This paper critically analyzes Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, exploring whether his theory of kin selection can fully explain evolutionary behavior.
Introduction
Richard Dawkins introduced a new paradigm regarding the nature of genes to the biological community through his 1976 publication, The Selfish Gene. His theory, as the title suggests, is simple: “The primary goal of a gene is to prosper (achieve dominance within the gene pool), and this explains the selfish and exclusive behavior of individuals.” Most people encountering Dawkins’ theory for the first time will question it, citing examples of altruistic behavior in individuals as counterexamples. However, Dawkins uses the mechanisms underlying these altruistic behaviors to explore the source of genetic selfishness. Forty years later, with advances in science, many logical flaws in Dawkins’ explanation have become apparent. Among these, the most noteworthy aspect is Dawkins’ theory of kin selection. Dawkins explains altruism between individuals sharing genes quite plausibly using the concept of relatedness. Relatedness is an indicator showing the degree of genetic sharing between individuals, and it is used to explain kin-related behavior. However, Dawkins’ explanation of kin selection contains many incomplete aspects, and there are also numerous counterexamples. Regarding this, the author avoided providing a clear explanation or acknowledging his own incompleteness. This blog post aims to supplement Dawkins’ explanation using environmental determinism.
Dawkins’ Theory of Kin Selection and Its Problems
When explaining kin selection, Dawkins explicitly states his fundamental premise: genes strive to leave as many copies of themselves as possible. Regarding kinship (between individuals sharing one or more genes), Dawkins describes genes as acting purely computationally. His method for calculating the genetic validity of an individual’s behavior is as follows: When an individual performs an action, gains are scored as + and losses as –, and the total sum is calculated. This is called net payoff, and the individual acts in the direction of the largest net payoff. If the recipient is not a kin, the benefit or cost to other individuals from that action is calculated as zero. Dawkins mentions the certainty of relatedness and the expected lifespan of individuals at the end, acknowledging his explanation may be uncertain. He states it is based on estimates and experience, leaving possibilities open. Dawkins also introduces certainty and accuracy into the discussion of kin selection, comparing individuals’ estimates of relatedness with those of naturalists. He concludes that ‘true’ relatedness is not as important as the estimates animals make.
However, Dawkins’ theory of kin selection has many problems. First, it relies on an excessively limited set of variables (relatedness, certainty, life expectancy). Second, it fails to provide systematic and logical explanations for counterexamples. The very foundation of explaining kin selection based on relatedness is flawed. The calculation of relatedness is overly simplistic. It relies solely on generational differences and fails to account for mutations or various genetic influences (early in development). That is, since one cannot know how much of their own genes are present in another individual, they cannot act accordingly. Furthermore, questions arise regarding certainty. If individuals sharing genes are separated and meet again after a long time, how would they recognize each other? While humans have the concept of genealogy, other animals lack this and would likely fail to recognize each other.
Now, let’s set aside these two issues and reconsider. For example, if parents and offspring exist, parental care for offspring can be explained by Dawkins’ kin selection theory. But how can we explain offspring caring for their parents? Offspring have no genes to pass on to their parents, and the parents’ life expectancy is shorter than the offspring’s. Yet, we often see offspring sacrificing themselves to help their parents. This is not unique to humans, and Dawkins’ theory of kin selection fails to account for such situations. Furthermore, Dawkins has not provided answers for many other counterexamples. One example is brood parasitism, which can be considered from both the parent’s perspective and the stepchild’s perspective. From the parent’s perspective, the ability to accurately distinguish between their own eggs and others’ eggs would be necessary for gene proliferation. However, without a properly developed mechanism, deception persists until the eggs hatch. This represents a significant genetic loss, suggesting genes do not exhibit systematic kin selection.
Conversely, from the offspring’s (and actual parent’s) perspective, placing eggs in the wrong nest is a calculated risk considering the possibility of the eggs hatching. This is not necessarily a loss compared to raising the offspring themselves. Even if one has many offspring, laying eggs represents a sacrifice of the individual for uncertain offspring (descendants), thus failing to adhere to pure selfishness. This phenomenon could serve as a counterexample to Dawkins’ theory of kin selection, yet the author failed to detect this and insensitively moved beyond the discussion. Another example could be moral acts. Even if limited to humans, and even considering the existence of social pressure and education, a logical proof is needed rather than evading the question with the word ‘society’. When volunteering in Africa (assuming no personal gain), it is unclear what benefit this provides for the proliferation of one’s genes.
Supplementing Kin Selection Theory
Above, we examined the problems with Dawkins’ kin selection theory. This shows that when explaining an individual’s behavior, one cannot rely solely on kinship. The environment in which the individual lives must also be added to or supplement kin selection theory to resolve some of its incompleteness. Individual behavior results from the complex interaction of kin-related factors and environmental factors. For example, in the case of imprinting, where an individual follows and trusts a parent figure who is not biologically related, this demonstrates the immense influence of the environment in which one is born, rather than being solely the result of genetic action. In humans, adoption cannot be explained solely by blood ties. Adopted children and parents share not a single drop of blood, yet many parents do their utmost for their adopted children. This is parental love for the child, not genetics. Such behaviors vary greatly between humans and individuals, are difficult to quantify, and cannot be calculated. Dawkins must incorporate unquantifiable environmental factors into his existing theory. In other words, while he can maintain his theory in the absence of environmental influence, even a slight environmental effect necessitates its inclusion.
Furthermore, more research is needed to understand how environmental factors influence gene behavior. For example, studying differences in parental behavior or social structures across various animal species could help identify how environmental factors affect gene behavior. This would complement Dawkins’ theory and contribute to a more comprehensive explanation. Furthermore, complex moral behaviors or social norms observed in human societies could also be explained through the interaction between environment and genes.
Conclusion
This blog post examined Dawkins’ theory and how it integrates with kin selection. It also listed the problems with his kin selection theory (accuracy of calculations, environmental factors) and presented counterexamples like cuckooing, adoption, and imprinting to illustrate these issues. This leads to the conclusion that Dawkins must incorporate the influence of the environment into his existing theory. While we cannot quantify the influence of the environment, future creative follow-up research may explain an integrated theory of behavior through quantification. Dawkins’ theory remains an important foundation for biological research, but we must recognize that it is not the only way to explain evolutionary behavior. Future research will complement Dawkins’ theory and contribute to building a more comprehensive and accurate evolutionary theory of behavior.
