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

In this lesson, we will examine Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, a theory that explains human nature as the behavior of genes, and discuss how the interaction of genes, environment, and autonomous choice affects human behavior.

 

The term “selfish gene” has been cited in various 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 when discussing genetics. In this book, Dawkins uses a variety of 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 just a carrier created to preserve and multiply the replicator.
If humans evolved and replicated through self-replicators, what does that tell us about human nature? If we look at Mencius’s ‘ Theory of Goodness and Sun Tzu’s ‘ Theory of Evil, they argue that human nature is good or that human nature is evil but changes through experience, respectively. 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 behavior of genes, arguing that we will act selfishly when our genes favor altruism.
Nevertheless, there is plenty of room for refutation of Dawkins’ claims. Dawkins has never claimed that human thought and behavior is solely determined by genes. It can be argued that while genes can frame behavior and thought, human thought and behavior is also dependent on environment and autonomy. To this end, the author introduces the concept of “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 than those genes dictate. 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 authors argue that humans are the most remarkable entity in nature. This is contrary to Eastern thinking, which views nature and humans as equals. The Western mindset of conquering nature is open to refutation by advocates of Eastern thinking. It is not right to view cultural elements as objects to be conquered.
As I read the book, I came across a confusing point. Dawkins’ argument is that many of the acts we often think of as altruistic are actually the result of selfish behavior driven by our genes for survival. According to Dawkins’ logic, even the act of a parent loving his or her 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 behavior of politicians during election season can be outwardly altruistic but inwardly selfish. I don’t see Dawkins’ logic as completely wrong. I don’t think Dawkins’ logic is completely wrong, because it’s possible that some actions that are labeled as selfish are actually selfish.
I also found the section on the “battle of the sexes” interesting. In bookstores, you can often find books that analyze the relationship between men and women psychologically, explaining the instinctive feelings of both sexes. But Dawkins explains it as a simple battle between genes. Love between a man and a woman is simply an act of preserving their genes better.
However, it seems inappropriate to apply the sperm-egg battle to male-female love. Love between a man and a woman isn’t just something that ends when they fail to pass on their genes. Love is an emotion that brings more than joy, 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 characterization 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 favor. Ironically, the selfish and altruistic behavior of genes may be a play by the author. 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 categorized the behavior of genes as selfish or altruistic. Hopefully, advances in life sciences will soon reveal the true nature of gene behavior.