Richard Dawkins made me Platonist

Richard Dawkins made me Platonist.

That´s almost literally true. Years ago (circa 2000 or 2005), I was reading some of Dawkins´ heavier books, either "The Blind Watchmaker" or "The Selfish Gene". Or maybe both. The book (whichever it was) almost literally turned me Platonist, Deist, or even quasi-Christian (I dare not say "Anglican"), since the worldview of reductionist materialism and sociobiology sounded so bleak and meaningless. But is the worldview of Dawkins (or "the reality of evolution") actually so bad? Let´s see...

If Neo-Darwinism is right, there is presumably no true altruism anywhere in nature, and even among humans, we should expect it to be relatively rare, except perhaps in cultures where we deliberately teach altruism from a very young age. By "true altruism" I mean a completely selfless act directed towards a complete stranger, who morever can´t or won´t reciprocate in any way, shape or form, a fact known to the selfless giver at the time. The Sermon on the Mount could perhaps be seen as an even more extreme version of true altruism. 

But is the non-existence of such altruism really such a bad thing?

In nature, and usually among humans, there are "only" two kinds of altruism, none of them being "true": genetic altruism and reciprocal altruism. Genetic altruism means altruism towards your kin (perhaps off-spring or siblings), while reciprocal altruism means "I scratch your back, and you scratch mine". An example of the first would be so-called helpers at the nest among birds, an example of the latter would be birds in a flock warning each other for predators. (Even the seemingly selfless worker-ants really confirm this, since they are genetically related to each other and to the queen that spawned them.) 

Now, imagine a world in which every creature is a true and completely selfless altruist. It´s obviously difficult to do, but let´s try it! Imagine such a perfect world for eternity. It would be utopia. Or indeed Heaven. It might even be a very, very good thing! Can such a world exist? Yes, it probably can. In Heaven, that is. On our plane of existence, on the other hand, not likely! 

Down here, evolution and change are facts. Even if we assume that a world of true altruists would last for billions of years, it only takes one mutation to upset the apple carts. It´s reasonable to assume that such a mutation can and would happen. How would the world look like if only *one* creature would be anti-altruistic, while all the others remain selfless? The one selfish creature would turn all the others into its slaves, using and abusing them at its pleasure. And no, they wouldn´t resist. They are completely selfless, remember? The almost complete absence of selfish genes turns into a nightmarish recepie for tyranny, slavery, and parasitism on a truly global scale. 

Yes, "selfish genes" do create a lot of problems for humans, but is the alternative really so much better? Indeed, I would even argue that at least reciprocal altruism is true socialism - all for one, one for all, we work for the government, if the government works for us. Genetic altruism sounds more "tribal" and "right-wing". Perhaps those are the only options for the human species: either reciprocal or genetic altruism? Of course, they don´t necessarily contradict each other. 

I´m almost tempted to say "thank God for selfish genes"!