This blog post critically examines whether life is merely a means for the survival of genes, focusing on ‘The Selfish Gene’.
What is the reason for human existence? What is the origin of humankind, and what is the meaning of living? Countless thinkers and philosophers have debated and researched these questions over the centuries. Notable theories include the multiregional origin hypothesis, the Out-of-Africa theory, British empiricism, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and creationism from a religious perspective, all of which remain subjects of ongoing debate. Amidst these discussions, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book ‘The Selfish Gene’ caused a major stir in the biological community by proposing the concept that genes exist for their own replication, establishing itself as one of the most noted theories of the 20th century.
In the opening section of Chapter 1, titled “Why Humans Exist,” Dawkins states, “My purpose is to explore the biology of selfishness and altruism.” He argues that the fundamental unit of evolution is not the species, group, or individual, but the gene itself. The gene world, he contends, is filled with fierce competition, deception, and selfishness. He presents the following arguments to support this claim.
First, Dawkins defines the basic unit of selection—the fundamental unit of selfishness—as the gene, the unit of heredity. To explain the origin of genes, he recounts the story of the first self-replicator. He describes this first self-replicator as a special molecule that arose by chance among molecules floating in the primordial soup. He argues that these self-replicators later evolved into the DNA molecules we know today, and that errors occurring during replication led to mutations, resulting in the emergence of diverse species. However, the reproduction of diverse species inevitably created competition within the limited space of Earth, leading self-replicators to ultimately create survival machines for themselves. Therefore, Dawkins asserts that all animals, including humans, are ultimately nothing more than survival machines created by genes.
Dawkins explains all observable behaviors of living organisms through the selfishness of genes, presenting the perspective that even actions appearing altruistic within our taken-for-granted ethics and morality are merely strategies for genes to maximize their selfishness. He explains that altruistic behavior is ultimately just a way for one individual to selfishly exploit another, and even mutually beneficial symbiotic relationships are merely means for self-preservation. Dawkins illustrates this fascinatingly through observations and examples of diverse animal behaviors.
He states that while humans have undergone a similar process of genetic evolution to other species, they distinguish themselves by having developed the unique system of culture. He states in the text, “Our genes are selfish, but we are not necessarily governed by them; we are also influenced by cultural learning and transmission,” arguing that memes are precisely what enable this culture. While genes replicate themselves biologically to propagate, memes replicate and spread from brain to brain through imitation. Dawkins uses this to explain how humans and animals, dominated by genes, differ from those shaped by culture.
Despite the radical nature of Dawkins’ claim, his argument unfolds with considerable persuasiveness through diverse examples and logical reasoning. However, the text occasionally reveals gaps where specific evidence remains elusive. Specifically, the point the author wishes to make is that Dawkins’ theory is based on numerous assumptions, making it difficult to accept entirely. While examining whether the initial assumptions set forth in developing the argument are valid is necessary, the text is constructed without this process, relying on unproven assumptions. This can be described as containing many ‘unproven propositions’.
It is already well-known that genes are the physical building blocks of humans. However, the basis for establishing genes as the fundamental unit of selection, the fundamental unit of evolution, and the fundamental unit of selfishness is insufficient. While this can be explained by the behavior of multiple individuals, clear evidence proving this proposition is factual is lacking. Dawkins establishes these assumptions early in his argument and then develops his thesis based on them.
Furthermore, in explaining the emergence of the self-replicator—the ancestor of the gene—he also makes several assumptions to advance his argument. Dawkins mentions that the first self-replicator arose ‘by chance,’ presenting this almost as if it were a mythical element, as if it were fact. He presents the explanation that “even a bet with an extremely low probability of winning can result in a win at least once if repeated hundreds of millions of times,” arguing that such ‘chance’ events are possible on timescales beyond human comprehension. However, he still does not answer the question of whether this ‘chance’ is not actually 0%. His explanation remains inadequate regarding why we have neither observed nor recorded such ‘accidental’ events during the 4.4 million years of human history we’ve examined—whether this is because human history is too brief compared to Earth’s 4.5 billion years, or because such events are fundamentally impossible.
Similarly, the evolutionary process of self-replicators also relies on numerous underlying assumptions. Every step relies on assumptions: the assumption that self-replicators must inevitably make errors, the assumption that these errors lead to competition among variants, and the assumption that survival machines are selected to survive this competition. Thought experiments suggesting that replication speed, copying accuracy, and replicator lifespan increase survival rates appear plausible, but they are ultimately based on assumptions and cannot be easily accepted as facts.
Furthermore, there is a potential contradiction arising from the fact that the unit expressing gene selfishness is the gene itself. If the behavior of human or animal individuals stems from gene selfishness, an explanation is needed for how this independent gene selfishness operates within the individual. In other words, there is insufficient explanation for the potential conflict of selfishness between individual genes within a human individual. Dawkins mentions the existence of a gene pool, but the very existence of a gene pool is also merely an assumption.
The frequent use of animals as primary examples to explain most individual behaviors is also debatable. This is because the behavioral intentions analyzed through research may differ from the actual intentions possessed by the animals. It cannot be asserted that the results of Dawkins’ analysis, which focused on animal behavior, align with the animals’ actual intentions. While the narrative is presented under the assumption that the results are factual, this too is merely an assumption. Conversely, analyzing humans could provide readers with opportunities to observe and empathize with their own actions.
Thus, the author pointed out and criticized several unproven assumptions. Despite some criticisms, this book is highly intriguing due to its original conception of viewing genes, rather than species or individuals, as the agents of evolution, and its attempt to explain all life behaviors through the selfishness of genes. Viewing the evolution and behavior of all living things through the lens of genes, this book broadens our perspective beyond its academic significance, offering a new way to understand life. I hope this book expands our understanding of evolutionary theory and the behavior of living organisms.
