourably can propogate itself even if the individuals involved are not related.

There's a lot more going on in the Selfish Gene but those are, to my mind, the salient points.

So, to your question:

Do you think this happens in humans? Or, as conscious beings, is it something else that makes us do good things for one another?

Humans are a special case. We are capable of conscious forethought and have a better understanding of our long-term self-determined interests, to the extent that we can act against our own biological imperative. For example, most of us use contraception of some kind.

In this sense, altruism is no different. Far from being slaves to the selfish gene, we are agents of our own destiny. What possible benefit can our genes derive from, for instance, devoting our time and energy (and money) to helping endangered animals? As human beings, it is possible - though by no means certain - that we are capable of genuine altruism.

I don't think evolutionary biology is the right field of study for this discussion. I would suggest, perhaps, psychology or philosophy.

Anywho, I've gone on quite long enough.

-------------------------------------------
*Phenotype is any organisms observable characteristics, be that behaviour, embryological development, physiology, morphology or a host of other properties.

[katt]

I remember hearing about this in a few classes. I believe the scenario of a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades was used as one example.

I believe it exists in a sense but I also do not doubt that most people are out for themselves above all :P Interestingly choices like that of the soldier are done without much in-depth rational thinking; more of a reflex

There would not be a benefit to the species if an extremely strong, dominant organism sacrificed itself to save a ton of genetically weak organisms (well this is easier to think of in terms of the lives of lower animals in which survival of the fittest matters more that it does to humans who have built societies where there are ways to take care of people who are not as physically as fit as others but might have great powers of thought)

[captain canuck]

One of my uni modules this term is Animal Behaviour, and the book in the thread title (by Richard Dawkins) is one of the books the lecturer has suggested as reading material. Basically, the selfish gene relates to altruism and how it occurs in all sorts of species. It's suggested (not just by Richard Dawkins, I might add) that altruistic behaviour, ie helping others, is a way of ensuring the survival of not only yourself, as you then expect a favour in return, but the species as a whole. Animals do not naturally act in the interest of the survival of the whole species, though. Doing so might work against Natural Selection, which weeds out the unfit when the unfit engage in certain hazardous behaviours -- not that I'm suggesting animals have any concept of or psychological affinity toward "survival of the fittest". They just do what comes naturally; and Natural Selection is just part of the process.

Reciprocal altruism, which could also be seen as part of the process, when it occurs in the animal world, happens most predominantly among related individuals (i.e. "kin selection") - because suvival of a genetically related line is the next best thing to an individual's survival (especially in terms of Natural Selection). As if it were evidence (though to be sure, it might not be...), when a nest of animals is too diverse for kin relationships to be garuanteed, the incidence of altruistic behaviour declines.

So if people act in a fundamentally biological manner, according to some kind of a "gene", they would only do such things for their immediate offspring. But human society as a whole sees examples fairly frequently of people performing acts where their safety or even survival are questionable, to save people to whom there's virtually no chance of their being related. Simple genetics is not enough to explain this behaviour.

Instead, I think, one might appeal to Ethics as a whole, though the particular theory which would explain this behaviour in general might be elusive. Cultural Relativism, at least, might suggest why some populations are more likely to engage on (non-kinship) altruistic behaviours, and I do get a sense that certain groups are more likely to sacrifice themselves for the good of their society than others. At the individual level, though, it's a bit harder to predict.

I think what I'm saying is that neither biology nor general philosophy are enough on their own to explain truly unwarranted altrustic acts (nor, by the same token, totally selfish ones, though certainly philosophy comes close via either Ethical or Psychological Egoism). I have a feeling the answer lies somewhere in the field of Sociology, in conjunction with genetics and philosophy, though. Unfortunately I'm even further from understanding socieological theory (exlcuding Marxism) than I am any of the ones I've actually bothered to study :p

[katt]

So if people act in a fundamentally biological manner, according to some kind of a "gene", they would only do such things for their immediate offspring. But human society as a whole sees examples fairly frequently of people performing acts where their safety or even survival are questionable, to save people to whom there's virtually no chance of their being related. Simple genetics is not enough to explain this behaviour.



I think that you are right that genetics is not enough to explain it.

In the case of the solider throwing himself on the grenade there might be some military training to blame. or a high regard for his comrades coupled with a weariness of war. I do think people are capable of such acts for truly noble reasons beyond some instincts hidden in their genes.


I tend to feel that people are, on the whole, very divisive in practice although having a high regard for humanity in theory.

and i think that each individual looking out for themselves and their kin is more effective for the survival of a population than an individual worrying about the fates of countless others whom he has less control over.