In this blog post, we’ll examine how Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’ explains the origin and evolution of life as well as human behavior, and consider the implications and limitations of the selfish gene theory for human society and culture.
The Origin of Life and the Selfish Gene
What is the ultimate reason for the existence of living organisms on Earth—or even in the universe? Furthermore, why do living beings love and fight with one another, and why do they worry and feel fear? Where do the characteristics of individuals originate? Some people may go through life ignoring such questions. Others may seek answers to them in religion. However, the author of this book finds the answer in genes. In this book, Dawkins raises questions about Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Darwin argued that the reason life on Earth took its current form is that only individuals well-adapted to their environment survived. In other words, the unit of natural selection, as Darwin defined it, is the individual. However, the author opposes Darwin’s concept of the “fitness unit” and argues that the basic unit of selection—that is, the basic unit of self-interest—is the gene.
The first half of the book explains the origin of life. This is a point on which most people who accept the theory of evolution agree. Over a long period of time, organic compounds in the primordial soup would have combined under the influence of energy to form large molecules. Then, through random combinations, self-replicators capable of producing copies of themselves emerged. As time passed, the proportion of self-replicators with superior lifespan, fertility, and replication accuracy within the primordial soup would have increased. However, since the organic compounds in the primordial soup necessary to form self-replicators are not infinite, it was impossible for an infinite number of self-replicators to exist, and this is when the competition for survival began. To win this competition, self-replicators created living organisms—known as “survival machines”—and have gradually evolved. And thus, living organisms took on their current forms.
How does the selfish gene influence the behavior of living organisms?
As the book progresses into its middle section, it explains, using specific examples, how self-replicators—that is, selfish genes—influence the characteristics of survival machines. Various examples are presented regarding an individual’s aggression, kinship, family planning, intra-family conflicts of interest, competition between the sexes, and group formation. Finally, the author acknowledges that this theory of the selfish gene has limitations when it comes to explaining human evolution. Therefore, to supplement this theory, he introduces the concept of a new self-replicator called a “meme,” which shares characteristics with genes. The concept of a meme implies a unit of cultural transmission or a unit of imitation. In other words, just as genes transmit themselves to the next generation through selfish behavior, memes effectively preserve and transmit a part of culture to the next generation.
Dawkins’ arguments regarding animal evolution and behavior are unlikely to cause much offense. However, I believe his claim that human society and culture are simply governed by the survival and reproduction of a single cell may provoke strong opposition from many people. This is because applying his logic to human social phenomena would reduce vast amounts of philosophical and humanistic knowledge—and even the culture and art we hold dear—to mere means for the survival of the selfish gene.
As a defender of Dawkins’ arguments, I would like to refute three main arguments made by critics of the selfish gene theory as follows. First, according to critics of the selfish gene theory, this theory appears to dismiss humans as selfish and calculating beings. They argue that human “rationality” is never perfect because humans are incapable of weighing every possible benefit and cost. According to Dawkins’ argument, genes are not entities with free will. Genes simply spread through survival machines, and only those that happen to be well-suited to the environment and conditions survive and persist across countless generations. Furthermore, when this process repeats infinitely, genes merely appear, through the workings of natural selection, to be entities acting as if they had a purpose.
Therefore, Dawkins strongly argues that genes should not be thought of as conscious entities with selfish purposes.
Furthermore, Dawkins is fully aware that the behavior of survival machines driven by genes may not be strictly calculative, as explained in Chapter 12, “The Nice Guy Wins.” According to this chapter, when genes face choice situations similar to those in game theory in the real world, each self-replicator fails to make rational choices. However, he notes that if such choice situations are repeated infinitely, the likelihood of making rational choices eventually increases through learning.
Second, Dawkins has been criticized for committing a reductionist fallacy. Specifically, he is accused of concluding that if we break down the entire human being into very small, basic units, we can understand the characteristics exhibited by the whole. Critics question whether genes—units that are minuscule compared to the human being as a whole—can truly govern all human behavior. Dawkins states that genes do not directly issue commands to our brains to make us act. Of course, it would be ideal if genes could predict every possible situation that might arise for the survival machine and provide humans with rules and advice to cope with such possibilities. However, all genes can do is issue primary guidelines to the survival machine on which they depend. It is the nervous system that, after such comprehensive instructions influence humans, decides moment by moment what to do in actual situations. Therefore, it can be said that those who level the above criticisms do not fully understand Dawkins’ theory.
Furthermore, the fact that genes influence comprehensive aspects such as human personality is substantiated by the following research findings. There have been studies on this topic in the past as well. According to the research team led by Dr. Heo Yun-mi, a twin studies expert in South Korea, 30–50% of intelligence and personality are shaped by genetics. In particular, genes related to personality and intelligence become increasingly expressed as one ages; while genetic influence accounts for 20–40% in childhood, it rises to 40–60% in adulthood.
Third, critics of the selfish gene theory argue that it overlooks the influence of the environment on human behavior. They contend that while the causes of human behavior are partly expressed through genes, they are largely determined by the surrounding environment. Humans act according to their beliefs, which are formed based on their environment and experiences rather than being dictated by genes.
The author states that this phenomenon can be explained by “memes,” cultural transmission units that correspond to genes. People form their own values through various experiences as they go through life. Furthermore, since humans do not live in isolation, social learning influenced by their surroundings occurs continuously. Therefore, the author also acknowledges that human personality is inevitably shaped by environmental influences. Non-genetic cultural elements—such as social norms, customs, ideas, culture, and art—are stored as memories within the survival machine in the form of memes. Just as genes suited to the environment are passed on to future generations and their traits are expressed, memes are transmitted to other individuals through imitation, and their patterns manifest as human behavior.
How can the theory of the selfish gene explain human behavior?
Even now, long after Richard Dawkins’ theory of the selfish gene was first proposed, evolutionary theory remains a subject of much debate. While opinions are divided on whether the unit of natural selection is the individual, the group, or the gene, I believe Richard Dawkins has succeeded in persuading readers by presenting various pieces of evidence found in ecosystems.
