Origins and Evolution:

The Selfish Gene

By Madelene WIGHTMAN

"We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Though I have known it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it." Professor Richard Dawkins, 'The Selfish Gene'

Using one of the many excellent analogies used throughout his book, Prof. Dawkins explains that we are like a chess computer program that has been programmed by its creator to play in its absence. The programmer (our genes) play no part in the game (life) yet provide the tools for its vehicle (animal, plant etc.) to play the game on its behalf.

Programmed by our Genes?

I am glad that Professor Dawkins says that he never gets fully used to this idea. I find it very difficult to replace the notion of being preeminent within my own mind and body with the realisation that I am simply driven by my genes.

It requires a 'flip' in perception - but it is so different to what our senses tell us that it flips back without a conscious effort. Yet how many of us have not regularly had to do battle with ourselves to do what we know we should do rather than what they feel we would prefer to do?

How do we decide on a course of action? Why do we give into the temptation to do certain things whilst refraining from others? Are all our decisions guided by 'Carrot and stick'? It was Charles Munger who coined the phrase 'Reward and Punishment Super-response Tendency'.

On the surface, it would appear that, at a very basic level, that all creatures seek their own self-interest. By this reasoning, the innate drive is to maximise pleasure, whilst avoiding (or reducing) pain. This means in any given circumstance, we assess the risks and potential benefits and respond in a way that seems to best serve us. From this premise, it is important to understand the role of incentives and disincentives in changing cognition and behaviour.

The power of incentives

There was an interesting case at the logistics services major FedEx Corporation. The integrity of the FedEx system required that all packages be shifted rapidly among aircraft in one central airport each night. The system was no good for the customers if the night work shift couldn't accomplish its assignment fast. FedEx had a tough time getting the night shift to do the right thing.

They tried moral persuasion and many other tactics without success. Finally, somebody pointed out that it was foolish to pay the night shift by the hour. What the employer wanted was not maximised billable hours of employee service but fault-free, rapid performance of a particular task. So maybe if they paid their employees per shift and let the night shift employees go home when all the planes were loaded, the system would work better. This was the solution that turned out to work perfectly. It is a classic example of the power of incentives and how they can be used to produce desirable behavioural changes.

Reward and punishment super-response tendency

Professor Dawkins provides a very convincing explanation of why the 'Reward and Punishment Super-response Tendency' is the most powerful of the psychological biases among humans (and other animals). It is a method that the programmer (genes) can use to provide rules that its vehicle (us) can use to learn to better cope with its environment in the absence of the programmer. It is thus much more efficient than providing an endless number of detailed rules and addresses the problem of an environment that may be different to that 'expected' by the genes. Even so, these rules do not always help us today. For example, it helps to explain why rich societies have a problem with obesity: our genes did not expect us to have access to such plenty that the rule to reward us for putting sweet things into our mouths would cause problems.

Selfish Genes = Selfish Individuals?

Professor Dawkins maintains that our selfish genes do not care about us - (their short-term, throwaway vehicles). By this reasoning, we should expect to find that we have been programmed with selfish behaviour. However, I believe that more often than not, we will naturally want to behave in ways which also help and benefit others. We can also refuse to dance to the tune of demands made by our genes. Professor Dawkins later adds points which demonstrate that he also holds this view. He believes that :-

Firstly we are likely to have a statistical propensity towards selfishness, but that does not mean that individually we are doomed to that behaviour.

This means that we can emancipate ourselves from our genes. To take an obvious example, we may decide not to have children. Many modern women feel like social deviants if they decide against a family in order to pursue an alternative ambition. It is also hard to truly distinguish between biological impulses and social pressure. To give an example, some may forgo a family in order to care for an ailing parent. Or because they realise they can't provide materially for a child. Yet the choice not to pass on genes may itself still be the result of genetic imperatives. Prof. Dawkins believes that we have evolved a natural empathy which helps the whole species to thrive. The decision to care for the ailing parent could be the result of powerful societal expectations. When we fail to meet an expectation (namely to behave cooperatively), acceptance and support may be withheld. It is not easy for most people to live happily and to thrive in an environment of disapproval. While we were evolving, rejection by the group would probably resulted in the individual perishing, so the desire to please must itself be favoured genetically. This muddies the waters and it seems problematic to separate biology from culture.

In Chapter 12 (Nice Guys Finish First) of The Selfish Gene, - one of the two chapters added for the 2nd edition, Prof. Dawkins uses the Prisoner's Dilemma gambling game to show that if certain conditions are met, the best outcome is indeed for selfish individuals to cooperate. Also that the 'good' character traits of niceness, forgiveness and lack of envy can be the most successful. The chapter begins with a game where people are demonstrated to often choose selfishly for their own highest gain, rather than for the collective good. Those who do choose cooperatively, but see that the other has chosen selfishly, walk away feeling cheated. Every so often, an individual will choose the selfish route, since he/she assumes that the other will do the same (even when they would've both done better with a cooperative strategy).

Cooperation for the good of all

So, what does this have to do with anything in the real world? Prof. Dawkins uses the Tragedy of the Commons, as an example. Ragwort and Thistle, undesirable species for grazing, have been increasing each year due to overgrazing by cattle. The area's degradation can't be stopped because of a feature of human nature.

The area is a common grazing area shared by many. Each man knows that because it's a common area, he is better off sending as many cattle into the area as possible, (since the next person may do the same, even if he himself were to show restraint). Furthermore, they reason that if everyone else were just to cut back, then their own selfishness would not ruin the area.

(In essence, this would appear to happen in all societies. "Why should I stop flying because no-one else will? To make a noticeable difference, everyone would have to stop flying. Also if everyone else would cut back, then it wouldn't matter what I did").

Professor Dawkins explains how altruism can be a handicap if it is not re-payed.

The story involves birds which remove ticks. When all the birds groom one another, there is a net benefit. However, when one bird grooms another, but is not re-payed, the "cheating" bird has gained an unfair advantage. The grooming bird spent time and energy helping her fellow bird, but received no benefit in return. And the "cheating" bird received all the benefits of altruism without any of the costs.

Strategy

He then describes a series of computer simulations. These are meant to demonstrate which strategy could be most effective along a cooperative versus selfish continuum. Examples given are 1) starting off cooperative and switching to less cooperative, 2) starting off not cooperative but gradually becoming more cooperative based on the opponent, 3) being mostly cooperative but occasionally sneaking in a selfish move, etc.

Surprisingly, the best strategy was also the simplest: tit for tat. In other words, opening cooperatively and then simply copying the other's strategy at each turn thereafter.

Neither being recklessly selfish nor naively cooperative worked as well. However, the strategy only worked when a sufficient number of other players engaged the same strategy. In other words, when 'tit for tatters' play each other, the result is that everyone wins.

However, what if others continue to use a selfish, cheating strategy? Professor Dawkins explains that the strategy no longer works, and a critical mass of 'tit for taters' must exist at the onset in order for the strategy to avoid extinction in a population of cheaters.

Vampire bats

Are there any real world examples of tit for tat communities? Professor Dawkins explains that vampire bats use this strategy. On any given night, a certain percentage of vampire bats will fail to find a host. Other bats will share with unsuccessful bats that evening, but only if the other bats have shared with them when the shoe was on the other foot.

In other words, the bats remember who shared with them when they were needy, and eventually, selfish bats would not be shared with. Yet how does this work in human society? It would seem that we are individually hard-wired to behave either selfishly or altruistically (yet in reality we all fall somewhere on a line of continuum running from altruistic to selfish). It has been theorised that both types of behaviour have played a role in our evolutionary development, and that societies must always try to balance the tension between the two to survive.

As I mentioned earlier, culture is a factor which complicates the issue of ethics and morality, since while there are some universal standards, there are others which have variant standards of morality.

For example, monogamy is not universal. Also many cultures have taboo foods or other behaviours which may be encouraged in other societies.

Altruism

In his best seller, 'The God Delusion', Professor Dawkins maintains that that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy. He asks, "would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?" He argues that very few people would answer "yes", undermining the claim that religion is needed to make us behave morally.

This is presumably because a lack of empathy would have hindered mankind from evolving to its present state. If natural empathy did not exist, then social cohesion would probably have dissolved. Living as individuals with no empathy would not be the best environment for the next generation to survive, flourish and subsequently pass on their genes.

It would seem that we may deduce the following:-

1. Selfish genes don't necessarily mean selfish individuals

2. Altruism is usually only disadvantageous if it is not reciprocated

3. Evolution helps explain some behaviours, including cooperation but culture also goes a long way to explaining standards of behaviour.

Dichotomies

I would argue that it is unimportant if the reason for altruism or helpfulness is ultimately biological. Unless we are socio-paths, we are capable of great love and selfless (or at least mutually beneficial) behaviour. In each moment, we are unaware of any analysis of benefit and risk or of any evolved drive towards "cooperation" for selfish means. We simply enjoy friendships, social interaction and meaningful relationships for their own sake. We often jump at the chance to help others and genuinely don't want anything in return.

It is only when the stakes are really high that we will consciously assess benefit versus risk for a particular course of action. Otherwise, it is immaterial that our behaviour stems from cooperating with the group so that the individual (as well as the group may thrive). This is indeed a dichotomy. In a similar way, the dichotomy between determinism and freewill means much to us as individuals.

Science may tell us that we live in a deterministic universe, yet we cherish the idea of freewill. Equally, even if we can accept intellectually that science detects an evolutionary explanation for many of our behaviours, we cherish our moral choices. Another similar dichotomy is that evolutionary science tells us that we are simply the products of blind forces; yet we cherish our lives and treat them as sacred. It is irrelevant that we live in an indifferent universe; this being the case, it is surely all the more important to enjoy this brief window we have into its history and to make the best of our lives.