Philosophy Discussion Forums

Richard Dawkins has a book, titled "The Selfish Gene." Is there such a thing as a "Selfish" gene. Isn't this personification run amuk? Genes are not simple structures, they are highly complex and varied, and from all I've read, there is no single, simple definition of a gene. Dawkins goes further with his comparable notion of "Memes" which are thoughts and ideas, and his intention here seems clear. He's attempting to push the boundaries of Darwinian evolution, so that it accounts for everything. As he states in his book, these selfish genes provide the "ultimate rationale for our existence." Is he justified in this bold claim? Or has he gone off the deep end?

Yes genes are selfish... how could they be anything else?

The point of the "ultimate rationale for our existence" is that some genes survive and reproduce and others do not, no further explanation for their existence is required.

As far as the question "Is there a Selfish Gene?", that is a different question. Though the answer is again "yes". It would seem that the people's attribute of selfishness or not is one that is inherent rather than learnt, in which case there will be some gene that codes for that inherent property which some people will have and others not. This could be called (despite not being particularly identified) a 'selfish 'gene'.

Without the selfish gene humans would not eat when hungry even though they know other people are hungry and without food, starving to death. In a family where there is a sick person who cannot eat, the selfish gene insures the non sick will eat even in the presence of the one who cannot eat. Survival of the species depends on the selfish gene. The selfish gene is the survival instinct. Selfishness is another topic.

Everything an individual does, consciously and subconsciously, is selfish so I would definitely say there is a selfish gene.

PhilX

It´s the use of the term "selfish" that has a paticular impact on people. I think many people might use it as an excuse to justify some "negative" behaviors.

I suppose we are selfish to a certain extent and in being so, our genes must be included.

SoylentGreen said, Is there such a thing as a "Selfish" gene

Of course there is! A Selfish Gene acts for it's own interests instead of doing what is best for the environment as a whole.

Isn't this personification run amuk?

Humans are not the only forces with the ability to behave selfishly.

Misty said; The selfish gene is the survival instinct. Selfishness is another topic.

If the survival instinct is selfish, then the genes that caused it are as well.

I think Dawkins' point was that the only thing that determines whether a gene mutation become established in a species is whether it is useful to the survival of the individual - in other words, whether it makes its own (the gene's own) survival into the next generation. But to be honest it was mostly a catchy title to sell books.

As to whether there is a gene that promotes selfishness, no, not really. Every organism must be designed so that it will be better equipped to survive and reproduce, and so any genetic mutation that makes an individual vulnerable to death or disability is likely to be eliminated. Sharing one's food with another could lead you to starve, so we are wired to protect ourselves and work for our own benefit above everything else. So in general we are programmed to work in our own interests, in most cases. That's selfishness.

But we are also capable of cooperation, generosity, and altruism - and why that is true is confusing to some. In fact, I don't believe Dawkins to this day accepts that something called group selection is responsible for those "good" qualities. The idea of group selection is that during the early days of our species and ancestor species, we were hunter-gatherers in small groups. Some of those groups, because of chance and because of shared DNA among families in the group, had much higher degrees of empathy and a sense of group responsibility than others. And those groups with more empathy cooperated better and therefore survived better, while those group who were more selfish tended to die off. Eventually the genes within those groups with an optimum degree of cooperation came to predominate. So that's why we care about other people, can form cooperative communities, and have a sense of morality.

I think that there are hundreds or thousands of genes that in some way promote selfishness in certain situations, and hundreds or thousands of genes that in some way promote cooperation, by directing the development and connectivity of our brains, by creating our personalities, through processes which we're a long way from understanding.

Dawkins also coins the term 'memes' -- the counterpart to 'selfish genes.' Susan Blackmore, a follower of Dawkins, in her book "The Meme Machine" states in the conclusion that "we live our lives as a lie ... the memes made us do it, because a self aids in their replication." This is a conclusion based on the reasoning that memes (which can be anything that amounts to a thought or an idea) replicate themselves, like genes replicate themselves. My difficulty with this reasoning as a whole (whether it be with the explanation of Dawkins with regard to genes or memes) is that he describes something that takes place. He describes a process (sometimes he explains something factually sometimes he offers only speculation--and a lot of it at that especially when it comes to memes). The question of why this process takes place is not part of this explanation--Dawkins actually states the question of Why is an unnecessary question (he means it has no real part in scientific inquiry or the scientific method), and to ask the question as to the why of anything is a throwback to our adolescence. I disagree with Dawkins on this account however for if it is only a throwback to our adolescence then Why philosophy? Why anything?

SoylentGreen wrote:Richard Dawkins has a book, titled "The Selfish Gene." Is there such a thing as a "Selfish" gene. Isn't this personification run amuk? Genes are not simple structures, they are highly complex and varied, and from all I've read, there is no single, simple definition of a gene. Dawkins goes further with his comparable notion of "Memes" which are thoughts and ideas, and his intention here seems clear. He's attempting to push the boundaries of Darwinian evolution, so that it accounts for everything. As he states in his book, these selfish genes provide the "ultimate rationale for our existence." Is he justified in this bold claim? Or has he gone off the deep end?

"Selfish Gene" is a metaphor. Dawkins tried to make people to look at our world from a new perspective. Similar 'libido' is another metaphor aiming to make us see the world from another perspective.