This blog post critically examines the reality of biological altruism from the perspective that seemingly altruistic behavior may actually be a survival strategy of genes.
A Rebuttal to Altruism
This blog post aims to challenge the widely accepted concept of biological altruism within the biological sciences. Biological altruism is a concept championed by Richard Dawkins, famously known as the author of “The Selfish Gene.” Dawkins explains through the concept of the ‘selfish gene’ that an individual’s altruistic behavior is, in essence, a strategy to enhance the survival potential of its genes. The selfish gene aims to contribute to the survival and reproduction of the individual, thereby passing its genetic information to the next generation. As we will explore in detail later, biological altruism does not exist, and the concept of the selfish gene is more appropriately viewed as a hypothesis rather than a scientific fact.
Before proceeding, let’s briefly review the basic definition of altruism. In its general sense, altruism refers to actions where one sacrifices their own interests for the happiness and welfare of others. However, biological altruism carries a different meaning. In nature, an individual’s actions involving self-sacrifice or risk-taking ultimately serve to promote the survival of the species or genes. Accordingly, biological altruism is closer to behavior that merely appears altruistic than to genuine selflessness. One of Darwin’s great insights concerns natural selection. Individuals who act in ways beneficial to themselves can leave more offspring than those who do not. Darwin sought to apply natural selection to individuals, not to groups or species. Since a group is merely a collection of individuals, natural selection applies to individuals, not groups. Furthermore, Darwin viewed selfishness as the fundamental element of life. This opinion contrasted with the common notion that altruism, a generally accepted idea about life, was the fundamental element. Darwin saw selfishness, particularly the selfishness of the individual rather than the group or species, as the fundamental element of life, and thus expressed that natural selection occurs at the level of the individual.
Let us return to Richard Dawkins. Many anomalous behaviors observable in nature cannot be explained solely by biological altruism. (e.g., bee suicide) Indeed, numerous phenomena exist where individuals place themselves at risk or even sacrifice their lives for others. These phenomena lead some to believe altruism is pervasive in nature. However, this is merely one strategy advantageous for survival and reproduction; it is difficult to view it as true altruism. Considering that an individual is an entity benefiting from natural selection, doesn’t this biological altruism conflict with Darwin’s assertion (that the unit of selection is the individual)? Dawkins says yes. He argued that the unit of selection is not the individual but the gene. He viewed genes, not the individuals carrying them, as receiving the benefits of natural selection. The concept of the selfish gene stems from the idea that sustainable altruism exists in nature. If it does, biologically, the individual is not a real entity but merely a carrier of selfish genes.
Furthermore, a notable point in refuting Dawkins’ argument is that the interpretation that selfish genes control an individual’s behavior can be overly mechanistic. While genes are clearly a crucial element in survival strategies, portraying them as absolute entities that determine all an individual’s behavior can distort scientific reality. Actual behavior in nature results from the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors, and the relationship between genes and individuals is far more flexible and intricate.
Therefore, this blog post aims to discuss why such biological altruism does not exist. Altruism cannot persistently exist in nature. I will illustrate this using the example of the suicide gene in honeybees, one of the most challenging altruistic phenomena to explain.
The Suicide Gene: The Case of Honeybees
Honeybees are born with the instinct to sting and attack enemies when their hive is threatened. A bee that stings sustains fatal injuries. This is a perfect example of altruism. The honeybee sacrifices itself for the greater good of the hive, prioritizing collective benefit over individual gain. Many interpret this behavior as ‘altruism’. However, it’s crucial to understand that when the honeybee acts this way, it does not experience altruism or make a moral decision. This is simply an instinctive behavior programmed into its genes, a result selected by natural selection as advantageous for survival.
Analyzing this phenomenon in depth, the bee’s suicide gene can be seen as one way to maximize ‘genetic benefit’. While sacrifice occurs at the individual level, the sustainability of the genes is ultimately enhanced. If we consider the bee a rational individual, and if it could choose at birth whether or not to possess the suicide gene, what would it choose?
Case 1: Born without the suicide gene
If a honeybee is born without the suicide gene, the individual would not die defending the nest. However, if this individual was born without the suicide gene, its sisters would likely be born without it as well. Consequently, a honeybee born without the suicide gene would not benefit from nest defense potentially provided by its sisters.
Case 2: Born with the suicide gene
If a honeybee is born with the suicide gene, the individual faces the risk of stinging and dying while defending the nest. However, in this case, the individual benefits from the fact that its sisters can safely defend the nest if it is attacked.
Conclusion
The crucial question, therefore, is this: Does the benefit gained from nest defense through the sisters’ suicide outweigh the risk that the individual might also die? In The Selfish Gene, the author answers this question in the affirmative. If the benefit were not greater than the risk, honeybees would not have spread widely and survived as they have. This implies that honeybees did not acquire the suicide gene through evolution, but rather, even if they could choose whether to possess the suicide gene, they would choose to possess it. Therefore, the actions of honeybees that appear altruistic on the surface actually stem from a selfish mechanism. Statistically, honeybees benefit from the suicide gene. Of course, this does not apply to the bees that die because of it. Considering the survival statistics of these individuals combined with the mechanism of natural selection, biological altruism is ultimately just a means to increase the survival probability of the entire gene pool. From the perspective of genes, not individuals, the sacrifice of individuals in the process of natural selection is merely an inevitable means.
