This blog post critically examines the nature of biological altruism from the perspective that seemingly altruistic behavior may actually be a survival strategy of genes.
A rebuttal to altruism
In this blog post, I would like to refute the concept of biological altruism, which is a widely known concept in the biological community. Biological altruism is a concept advocated by Richard Dawkins, who is famous for his book “The Selfish Gene.” Through the concept of “selfish genes,” Dawkins explains that the altruistic behavior of individuals is actually intended to increase the viability of genes. The selfish gene aims to contribute to the survival and reproduction of the individual and to pass on its genetic information to the next generation. As we will see in more detail later, biological altruism does not exist, and the concept of the selfish gene is more of a hypothesis than a scientific fact.
Before introducing it, let’s take a brief look at the basic definition of altruism. Altruism in the general sense refers to the act of sacrificing one’s own interests for the happiness and well-being of others. However, biological altruism has a different meaning. In the natural world, the act of an individual sacrificing itself or taking risks ultimately serves to promote the survival of the species or genes. Therefore, biological altruism is more of an act that only appears altruistic than an actual act of altruism. One of Darwin’s great insights was on natural selection. Individuals that act in their own interests can leave more offspring than those that do not. Darwin wanted to apply natural selection to individuals, not groups or species. Groups are just a collection of individuals, so natural selection applies to individuals, not groups. Furthermore, Darwin believed that selfishness is the basic element of life. This was contrary to the common idea that altruism is the basic element of life. Darwin believed that selfishness, especially the selfishness of individuals rather than groups or species, is the basic element of life, and he expressed that natural selection occurs in individual organisms.
Let’s go back to Richard Dawkins. Many abnormal behaviors that can only be explained by biological altruism have been observed in the natural world (e.g., the suicide of a bee). In fact, there are many cases in which individuals put themselves in danger or even sacrifice their lives for the sake of others. These phenomena have led some to believe that altruism is prevalent in the natural world. However, this is just one of the strategies that works in favor of survival and reproduction, and it is difficult to consider it as true altruism. Considering that individuals are beings that benefit from natural selection, isn’t this biological altruism and Darwin’s claim (the unit of selection is the individual) in conflict? Dawkins says yes. He argued that the unit of selection is not the individual but the gene. He saw genes, not individuals carrying genes, as benefiting from natural selection. The concept of the selfish gene stems from the idea that there is a sustainable altruism in the natural world. If it exists, then biologically, the individual is not an existing entity but merely a carrier of the selfish gene.
Also, what is notable in refuting Dawkins’ argument is that the interpretation that selfish genes control an individual’s behavior may be too mechanical. While it is clear that genes are an important factor in survival strategies, portraying genes as the absolute determiners of all an individual’s behavior can distort scientific reality. In fact, the behavior of the natural world is the result of a complex combination of genetic and environmental factors, and the relationship between genes and individuals is much more flexible and complex.
Therefore, in this blog post, I would like to talk about why such biological altruism does not exist. Altruism cannot exist in the natural world on a continuous basis. I would like to explain this through the suicide gene of bees, which is one of the most difficult examples of altruism to explain.
The Suicide Gene: The Case of Bees
Bees are born with an instinct to sting and attack their enemies when their nests are threatened by them. The bee that stings will be injured to death. This is a perfect example of altruism. Bees sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the hive, rather than for their own individual benefit. Many people interpret this behavior as “altruism.” However, bees do not feel altruistic or make moral decisions when they do this. It is an instinctive behavior programmed into their genes, and it is the result of natural selection that has been selected in favor of survival.
If we analyze this phenomenon in depth, the suicide gene in bees can be seen as a way to maximize “genetic benefits.” Although sacrifices are made at the individual level, the sustainability of genes is ultimately improved. If bees were rational individuals, what would they choose if they were given the choice to be born with or without the suicide gene?
Case 1: Born without the suicide gene
If a bee is born without the suicide gene, it will not have to defend its nest and die. However, if this individual is born without the suicide gene, its sisters will also be the same. In conclusion, bees born without the suicide gene do not benefit from the nest defense that their sisters may have provided.
Case 2: Being born with the suicide gene
If a bee is born with the suicide gene, the individual has the risk of dying from stinging to defend the nest. However, in this case, the individual benefits from the fact that its sisters can defend the nest safely when it is attacked.
Conclusion
The important question is: “Does the benefit of nest defense through the suicide of sisters offset the risk of individuals committing suicide?” In The Selfish Gene, the author answers this question in the affirmative. If the benefits were not greater than the risks, bees would not have survived as widely as they have. This means that bees do not have the suicide gene through evolution, but even if they could choose whether or not to have the suicide gene, they would choose to have it. Therefore, the seemingly altruistic behavior of bees is actually based on a selfish mechanism. Statistically, bees benefit from the suicide gene. Of course, this does not apply to bees that die due to the suicide gene. When we think about the survival statistics of these individuals and the natural selection mechanism, biological altruism is ultimately just a means to increase the survival rate of the entire gene. From the perspective of genes rather than individuals, the sacrifice of individuals in the process of natural selection is just an inevitable means.
