Selfishness, Altruism, and Cooperation Theme Analysis

One of Dawkins’ central motivations in The Selfish Gene is “to understand the biology of selfishness and altruism.” Some animals sacrifice themselves so that other animals in their species can survive. There is also apparent evidence of cooperation in nature, both between species and between genes. Dawkins argues, however, that when these behaviors are looked at from a genetic perspective, they only appear to be altruistic, and that cooperation only occurs when there is an evolutionary advantage to cooperating. In fact, Dawkins argues that cooperative behaviors always ensure the genes’ survival, and that genes are fundamentally “selfish” and altruism in nature is an illusion.

Historically, biologists assumed that some organisms act selflessly in order to ensure the species as a whole survives. They assumed that the “unit” that evolves wasn’t the individual animal, but the species as a whole. Dawkins argues that “groups” cannot be the units that evolve, because animals tend to favor their own kin (who are their genetic relatives) over others in the group (who are not). Birds, for example, expose themselves to predators to gather food for chicks, but they usually only feed the chicks in their own nests. Technically, if the thing that matters is the survival of the group, there is no evolutionary reason for a parent to favor its own chicks over others in the species. From the genetic perspective, however, this behavior makes perfect sense. A parent’s child contains copies of the parent’s genes, while other children in the species do not, so parents focus on the survival of their own offspring.

Dawkins also argues that cooperation between species only exists when it results in an “evolutionarily stable strategy” (or “ESS”), meaning it enables the gene’s survival in the long run. Essentially, if we logically work through the potential outcomes of “selfish” behaviors between species, it turns out that, in these instances, genes that are able to create cooperating organisms are most likely to survive. Pregnant fig wasps, for example, lay their eggs in figs. The young wasps then take nourishment from the figs as they grow, while at the same time transferring pollen between fig trees, facilitating tree reproduction. Fig wasps could lay more eggs, but then the fig trees would lose too many resources nourishing the extra wasps, and die. The wasps would lose their source of nourishment. So, genes that instructed wasps to lay as many eggs as possible didn’t survive in the long run because laying so many eggs isn’t an “evolutionarily stable strategy.” Similarly, fig trees could bear fruit that larval wasps can’t survive in. But the genes that instructed fig trees to do so most likely died out when wasps didn’t survive to transfer their pollen. This genetic strategy too, isn’t “evolutionarily stable.” In the long run, genes that instructed wasps to lay some (but not too many eggs), and genes that instructed fig trees to bear wasp-nourishing figs would have the greatest overall chance of survival. Fig wasps and fig trees thus appear to “cooperate,” but this is only because cooperation keeps their respective genes alive.

A third instance of apparent cooperation happens within organisms, between genes. An organism is technically a “colony” of many different genes cooperating with each other to ensure the survival of all the genes in the organism. Dawkins argues, though, that genetic cooperation only occurs when it gives individual genes an evolutionary advantage. Completely selfless genes would give up resources that they need to replicate. But then they wouldn’t be able to replicate, so they would die out. On the other hand, completely selfish genes would steal resources that other genes need to replicate. But then the organism that houses them all would die, and those genes would die too. In the long run, genes that cooperate just enough to keep their “survival machines” alive win out, since those survival machines live to reproduce and pass on those genes. Genetic cooperation thus only happens when it better enables a gene to survive.

Dawkins argues that from the genetic perspective, cases of apparent altruism, cooperation between species, and genetic cooperation always hide a “selfish” gene working behind the scenes to ensure its own survival. In other words, Dawkins argues that, technically, there is no such thing as altruism in nature. Dawkins thus concludes that if humans want other humans to behave altruistically toward each other, this behavior has to be learned: it can’t be inherited.