This article compares the biological theories of Richard Dawkins and Denis Noble and explores whether altruistic behavior in animals can be explained by simple genetic laws or should be understood as the result of more complex interactions.
“In his book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins argues that altruistic behavior is a uniquely human trait that distinguishes us from non-human animals. First of all, Richard Dawkins defines altruistic behavior as a kind of sacrifice that reduces one’s own happiness, or chances of survival, in order to increase the other person’s happiness, or chances of survival. However, after reading the book, I questioned the author’s assertion that only humans are capable of altruistic behavior. In fact, whenever I observe different patterns of behavior in animals, I wonder if they are driven purely by instinct, or if they show some form of altruism. What explains the altruistic behavior of animals that I have experienced? In this article, I will summarize the arguments for and against Richard Dawkins’ claims and write my opinion about them.
“In his book, Richard Dawkins gives examples of altruistic behavior in animals, and he says that this is not a discussion of conscious motivation, and that conscious motivation is completely irrelevant to his definition of altruism. He interprets altruistic behavior as a means of increasing the chances of genetic survival, even though at first glance it seems to be diametrically opposed to selfish behavior. This comes from a view of the world centered on genes, not individuals. Rather than focusing on altruistic and selfish behavior at the individual level, he uses the basic law of genetic selfishness to explain individual selfishness and altruism. He explains that most altruistic self-sacrifice in animals is done by mothers to their offspring, with the ultimate reason being reproduction. He argues that the specialty of genes is that they are replicators, and that all life evolves by differential survival of self-replicating entities. “Richard Dawkins explains animal behavior and evolution in terms of genes. In his approach to studying the relationship between animal behavior and evolution, genes are the primary unit of natural selection. He also argues that altruism, the act of doing good for others, is the result of The Selfish Gene.
In this article, we will explore Denis Noble’s counterargument to Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, focusing on his book The Music of Life. “Dawkins’ arguments ultimately boil down to extreme reductionism. This book criticizes Dawkins’s biological determinism for failing to make science objective. Denis Noble, a master of systems biology, argues for a holistic view of life that goes beyond genes. He emphasizes that genes do not determine everything in life, and that a broader view is needed to understand life phenomena as the result of complex interactions. In his view, life is a process and an expression of behavior in complex networks. In this context, Denis Noble argues that Richard Dawkins is inconsistent in his position on evolutionarily stable strategies, memes, and extended phenotypes, and that his macroscopic, holistic systems biology is more convincing than micro reductionism and biological determinism, i.e., gene-centered theories.
I think both authors have a point. “Richard Dawkins’ theory has a scientifically strong logical framework, but I sometimes feel that it tends to oversimplify the complex behavior of humans and animals. Denis Noble’s argument is appealing because it acknowledges this complexity and proposes an integrative approach. But what I want to focus on is the implications of altruistic behavior at the individual animal level. Little Tyke, a vegetarian lion, belongs to a species of lion that is classified as a carnivore, but since he was a cub, he has not been offered any meat containing animal blood. “Tyke ate exclusively grass and his only carnivorous food was milk. “Tyke was surrounded by animal friends that he had only seen in cartoons, animals of both carnivorous and vegetarian species, just like in Disney World. How do you explain something like this? Behaviors that go beyond natural instincts seem to be beyond the reach of mere genes or physiology. If you were to ask Richard Dawkins or Denis Noble what they think about this example, they would both say, “It’s a characteristic of an individual that is unusual in the ecosystem,” and they would still have their own arguments.
Predict their arguments. “Richard Dawkins’s argument will refer to altruism at the level of individual animals. But he won’t say anything about how altruistic behavior at the individual animal level benefits humans, or what we might need to study further, except to reinforce his genetic laws. “Denis Noble would criticize The Selfish Gene for suggesting that human nature cannot be explained by a “dialectical interaction” between biological and cultural traits. Presumably, they make no special mention of altruistic behavior in nonhuman animals.
I don’t criticize them for not doing so; it’s not their role. But if they knew that such phenomena existed and that they could do their research, I think it would have been nice if they had just mentioned it as something that someone should think about and move on. This discussion has important implications not only for animal behavior, but also for understanding human behavior. I would like to point out that this is not just a case of a single individual named Tyke, but can be understood as a phenomenon that occurs all around us in society.
