Selfish genetics is a relatively reasonable theory for studying evolution, but it is incomplete to explain all phenomena. It’s important to recognize the limitations of the theory and fill in the gaps to complete the theory of evolution.
Research into evolutionary theory is ongoing around the world, and there are still many gaps in the explanation. As a result, there are many different opinions about evolutionary theory. The selfish gene theory is one of these different schools of thought, popularized by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. The book is considered a landmark in popular science, and as a result, selfish genetics has been widely criticized. However, it’s not easy to dismiss selfish genetics as a whole. The commonly held criticisms of selfish genetics are often wrong, and compared to other theories, selfish genetics is a fairly reasonable theory. In this article, I’ll argue that selfish genetics is a worthy basis for studying evolutionary theory. However, we choose selfish genetics because it is relatively reasonable, not because it is a perfect theory. In this article, I will argue that selfish genetics is relatively reasonable, but still incomplete, and that it is worth taking on the challenge of completing the theory of evolution.
First, before I present evidence that selfish genetics is reasonable compared to other theories, it’s worth addressing a common criticism of selfish genetics. The counter-argument, “Don’t certain animals help each other?” does not strike a blow against selfish geneticism. The word “selfish,” as chosen by Richard Dawkins, is not directly related to the psychology of the individual. Evolution refers to changes in the frequency of certain genes in the gene pool. Generally, genes that are easier to replicate and pass on to the next generation become more frequent, and the word “selfish” is simply a way of describing this.
Also, the selfish gene theory is not tied to determinism. The idea of “genes being selfish” as articulated by Richard Dawkins refers to the category of selfishness and the direction of evolution. “The Selfish Gene argues that the basic unit of evolution is the gene, and that changes in the gene pool are directed in a way that favors each gene’s ability to replicate itself. It’s important to note that direction does not mean that the gene pool is changing or that every behavior of an animal has a specific goal. For example, when we observe a rocket sailing through space, we can express the direction of the rocket, but we don’t know where the rocket’s destination is or if it even exists.
Second, because selfish geneticism is relatively rational compared to other theories, further research on evolutionary theory should be based on selfish geneticism. What does it mean for a theory to be relatively rational? We can borrow an idea from Karl Raimund Popper to think about this. A theory is any logical way of thinking that attempts to explain an observed phenomenon. Even the same event in the same context can have multiple theories, depending on how you approach it. For example, if you have two numbers, 2 and 3, and you get a result of 4, you might infer that you did addition, or you might infer that you did multiplication. However, if we were to observe additional instances of 2 and 3 being used to make 6, we would conclude that the multiplication theory is more reasonable than the addition theory. In this way, the process of choosing a more reasonable theory is about adopting a theory that can explain all events. So if we show that selfish genetics can explain the widest range of animal behavior, we can prove that selfish genetics is more reasonable than other theories.
A simple summary of selfish geneticism is that the unit of explanation for life is the gene, and evolution proceeds in a direction that favors the gene’s own preservation. From this statement, you can see that other theories can naturally be organized based on the basic unit of explanation and the direction of evolution. For example, Wynne-Edwards’ theory of population control can be explained by altruistic behavior at the population level. Of course, “altruistic” here means that the gene pool changes in a way that favors the survival of the population as a whole rather than the individual genes. Here’s how the altruistic theory of genetics compares to other theories with different categories and orientations
A1: Animal populations are regulated through territoriality and ranking systems. A2: Birds tend to lay a unique number of eggs at a time. A3: Some birds seem to estimate population density by living in flocks. B1: Bird chicks use false cries to get food from their parents. B2: A mother bird reduces her workload by turning away from a weak chick.
First, a comparison between group-level altruistic behavior and the selfish gene theory. “The Selfish Gene explains that phenomena like A1, A2, and A3 can be interpreted as both group-level altruistic behavior and selfish genetics. However, it is awkward to explain B1 in terms of group-level altruistic behavior. If the source of animal behavior is group prosperity, then the mother bird would have fed the baby bird without the need for the baby bird to falsely cry. In other words, phenomena that cannot be explained by group-level altruistic behavior can be explained by selfish genetics.
Next, we compare individual-level selfish behavior to selfish genetics. By “individual-level selfish behavior” we mean the tendency of animals to behave in ways that increase their survival at the individual level, which is different from selfish genetics. Selfish genetics is also said to be able to explain B1 and B2. However, selfish behavior at the individual level cannot explain A3, which implies that individuals consciously control the number of individuals in a population, and it would be unnatural to explain this behavior by selfish behavior at the individual level. Thus, we can see that selfish genetics can explain a wide range of phenomena with a single principle, whereas other theories provide narrowly focused explanations in specific areas. Therefore, selfish genetics is a very reasonable theory.
Third, selfish genetics needs to be strengthened in a number of ways. Just because selfish genetics is relatively reasonable doesn’t mean it’s completely correct. The current selfish genetics theory cannot explain all behaviors. A prime example is adoption. In humans and some monkeys, parents raise children through adoption, and this behavior is not directly related to the transmission and preservation of their own genes. Another example is pets. The behavior of having a pet also doesn’t help pass your genes on to the next generation.
There are two possible interpretations of this. The first is that evolution is still a work in progress. Because the gene pool is still in a state of transition, behaviors that are deemed inefficient by the selfish gene theory have not been eliminated. For example, in the case of adoption, Richard Dawkins calls it a malfunction in The Selfish Gene. The second interpretation is that the selfish gene theory is in some sense unfinished. “Consider Isaac Newton’s laws of motion and Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity. In everyday situations, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion seem to work well. However, in situations where motion near the speed of light occurs, Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity is required. In other words, under special circumstances, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion need to be modified. Using this example, we can distinguish between where selfish genetics is applicable and where it needs to be modified.
Going back to our example, when Isaac Newton’s laws of motion were able to describe all situations, there were limits to the speeds that people could observe, i.e., they did not account for movements close to the speed of light, so a correction was needed for those situations. So, we can find this by looking at what selfish genetics fails to account for. Combined with the characteristics of counterexamples like adoption and pets, we can see that selfish genetics does not fully account for the learning that individuals gain from society, meaning that a calibrated selfish genetics would need to be applied to populations with a certain level of sociability and learning.
Because evolutionary theory does not yet provide a complete explanation of life, further research is needed. I started this article by refuting some of the misguided criticisms of selfish genetics and explaining that it is not easy to disprove the theory. I also used examples from Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene to show that selfish genetics is relatively reasonable compared to other theories, so I presented an argument in favor of using selfish genetics as a basis for further evolutionary research. However, being relatively reasonable does not mean that the theory is completely correct, as there are still behaviors that are difficult to explain with selfish genetics. To solve these problems, we need to recognize that evolution is still ongoing and that selfish genetics is incomplete. In particular, if we apply selfish genetics to the effects of society on the survival of individuals and gene communities and the transmission of genetic information, we can expect to be able to explain more behaviors with this corrected theory.
