May 21, 2008
Reconsiderations: Richard Dawkins and His Selfish Meme
From The New York Sun:
Proclaimed brilliant for its portrayal of the "gene's-eye view" of evolution, Mr. Dawkins's book inverted the focus of natural selection, from Darwin's weight on species to Mr. Dawkins's emphasis on the lowly gene itself: Simply put, Mr. Dawkins's argument is that the crux of natural selection is whether a particular gene — not an individual or a group of individuals — replicates itself in future generations. Those genes that are not replicated into the future have failed at evolution, and those that produce many copies of themselves have succeeded. In Mr. Dawkins's view, the organisms containing those genes are merely "lumbering robots" or "survival machines" that house and carry genetic information. The implication is that, in these terms, selfishness, even ruthless selfishness, pays off, and altruism does not. Some predicted that this book would be the death knell of the idea of group selection. No longer would evolutionary biologists suggest that natural selection worked to promote the good of the species (group selection) or even the individual and his close relatives who share many of his genes (kin selection, a type of group selection).
But prediction is difficult in a contingent world such as ours, where life is complex and accidents and coincidences wield so much power. Has "The Selfish Gene" in fact killed off group selection ideas? Why not? And what effect has the book had instead? Though selfish genes are still fashionable among evolutionary biologists, group selection and kin selection, its subset, are not dead. In 2007, David Sloan Wilson, professor at Binghampton University, and E.O. Wilson (no relation), a professor emeritus at Harvard University and a Pulitzer Prize winner, proclaimed that Mr. Dawkins had celebrated the death of group selection prematurely. The pair asserted persuasively that altruism and cooperation can be adaptive if they are directed toward relatives who share a suite of one's genes (kin selection) or if relationships can be established within a group in which cooperation is rewarded with future reciprocity.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 06:00 AM | Permalink
Comments
An excellent analysis of the concept of the selfish gene presented in a manner that stimulates reflexion and invites debate.
Another superb read is The Ant and the Peacock by Helena Cronin.
And, for the results of being blest with unselfish genes, try The Song of the Dodo by David Quammen.
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | May 21, 2008 7:02:35 AM
From the article:
In Mr. Dawkins's view, the organisms containing those genes are merely "lumbering robots" or "survival machines" that house and carry genetic information. The implication is that, in these terms, selfishness, even ruthless selfishness, pays off, and altruism does not.
Why in the world does this misunderstanding constantly pop up when people write about "The Selfish Gene"? Dawkins spent a great deal of time discussing in the book how a gene encouraging altruistic behavior to its carier's close relatives might be successful. Is it too much to ask that one read the book that they are writing about?
Posted by: spgreenlaw | May 21, 2008 10:00:27 AM
Whatever else may or may not be true about humans, we sure to like over-simpification to the point of idiocy. It stimulates controvery and discussion and so, I guess, it is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint but in the meantime, gadzooks, it's annoyingly frustrating. sometimes.
Posted by: doug l | May 21, 2008 10:35:25 AM
Hi Aps,
I am glad you posted this completely wrong-headed bit of writing as an example of how any criticism, no matter how weak or flawed, of Dawkins will always find a publisher as well as an eager audience of would-be giant slayers.
It seems a requirement for writing about The Selfish Gene that one must not have read it, or perhaps only read it while tripping on acid. The implication that in 2007 Wilson and Wilson originally suggested "...persuasively that altruism and cooperation can be adaptive if they are directed toward relatives who share a suite of one's genes..." is beyond ludicrous. These ideas were well worked out (including the mathematics behind them) by people like G.C. Williams and W.D. Hamilton by the 60s. Dawkins spends a whole chapter in The Selfish Gene exclusively explaining all this, and brings it up again and again throughout the book in various contexts. Indeed, many biological phenomena discussed in the book, such as the high cohesion of haplodiploid species (the sacrifice of a bee's life when it stings an enemy, for example) cannot be understood WITHOUT taking kin selection into account.
Shipman writes:
"...when competition between groups is more significant than that within a group, natural selection can operate on multiple levels, from gene to kin group to species and perhaps beyond. An individual meerkat who stands watch and warns others of the presence of a predator increases its personal chance of being eaten, but its kin group — with which the watcher shares many genes — attains a higher survival rate compared to other such groups without watchers. In each example, the evolutionary disadvantage to the individual must be weighed against the evolutionary advantage to its larger group (kin, population, or even species). Since altruistic behaviors do occur, evolution must operate at both the higher (between-group) as well as the lower (within-group) level."
The key words in this paragraph are "kin group." While it is consistent with Dawkins's view (that's what his view is all ABOUT!) that an altruistic sacrifice by an individual meerkat can be selected for if a large enough number of kin (I don't have space here to define "kin" and the way the total benefit to one's kin, given various degrees of relatedness to individuals in the group around one, is tallied, but trust me, it is precise) benefit from the sacrifice, it cannot happen for population or species, because such an adaptation is not stable and open to exploitation by cheaters who reap the benefits without making the sacrifices, and to the degree that such behavior is under genetic control (almost certainly true), the genes for it would spread rapidly, wiping out the altruistic behavior. The only way the genes for altruism can be retained is if the beneficiaries of the altruism have, on average, a larger number of those genes than the individual making the sacrifice.
By conflating kin with population or species (see 2nd-last sentence in quote above) Shipman gives the completely inaccurate and misleading impression that Dawkins doesn't accept kin selection, something which, as I have already said, he spends practically half his book explicating in detail.
This article is the most confused bit of nonsense I have seen in a long time on this subject. I shudder to think of the fate of Professor Shipman's students. I am so incensed that I may write a full-length rebuttal of this pretentious junk one of these Mondays.
I do not believe for one second that Ms. Shipman has read The Selfish Gene.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | May 21, 2008 10:41:04 AM
I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave.... I stress this because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. -RD
The difficulty here is that people in our culture must base their moral ideas on the dominant descriptive account of humanity available to them. The reason is simple: what else is there to base morality on? Especially now that God's been relegated to an intellectual sideshow?
We're all naturalists now (remember: Dawkins is a "bright", a self-proclaimed Knight of Naturalism), so when we look around the world, the only things that seem capable of supporting value systems are US (not transcendent values or religious entities or whatever). It seems to follow pretty logically that since we need to base morality on something, we're going to base it at least partly on whatever description of humanity is currently en vogue.
Morality (or, more generally, value itself) is the Achilles heel of any naturalist. I basically think evolution is correct, and that God is rubbish, but I think any self-respecting intellectual should at least recognize that this position leads us down a very difficult path, one which we can't navigate by simply pointing over and over to Hume's is-ought barrier.
Posted by: NIck Smyth | May 21, 2008 1:13:39 PM
spgreenlaw already wrote what I wanted to say, and Abbas has covered everything else I might have come up with.
This is an extraordinarily stupid review. It reminds one of nothing so much as a scene from a high-school comedy film in which a delinquent student tries to write a book report based only on the title of the (unread) book in question. Perhaps 3QD can top this by linking to a review of "To Kill a Mockingbird" that focuses on the importance of songbirds to biodiversity.
Tip number one for future 3QD submitters: if it's in the NY Sun, it's probably garbage.
Posted by: Picador | May 21, 2008 1:21:57 PM
I agree that Ms. Shipman does not understand the difference between kin selection and group selection and, hence, should be extraordinarily embarrassed at having published something that puts that fact so obviously on display. However, David Sloan Wilson does understand that difference and his work has indeed put group selection back on the table as one of the levels on which natural selection may operate (and I believe he has engaged in a robust debate with G.C. Williams himself on this point). So Shipman's fundamental assertion that the death knell on group selection MAY have been premature is a valid one--even though she doesn't appear to understand why.
Posted by: Evan Post | May 21, 2008 1:47:50 PM
My understanding of Dawkins' position is that all selection is reducible to gene selection. Kin selection obviously is; but only if group selection is reducible can it be valid.
Posted by: Sagredo | May 21, 2008 8:28:05 PM
Thanks to Abbas for that astute clarification of Dawkins' important ideas. As regards Shipman's obfuscation of the ideas set forth in The Selfish Gene, I can only think of Willy Wonka saying " OOPS. Scratch That. Reverse It."
Posted by: zaneb | May 22, 2008 5:31:58 PM
Thanks to Abbas for that astute clarification of Dawkins' important ideas. As regards Shipman's obfuscation of the ideas set forth in The Selfish Gene, I can only think of Willy Wonka saying " OOPS. Scratch That. Reverse It."
Posted by: zaneb | May 22, 2008 5:32:16 PM
However, David Sloan Wilson does understand that difference and his work has indeed put group selection back on the table as one of the levels on which natural selection may operate
He has re-opened the discussion, yes, but some authors disagree that this has led to anything besides wordplay. Many recent articles make the point that kin and "new" group selection are basically the same phenomenon (like this and this), while old "for the good of the species" selection remains dead.
Both Dawkins and Wilson may be guilty of overplaying the distinction, but I feel that most of the recent confusion in the media can be blamed on Wilson. (for instance, he claims that evolution of reduced or delayed fertility is automatically evidence for group selection; why?)
Posted by: windy | May 22, 2008 5:38:58 PM
Mark Twain paraphrased Dawkins when he quipped: "A chicken is an egg's way of producing another egg". Though I accept Dawkins' point that genes can be described as being in control, i think there is some degree of arbitariness to the model. For example: the enzyme DNA polymerase enables DNA strands to replicate and lengthen, so you could fairly say that DNA polymerase is being selfish because it makes the DNA strands genes that code for all the proteins, including those genes that code for DNA Polymerase itself. So one might write a book called: "the Selfish Enzyme".
The objection to this is that the main information flow (and the
only trans-generational flow) in the organism is from gene to protein (etc), but the enzyme ( made of protein) does indeed carry information, by virtue of its shape, and that shape "catalyses" the way by which nucleotides fit together to make new DNA strands, and therefore Dawkins' illustrative model is "unfair" to proteins and a bunch of other factors right up to organism level and beyond. Genes don’t have the monopoly over power that is ascribed to them.
Posted by: aguy109 | May 22, 2008 7:12:34 PM
Post a comment