In this blog post, we examine the influence of genes on human nature through ‘The Selfish Gene’ and discuss how well Dawkins’ argument explains human behavior.
As life sciences have recently become a major topic, the term ‘selfish gene’ is being cited across various fields. I consider Richard Dawkins a scientist who captivates the world’s attention with his astonishing logic when discussing genetics. In this book, Dawkins also describes genes using various analogies.
The most striking part of this book was where he likened humans to ‘survival machines’ to explain the concept of ‘self-replicators’. This was particularly striking because it portrayed humans as inanimate ‘survival machines’. The author defines a ‘self-replicator’ as a gene that replicates itself, making the somewhat provocative claim that the ‘survival machine’ is merely a carrier created to preserve and proliferate that replicator.
If humans evolved and replicated through self-replicators, might we also uncover information about human nature? Examining Mencius’s ‘theory of innate goodness’ and Xunzi’s ‘theory of innate evil,’ we see one asserting human nature is inherently good, while the other claims humans are inherently evil but can change through experience. Thus, philosophers explained human nature based on contextual evidence. However, Dawkins takes a scientific approach, arguing genes are the primary factor determining human nature. He argues that genes will act selfishly when an altruistic nature is advantageous, explaining human nature as the behavior of genes.
Nevertheless, ample room exists to refute Dawkins’ claim. The author never asserted that human thought and behavior are solely determined by genes. While genes can create the framework for behavior and thought, it is possible to counter that human thought and behavior depend on environment and autonomy. To address this, the author introduced the concept of ‘memes’.
Now, let’s examine the ‘meme’ the author spoke of. Dawkins explains why humans, despite being survival machines governed by selfish genes, sometimes act contrary to those genes’ commands using the concept of ‘memes’. I understand ‘memes’ as being shared among people, transmitting beliefs and knowledge, and thereby potentially influencing the characteristics of genes. This concept holds significant value as a bridge connecting life sciences and culture. However, if these ‘memes’ are artificially manipulated for misguided purposes, they could cause societal problems. Just as advances in biotechnology have enabled genetic manipulation, ‘memes’ also carry the potential for misuse by individuals with specific agendas. Therefore, handling ‘memes’ requires a mature ethical consciousness.
Meanwhile, the author mentions ‘memes’ while asserting that humans are the most outstanding entities among natural beings. This claim contrasts with Eastern thought, which views nature and humans as equal. The Western mindset of conquering nature may be countered by those advocating Eastern perspectives. It is incorrect to view cultural elements solely as objects to be conquered.
While reading the book, I encountered a perplexing passage. It argued that acts we commonly perceive as altruistic are actually the result of genes acting selfishly for survival. According to Dawkins’ logic, even a parent’s love for their child stems not from affection, but from the gene’s instinct to make and preserve many copies of itself. I had never considered that altruism could be selfish. Yet, one need only look around to find such examples. For instance, volunteer activities for personal gain or politicians’ behavior during election season may appear altruistic on the surface but could be self-serving at their core. I don’t dismiss Dawkins’ logic entirely. From a different perspective, we cannot rule out the possibility that actions labeled selfish are indeed self-serving.
The content regarding the ‘battle of the sexes’ was also intriguing. Books analyzing male-female relationships psychologically often explain instinctive emotions between the sexes. However, Dawkins describes these relationships as a simple battle between genes. He posits that love between men and women is merely an act to better preserve genes.
Yet applying the battle between sperm and egg to love between men and women seems inappropriate. Love between men and women is not a simple phenomenon that disappears just because it fails to pass on genes. Love is an emotion that brings joy beyond that, and this cannot be explained by genes alone. If men and women loved solely to preserve genes, they could have just waged ‘The Battle of the Sexes’ instead of loving. The author cannot agree with describing ‘love’ as ‘The Battle of the Sexes’.
Throughout the text, the author asserts that genes govern all life phenomena, employing selfish survival strategies to evolve in their own favor. Ironically, the display of selfish or altruistic behavior by genes might be nothing more than a play staged by the author. For instance, economic loss and gain exist only because of the concept of money. Without money, the concepts of loss and gain would not exist. Similarly, one could argue that Dawkins introduced the concept of ‘selfishness’ to categorize gene behavior as either selfish or altruistic. I hope life sciences advance so the true nature of gene behavior is revealed as soon as possible.
