In this blog post, we will look at whether the altruistic behavior of non-human animals can be explained by simple genetic laws.
Richard Dawkins says in his book The Selfish Gene that altruistic behavior is the only trait that distinguishes humans from non-human animals. First of all, the altruistic behavior that Richard Dawkins is talking about here is defined as a kind of sacrifice to enhance the other’s chances of survival by lowering one’s own happiness, that is, one’s own chances of survival. However, after reading the book, I began to question the author’s claim that only humans behave altruistically. In fact, whenever I observed various behavioral patterns of animals, I wondered whether they were moving purely according to their instincts or showing some form of altruism. How can the altruistic behavior of animals that I have experienced so far be explained? I will summarize Richard Dawkins’ arguments and the arguments that oppose them, and write my opinion on them.
Richard Dawkins cites altruistic behavior of animals as an example in this book. He adds that this is not intended to discuss the conscious motives of animals, and that conscious motives are completely irrelevant to his definition of altruism. He interprets altruistic behavior as a means of increasing the viability of genes, even though it may seem to be the opposite of selfish behavior at first glance. This stems from the perspective of looking at the world from the perspective of genes rather than individuals. Rather than focusing on the altruistic and selfish behavior of individuals, he explains the selfishness and altruism of individuals with the basic law of selfish genes. He explains that most of the altruistic self-sacrifice of animals is done by mothers to their offspring, and the ultimate reason for this is for reproduction. The special nature of genes lies in the fact that they are replicators, and all living things evolve according to the law of survival of the fittest, which is based on the difference in the survival rate of entities that replicate themselves. Richard Dawkins explains animal behavior and evolution from the perspective of genes. From his perspective, which studies the relationship between animal behavior and evolution, he defines genes as the most important unit of natural selection. Altruism, which is the act of doing something selfless for others, is also claimed to be the work of The Selfish Gene.
From now on, I will explore the counterarguments to Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, focusing on Denis Noble’s book The Music of Life. Richard Dawkins’ argument ultimately boils down to extreme reductionism. In this book, Richard Dawkins’ biological determinism, which pursues the objectivity of science, is criticized for not being fair. Denis Noble, a leading scholar of systems biology, argues that life phenomena should be viewed from an integrated perspective, not from genes. He emphasizes that genes are not the determining factor of everything in living organisms, and that a broader perspective is needed to understand life phenomena that appear as a result of complex interactions. In his view, life is a process and a mode of behavior consisting of a complex network. In this context, Denis Noble argues that Richard Dawkins is inconsistent in his positions on evolutionarily stable strategies, memes, and extended phenotypes. He also argues that his own macro- and holistic systems biology is more convincing than micro-reductionism and biological determinism, or gene-centric theories.
I think that both authors have a point. Richard Dawkins’ theory has a scientifically strong logical system, but sometimes I feel that it tends to oversimplify the complex behavior of humans and animals. On the other hand, Denis Noble’s argument is attractive in that it acknowledges such complexity and proposes an integrative approach. However, what I want to focus on is the meaning of altruistic behavior at the individual level of animals. I would like to take the vegetarian lion, Little Tyke, as an example. Tyke belongs to the species of lion, which is classified as a carnivore, but he has not been fed any meat that contains animal blood since he was a cub. Tyke only ate grass and only ate milk, which is a food that is carnivorous. Around Tyke, you could see animal friends that you only saw in cartoons, and carnivorous and herbivorous animals mingling together like in Disney World. How can this be explained? It seems that there are limits to explaining behavior that goes beyond natural instincts simply by genes or physiological conditions. If you ask Richard Dawkins and Denis Noble what they think of this example, they will both say, “It is a characteristic of an individual that occurs exceptionally in an ecosystem,” and still make their respective arguments.
Let’s predict their arguments. Richard Dawkins’ argument will mention altruism at the level of animal individuals. However, he will criticize The Selfish Gene for not considering at all the question of what utility there is in altruistic behavior at the level of the individual animal, and what more needs to be studied, without making any mention of how to strengthen the laws of one’s own genes. Denis Noble is likely to criticize The Selfish Gene for failing to explain human nature by the “dialectical interaction” between biological and cultural characteristics. Perhaps they did not make any special mention of the altruistic behavior of non-human animals.
I am not criticizing them for not making such a consideration. It is not their role to do so. However, if they knew that they could conduct their research because of the existence of such phenomena, I think it would have been better if they had mentioned it and moved on, as it is an issue that someone should consider. Such discussions provide important implications not only for animal behavior but also for understanding human behavior. I would like to draw attention to the fact that such cases can be understood as a phenomenon that occurs not only in one individual, the dog Tyke, but also in various parts of society.
