Biological altruism explains that individual sacrifice is a strategy for genetic survival. But can examples like the suicide gene in bees be considered true altruism? We’ll use a variety of examples to argue that seemingly altruistic behavior is actually just a genetic mechanism for survival.
Rebuttals to altruism
In this blog post, we’re going to debunk a popular concept in the biological world: biological altruism. Biological altruism is a concept advocated by Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene. Dawkins uses the concept of the “selfish gene” to explain that an individual’s altruistic behavior is actually intended to increase the survival chances of its genes. The idea is that selfish genes aim to contribute to the survival and reproduction of the individual, passing on their genetic information to the next generation. As we’ll see later, biological altruism doesn’t exist, and the concept of selfish genes is more of a hypothesis than a scientific fact.
Before we get started, let’s briefly review the basic definition of altruism. Altruism in the general sense refers to the act of sacrificing one’s own interests for the happiness and well-being of others. However, biological altruism has a different meaning. In the natural world, when an individual sacrifices itself or takes a risk, the behavior ultimately serves to promote the survival of the species or its genes. As such, biological altruism is more of a seemingly altruistic behavior than actual altruism. One of Darwin’s great insights was about natural selection. Individuals that act in their own self-interest are more likely to leave more offspring than those that don’t. Darwin wanted to apply natural selection to individuals, not populations or species, because a population is just a collection of individuals, and natural selection applies to individuals, not populations. Furthermore, Darwin saw selfishness as a fundamental element of life. This was contrary to the common idea of life, which is that altruism would be a fundamental element of life. Darwin saw self-interest, especially the self-interest of individuals rather than groups or species, as a fundamental element of life, which is why he described natural selection as happening to individuals.
Back to Richard Dawkins. Many unusual behaviors have been observed in nature that can only be explained by biological altruism (e.g., bee suicide). There are many phenomena in which individuals actually put themselves in danger or even give their lives for the sake of other individuals. These phenomena have led some people to believe that altruism is widespread in nature. However, it’s just one strategy that favors survival and reproduction, not altruism in the true sense of the word. Given that individuals are the beneficiaries of natural selection, doesn’t this biological altruism contradict Darwin’s argument (the unit of selection is the individual)? Dawkins says yes. He argues that the unit of selection is the gene, not the individual. In his view, genes, not individuals, benefit from natural selection. The idea of the selfish gene stems from the idea that there is sustainable altruism in nature. If it exists, then biologically speaking, individuals are merely carriers of selfish genes, not entities.
Also notable in refuting Dawkins’ argument is that the interpretation that selfish genes control an individual’s behavior can be overly mechanical. While it is clear that genes are an important component of survival strategies, portraying them as absolutes that determine all of an organism’s behavior can distort scientific reality. In reality, behavior in the natural world is the result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors, and the relationship between genes and individuals is much more flexible and complex.
Therefore, in this blog post, we’re going to talk about why biological altruism doesn’t exist. Altruism can’t exist consistently in nature. We’ll illustrate this with one of the most difficult examples of altruism to explain: the suicide gene in bees.
The suicide gene: the case of bees
Bees are born with an instinct to attack enemies by stinging them when their nest is threatened by enemies. The bee that stings the enemy receives a fatal injury. This is a perfect example of altruism. Bees sacrifice themselves for the greater good, for the nest, for the sake of the greater good. Many people interpret this behavior as “altruism”. However, bees don’t feel altruistic or make moral decisions when they do this. It’s important to understand that it’s just an instinctive behavior programmed into their genes, the result of being selected in favor of survival through natural selection.
If we look deeper into this phenomenon, the suicide gene in bees can be seen as a way of maximizing “genetic gain”. At the individual level, there is a sacrifice, but as a result, the sustainability of the gene is enhanced. Given that bees are rational individuals, what would they choose if they were given a choice at birth to be born with or without the suicide gene?
Case 1: Born without the suicide gene
If a bee is born without the suicide gene, it will never die defending its nest. However, if this individual is born without the suicide gene, so will its sisters. Consequently, the bee born without the suicide gene does not benefit from the nest defense that its sisters might have provided.
Case 2: Born with a suicide gene.
If a bee is born with a suicide gene, the individual is at risk of stinging and dying in defense of the nest. However, in this case, the individual benefits from the fact that its sisters can safely defend the nest if it is attacked.
As a result, an important question becomes In Selfish Genes, the authors answer this question in the affirmative: Does the benefit of nest defense offset the risk that the individual might commit suicide? If the benefits did not outweigh the risks, bees would not have survived to become as widespread as they are today. This means that the suicide gene was not acquired through evolution, and that even if bees had the choice to have it or not, they would choose to have it. Therefore, their seemingly altruistic behaviors are actually driven by selfish mechanisms. Statistically speaking, the bees will benefit from the suicide gene. When you combine the survival statistics of these individuals with the mechanisms of natural selection, biological altruism is really just a means to increase the survivability of the entire gene pool. From the perspective of the gene, not the individual, the sacrifice of the individual is a necessary means to an end in the process of natural selection.
