In this blog post, I will examine the significance of Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’ in explaining evolution and biological behavior, and critically assess whether the behavior of all living organisms can be explained solely by the selfishness of genes.

The Perspectives of Evolution and the Selfish Gene

How did we become the humans we are today? After satisfying their instinctual needs, humans have long pondered various philosophical questions. Among these, the question “How did humans become the humans they are today?” has likely been a particularly important concern. For this reason, the theory of evolution has long been one of humanity’s major interests. Consequently, many scholars have proposed various theories. As a result, Darwin’s theory of natural selection has established itself as one of the core theories explaining evolution today. The theory of natural selection posits that, in a given environment, individuals possessing traits advantageous to that environment have a greater advantage in survival and reproduction than those without such traits, and as a result, the likelihood of those traits being passed on to the next generation increases. Even today, various theories and interpretations of evolution exist, including those of Richard Dawkins, who is famous for his book ‘The Selfish Gene’. In this article, I intend to examine the arguments he presents in ‘The Selfish Gene’ and offer my thoughts on them. In particular, this article aims to argue that while the selfishness of genes is a useful perspective for explaining the behavior and evolution of organisms, it does not mean that the behavior of all organisms can be explained by selfishness without exception.
First, the core content of ‘The Selfish Gene’ is as follows: In the process of seeking stability on early Earth, a substance capable of replicating itself was created by chance, and a survival mechanism to protect it was created by genes. Furthermore, genes constantly replicate and spread themselves in order to pass themselves on to the next generation. In the case of animals, genes utilize an individual’s reproduction to pass themselves on to future generations. It is in this process that the concept of “selfishness” is applied. Selfish behavior refers to actions that are advantageous for one’s own survival and reproduction. Altruistic behavior, then, naturally refers to the opposite—actions that aid the survival and reproduction of other individuals. However, Dawkins explains that even altruistic behavior is ultimately a selfish act that benefits the transmission of one’s own genes; he argues that even behavior that appears altruistic on the surface can contribute to the replication and transmission of genes from the gene’s perspective.
This book caused a major stir at the time with its groundbreaking ideas. While many people agreed with these creative ideas, there was also significant criticism. Since a considerable amount of time has passed since the book’s publication, some of the controversies surrounding it have been resolved to a certain extent, while others remain contentious. In fact, Dawkins himself has expressed a desire for readers to approach the book with a critical eye; in the preface to the 30th-anniversary edition, he cautioned against misinterpretations of the book’s core concepts, noting that phrases such as “born selfish” could be misleading. Some people view the book critically and raise counterarguments against Dawkins’ claims based on specific phrases or individual examples. While researching various criticisms of the book, I also came across critiques that seemed to nitpick remarks Dawkins made in his various works regarding adoption and contraception. However, it is difficult to view these individual expressions or examples alone as a critique of the core argument of ‘The Selfish Gene’ itself. Ultimately, to critique the core idea of ‘The Selfish Gene’, one must examine the extent to which the concept of the gene’s “selfishness” itself can universally explain biological behavior and evolution.

Can altruistic behavior be explained by the selfishness of genes alone?

The claim that the selfishness of genes is linked to evolution is highly groundbreaking and persuasive. Although ‘The Selfish Gene’ uses somewhat provocative and science-fiction-like expressions—such as “survival machine,” “self-replicator,” and “genes are immortal”—the reason the book has become a widely read popular science work is that it presents such original content and explanations. Richard Dawkins is a scholar who wields significant influence in the discourse on evolutionary theory, and in this regard, we can place a certain degree of trust in the core perspectives presented in ‘The Selfish Gene’. In fact, this argument proves useful in explaining the evolution of living organisms across a wide and diverse range of fields. However, it tends to force everything into the single concept of “selfishness.” As a result, it sometimes fails to provide a sufficient explanation in certain situations. Let’s examine a few examples.
First, let’s consider altruistic behavior. One of Dawkins’s central arguments is that both selfish and altruistic behaviors are, ultimately, forms of selfish behavior. He explains that even behavior that appears altruistic on the surface is performed because it ultimately leads to the transmission of more of one’s own genes, or because it helps in the future transmission of those genes. Dawkins believes that even actions like charitable giving can ultimately be explained as selfish behavior. He argues that people donate because they can gain social standing or benefits in their relationships through such acts. However, anonymous donations are also common in society. There are even heartwarming stories where the fact of a donation is revealed only after the donor’s death. So, can such behavior also be interpreted as selfish? Of course, it is possible to explain such behavior as ultimately bringing indirect benefits to one’s own genes or relatives. However, the mere fact that such an explanation is possible does not mean we can conclude that all altruistic behavior is necessarily selfish. While it is possible to explain behavior that appears to be the very opposite of selfishness—such as altruism—from the perspective of selfishness, there are limits to reducing all altruistic behavior to selfishness.
Let’s take this a step further and consider social animals. Dawkins tends to distinguish between humans and other animals when explaining memes. However, just because differences exist between humans and other animals does not mean that social behavior and relationships are unique to humans. While humans may be one of the species with the most highly developed intelligence, other animals also have their own societies, and relationships between individuals certainly exist. The gray wolf (Canis lupus) serves as an example. Gray wolves generally live in packs consisting of adult parents and their young offspring, and in some cases, individuals with no blood relation may be accepted into the pack. Within such packs, social behaviors can be observed that are difficult to explain solely in terms of an individual’s direct reproduction or survival. From Dawkins’ perspective, these behaviors could also be explained in terms of reciprocal altruism or kin selection, both of which can be reduced to selfishness. However, just because exceptional situations exist in humans does not mean we can assume that the same kind of exception necessarily exists in other animals. Therefore, to make such a claim, it is necessary to specifically demonstrate that exceptional behaviors—which cannot be explained solely by the direct benefits to genes—actually exist in animals as well. Considering this, rather than simply reducing altruistic behavior to selfishness, it may be more appropriate to explain evolution and behavior by taking into account the social relationships and interactions of organisms.

How can homosexuality be linked to the selfishness of genes?

Next, let’s consider homosexuality. From a genetic perspective, same-sex sexual behavior does not directly lead to reproduction, which is the means of passing one’s genes on to future generations. However, Dawkins uses ants as an example to explain how non-reproductive behaviors, such as homosexuality, can be linked to the preservation of genes within a group. Ants produce numerous offspring from a single queen, and particularly in social insects, individuals engage in behaviors that aid the survival and reproduction of others rather than reproducing directly themselves. Therefore, even if an individual does not engage in reproductive behavior directly, its genetic information can be passed on to the next generation through other individuals. From this perspective, the behavior of individuals who do not reproduce directly can be explained as contributing to the preservation and transmission of their genes. In the case of ants, because these genetic relationships and social structures exist, behaviors that do not directly involve personal reproduction can be explained from the perspective of gene preservation.
However, it is difficult to apply this explanation directly to humans. Humans differ from social insects like ants in their genetic structure and reproductive systems, and the relationship between an individual’s reproduction and their genetic ties to relatives is also not the same. In addition, studies have consistently reported the observation of same-sex sexual behavior or homosexual behavior in mammals such as wolves. In human society as well, various sexual orientations, including homosexuality and bisexuality, have been continuously observed. Considering that homosexuality has existed for a long time, it is difficult to explain it solely from the perspective of “the selfish nature of genes.” Of course, it is possible to investigate the potential existence of genetic factors related to homosexuality, and in fact, sexual orientation is understood to result from the complex interplay of multiple factors, not just genetic ones. Therefore, rather than concluding that the very existence of homosexuality is a phenomenon that contradicts the selfishness of genes, it would be more appropriate to raise the issue that it is difficult to explain the emergence of all sexual behaviors and sexual orientations solely from the perspective of gene transmission and preservation.

Does suicide contradict the selfishness of genes?

Finally, there is the issue of suicide. Research findings indicate that suicide is also linked to genetic factors. A study by Virginia Willour et al. investigated genetic factors associated with suicide attempts among patients with mood disorders and suggested that specific genetic variants may be linked to the risk of suicide attempts. These findings demonstrate that genetic factors may play a role in suicidal behavior to some extent. This, too, may be difficult to explain from a genetic perspective. If we consider the self-interested preservation and transmission of genes, behavior in which an individual voluntarily blocks the possibility of reproduction and gene transmission appears to conflict with the goal of gene preservation.
However, it cannot be conclusively stated that suicide always conflicts with the preservation and transmission of genes. For example, it is possible for suicidal behavior to occur after an individual has already reproduced and passed on their genes to the next generation. Therefore, the mere existence of genetic factors associated with suicidal behavior does not prove that the concept of the selfish preservation of genes is entirely incorrect. Nevertheless, even considering these possibilities, it can be pointed out that there are limitations to explaining phenomena that directly hinder an individual’s survival—such as suicidal behavior—solely through the lens of gene self-preservation. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish between the preservation of the individual and the preservation of genes. The concept of the “selfish gene” as described by Dawkins does not imply that the individual carrying the genetic information must necessarily be preserved. Rather, genes are described as “selfish” because the focus is on the process by which genetic information is passed on to and preserved in the next generation, even if this does not necessarily coincide with the individual’s survival. Therefore, in discussions of suicide, it is necessary to avoid confusing the survival of the individual with the preservation of genes, and to specifically examine how genetic factors related to suicide can be explained from the perspective of gene transmission.

Can the selfish gene theory explain the behavior of all living organisms?

Dawkins’s genetic perspective on evolutionary theory is undoubtedly a compelling argument. This argument is novel and appears useful in explaining the behavior and evolutionary processes of various organisms. However, this does not mean that the entire claim that genes are selfish is invalid. It is simply difficult to say that this perspective can be applied directly to the behavior of all living organisms and in every situation. The examples examined earlier—altruistic and social behavior, homosexuality, and suicide—demonstrate that while some aspects can be explained from the perspective of the selfishness of genes, there are also aspects that are difficult to explain fully through this lens alone. In particular, it is necessary to distinguish between the fact that a certain behavior may directly or indirectly contribute to the transmission and preservation of genes and the claim that such behavior necessarily arises solely because of the selfishness of genes. This is because the former merely suggests the possibility of explaining a specific behavior from the perspective of genes, whereas the latter definitively attributes the cause of that behavior to the selfishness of genes.
Therefore, rather than understanding animal social behavior solely as selfish behavior driven by genes, it is necessary to consider both genetic factors and social interactions together. While genes are an important factor in explaining the behavior and evolution of organisms, attempting to explain all behavior from a single perspective may result in cases that remain unexplained. Ultimately, when explaining evolutionary theory, it is necessary to give significant consideration to genetic factors while also examining the social relationships and interactions that emerge in each specific situation. While the perspective presented in ‘The Selfish Gene’ provides an important starting point for understanding evolution and biological behavior, rather than applying it without exception to all organisms and all situations, we must examine the scope and limitations of its explanation in light of each specific case.