Chapter 1: Why are people?
I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour.
Establishing on which side he stands of evolution, Dawkins carefully explains what we can expect from The Selfish Gene, in terms of what the book is not. First, it’s not a framework for morality, nor is it a set of behavioral guidelines. Second, in the evolutionary controversy of nature versus nurture, he doesn’t advocate one or the other. And lastly, he doesn’t detail the behavioral specifics of humans or any other animal species. Simply put, what Dawkins argues, is that “we, and all animals, are machines created by our genes.” (2) For our genes to have survived over thousands of years, we expect certain qualities from them; the predominant quality being ruthless selfishness. Even seemingly altruistic actions are usually for selfish reasons. Just for clarity’s sake, we should define a few things. If an entity, such as a baboon, behaves in a way that increases another baboon’s welfare over its own, it’s considered altruistic behavior. Dawkins makes a point to say that the motives behind behavior are essentially negligible. The importance lies in the effect of the behavior and whether it increases or decreases the welfare of the “altruist” or beneficiary. “Welfare,” in this context, is defined as the entity’s chances of survival.
In this chapter, Dawkins deflates the notion that living creatures evolve behaving “for the good of the species,” or “for the good of the group.” Most altruistic acts are carried out from parents for their offspring. In this way, these actions aren’t necessarily for the good of the entire species, but more specifically, for a group of related members within the species.
Dawkins often qualifies his claims, taking heed of possible misinterpretations. In a tone that demonstrates self-awareness, Dawkins explicitly defines his terminology within a context of accepted Darwinian definitions and modifies the terminology of his scholarly predecessors.
Thesis: “This book will show how both individual selfishness and individual altruism are explained by the fundamental law that I am calling gene selfishness.” (6)
Chapter 2: The Replicators
Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators? They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago…They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence…Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.
Let’s go way back. When the world was forming, creating organic molecules and substances in primeval soup, somehow a special molecule was formed by accident. Dawkins calls this the “replicator.” What made this molecule more extraordinary than other more complicated ones, was its ability to make copies of itself. The copying process isn’t perfect, but ultimately mistakes allow evolution to occur. Dawkins asks an interesting question here, “Can we reconcile the idea that copying errors are an essential prerequisite for evolution to occur, with the statement that natural selection favours high copying-fidelity?” (17) While in vague, general terms evolution is seen as a good thing, Dawkins points out that “nothing actually wants to evolve.” (18) Evolution happens despite the efforts of replicators and genes that try to prevent it.
Competition is another huge part to evolution. In the primeval soup, just as in any modern ecosystem, there were limited supplies. The way replicators could increase their stability while reducing the stability of rivals was to become “more elaborate and efficient.” (19) Fecundity, longevity and copying-fidelity are traits that contribute to stability. Some may have developed mechanisms to break up the molecules of their rivals and chemical or physical structures to protect themselves. In constructing these structures, they built cells, leading to eventual survival machines for themselves to live in. These replicators have evolved into genes, and we humans are their survival machines.
Chapter 3: Immortal Coils
To be strict, this book should be called not The Selfish Cistron nor The Selfish Chromosome, but The slightly selfish big hit of chromosome and the even more selfish little bit of chromosome. To say the least this is not a catchy title so, defining a gene as a little bit of chromosome which potentially lasts for many generations, I call the book The Selfish Gene.
Remember everything you learned in high school biology class? Yes? Maybe you can skip the first half of this chapter. Nope? Well brace yourself for some re-education. Chapter 3 begins as a refresher course on all that you forgot about DNA, mitosis, meiosis, chromosomes and the rest of the usual, replicating suspects. (Gimme an A! Gimme a T! Gimme a C! Gimme a G!) The immortal coils Dawkins refers to are the double helix structures of DNA. Dawkins defines gene through G.C. Williams’ definition, as “any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection.” (28) This means that a gene is a genetic unit small enough to survive many generations, distributed in many copies. This unit could be as small as a cistron, or larger clusters. That said, for the purposes of this evolutionary theory, we should consider units larger than a cistron, say, something in between “sufficiently short for it to last, potentially, for long enough for it to function as a significant unit of natural selection.” (36)
Genes control embryonic development. This is significant on an evolutionary level because genes are partly “responsible” for their own survival. If a gene can create a successful survival machine, it ensures its own survival in future survival machines.
Dawkins writes, “Now, natural selection favours replicators that are good at building survival machines, genes that are skilled in the art of controlling embryonic development.” (24)
If the gene is the fundamental unit of natural selection, then it is also the fundamental unit of self-interest. This differs from orthodox notions of evolution that emphasize either the species, groups of individuals within the species or individuals themselves as units in which natural selection occurs. Why should we accept this claim? Dawkins argues that in order for selective death to have any impact, “each entitiy must exist in the form of lots of copies, and at least some of the entities must be potentially capable of surviving–in the form of copies–for a significant period of evolutionary time.” (33) Genes (small genetic units, as Dawkins defines them) have these properties. Entire species, groups within the species, and individuals lack these properties. Copy that.
So back to the title of this chapter. Through the gene’s ability to copy itself, they have the potential to be immortal, or near-immortal, whereas individuals, groups and even entire species die off. Long live the gene! Now that we have all of this established, how does selfishness come into play? At the gene level, “altruism must be bad and selfishness good.” (36) This may not be the case on other levels. Genes are in direct competition with their alleles to survive, as their alleles are rivals for their place on the chromosomes in future generations. Genes that behave in a way to increase their own chance of survival at the expense of their alleles, by definition, tend to survive. This is selfish.
Chapter 4: The Gene Machine
This chapter is about behavior– trick of rapid movement which has been largely exploited by the animal branch of survival machines. Animals became active go-getting gene vehicles: gene machines.
Gene machines feel the need–the need for speed. Animals have muscles, allowing a great range for movement and speed; and neurons and motor nerves to control and coordinate their contractions. Natural selection favored animals that could move in this way. “Purposiveness” is another important component to survival machine behavior, a property that has evolved to “consciousness” in animals. A purpose machine, as opposed to survival machines, “behaves as if it had a conscious purpose, is equipped with some kind of measuring device which measures the discrepancy between the current state of things, and the desired state.” (50) Genes indirectly control the behavior of their survival machines, like a computer programer. If genes are only directly in control of protein synthesis, then how does this happen? By determining how survival machines are built through protein synthesis, ultimately genes have power over behavior. Decisions made in real-time however, are carried out by the nervous system.
The “consciousness” Dawkins brings up has many philosophical connotations with the notion of free will. Humans are gene machines however, are different from other animals in our conscious behavior. In an interview with PBS, Dawkins expands on this:
“Much of the message of my first book, The Selfish Gene, was that we must understand what it means to be a gene machine, what it means to be programmed by genes, so that we are better equipped to escape, so that we are better equipped to use our big brains, use our conscious intelligence, to depart from the dictates of the selfish genes and to build ourselves a new kind of life which as far as I am concerned the more un-Darwinian it is the better, because the Darwinian world in which our ancestors were selected is a very unpleasant world.” It’s as though we’re fighting against ourselves!
Chapter 5: Aggression: Stability and the Selfish Machine
Natural selection favors genes that control their survival machines in such a way that they make the best use of their environment. This includes making the best use of other survival machines, both of the same and of different species. (66)
By now, Dawkins has established that “the individual is a selfish machine, programed to do whatever is best for its genes as a whole.” (66) Chapter 5 describes the different relationships between survival machines as predator versus prey, parasites and hosts, and competitors for scarce resources. In an evolutionarily stable strategy, or ESS natural selection selects for the most successful pre-programmed behavioral strategy–one that cannot be bettered by other strategies. (Example behavioral strategy: Attack opponent. If it runs away, chase it! If it comes at you, fight back.) In a relationship such as prey versus predator, Dawkins explains possible strategies. A retaliator doesn’t attack aggressively, but will act in a threatening manner. If the opponent attacks first, the retaliator will, as you guessed, retaliate. Retaliators behave based upon their opponent’s behavior, making them conditional strategists. In addition to retaliators, there are two other kinds of conditional strategies: bullies and prober-retaliators. A bully attacks until an opponent strikes back, in which case, the bully immediately retreats. Prober-retaliators are essentially retaliators, but can initiate an attack like a bully, and if the opponent fights back, will defend itself. In these strategies, the retaliator is an ESS, the prober-retaliator is nearly stable, and the bully is not stable.
Chapter 6: Genemanship
The key point of this chapter is that genes might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this would appear as individual altruism but it would be brought about by gene selfishness. (88)
In the previous chapter, Dawkins explained aggression through individual, independent selfish machines. However, individuals have relatives, in the form of siblings, cousins, parents, etc., all of whom share many of the same genes. Each selfish gene then, has its loyalties divided among different individuals; the selfish gene is every replica of itself.
Dawkins explains how a gene selected for kin-altruism, could survive in the gene pool. A gene that suicidally saves five cousins would not be numerous in a population of individuals, however, if it saved five brothers or ten first cousins would. The minimum requirement for a suicidal altruistic gene to be a successful one in the gene pool would have to “save more than two siblings/children/parents, more than four half-siblings/uncles/aunts/nephews/nieces/grandparents/grandchildren, or more than eight first cousins, etc.” (93) In terms of genes, there isn’t any difference between two siblings and a parent and their child. However, the parent-child relationship expresses the most altruistic behavior between any kin. Kin selection is a specific kind of natural selection between family members, different from group selection and individual selection. The closer the kin, the stronger the selection; although there are other external variables such as life expectancy, etc.
Chapter 7: Family Planning
Contraception is sometimes attacked as ‘unnatural.’ So it is, very unnatural. The trouble is, so is the welfare state. (117)
This chapter answers the question how survival machines decide whether or not to bring offspring into the world. There is an important difference between child bearing and child caring. Child bearing calls in considerations to reproduce, whereas child caring calls in considerations of kin and if the individual is worth caring for, in a selfish gene kind of way established in the previous chapter.
Animals of various species, have a fixed number of offspring it can produce in its lifetime and a fixed litter or clutch-size. Animals regulate their birth-rates. Dawkins poses the question, is birth control altruistic or selfish? Altruistic as a practice for the good of the group; or selfish, for the good of the individual reproducing? Dawkins tackles both theories, considers the cost and benefits of bearing and caring, but ultimately the answer is a mix of both theories, animals “[optimize] their birth-rates rather than restrict them for public good.” (122)
Chapter 8: Battle of the Generations
There is, then, no general answer to the question of who is more likely to win the battle of the generations. What will finally emerge is a compromise between the ideal situation desired by the child and that desired by the parent. (139)
Should parents play favorites among their offspring? Playing favorites is equivalent to a term called parental investment, when a parent invests more resources in one offspring over another. In litters or clutches, there may be a runt. Often parents choose to ignore the runt (or even eat it…), and use resources towards their offspring that would be more likely to ensure the survival of their genes. Parents strive for optimal litter or clutch-size according to the selfish needs of the individual but also, to environmental resources. Some species of birds may lay an extra egg just in case their environments yield greater resources than usual, opting parental investment if not.
The battle of generations Dawkins explains, is between the parent and child but with no answer as to who is more likely to be the victor. While parents have worldly experience and are stronger, children can manipulate their parents. For example, the noise volume a baby bird omits corresponds to their hunger level. If the bird lies about how hungry actually it is by being louder than its siblings, the parent will feed it accordingly, unaware of the deceit. Both parties compromise, mitigating their conflicts of interest. Doesn’t this sound like a familiar childhood scenario at your family’s dinner table?
Chapter 9: Battle of the Sexes
…The various different kinds of breeding system that we find among animals–monogomy, promiscuity, harems, and so on–can be understood in terms of conflicting interests between males and females. (161)
Chapter 9 discusses optimal sex ratio–who should you entrust your genes to, your sons or daughters? Obviously, this isn’t a conscious choice for parents, however, the gene pool can select a certain sex ratio, but generally genders are one-to-one.
Females are expected to invest more in the offspring than males in many species as the child bearers and carers. Males are free to leave after copulation, as it’s more advantageous to copulate with as many females as possible. So ladies, how do you get your man to stay? Dawkins suggests two strategies: the domestic bliss strategy and the he-man strategy. Domestic bliss strategy: To ensure your man sticking around, make him work for it honey! Females using this strategy make their mates invest a lot of time pre-copulation. The incentive for staying to care for their offspring grows as the male has already invested a lot of time in this one opportunity. Females can opt to be “coy” or “fast;” males can be “faithful” or “philanderers.” (151) He-man strategy: Ladies, choose the most attractive man, a “he-man” that will make your children attractive. Hopefully you’ll produce a he-man son, who will mate with many females, spreading your selfish genes. In these strategies, females have little to gain from mating a lot, however males gain more by being promiscuous and providing little parental care. But females ultimately decide who they mate with and can thus, be fussy about it. Both sexes want to maximize their reproductive output during their lives, but as we see, there are always conflicts of interest that arise.
Chapter 10: You Scratch my Back, I’ll Ride on Yours
Nevertheless the act of calling seems, at least at first sight, to be altruistic, because it has the effect of calling the predator’s attention to the caller…The selfish gene theory has to come up with a convincing advantage of giving alarm calls which is big enough to counteract this danger.
(168)
This is arguably the best chapter title of the book, and it refers to the concept of reciprocal altruism. In all previous chapters, Dawkins discusses parental and sexual relationships and aggressive interactions between same-species individuals. There are however, there are more kinds of altruistic relationships outside of these categories. Dawkins describes two theories on reciprocal altruism: the cave theory (pronouned kay-vee, Latin for “beware”) and the never break ranks theory. In the cave theory, a member of a flock that sees a predator before others in the flock notice, will warn the others through some kind of signal. The never break ranks theory suits species of birds that flee all together when a predator approaches. One individual will omit the warning call, and birds will fly away from dangers, strength-in-numbers style. While this appears altruistic, that the individual who initiates the warning puts himself in a vulnerable situation, he also benefits from it, making it ultimately a selfish act.
Dawkins puts forth three strategies: “suckers, cheats and grudgers.” (184) Let’s say a bird has a tick and needs another bird to remove it. Suckers will groom others indiscriminately. Cheats accept altruism from others, but never return it, even to the individuals who help them. Grudgers groom strangers and other individuals who have groomed them previously, but not cheats. Grudgers and cheats can be an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS), suckers cannot. Selfishness prevails!
Chapter 11: Memes: The New Replicators
It should be pronounced to rhyme with ‘cream.’ (192)
Genes aren’t the only replicators in this world. In this chapter, Dawkins coins the term meme, as a unit of “cultural transmission, or unit of imitation.” (192) While we are most familiar with internet memes these days–pictures that show up on our Facebook feeds or viral YouTube videos, memes can be anything–songs, ideas, catch-phrases, fashion, basically anything that’s being imitated and trending. Memes replicate through imitation.
Dawkins states that we leave two things behind when we die: genes and memes. In many instances, genes and memes reinforce each other, however there are examples of conflict. For example, in some societies, celibacy is a popular meme. Celibacy goes in direct opposition with sex, and thus, gene replication. Like genes, selection favors the memes that take advantage of their cultural environment. So are memes selfish? Seeing how this book has been so far, I’m sure you can take a wild stab at it. Memes, like genes, have to compete too. Their arena however, is not the gene pool, but the attention of the human brain, TV time, advertisements, shelf-space, etc.
This is an interesting chapter because we get first insight into Dawkins’ religious views as he asks us to consider the role of God and how it arose in the meme pool. He writes, “Probably it originated many times by independent ‘mutation.’ Also adding, “God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture.” (192) We remember that this was Dawkins’ first book, and that he wasn’t known as a person then who some consider now, a militant atheist. He also addresses blind faith as part of the religious meme complex, asserting the claim that memes for blind faith have “ruthless ways of propagating themselves.” (198) This could be interpreted as reductive, and potentially offensive to what faith and God mean to different people, but in the context of this book, Dawkins means to present God and faith as ideas, in the way popular memes can be ideas.
Chapter 12: Nice Guys Finish First
Vampires could form the vanguard of a comfortable new myth, a myth of sharing, mutualistic cooperation. They could herald the benignant idea that, even with selfish genes at the helm, nice guys can finish first. (233)
Who are these nice guys, and don’t they usually finish last? In a Darwinian sense, nice guys are individuals who help other members of its species at their own expense to pass their genes onto the next generation. Isn’t nice the opposite of selfish, though? Dawkins adjusts this definition of nice, using it to prove individuals who in fact are altruistic, finish first. To do this, he describes a game scenario with different ESS strategies, revisiting the ideas of the sucker, cheat and grudger in Chapter 10.
An example from the animal kingdom of this can be found with vampire bats. Vampire bats get their food from the blood of other animals, however, in times of dire straits, bats can donate blood from one non-related bat to another, essentially saving each other from starvation. This has nothing to do with ensuring the future shared genes, either. Bats tend to help those who have previously helped them, and thus benefit from this “nice guy” behavior, bound in their non-familial kinship. I guess bats aren’t really suckers, huh.
Chapter 13: The Long Reach of the Gene
The long reach of the gene knows no obvious boundaries. The whole world is criss-crossed with causal arrows joining genes to phenotypic effects, far and near.
Ok, let’s wrap this up. A large part of this chapter summarizes the more meatier points of Dawkins’ book The Extended Phenotype, which he also has no problem with plugging extensively.Dawkins defines phenotype as “the bodily manifestation of a gene, the effect that a gene, in comparison with its alleles, has on the body, via development.” (235). He explains that genes created bodies to inhabit, largely for cooperation and efficiency.
The selfish gene applies to all replicators. With time, more elaborate and efficient ways to be a replicator are discovered and survive because the gene pool selects them. Selfishness is key, but we can overcome the tyranny of selfishly-programmed genes through altruistic, nice guy behavior.