The Selfish Gene

Individuals are not stable things, they are fleeting. Chromosomes too are shuffled into oblivion. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever.

“Genes are immortal in the sense that the coded information they contain is replicated with almost total fidelity, generation after generation.” I can’t agree more. Every portfolio of gene is unique, but every set of gene possesses one identical goal: to pass on the genetically coded information as much as possible. Though being restricted by the biological natural selection of altruism, this universal doctrine helps to define individuals and explains all the fundamental behaviors. Gene is the fundamental unit of self-interests, and individuals are the “selfish” survival machines driven by genes, performing both within and cross species altruism for self-interests, with no intention for the aggregate prosperity, while indeed helping in forming a relatively stable order or structure in the big picture. To begin with, the perception of the ultimate goal of gene defines the relationship between genes and carrier individuals.

Gene is the fundamental unit being selected by nature, and individuals are survival machines manipulated by genes. Evidence shows that genes unconsciously strive for, with anthropomorphic emotions, higher-level population magnitude and stability in gene pool in the long run. Genes therefore build up “survival machines” under their command and program them with the most useful algorithms to prosper. “Survival machines began as passive receptacles for the genes, providing little more than walls to protect them from the chemical warfare of their rivals and the ravages of accidental molecular bombardment.” (line 1-4, page 59) In terms of passing replicas of genetic information down to the next generation and as a consequence maintaining or strengthening an advantageous position in the gene pool, reproduction is of paramount importance. Given that natural resources are limited and one’s interests are generally irreconcilable, the competitions between genes/individuals is infinitely similar to a zero-sum game, in which one thrives at the expense of their counterparts’ welfare. Though in reality, altruistic behaviors are still witnessed when individuals interact with each other, especially with kinsmen.

It might seem counterintuitively bizarre, but in the genetic perspective, the altruistic acts to relatives are actually selfish. Superficially, it seems contradictory to the fundamental purpose of gene to behave altruistically in terms of relatives, which include offspring, parents, siblings, cousins, etc. To begin with, “altruistic behavior” is succinctly defined as “to increase others’ chances of living at the costs of one self’s”. It’s not hard to comprehend that a mother leopard is willing to suckle and protect her cubs even if this will put her own life at stake. In parallel, reverse feeding is also understandable. However, apart from these two types of relationship, kinship (or “genesmanship”) is widely recognizable and differently treated in the wild. As a matter of fact, the degree of altruism depends on relatedness (a man-made measure calculating identical genes in two related individuals). In most cases (socialized insects like wasps or termites are excepted), one receives half set of chromosomes from each side of its parent and pass 50% of the genetic information to its offspring. Thus, one possess a 0.5 relatedness with biological parent, siblings or offspring; a 0.25 relatedness with grandparents, cousins, nieces or nephews, and so forth. The quantification of correlation helps to shed light on different degrees of altruistic behaviors and the hidden drive. On one hand, altruism arises because of relatedness somewhat proves that the it’s gene rather than individual who is “performing” selfishness. In a nutshell, in the long run, it’s a profitable business to sacrifice the minority for the majority, and the majority’s children. On the other hand, the concept of relatedness refutes the irrational criticisms raised by left-wing advocates of animal liberation movement. In order to raise the awareness of animal rights and to boycott animal experiments, some people compared a human toddler’s intelligence with a mature chimpanzee’s, trying to demonstrate that human beings are performing “species discrimination” since they both have the perception of pain and are intellectually comparable. However, on the other side of the “species discrimination”, there’s “species protection”. As proponents of group-selectionism points out that “animals will in general behave in such a way as to favor the perpetuation of the species” (line 8-9, page 9). Homo sapiens favor to defend their fellow humans rather than members of another species, since they are more related. In other words, speaking in an evolutionary perspective, no “deliberate” species discrimination is performed, and it’s “species protection” that lies on the other side of the coin, which totally makes evolutionary sense and is in particular beneficial for the species’ overall evolution. In conclusion, individual’s altruistic behaviors due to kinship is actually being genetically selfish. Apart from that, it’s a win-win situation to perform altruism in terms of cross-species cooperation.

Among five types of ecological relationships, mutualism displays situations that every participant gets paid by reciprocal altruistic offerings. Symbiotic relationships of mutual benefit are common among animals and plants. For instance, parasol ants meticulously cultivate fungi gardens in their nests. Fungi is the major food resource that ant complex relies on while on the other hand, fungi get to reproduce and prosper because of deliberate nurture. The No. 5 fundamental principle of economics says that trade can make everyone better off, since an absolute advantage in production at the same time means a comparative disadvantage in trade. Trade is a special kind of cooperation to which the same principle would apply as well, individuals “must get more benefit out of the association than they put in.” (line 1-2, page 217)To recap, via altruistic collaboration, both/all sides get to enjoy more services or goods, fulfilling the primary goals of genes in the long-run. As I’ve mentioned, in cases of kinship and cross-species mutuality, individuals tend to behave altruistically for their own good, while in comparison, situations in working with mates to raise a collective descendent are immensely different.

In theory, on the premise of a certain infant survival rate, individuals tend to exploit their mates in exchange for high reproduction rate. Similar to the famous explore/exploit dilemma, the contradiction between rearing and bearing is a common phenomenon. Having more heirs means that each heir enjoys less resources and attention on average. This inter-restricted relationship imposes a limitation on progeny size and forces parents to concentrate on the quality of offspring. However, this tension can be alleviated by throwing the heavy burden of child-rearing to partners and therefore use the saved energy and time to continue bearing new offspring. “Each partner can therefore be thought of as trying to exploit the other trying to force the other one to invest more.” (line 12-14, page 182) This selfish act is favored by nature and because of biological difference, female is usually the vulnerable group being exploited by male.

The difference in the size and quantity of gamete signals the fundamentally distinct roles and positions of the two sexes in courtship, copulation, pregnancy and child-rearing. In most cases, a male produces much more sperms than a female produces eggs, while each sperm is smaller and more flexible. On the other hand, eggs are bigger and are able to provide more nutrients in the initial phases embryonic development. “It is possible to interpret all the other differences between the sexes as stemming from this one basic difference.” (line 2-4, page 184) That’s to say, at the very beginning of pregnancy, a male pays less than a female to their mutual child who carries 50% of genetic information of each side respectively. Following fertilization, the gestation process and suckling period by and large costs females a great deal of time and energy, meanwhile generating potential risks as well as multifarious inconvenience, yet male is on the advantageous position to abandon the child and go spreading his genes with other females. In this manner, a male could theoretically have infinite number of offspring with a harem of different females, thus forming a M-F ratio much smaller than 1. However, the Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) suggests that most species tend to have equal male population and female population in the light of females’ counter-exploitation mechanisms.

Though the selfish gene drives males to exploit their mates, nature selection favors the opposite, determined by different rarity and stability of eggs and sperms. To be more specific, eggs are stable and rare, while sperms are relatively fragile and less valuable. These properties both directly and indirectly shape females’ role of “care-receivers” in relationships. The key prerequisite of copulation is mutual willingness, which is the goal eagerly strived to be reached by males. However, there’s no reason for females to hurry to devote their precious eggs and start a pregnancy. That’s how courtship arises. Males spend time and energy, playing up to the pursued while trying to cajoling her to copulate. In practice, the courtship is more likely to succeed with longer time and more energy invested, since a persistent and devoted chaser is more likely to be a good father. On top of that, longing for food, protection and settlement, females partner with food providers, battle-wise fighters and territory owners. Losers of the mating competitions is unpromising to reproduce, which will eventually lead to a loss of gene propagation. In summary, females offer food, protection and caring to the child, and receive compensations from a male. This hand-in-glove relationship strikes a stable balance between selfish gene drive and natural selection of altruism, and making me associate with the concepts of “invisible hand” in market economy.

Genes/Individuals are driven by selfishness to fight for their own interests (e.g. gene propagation, money, etc.), with no intention for the aggregate prosperity, while their respective efforts indeed help in forming a harmonious and relatively stable order or structure in the big picture. The immensely famous Invisible Hand Principle coined by Adam Smith suggests the similar idea: “He intends only his own gain, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” The same principles apply to ecology. Under the fundamental goal of gene, which is to prevail and sustain in the gene pool for as many generations as possible, even certain altruistic behaviors would be interpreted as being self-interested. However, the selfish behaviors on an individual basis unintentionally but efficiently shape a relatively stable structure in ecological environment called Evolutionary Stable Strategy, which per se facilitates the formation of the hierarchical structure in the gene pool/nature, therefore allocating scarce resources in a naturally justifiable way.

It’s somewhat daunting and gloomy to realize that seemingly purposeful creatures are ruled by unconscious genes. Anyway, fact is that the role of each individual organism is a throwaway “survival machine of gene” whose primary impulse is to pass the genetically coded information to the generations after. Manipulated by genes and restricted by the biological natural selection of altruism, individuals perform both selfish and “altruistic” interactions, at the same time unconsciously facilitating a hierarchical structure in the ecological environment. However, at the end of the day, the only kind of entity that has to exist in order for life to arise, anywhere in the universe, is the immortal but selfish gene.