Of genes and metaphors

"The Selfish Gene" is Richard Dawkins most notorious book. Many have heard about it and read disjointed quotes from it. Few have read the whole book. Parts of it do live up to the bad expectations, as when the author says: "Let us try to teach some altruism, because we are born selfish".

Indeed, this anniversary edition has a foreword of the mea culpa type, in which Dawkins points out that he voted Labour at the time of writing the book (i.e. he voted Wilson and Callaghan) and later opposed Margaret Thatcher's Tory government. He also admits that the metaphor "selfish gene" can and have been grossly misunderstood, and that the book should perhaps have been titled "The Eternal Gene" or "The Altruist Vehicle". The problem with the book, really, is that Dawkins - despite the best of intentions - isn't always clear on whether "selfish gene" *is* a metaphor, or whether it's in some sense to be taken in the vernacular sense (as in the quote above). Besides, in a competitive-capitalist society, it's inevitable that the expression will be taken in its vernacular, literal, everyday sense, rather than in the more philosophical sense sometimes intended by the author. Selfish genes do conjure up pictures of a Hobbesian war of all against all, or at the very least of Adam Smith (the Adam Smith of "Wealth of Nations" for those versed in the Adam Smith Probleme).

So what does Dawkins mean, then, when he talks about "selfish genes" or "the tyranny of selfish replicators"? The idea of selfish genes does mean that there is no pure altruism among living organisms, at least not among non-human animals. All cooperation is ultimately based on the self-interest of individual organisms or their genes. Essentially, there are two kinds of "altruism" in nature. Genetic altruism is directed at close kin, as when birds act as helpers at the nest, aiding their parents and siblings (and hence their own genes). Another classical example of genetic altruism is the curious phenomenon of sterility among the worker castes in social insects. Reciprocal altruism is directed towards non-kin, such as flock members. Gregarious birds warning one another of an approaching predator (or bird-watcher) are a good example. Here, the altruism is based on "I scratch your back, you scratch mine". Thus, all cooperation and seeming altruism in nature is really nepotism or the give-and-take of favours among competitors.

In contrast to more doctrinaire sociobiologists, Dawkins admits that pure altruism is both possible and desirable among humans. Humans are products of natural selection, but they are unusual in the sense that their intelligence makes it possible for them to counteract the very same natural selection when they see fit. Dawkins have been criticized for being philosophically inconsistent on this point, but this *is* his point. His political opinions are (by US standards) "liberal" or even "radical-liberal", so he clearly believes that it's desirable for humans to cooperate in truly altruistic ways.

Personally, I'm not so sure whether pure altruism is absent from non-human animals. Just one example: what about brown bears adopting orphaned bear cubs? Isn't that pure altruism? Dawkins and other Neo-Darwinists believe that natural selection only works on individuals or individual genes, but things could get more interesting if we also acknowledge group selection and selections on even higher levels. If nature is viewed as a holistic system, the question of altruism would have to be posed anew. Besides, the fact that genetic, reciprocal and "real" altruism are balanced in nature, is a positive discovery, not something to deny, frown upon or commit intellectual suicide over. Had I been religious, I would have dubbed it Providence!

Unfortunately, all too many Neo-Darwinists have taken a somewhat different tack on the matter. Often, they deny that individual acts of "pure" altruism can exist at all, even among humans. They paint genetic or reciprocal altruism in a bad light (since when is reciprocity bad?) and contrast it to the pristinely pure Sermon on the Mount. Since natural selection doesn't favour the latter, we supposedly live in a dark, Hobbesian world without end. Am I the only one who detects a certain perverse glee in the writings of such people?

I don't believe Richard Dawkins belongs to that crowd. However, his private philosophy doesn't square very well with his scientific convictions. And as long as they don't, I'm afraid Dawkins will continue making up self-contradictory metaphors...