In this blog post, I will compare the survival of genes with the operating principles of the capitalist market economy from the perspectives of Richard Dawkins and Matt Ridley, and examine how selfishness and reciprocal altruism function as the driving forces behind these two systems.

What is the relationship between the survival of genes and the capitalist market economy?

Aristotle described humans as social animals. While this statement can be interpreted in various ways, let’s focus here on the structural meaning that humans come together to form societies. In his book ‘The Selfish Gene’, Richard Dawkins presented a perspective that views humans as survival machines that carry genes. Here, the term “selfish” does not mean that genes consciously engage in selfish behavior, but rather refers to the fact that, through the process of natural selection, traits that are advantageous for their own replication and transmission are perpetuated. Dawkins describes living organisms as vehicles or survival machines that aid in the replication of genes. Since its initial publication in 1976, ‘The Selfish Gene’ has established itself as a seminal work that widely popularized this gene-centered view of evolution, and in 2026, the fifth edition was published to mark the 50th anniversary of its release.
Humans divided roles and formed organizations to survive effectively within the societies they created. In the process, they developed barter as a means to satisfy their needs. This method later gave rise to money as a unit of value, and money enabled transactions between individuals, groups, and nations. This became a crucial foundation in the formation of today’s capitalist market economy. A capitalist market economy is a system in which economic activity centers on private property and the market; individuals and businesses pursue their own interests while, through exchange and competition in the market, contribute to the economic activity of society as a whole. From this perspective, it is possible to interpret the capitalist market economy as a sophisticated mechanism created by genes to ensure their own preservation and replication.
First, just as genes operate in a manner that favors their own replication within the evolutionary process of preserving and transmitting genetic traits, capitalism—since it relies on private property as a crucial institutional foundation—can be seen as moving in a direction that pursues individual ownership and profit. Therefore, I view the two concepts of capitalism and the “selfish gene” as closely interrelated and intend to examine them from a macro perspective. I will also address anticipated counterarguments and explore, from a more micro perspective, how reciprocal altruism—referred to as “cooperation”—manifests itself in the capitalist market economy. Through this, I intend to examine the perspectives of Richard Dawkins and Matt Ridley, who argue that behavior that appears altruistic on the surface can ultimately be linked to the interests of the individual or the organism.

How can we compare the market economy with the survival strategies of genes?

Some readers might question whether interpreting the phenomena arising from the survival process of the selfish gene as the dynamics of capitalism is an overly broad interpretation. However, by comparing the market economy with the survival process of genes, we can explore the significance of this perspective. The crux of this comparison lies in the fact that while people engage in economic activities for their own benefit, the results can lead to the benefit of society as a whole. In other words, the pursuit of individual self-interest can serve as the driving force behind economic activity. This bears a certain resemblance to how genes operate in ways that favor their own replication and survival, thereby serving as the driving force behind survival and evolution.
Let us examine the evidence supporting this argument. First, if we equate genes with people and the environment in which natural selection operates with the market, we can find a formal similarity between the way a market economy moves toward a certain equilibrium through individual choices and competition and the process of genetic evolution.
In economics, marginal utility refers to the increase in utility gained from consuming one additional unit of a good, and economic agents make choices based on these changes in utility while subject to various constraints. Meanwhile, in evolutionary biology, various strategies can be selected through interactions with the environment and other individuals; among these, a strategy that is less susceptible to being displaced by other strategies under certain conditions is called an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). Although these concepts belong to different academic contexts, they can be compared in that the choices and interactions of individual agents within a changing environment lead to the formation of a stable state.
Second, from Richard Dawkins’ perspective, behaviors that are not advantageous for the replication of genes are unlikely to persist through the process of natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which the frequency of specific traits changes over successive generations based on the differences in how variation affects survival and reproduction. This selection process exhibits a certain formal similarity to the process by which economic agents survive and grow through competition and selection in a capitalist market economy. However, since natural selection and market competition are not identical mechanisms, it is more appropriate to compare them on the basis that competition and selection operate in different domains, rather than directly equating the two processes.
Third, in explaining human behavior and its underlying mechanisms, Dawkins views the human body as a “survival machine” that enables the replication of genes that have gained a competitive advantage. From this perspective, the overarching principle explaining human behavior is linked to the evolutionary process of an individual’s survival and reproduction. Simplified, this can be expressed as the principle of survival of the fittest. Let us now return to capitalism. If we apply the principle of survival of the fittest—where the dominant survive—directly to capitalism, we can arrive at the argument that economic resources become a key criterion for dominance and that the gap between the haves and the have-nots may widen through the hereditary transmission of wealth.
In this regard, the Rothschild family serves as a case in point. Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who laid the foundation for the Rothschild family, began his financial career in 18th-century Frankfurt, and his five sons expanded the family’s financial business by branching out into various regions of Europe. Through these efforts, the Rothschild family came to occupy a significant position in European financial history. However, the historical success of a specific family cannot be explained as the same process as natural selection of genes. Therefore, it is appropriate to understand this example as illustrating a formal similarity that may exist between the survival instinct of genes and the competition and accumulation of wealth in capitalism.
Through this comparison, we can identify certain similarities between the survival of genes and the operating principles of a capitalist market economy. However, the similarity between the two systems does not automatically imply a causal relationship. While the replication of genes and the pursuit of profit in a market economy are similar in that they both seek outcomes favorable to themselves, this alone does not allow us to conclude that capitalism arose directly from the survival instinct of genes. Therefore, what can be confirmed here is that the two systems exhibit a certain formal similarity that can be described as “selfishness,” and whether that similarity leads to an actual causal relationship must be examined separately.

How does reciprocal altruism manifest in a market economy?

Let’s now examine the validity of this claim from a microeconomic perspective. First, reciprocal altruism, in the form of cooperation, can be easily observed through the market economy. The most basic unit of the market economy is the individual, and each person forms companies or organizations to satisfy their desire to earn money. Individuals utilize businesses or organizations to respond effectively to societal demands in a society where consumer needs are intertwined. Examples include joining an entertainment agency to debut as a celebrity or small business owners forming traditional markets to attract customers.
This can be compared to the cooperative behavior of animals described by Richard Dawkins in ‘The Selfish Gene’. Examples include hyenas hunting prey in packs, emperor penguins huddling together to block the wind, and migratory birds forming a V-shaped formation during long-distance flights, taking turns occupying the positions that require relatively more energy. Although there is a difference between humans and animals as the actors, a commonality can be found in the fact that multiple individuals can gain greater benefits by cooperating than they would by acting alone.
In both cases—the market economy and the reciprocal altruism of genes—since an individual’s benefit is not maximized when acting alone, the individual may strategically choose to cooperate for a certain period; thus, selfishness can be considered the fundamental driving force behind an individual’s behavior. However, the nature of the self-interest discussed here differs. In the market economy, self-interest refers to an individual’s pursuit of personal benefit or profit in a situation where rational thought and choice are possible; in the case of genes, however, it does not mean that genes consciously calculate their own interests. The “self-interest” of genes is closer to a metaphorical expression used to explain the results of natural selection. Therefore, when comparing the two, it is necessary to distinguish between the conscious and strategic choices of a market economy and the “selection” that occurs in the process of genetic evolution.
Let’s now take a closer look at reciprocal altruism based on selfishness. Consider a scenario applicable to both the market economy and gene preservation: suppose people with conflicting opinions in a complex society realize their interests through a kind of game. In this scenario, what must one do to become the greatest beneficiary of reciprocal altruism? Reciprocity can be realized more reliably when people can clearly identify one another. This is because if one cannot distinguish between benefactors and enemies, it is difficult to either repay a favor or seek revenge. In this sense, there is one crucial element to reciprocity: reputation.
In a society where people know one another well, there is no need to cooperate with just anyone. You can choose to interact with people who have cooperated with you in the past, those who are considered trustworthy by others, or those who display a friendly attitude. In other words, you can choose your opponents in the game. Matt Ridley explains the importance of these interactions and reciprocity in ‘The Selfish Gene’. To understand this, consider the Prisoner’s Dilemma. If two accomplices cooperate to conceal their crimes, they can achieve the best possible outcome—a reduced sentence due to insufficient evidence. However, if they succumb to an investigator’s temptation to reveal the other’s crimes in exchange for a lighter sentence and end up betraying each other, the outcome could be detrimental to both. This situation demonstrates that the choice between cooperation and betrayal can vary depending on the relationship with the other party and the nature of repeated interactions.
For example, consider the following scenario. In large cities, where anonymity is high, rude behavior—such as shouting insults at other drivers or honking the horn—may occur; however, in rural villages where people know each other well, acts of kindness are more likely to occur than relatively rude behavior. This also applies to market economies. In online transactions, where anonymity is high, there is a greater likelihood of rude behavior or unscrupulous dealings because there is insufficient information about the other party; however, in offline transactions where people interact face-to-face, the likelihood of rude behavior is relatively lower because basic information—such as the other person’s appearance and personal details—is readily available.
Another example is the fact that competition and the pursuit of profit serve as fundamental principles in capitalism. To survive in the market and attract more customers, companies and sellers offer attractive benefits and courteous service, striving to build a better reputation among consumers than their competitors. Thus, even in a market based on competition, cooperation, kindness, trust, and reputation can play important roles. This is because actions that appear, on the surface, to be for the benefit of others can be linked to strategies designed to secure one’s own long-term interests.

Can selfishness serve as a common principle explaining both genes and the market economy?

If we apply Richard Dawkins’ perspective—that genes are inherently selfish and may exhibit seemingly altruistic behavior to ensure their own replication and benefit—and Matt Ridley’s perspective—that human cooperation and exchange can generate long-term benefits—to a capitalist market economy, we can see that people may strategically adopt cooperation as a means to maximize their own interests. Such behavior may appear altruistic on the surface but is ultimately linked to the interests of the individual or organism. Therefore, from the perspective of comparing these two systems, selfishness can be interpreted as a key driving force.
However, one important distinction must be made here. The “selfishness” of genes and the behavior of individuals pursuing their own interests in a market economy cannot be considered the same kind of selfishness. Genes are not conscious agents that consciously choose their actions or calculate benefits, and natural selection is a process that, over successive generations, ensures the survival of genetic mutations advantageous for replication. In contrast, individuals in a market economy are conscious agents capable of making choices and acting based on their own goals and preferences. Therefore, even though the term “self-interest” can be applied in both cases, one must not assume that it shares the same essence.
Given these differences, it is difficult to conclude that the selfishness of genes is the direct cause of the capitalist market economy based solely on the chain of connections—where genes come together to form humans, humans form markets, and markets constitute society. This is because complex biological, psychological, social, and institutional processes exist between genes and humans, humans and markets, and markets and society. Therefore, a more cautious conclusion that can be drawn in this article is that the survival of genes and the pursuit of profit in a market economy exhibit a formal similarity in that both can be explained as moving toward sustaining outcomes that are advantageous to themselves.
If so, even if the meaning of altruism changes depending on the era and situation, how should we view the fact that genetic evolution can influence human behavior and social change, given that genes and humans are inseparably linked? Human behavior and social institutions are shaped not only by biological factors but also by various other factors such as culture, institutions, history, technology, and learning. Therefore, rather than asserting that the evolution of genes directly determines the future direction of the market economy, it is more reasonable to view human economic activity and social cooperation as emerging from the interaction between biological tendencies and the social environment.
Ultimately, when comparing genes and the capitalist market economy, the key is not to view them as completely identical systems, but to examine how competition, cooperation, and the pursuit of self-interest manifest in two systems operating at different levels. Richard Dawkins’ gene-centered view of evolution, as presented in ‘The Selfish Gene’, offered a new perspective on the behavior of living organisms from the standpoint of gene replication, while Matt Ridley’s arguments emphasize that exchange and cooperation in human society can lead to long-term prosperity. When these two perspectives are considered together, it becomes clear that cooperation, which may appear altruistic, is not necessarily in opposition to selfishness, and that cooperation can emerge through the interactions of individuals pursuing their own interests.
Therefore, it is difficult to identify either selfishness or altruism as the sole driving force behind genes and the capitalist market economy. While surface-level behavior may suggest that cooperation and altruism play significant roles, underlying motivations to secure one’s own survival and interests may be at work. At the same time, human economic activity cannot be explained by genetic factors alone; conscious judgment, social norms, institutions, and culture all play a role. Ultimately, to understand the relationship between genes and the market economy, rather than simply pitting selfishness against altruism, we need to examine how individuals with self-interested motives cooperate and how that cooperation gives rise to social order.