Charles Darwin saw the paradox of his evolutionary theory; how could altruism survive in the midst of a “survival of the fittest” reality? The commonly accepted theory to this point had to do with the utility of kinship and has been referred to as “The Selfish Gene”. The theory posits that genetic altruism is passed along as a result of the relative similarity of the genetic make-up of close relatives; if I sacrifice or even die to defend a close relative my genetic make-up will still be passed on, more or less, by that relative. Thus, even in altruistic events one is acting in the best interest of one’s own genetics, the selfish gene.
There have been problems with this theory as it has aged, as it has not produced the flourishing of discovery one sees in successful scientific theory. The theory does not explain how it broadens out without merely becoming nepotism. It marginalizes competition among social groups and competition among individuals within groups as it pertains to altruistic outcomes.
Edward O. Wilson in his book, “The Social Conquest of the Earth” (2012) asserts a rather simple rule which has yielded quite a bit of insight as of late, that is; within groups selfish individuals beat altruists but between groups of individuals groups of altruists beat groups of selfish people; Wilson’s theory is called eusociality. These dynamics play out simultaneously in the social makeup, thus altruism and selfish behavior are both competing choices we face and choose as applicable and kinship is almost nonexistent on any real level.
The fact that altruistic tendencies are working in concert with the individuals desire to be “selfish” are factors which cause societies to progress. As on one end of the social spectrum one has individuals competing against one another as completely independent social and moral agents and one has no society at all shortly; on the other end one sees a society of mechanized individuals who have no “ego” to function as anything but a robotic automaton. The progress of society has to do very succinctly with the balance of these two endpoints and are thus in flux based upon the decisions of individuals and groups of individuals and not strictly determined by “selfish genes”.
As one looks across the behavioral sciences one sees a recent trending away from genetic explanations of individual behavior. Kerry Ressler, Joseph Ledoux, Antonio Damasio, David Anderson, and Eric Kandel were the panelists on Charlie Rose: The Brain Series, which originally aired on May 26, 2010. They made mention of something which caught my attention, people who had a genetic predisposition towards addictive behavior were only “about 10%” more likely to develop that addictive behavior. The debate about genetics as pertains to altruism is a circus sideshow of self indulgence.
The main actor within the sideshow is Richard Dawkins the author of “The Selfish Gene” (1976) and his cohort of self proclaimed a-religious zealots. The fever pitch of the “discussions” reminds me of “discussions” between Sunni and Shia regarding the legitimate legacy of the prophet.
This shows how rare a bird altruism actually is and how ironic science makes the process of altruistic expression. Thus the paradox Darwin initially identified is even more paradoxically heightened in the exploration of altruism. One puts a microscope over it to watch it vanish into thin air, much like the Christian who talks of virtue and never practices virtue, the scientist who dares speak of altruism is never know as a practitioner of altruism and this is alright because the individual is simply a scientist. Science is not a religion after all and this debate highlights just how it is not.
The true practitioners of altruism would never wonder how it has simply occurred; as it has never simply occurred. The knowledge science lacks lies in what it takes for granted. It takes altruism for granted and assumes it is a result of selfish genes. Eusociality at least begins to understand that there is an interplay among persons and situations which gives value to and reason for altruism. So the “selfish gene” is dead, but it is only the death of another mythology, so buck up.
No comments:
Post a Comment