In this blog post, we’ll explore from a scientific and philosophical perspective whether genes determine human behavior, or whether we can reject them with our free will.
Many science and engineering students have read or heard of the world-famous book The Selfish Gene by Clinton Richard Dawkins. In this book, the author explains evolution from the perspective of genes rather than individuals. Dawkins argues that humans, animals, and plants are nothing more than survival machines created by genes, and that genes only use humans as a passive refuge for their own survival. In other words, even humans who think they are the protagonists of their lives are only there to protect their genes. Instead of protecting genes with their own will, the authors argue that genes use humans as tools to reproduce and survive. They also argue that genes are immortal beings and the basic unit of egoism, as molecules with the ability to self-replicate long ago evolved and continue to exist as survival machines to this day. Humans, who control many animals, plants, water, and the environment, and who consider themselves the most advanced species, resist this position, but from a scientific and theoretical point of view, it makes a lot of sense. So are we really nothing more than genetically obedient survival machines that obey the commands of our genes? I would say not. Here’s why.
First, genetic manipulation has made it possible for humans to change some of their genes at will. If humans were simply survival machines that obeyed the commands of their genes, changing their genes wouldn’t happen. Of course, it could be argued that genes have ordered humans to change some of their genes in order to increase their chances of survival. However, genes can change parts of themselves in many ways, including mutations and crossovers between chromosomes. Bacteria, for example, recombine their genes by taking in genetic material from their environment. Furthermore, genetic manipulation techniques have only been developed for a few decades, which is hardly enough time for genes to evolve to obey orders. Humans can therefore be seen as creatures with a will of their own, rather than simply obeying orders. Of course, one could argue that this makes us more dependent on our genes. However, this is a question of cause and effect that is as unclear as the relationship between an egg and a chicken.
Second, in the case of transgenderism and homosexuality, humans follow their desires in violation of the desire to preserve their genes, i.e., to pass them on through their offspring. In the case of transgender people, they lose their sexual and reproductive functions, which is very unfavorable for their genes, but they choose to do so; and in the case of homosexuality, they are unable to produce offspring, which can be seen as a consequence of their desire to love someone of the same sex. Of course, a transgender person is someone who thinks that their physical and mental sexes are opposite, and it’s possible that their genes have caused them to think mentally the opposite of their physical sex. If that were the case, the transgender gene would have been passed down from their parents, and they would have had a transgender parent. If you can trace this family history back, the transgender gene would have been present in your ancestors all along. However, it is unlikely that such a family will continue to exist.
Third, there are many generations in South Korea today who choose not to have relationships, marry, or have children. They make these choices for social and economic reasons, and with the development of birth control pills and contraceptive devices, there is a deliberate effort to prevent pregnancy and childbirth. Pregnancy and procreation is an act of genetic preservation, whereas contraception goes against the desire to preserve genes. In Clinton Richard Dawkins’ view, the situation in South Korea is inexplicable and contraception should not exist. Procreation, despite economic hardship, increases the probability of genetic preservation. We don’t know what happens after the child is born, but it increases the overall probability and frequency of genetic preservation. Therefore, there cannot be a generation of people who give up dating, marriage, and childbirth. One might argue that prioritizing one’s own pleasure is not selfish genetic selection. However, it could be argued that genetic preservation comes first, according to Clinton Richard Dawkins. Thus, we can see that there are cases where humans do not obey the commands of their genes, acting against their desire to preserve them.
Finally, altruistic behavior often occurs in kinship groups, because the more closely related you are to someone, the more likely they are to have the same genes as you, so helping them increases your chances of preserving your own genes. Scientifically speaking, this is a very valid argument. However, we often see altruistic behavior around us that happens even when we’re not related. For example, many adoptive families raise and care for their children as if they were their own, even though they are not genetically related. Altruistic behavior in non-blood-related situations is well documented in humanistic documentaries. However, these behaviors are not simply driven by genetic imperatives. Furthermore, if reproduction is only about preserving genes, then adoption is an inexplicable behavior. Raising a child who is not genetically identical and unrelated to you is only possible because of factors other than genes.
Clinton Richard Dawkins argued that living things, including humans, are merely genetic survival machines, but genetic manipulation, transgenderism and homosexuality, the Korean case, birth control, and adoption and altruism are examples that refute this argument. We can see that human beings are not just survival machines that follow the commands of their genes, but are capable of making their own decisions. Therefore, I disagree with Clinton Richard Dawkins’ position.
