This blog post examines theories arguing that human behavior is determined by genes, focusing on Richard Dawkins’ theory of the selfish gene, and discusses its limitations and counterarguments.
Our lives have always been, and always will be, determined solely by genes. Everything we thought we chose by our own will was actually manipulated by the genes inside my body. We are merely survival machines for our genes. We are nothing more than temporary vessels for genes to survive.
The above statement summarizes the argument of Richard Dawkins, author of ‘The Selfish Gene’. Through this argument, Richard Dawkins emphasizes biological determinism, presenting the perspective that all our actions and choices are carried out according to the instructions of our genes. This viewpoint can be deeply unsettling to those encountering it for the first time. This is because it appears to deny human free will and the independence of the individual. Is every human action truly nothing more than a tool for the survival of genes? This question is central to understanding Richard Dawkins’ theory. However, it requires not only a deep grasp of the theory but also a critical perspective.
Richard Dawkins explains even human altruism as part of a strategy for gene survival. Regarding altruistic behavior observed in kin relationships, he argues that such actions actually serve to maximize the benefit of genes. Genes manipulate an individual’s behavior to ensure their own replication and survival, thereby attempting to pass their genes on to the next generation. For example, a parent’s sacrificial actions for their child may appear altruistic in themselves, but from the gene’s perspective, protecting a child carrying its genes is ultimately a selfish act.
However, Richard Dawkins’ theory does not explain everything. For instance, would an individual facing imminent death truly act according to the gene’s command? Or how can we explain the choices of transgender individuals or homosexuals, who are unrelated to reproduction? Transgender people sometimes undergo gender reassignment surgery, braving social prejudice, to resolve their gender identity confusion. While this is a choice for the individual’s happiness, from a gene perspective, their choice may act against gene preservation. Homosexuals, too, are making choices that are disadvantageous from the perspective of gene replication. They are less likely to produce offspring, acting contrary to the gene’s survival strategy. These behaviors can be seen as the result of the complex interplay of an individual’s will, self, and social environment, serving as a crucial counterexample to Richard Dawkins’ argument.
Furthermore, fully embracing Richard Dawkins’ theory makes it difficult to explain the complex social behaviors of humans. We often exhibit altruistic behavior even towards complete strangers with no blood relation. For instance, the act of helping a complete stranger during a disaster may not be motivated by the interests of genes. Such behaviors demonstrate that humans are not mere machines controlled by genes. Humans are social animals, and our actions are influenced by diverse factors including culture, morality, and emotion. This can serve as evidence that human behavior is not solely determined by genes.
Furthermore, Richard Dawkins’ theory, which attempts to interpret all human behavior solely as a survival strategy of genes, risks overlooking the complexity and diversity of human existence. While genes are undoubtedly a crucial element of living organisms, numerous other factors—such as environment, culture, education, and social relationships—also profoundly influence our lives. In particular, human moral judgments and ethical choices are aspects that are difficult to explain through simple genetic mechanisms.
Finally, while it is undeniable that genes are a significant factor in human behavior, claiming that they alone entirely govern our lives may be an overly simplistic view. Humans grow and change not only through their genes but also through their own will, choices, and social experiences. Therefore, when interpreting our lives, it is necessary to consider not just genes but a comprehensive range of factors.
