Biological altruism does not exist, and the concept of selfish genes is more of a hypothesis than a scientific fact. The unit of natural selection is the individual, and all altruism actually comes from selfish mechanisms.

Rebuttals to altruism

In this blog post, I’d like to refute a popular concept in the biological community: biological altruism. Biological altruism is a concept advocated by Richard Dawkins, the famous author of The Selfish Gene. As we’ll see later, biological altruism doesn’t exist, and the idea of the selfish gene is more of a hypothesis than a scientific fact.
One of Darwin’s great insights was natural selection. Individuals that act in their own self-interest are more likely to leave more offspring than those that do not. Darwin wanted to apply natural selection to individuals, not populations or species, because a population is just a collection of individuals, and natural selection applies to individuals, not populations. Furthermore, Darwin saw selfishness as a fundamental element of life. This was contrary to the common idea of life, which is that altruism is a fundamental element of life. Darwin saw self-interest, especially the self-interest of individuals rather than groups or species, as a fundamental element of life, which is why he described natural selection as happening to individuals.
Back to Richard Dawkins. Many unusual behaviors have been observed in nature that can only be explained by biological altruism (e.g., bee suicide). There are many phenomena in which individuals actually put themselves in danger or even give their lives for the sake of other individuals. Given that individuals are the beneficiaries of natural selection, doesn’t this biological altruism contradict Darwin’s argument (that the unit of selection is the individual)? Dawkins says yes. He argues that the unit of selection is the gene, not the individual. In his view, genes, not individuals, benefit from natural selection. The idea of the selfish gene stems from the idea that there is sustainable altruism in nature. If it exists, then biologically speaking, individuals are merely carriers of selfish genes, not entities.
Therefore, in this blog post, we’re going to talk about why this biological altruism doesn’t exist. Altruism can’t exist consistently in nature. We’ll illustrate this with one of the most difficult examples of altruism to explain: the suicide gene in bees.

The suicide gene

Bees are born with an instinct to attack enemies by stinging them when their nest is threatened by enemies. The bee that shoots the stinger will be mortally wounded. This is a perfect example of altruism. Bees sacrifice themselves for the greater good, for the nest, for the sake of the greater good. Given that bees are rational individuals, what would they choose if they were given a choice at birth to be born with or without a suicide gene?

Case 1: Born without the suicide gene.

If a bee is born without the suicide gene, it will never die defending its nest. However, if this individual is born without the suicide gene, so will its sisters. Consequently, the bee born without the suicide gene does not benefit from the nest defense that its sisters might have provided.

Case 2: Born with a suicide gene.

If a bee is born with a suicide gene, the individual is at risk of stinging and dying in defense of the nest. However, in this case, the individual benefits from the fact that its sisters can safely defend the nest if it is attacked.
As a result, an important question becomes Does the benefit of nest defense offset the risk that the individual might commit suicide?
In The Selfish Gene, the authors answer this question in the affirmative. If the benefits did not outweigh the risks, bees would not have survived to become as widespread as they are today. This means that the suicide gene is not something they have learned through evolution, and even if they could choose to have it or not, they would choose to have it. Therefore, their seemingly altruistic behaviors are actually driven by selfish mechanisms. Statistically speaking, the bees will benefit from the suicide gene. Of course, this is not true for the bees that are killed by the suicide gene.
What’s really happening is that certain genes cause certain behaviors under certain circumstances. When you think about it mathematically, not behaviorally, when you look at the statistics of life and death, the suicide gene in bees is no different than the swarming gene in wildebeests.
It is. Forming a colony is also altruistic. Wildebeests form groups to provide protection for each other. They know that each individual wildebeest benefits from being in a group, and that it reduces their chances of being hunted by lions. How is this possible? When thousands of wildebeest are gathered together, the chance of an individual being hunted by a lion is very small. The individuals that are hunted at low odds act as sacrifices to keep the rest of the group safe. The unlucky wildebeest is actually sacrificing itself for the good of the group, but it’s not easy to tell from the way it looks. When we see a herd of wildebeest running away from lions, we don’t think of it as a heroic act of self-sacrifice.
But if you look at the statistics of survival rather than the behavior, the role of the herd gene in wildebeest is not unlike the suicide gene in bees. 99% of the time, the owner of the gene will benefit, and only sacrifice if they are really unlucky. The altruistic gene is similar to a lottery. The only reason individuals participate in these lotteries is because they benefit from them.
Therefore, there is no such thing as biological altruism. Any altruism that exists in the natural world is a facade. When viewed in the full context of the statistics on the survival of the individuals who carry them, altruistic genes are merely tools for the survival of their owners.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a selfish gene. The unit of natural selection is the individual, not the gene. In fact, the word “gene” in selfish genes is used to refer to most of the individuals that benefit from the gene. One of the problems with Dawkins’ theory is that it ignores the examples of most individuals benefiting from altruistic genes and focuses on the few who are victimized by them. His preference for religious altruism blinds him to the selfish benefits of “selfish genes.”