This blog post examines the limitations of the incomplete selfish gene theory and explores possibilities and directions for supplementing it.
Research on evolutionary theory is ongoing worldwide, and many aspects remain poorly explained. Consequently, opinions on evolutionary theory vary widely. The Selfish Gene theory is one such perspective, famously articulated by Clinton Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. This book has been widely read, earning recognition as a landmark in popular science literature, and consequently, the selfish gene theory has faced diverse criticisms. However, completely refuting the entire selfish gene theory is no easy task. Criticisms commonly directed at the selfish gene theory are often misguided. Furthermore, when compared to other theories, the selfish gene theory is undoubtedly a highly reasonable one. Therefore, this article argues that there is significant value in conducting research on evolutionary theory based on the Selfish Gene theory. However, this choice is made because the Selfish Gene theory is relatively reasonable, not because it is a perfect theory. Consequently, this article contends that while the Selfish Gene theory is relatively reasonable, it remains incomplete. Thus, complementing it to complete evolutionary theory is a challenge worth pursuing.
First, before presenting the rationale for why the selfish gene theory is more reasonable than other theories, it is necessary to address a common misguided criticism of the theory. The counterargument, “Don’t certain animals live cooperatively?” does not undermine the selfish gene theory. The word ‘selfish’ chosen by Clinton Richard Dawkins is not directly related to the character of the individual. Evolution refers to changes in the frequency of specific genes within a gene pool. Generally, the proportion of genes that are easier to replicate and transmit to the next generation increases; the term ‘selfish’ is simply a means to describe this.
Furthermore, the theory of the selfish gene has little connection to determinism. The concept of ‘genes being selfish,’ as articulated by Clinton Richard Dawkins, refers to the category of selfishness and the directionality of evolution. In The Selfish Gene, it is argued that the basic unit of evolution is the gene, and that changes in the gene pool occur as each gene acts in a direction favorable to its own replication. A crucial point to note here is that while it indicates a direction, it does not assign specific goals to every change in the gene pool or every animal behavior. For example, when observing a rocket navigating space, one can describe the rocket’s directionality, but one cannot know where its destination is or even if a destination exists.
Second, because the selfish gene theory is more reasonable than other theories, further research on evolutionary theory should proceed based on this theory. What does it mean for a theory to be ‘relatively reasonable’? We can borrow Karl Raimund Popper’s ideas to consider this. A theory is any logical way of thinking designed to explain observed phenomena. Even for the same event occurring under identical circumstances, multiple theories can be proposed depending on the approach. For example, if two instances of the number 2 result in the outcome 4, one might infer addition was performed, or one might infer multiplication was performed. However, if an additional observation shows that 6 is produced using 2 and 3, we would conclude that the multiplication theory is more reasonable than the addition theory. Thus, the process of selecting the more reasonable theory involves adopting the theory that can explain all events. Therefore, if the selfish gene theory demonstrates that it can explain diverse animal behaviors most broadly, it proves that the selfish gene theory is more reasonable than other theories.
To briefly summarize the selfish gene theory: the unit explaining biological phenomena is the gene, and evolution proceeds in a direction favorable for the preservation of that gene. This statement allows us to understand that theories can be naturally organized based on their fundamental unit and the directionality of evolution. For example, the Wynne-Edwards theory on population regulation can be explained by altruistic behavior at the group level. Of course, ‘altruistic’ here means that the gene pool changes in a direction favorable to the survival of the entire group rather than individual genes. Comparing the selfish gene theory with theories of different categories and directions yields the following:
A1: Animal population size is regulated through territoriality and rank systems. A2: Birds tend to lay a specific number of eggs at once. A3: Some birds live in flocks and appear to estimate population density. B1: Bird chicks use false cries to obtain food from their parents. B2: Mother birds abandon weak chicks to reduce their own workload.
First, a comparison of altruistic behavior at the group level and the selfish gene theory. The Selfish Gene explains that phenomena like A1, A2, and A3 can be interpreted through both group-level altruism and the theory of selfish genes. However, explaining B1 through group-level altruism is awkward. If the root of animal behavior is group prosperity, the mother bird would have fed the chick without the need for false cries. That is, phenomena unexplainable by group-level altruism can be explained by the selfish gene theory.
Next, a comparison of individual-level selfish behavior and the selfish gene theory. Here, ‘individual-level selfish behavior’ refers to the tendency of animals to act in ways that increase their individual survival rate, which differs from the selfish gene theory. The selfish gene theory also explains that both B1 and B2 can be accounted for by this theory. However, individual-level selfish behavior cannot explain A3. A3 implies that individuals consciously regulate the population size, and explaining such behavior through individual-level selfish actions feels unnatural. Thus, while other theories provide explanations limited to specific domains, the selfish gene theory demonstrates the ability to explain a wide range of phenomena through a single principle. Therefore, the selfish gene theory is a highly rational theory.
Third, the selfish gene theory requires supplementation in various aspects. Even though the selfish gene theory is relatively rational, it is not a completely correct theory. The current theory of the selfish gene alone cannot explain all behavioral patterns. A prime example is adoption. In humans and some monkeys, parents raise children through adoption, a behavior not directly related to the transmission and preservation of their own genes. Another example is pet ownership. The act of keeping pets also does not aid in passing one’s genes to the next generation.
Two interpretations can be considered for this. The first is that evolution is still ongoing. Because the gene pool is still in a transitional phase of change, behavioral patterns deemed inefficient by the selfish gene theory have not been eliminated and remain. For example, regarding adoption, Richard Dawkins mentioned this as a malfunction in The Selfish Gene. The second interpretation is that the theory of the selfish gene is, in a sense, still incomplete. Consider Isaac Newton’s laws of motion and Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity. In everyday situations, Newton’s laws seem to fit well. However, in situations involving motion close to the speed of light, Einstein’s special theory of relativity is necessary. In other words, under special circumstances, Newton’s laws of motion require correction. This example helps us distinguish the scope where the selfish gene theory is applicable and the scope where correction is needed.
So how can we find this criterion? Returning to the earlier example, during the period when Newton’s laws of motion could explain all situations, there was a limit to the speeds people could observe. That is, since movements approaching the speed of light were not considered, adjustments for that situation were necessary. Therefore, we can find this criterion by observing what aspects the selfish gene theory failed to consider. When combined with the characteristics of counterexamples like adoption and pets, we can see that the selfish gene theory did not sufficiently account for the learning individuals gain within society. Thus, for groups possessing a certain level of sociality and learning ability, a modified version of the selfish gene theory should be applied.
Evolutionary theory has yet to provide a complete explanation of life, necessitating further research. I believe the selfish gene theory offers a solid foundation for such additional study. This article began by refuting common misguided criticisms of the selfish gene theory, explaining why disproving it is not straightforward. Furthermore, based on the examples presented in Clinton Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, it demonstrated that the selfish gene theory is relatively more reasonable compared to other theories. Therefore, it proposed that it is advisable to conduct evolutionary research based on the selfish gene theory. However, being relatively more reasonable does not mean this theory is completely correct. This is because certain behavioral patterns remain difficult to explain solely through the selfish gene theory. To address this issue, we must recognize that evolution is still ongoing and acknowledge the incompleteness of the selfish gene theory. Specifically, if we apply the influence of society on the survival of individuals and gene communities, as well as on the transmission of genetic information, to the selfish gene theory, this modified theory is expected to interpret a wider range of behavioral patterns.
