In The Selfish Gene, is human nature determined by genes or shaped by environment and choice?

Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene examines the theory that explains human nature as the behaviour of genes, and discusses how the interaction of genes, environment, and autonomous choice affects human behaviour.

 

The term ‘selfish gene’ has been cited in many fields of life sciences in recent years. In my opinion, Richard Dawkins is a scientist who has captured the attention of the world with his amazing logic in discussing genetics. In this book, Dawkins uses various analogies to describe genes.
The part of the book that stood out to me the most was when he compared humans to ‘survival machines’ and explained the concept of ‘self-replicators’. I found it very paradoxical to see humans as inanimate ‘survival machines’. The author defines a ‘self-replicator’ as a gene that replicates itself, and makes the rather provocative claim that a ‘survival machine’ is merely a carrier designed to preserve and multiply the replicator.
If humans evolved and replicated through self-replicators, what does that tell us about human nature? Mencius’s ‘ Theory of Goodness and Sun Tzu’s ’ Theory of Evil, respectively, argue that human nature is good or that human nature is evil but changes through experience. In this way, philosophers explained human nature through circumstantial evidence. Dawkins, however, takes a more scientific approach, arguing that genes are the primary determinant of human nature. He explains human nature in terms of the behaviour of genes, arguing that we will act selfishly when it is advantageous to act altruistically.
Nevertheless, there is plenty of room for refutation of Dawkins’ arguments. Dawkins has never claimed that human thought and behaviour is solely determined by genes. It could be argued that while genes can frame behaviour and thought, human thought and behaviour is also dependent on environment and autonomy. To this end, the author introduces the concept of a ‘meme’.
Let’s take a look at what he means by a meme. Dawkins uses the concept of memes to explain why humans, despite being survival machines governed by selfish genes, behave differently from what those genes tell them to do. My understanding is that ‘memes’ are shared between people, spreading beliefs and knowledge, which in turn can influence the traits of genes. This concept has important value as a link between life sciences and culture. However, this ‘meme’ can also be socially problematic if it is artificially manipulated for the wrong purposes. Just as advances in biotechnology have made it possible to manipulate genes, memes have the potential to be misused by people with specific goals. Therefore, it is important to have a mature sense of ethics when dealing with memes.
On the other hand, the author argues that humans are the most outstanding entity in nature by referring to memes. This is contrary to Eastern thought, which views nature and humans as equal. The Western mindset of conquering nature is open to refutation by advocates of Eastern thinking. It is not right to see cultural elements as objects to be conquered.
As I read the book, I came across a confusing point. The argument is that many of the acts we often think of as altruistic are actually the result of selfish behaviour driven by our genes for survival. According to Dawkins’s logic, even the act of a parent loving their child is not motivated by love, but by the genes’ desire to make and preserve many copies of themselves. It had never occurred to me that being altruistic could be selfish, but if you look around a bit, you can find examples of it. For example, volunteer work for personal causes or the behaviour of politicians during elections can be outwardly altruistic but inwardly selfish. I don’t see Dawkins’ logic as completely wrong. From a different perspective, it is possible that behaviours that are labelled as selfless are actually selfish.
I also found the section on the ‘battle of the sexes’ interesting. In bookstores, you can often find psychological analyses of male-female relationships that explain the instinctive feelings of both sexes. But Dawkins explains it as a simple battle between genes. Love between a man and a woman is merely an act of better preservation of genes.
However, it seems inappropriate to apply the sperm-egg battle to male-female love. Love between a man and a woman is not a simple thing that is extinguished by the failure to leave genes. Love is more than a joyful emotion, and it cannot be explained by genes alone. If men and women loved only to preserve their genes, they would only have to fight a ‘war of attrition’ instead of love. I disagree with this characterisation of love as a ‘war of attrition’.
Throughout the book, the author argues that it is genes that govern the phenomenon of life, and that genes use selfish survival strategies to evolve in their favour. Ironically, the selfish and altruistic behaviour of genes may be a play on words. For example, economic losses and gains are only possible because we have the concept of money. Without money, there would be no concept of loss or gain. Similarly, when Dawkins introduced the concept of ‘selfishness’, he categorised the behaviour of genes as selfish or altruistic. Hopefully, advances in life sciences will soon reveal the true nature of gene behaviour.