Why Are Genes Called Selfish? (An interpretation and critique of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, which views the purpose of life from the perspective of genes)

This article explains the selfish behavior of living things and the evolutionary process from a gene-centered perspective, based on Richard Dawkins’ argument in The Selfish Gene that life exists for the self-replication of genes. While I criticize the assumptions and logical limitations of gene-centered evolutionary theory, I praise it for providing a new way of understanding the behavior of living things.

 

Why do we exist, what are our origins, and what does it mean to be alive? These questions have been debated and studied by many thinkers and philosophers throughout the ages. These questions have been debated and studied by many thinkers and philosophers for a long time, including multiregional origins, African origins, British empiricism, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and creationism from a religious perspective, among others, and are still being debated. In the midst of this debate, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which proposed the notion that genes exist to reproduce themselves, caused a stir in the biological community and became one of the most popular theories of the 20th century.
“My purpose is to explore the biology of selfishness and altruism,” Dawkins writes at the beginning of Chapter 1, titled ‘Why We Are What We Are,’ in the book. Dawkins argues that it is not species, groups, or individuals that matter in the process of evolution, but rather the most fundamental unit, the gene, and that the gene world is filled with fierce competition, deception, and selfishness. He makes the following arguments for this claim.
First, Dawkins defines the basic unit of selection, the basic unit of selfishness, as the gene, the unit of heredity. To explain the origin of the gene, he tells the story of the first self-replicator. The first self-replicators, he explains, were special molecules that happened to be floating around in a primordial soup. These self-replicators later led to the DNA molecule we know today, and he argues that errors in the replication process led to variants and the emergence of different species. However, the multiplication of different species inevitably created competition within the limited space of the Earth, which led the self-replicators to create their own survival machines. Therefore, Dawkins argues, all animals, including humans, are nothing more than survival machines created by genes.
Dawkins explains all of the behaviors we see in living things in terms of genetic self-interest, and even the seemingly altruistic behaviors that we take for granted in ethics and morality are just strategies for genes to maximize self-interest. Altruistic behavior, he explains, is just a way for individuals to selfishly exploit other individuals, and even symbiotic relationships of mutual benefit are just a means of self-survival. Dawkins illustrates this through observations and examples of various animal behaviors.
Humans have undergone a similar genetic evolutionary process to other species, Dawkins says, but we have developed a unique system of culture that distinguishes us from other animals. “Our genes are selfish, but we are not necessarily governed by them; we are also influenced by cultural learning and transmission,” he writes in the text, and it is the role of memes that makes this culture possible. Whereas traditional genes reproduce by self-replicating in a biological way, he explains, memes spread by self-replicating from brain to brain through a process called mimicry. Dawkins uses this to explain how humans and animals, which are governed by genes, are differentiated by culture.
Despite these radical claims, Dawkins’ thesis is very convincing, with many examples and logical arguments. However, there are also a few inconsistencies in the text that I would like to point out: Dawkins’ theories are based on a number of assumptions that make it difficult to fully accept them. In order to develop an argument, it is necessary to examine the validity of the assumptions made at the beginning, but the text consists of unproven assumptions without this process. This can be explained by the fact that there are many “unproven propositions”.
It is well known that genes are the smallest physical units that make up a human being. However, there is not enough evidence to establish the gene as the basic unit of selection, the basic unit of evolution, and the basic unit of selfishness. These can be explained by the behavior of multiple entities, but there is a lack of clear evidence that proves these propositions to be true. Dawkins makes these assumptions in the first part of his argument and then builds on them.
He also makes some assumptions in the process of explaining the creation of self-replicators, the ancestors of genes. Dawkins mentions the birth of the first self-replicator as “accidental,” as if it were a mythical element. He offers the explanation that “a bet that has an extremely small probability of winning can be repeated hundreds of millions of times and still win at least once,” and argues that such “coincidences” are likely to occur on time scales beyond human comprehension. But again, this doesn’t answer the question of whether the “chance” is non-zero. There is no explanation for why we have not observed or recorded any of these ‘coincidences’ in the 4.4 million years of human history that we have examined, whether it is because human history is short compared to the Earth’s 4.5 billion year age, or because it is impossible in the first place.
Similarly, the evolution of self-replicators makes a number of assumptions. Every step of the way is dependent on assumptions: that self-replicators must make errors, that these errors allow variants to compete, and that the surviving machines will be selected to survive the competition. The thought experiment that the speed of replication, the accuracy of copying, and the longevity of the replicators increase survival seems plausible, but it is based on assumptions, not facts.
There is also a contradiction that arises from the fact that the unit of expression of genetic selfishness is the gene itself. If the behavior of a human or animal individual is the result of the selfishness of its genes, then we need an explanation for how the independent selfishness of genes works within the individual, i.e., we lack a sufficient explanation for the possibility of conflicting selfishness among individual genes within a human individual. Dawkins mentions the existence of gene pools, but the fact that they exist is also an assumption.
His use of animals as examples to explain most individual behavior is also controversial. This is because the behavioral intentions of animals analyzed in studies may not be the same as the intentions of real animals. Dawkins’ focus on animal behavior does not guarantee that the results of his analyses are consistent with the actual intentions of animals. The results are stated under the assumption that they are true, but this is only an assumption. On the other hand, an analysis of human behavior would give readers the opportunity to observe and relate to their own behavior.
As such, I have criticized the book by pointing out a number of unproven assumptions. Despite some criticisms, the book is very interesting for its original idea of viewing evolution as a gene rather than a species or individual, and for its attempt to explain all of life’s behavior in terms of gene selfishness. By looking at the evolution and behavior of all living things from the perspective of genes, this book has opened my mind to a new way of understanding life beyond the academic sense. I hope this book will expand the way we understand evolution and the behavior of living things.

 

About the author

Blogger

Hello! Welcome to Polyglottist. This blog is for anyone who loves Korean culture, whether it's K-pop, Korean movies, dramas, travel, or anything else. Let's explore and enjoy Korean culture together!