In this blog post, we will look at whether human nature is determined by genes or varies depending on the environment based on the ‘selfish gene.’
As the field of life sciences has recently emerged as a major issue, the term ‘selfish gene’ has been cited in various fields. I think Richard Dawkins is a scientist who has attracted the world’s attention with his amazing logic while discussing genetics. In this book, too, Dawkins describes genes through various analogies.
The most striking part of this book is the part where he explains the concept of “self-replicators” by comparing humans to “survival machines.” This is because the author’s description of humans as inanimate “survival machines” was very paradoxical. The author defines “self-replicators” as genes that replicate themselves, and makes a somewhat provocative claim that “survival machines” are merely carriers created to preserve and multiply those replicators.
If humans evolved and were replicated through their own replicators, wouldn’t we also be able to know information about human nature? In Mencius’s “nature is good” and Sunzi’s “nature is evil,” they each argue that human nature is good or that humans are evil but change through experience. In this way, philosophers have explained human nature through circumstantial evidence. However, Dawkins takes a scientific approach to genes as the primary determinant of human nature. He argues that genes will act selfishly when their altruistic nature is advantageous, explaining human nature as the behavior of genes.
However, there is still plenty of room to refute Dawkins’ claims. The author has never claimed that human thoughts and actions are determined solely by genes. It is possible to argue that genes can create the framework for behavior and thought, but human thoughts and actions depend on the environment and autonomy. In response, the author introduced the concept of “meme.”
Now let’s take a look at what the author has to say about “meme.” Dawkins explains the reason why humans, despite being survival machines governed by selfish genes, act differently from the commands of those genes, using the concept of “meme.” I understood that “meme” is shared among people, and that belief and knowledge are spread, which can affect the characteristics of genes. This concept has important value as a link between life sciences and culture. However, if this “meme” is artificially manipulated for the wrong purpose, it could cause social problems. Just as biotechnology has made it possible to manipulate genes, “meme” could also be misused by people with specific purposes. Therefore, we must have a mature sense of ethics when dealing with “meme.”
Meanwhile, the author mentions ‘meme’ and claims that humans are the most outstanding among natural objects. This is a claim that is contrary to the Eastern view of nature and humans as equals. The Western way of thinking that seeks to conquer nature has room to be refuted by those who advocate Eastern thinking. It is not right to see cultural elements as objects of conquest.
While reading the book, I came across a confusing passage. It argued that the acts we commonly think of as altruistic are actually the result of selfish genes acting to survive. According to Dawkins’ logic, even the act of a parent loving their child does not come from love, but from the genes’ desire to make and preserve many copies of themselves. I had never thought that altruism can be selfish. However, if you look around a little, you can find examples of this. For example, volunteer activities for personal purposes or the actions of politicians during election periods may be altruistic on the outside but selfish on the inside. I don’t think this logic of Dawkins is completely wrong. If you look at it from a different perspective, you cannot rule out the possibility that the actions that are called selfish are actually selfish.
I also found the content related to the “War of the Sexes” interesting. When you look at books in bookstores that analyze relationships between men and women from a psychological perspective, you often see descriptions of the instinctive feelings of men and women. However, Dawkins explains relationships between men and women as a simple battle between genes. He says that love between men and women is simply an act of trying to preserve one’s genes better.
However, applying the battle between sperm and egg to the love between men and women seems inappropriate. Love between men and women is not something that disappears simply because it cannot leave behind genes. Love is an emotion that gives more joy than that, and it cannot be explained by genes alone. If men and women only love to preserve their genes, they could have just waged a “male-female war” instead of love. I cannot agree with the author’s expression of “love” as “the battle of the sexes.”
Throughout the book, the author claims that genes govern life phenomena and that genes use selfish survival strategies to evolve in a direction that is beneficial to themselves. Ironically, it may be a play created by the author that genes exhibit selfish and altruistic behavior. For example, economic losses and gains are caused by the concept of money. Without money, there would be no concept of loss and gain. Similarly, it can be said that Dawkins introduced the concept of “selfishness” and distinguished the behavior of genes as selfish or altruistic. I hope that the behavior of genes will be revealed as soon as possible as life science advances.
