This blog post examines whether altruistic behavior in non-human animals can be explained by simple genetic laws.
Richard Dawkins states in his book The Selfish Gene that altruistic behavior is a unique trait exclusive to humans, distinct from non-human animals. First, the altruistic behavior Dawkins refers to here is defined as a kind of sacrifice: an action that lowers one’s own happiness, or chances of survival, while increasing the survival chances of another. However, after reading the book, I began to question the author’s assertion that only humans exhibit altruistic behavior. In fact, whenever I observe the diverse behavioral patterns displayed by animals, I wonder whether they act purely on instinct or whether they show some form of altruism. How can the altruistic behaviors I’ve witnessed in animals be explained? I intend to outline Richard Dawkins’ argument, the opposing view, and share my own perspective.
In this book, Richard Dawkins cites examples of altruistic behavior in animals. He clarifies that this is not about discussing conscious motives in animals, and that conscious motives are entirely irrelevant to his definition of altruism. He interprets altruistic behavior, which at first glance appears to be the exact opposite of selfish behavior, as ultimately a means to increase the survival potential of genes. This stems from a perspective that views the world centered on genes, not individuals. Rather than focusing on altruistic or selfish behavior at the individual level, he explains individual selfishness and altruism using the fundamental principle of the selfishness of genes. He explains that most altruistic self-sacrifice in animals occurs from mothers to offspring, with reproduction as the ultimate reason. The uniqueness of genes lies in their role as replicators, and he posits the law that all life evolves based on differences in the survival rates of self-replicating entities. Richard Dawkins elucidates animal behavior and evolution from the gene’s perspective. From his perspective studying the relationship between animal behavior and evolution, he defines the gene as the primary unit of natural selection. He argues that even altruism—selfless acts toward others—ultimately stems from The Selfish Gene at work.
From here on, we will explore counterarguments to Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, focusing on Denis Noble’s book The Music of Life. Richard Dawkins’ argument ultimately culminates in extreme reductionism. This book criticizes Richard Dawkins’ biological determinism, which pursues scientific objectivity, for lacking scientific integrity. Denis Noble, a leading scholar in systems biology, advocates viewing life phenomena from an integrative perspective rather than solely through genes. He emphasizes that genes are not the sole determinant of all aspects of living organisms, and a broader view is necessary to understand life phenomena, which emerge as the result of complex interactions. According to his perspective, life is a process and an expression of behavior formed by complex networks. In this context, Denis Noble argues that Richard Dawkins is inconsistent in his positions on evolutionarily stable strategies, memes, and extended phenotypes. He also contends that his macroscopic, holistic systems biology is more persuasive than microscopic reductionism and biological determinism, i.e., gene-centered theories.
I believe both authors have valid points in their arguments. Richard Dawkins’ theory possesses a scientifically robust logical framework, yet it sometimes feels overly simplistic in explaining the complex behaviors of humans and animals. Conversely, Denis Noble’s argument is compelling in its acknowledgment of such complexity and its proposal for an integrative approach. However, the point I wish to emphasize is the significance of altruistic behavior at the individual animal level. I would like to cite the example of Little Tyke, the herbivorous lion. Tyke belonged to the lion species, classified as a carnivore, yet from a young age, he was never offered any meat containing animal blood. Tyke ate only grass and consumed only milk as a carnivorous food. Around Tyke, one could observe animal friends like those seen only in cartoons, living together without distinction between carnivores and herbivores, much like Disney World. How can we explain this? Such behavior, transcending natural instinct, seems difficult to explain solely through genetics or physiological conditions. If we asked Richard Dawkins or Denis Noble what they thought of this case, both would likely say, “It’s an exceptional trait of a single individual within the ecosystem,” and still stick to their respective arguments.
Let’s anticipate their arguments. Richard Dawkins would likely mention altruism at the individual animal level. However, he would not consider—nor make any mention of—what utility such altruistic behavior at the individual animal level provides to humans, or what humans should further research. He would only reinforce his gene-centered law. Denis Noble would likely criticize The Selfish Gene, arguing that human nature cannot be explained by a ‘dialectical interaction’ between biological and cultural traits. He probably wouldn’t make any special mention of altruistic behavior in non-human animals.
I’m not criticizing them for not considering such points; it simply isn’t their role. However, if they were aware that their research is possible precisely because such phenomena exist, I think it would have been better if someone had considered it a problem worth pondering and at least mentioned it. This discussion offers important implications not only for animal behavior studies but also for understanding human behavior. I want to emphasize that such instances are not merely isolated occurrences in a single individual like Tyke, but can be understood as a phenomenon that occurs quite frequently throughout society.
