Will is Power… from the Selfish Gene to the Transcendence of the Human Being

The human being is compounded of a congeries of genes. These genes are responsible for the man to greatly appreciate his own well being, and greatly suffer with his own pain. They are also responsible for mutual assistance among relatives. The closer the relationship, the more likely they are to help a family member and, therefore, a mother is always willing to sacrifice more for her son then her nephew, and the nephew more then the son of a neighbor, and so on. What is behind all of this is the selfish gene. The human being does not think, just does what needs to be done to increase his chances of being replicated. The selfish gene is a replicator, and an almost immortal replicator lasting millions of years. The mortal who lasts only a few years is the man. It is because of the selfish gene that men fight so much, and do almost nothing to help a stranger. But the selfish gene has no control over anything, and probably man is the only animal on this planet aware of being the result of the selfish gene as well as having the capacity to transcend the selfishness of the gene. Only the human being can change the rules of the game to be truly human.

United Colors of Benetton Campaign

Stop for a few seconds and look into your memory for a broken deal or a denied favor by a friend. Stop for a few more seconds and try to remember what was the excuse you heard. [If you do not remember, do it in reverse and think about a deal that you broke or a favor that you denied...] In most cases, the excuse given for denying a favor and, further, to break a deal, is directly related to some need of their own or a family member. When that happens, there is a great probability that you felt angry or at least felt neglected.

In a favor denied or a broken deal, usually the benefited person is a relative and the injured one is a non-relative. What is behind this attitude is the selfish gene that sets a scale of priorities according to the percentage of genes that they have in common with their relatives. The more genes in common, the more likely the benefit to this one and to the detriment of a less relative, an even more so to the detriment of a non-relative. In the calculation that defines the grantee, the winner is the one with the highest percentage of genes in common. The logic: to benefit the one with more genes in common increases the chances of preserving its own gene.

Charles R. Darwin (1809-1882)

This is a simplified summary of how the selfish gene, the central unit of the theory of evolution accepted by most scientists today, which has its roots in the association between the natural selection of Charles R. Darwin (1809-1882) and the genetics of Gregor J. Mendel (1822-1882) and was synthesized nearly half a century after the death of both. Since then it has been extensively studied in almost all branches of science. The selfish gene shows that animals were not adapted to preserve their species, but to preserve their genes. As Darwin had already noted, natural selection favors genes that replicate better, the selfish ones. Examples of the selfish gene in action are found in both the animal and plant kingdom, and with very little effort, you can identify them in the human society. From a simple broken deal to the killing of a stepson, there are many examples of the selfish gene speaking louder in Homo sapiens.

Gregor J. Mendel (1822-1882)

The term selfish gene was coined by Richard Dawkins, and despite some criticism, is still widely used in discussing the evolution of species. Some authors prefer to call it the immortal gene or selfish genetic element. Anyway, it is worth noting that all authors are unanimous in saying that, although termed as the selfish gene, these genes have no conscience and therefore just do what needs to be done for the gene to be replicated. All authors, including the author of this article, say that when the gene is selfish or, for example, the creator of something – does not imply motivation or moral connotation.

The selfish gene is the one that needs to replicate, and the more replicators it gets, the greater the chances of success. But to understand what is the selfish gene, it is necessary to differentiate the body from the gene. In the case of human beings, we must distinguish the person from the genes that composes her. See: Robert and Elisabeth had one son, Bobby, who is not a clone of the parent, but a package of genes composed of half of genes from the father and the other half from the mother. So what Bobby has in common with Robert and Elisabeth are genes.

In this gene package, Bobby has one in two chances of having genes in common with both his father and his mother. Robert and Elisabeth didn’t want Bobby as an only child, and because they don’t live in China they could increase the family. Therefore, Bobby now has a sister, Beth, and again has a one in two chance of having genes in common with his sister because they are children of the same father and same mother. Bobby and Beth grew. He had a daughter and she had a son. So Bobby has a one in four chance of having genes in common with his nephew, and Beth also has a one in four chance of having genes in common with her niece. So, the nephew and niece are cousins and have one in eight chance of having genes in common with each other. This probability in the percentage of genes in common creates a kinship scale as the number of genes in common increases. In this genetic relatedness there is no novelty, no mystery, and it is difficult to find someone who does not have this knowledge.

What is not new, but many still do not know, is that the scale of relatedness is directly related to the predisposition to cooperate. The more genes in common, the greater the chances are of cooperation. The less genes in common, the lower the chances of cooperation. It is within the motivation scale to make the largest investment in the selfish gene, and there are few biologists who do not accept this theory: genes are selfish because they need to ensure their own replication. The bodies do not replicate and therefore should not be selfish. Thus the selfish genes need to create neural connections of pleasure and pain to regulate the actions of the animal and thus increase their chances of replication. That’s why animals appreciate their own welfare and suffer horrors with their own pain. On the issue of welfare, the man never gets tired of self-benefit: buy, travel or any other use that has no end. “Never is enough” is the best expression for it. Thus selfish genes need to create circuits in which men can feel good being with each other. The more genes you have in common with another, the more well-being and the greater are the chances of cooperation and therefore greater chances of replication of the selfish gene. Remember, the selfish gene has no conscience.

Natural selection is not synonymous with preservation of the species and to think this way is a mistake. Darwin knew this, but was and still is often misunderstood. If the overarching goal were the specie, the blood would be irrelevant. And what we see in the animal kingdom, including the society of men, is just the opposite. In practice, it is easy to see that every mother is always more willing to sacrifice for her own children than for her nephews, and is more willing to help her nephews than to help the nephews of her husband, much less, the nephews of her neighbor, and so on.

Photo from the movie "March of the Penguins"

The truth is not nice and the animals do not care about what happens to the species or ecosystem. In the film March of the Penguins, the penguin whose son did not survive, suffers from his loss while simultaneously not caring one bit about the puppy beside him being dragged by a sea lion. This same penguin is afraid to dive for food because he does not know if there is a sea lion ready to attack him. So, what does he do? He waits for a much hungrier penguin to dive or he even tries to push the penguin neighbor in order to check whether the local water is free of sea lions and, therefore, safe to get food.

Penguins, as much as men, are not concerned about their species or the ecosystem. Think of the human being, how many people do you know that did not travel on vacation because they preferred to donate the same amount of money to remove a family from poverty or make any other sacrifice for the benefit of a stranger? How many couples do you know who chose to be foster parents instead of biological parents? By contrast, it is very common to find people who do not like their stepchildren, or worse, stepchildren who were obliged to leave home because they are victims of abuse by their stepfather and stepmother. In general, animals behave in a selfish way depending on how the emotional circuits are designed, and selfish genes designed these circuits.

As stated earlier, it is necessary to separate the selfishness of the gene from the selfishness of the person, but because selfish genes built circuits in which people have more pleasure when they act in accordance with the wishes of the selfish gene, they end up being selfish too. Return to the exercise presented in the beginning of this paper. Most people, when in situations where they must choose whether they will benefit a relative or a non-relative, are governed by their neural circuits.  These neural circuits usually cause them to benefit the parent because of the well-being they feel from cooperating with the relative is much stronger when compared to the well-being they feel cooperating with a non-relative. For your friend, to benefit you at the expense of a relative would have much higher cost compared to the benefit given to a relative at your expense. The choice often automatic and unconscious is based on cost-effectiveness. Now, imagine a change in scenery and your friend’s dilemma is not to choose between his relative and you, but between his relative and his boss. If your friend benefits his relative, he runs the risk of being retaliated against by his boss. If your friend benefits his boss, he runs the risk of being retaliated against by the family. He probably will choose to benefit his boss and the chances of not being retaliated against by his family are enormous. In this dilemma, almost all human beings would benefit the boss. Why? When choosing a relative, the person is putting himself and his job in jeopardy, and he has more genes in common with himself than he has in common with a relative.

No one gets as sad about the pain of the neighbor as with his own pain. No one is as happy with the happiness of the neighbor as one’s own happiness. But if that neighbor is a relative, the more genes in common, the more likely he is to have empathy and, therefore, the more likely he is to feel sadness or happiness for that family member with more intensity. And that is the essence of love, to feel pleasure with the pleasure of the other, and feel pain with the pain of the other. Today, knowing the selfish gene, it is possible to understand that cooperation between relatives or descendants of people with common genes is equivalent to helping themselves, and it is called kin selection. So if the love that exists between those who have genes in common is a mere reflection of kin selection, the question arises: love is nothing more than a neural circuit designed to work in favor of its creator, the gene selfish? Apparently, Yes!

United Colors of Benetton Campaign

But cooperation between people with common genes that corresponds to genes helping themselves is not the only type of cooperation in the animal kingdom, and especially in the human society. Cooperation between unrelated people exists, and friendship is an example. The more you cooperate with your friend, the greater are your chances that he cooperates with you. This is mutual cooperation. From the point of view of the selfish gene, it may be good that you have the ability to cooperate with a non-relative. In practice, if you cooperate with your friend and your friend cooperates equally with you, you are even. But in the mathematics of friendship, no one wants to be abused and, therefore, you must be careful with the dodgers. The cheater is the one who wants to sell its cooperation for more than it’s worth. Thus, he might be better benefited than those with whom he cooperates. A very clever dodger is one who can sell, successively, its cooperation for a little more than it is really worth. According to many evolutionists, cooperation between non-kin seems to have an important role in human evolution, and Robert Trivers, in particular, suggests that humans are machines that have been adapted to cheat, to detect cheaters and avoid being seen as cheaters. In practice, it is easy to check, just look at the behavior of any child… It’s no wonder that human society has its economy based on money, and also is full of laws, regulations, records, certificates, contracts, taxes, fines, etc. All examples that were made to prevent cheaters from having success.

Nobody wants to be cheated and there are impressive tactics that were developed through evolution to protect against a cheater. In much of the animal kingdom, females, unlike males, have much more certainty of having their genes in their offspring. Thus, males of several species have developed skills to ensure that they do not invest in offspring of other males and thus are not cheated. As an example, male mice secrete a chemical when a pregnant female smells him in order to check if he is indeed the father of the baby she is carrying. If she is not pregnant with him, the smell of the substance secreted causes abortion. Thus, it destroys their potential male stepson and the female is rendered to breed just for him. Think of the human race: the list of atrocities carried out by man to control the loyalty of “their” women is enormous. On the other hand, from the point of view of the female, most of them do not want a partner who is only interested in mating but do not want to collaborate in the creation of offspring. Therefore, in several species, the female requires a long courtship in order to check how much the male is really interested in investing in the future family. Recently, in modern society, another technique was developed to detect cheaters, man or woman, the DNA test.

Kate & Williams (left); Charles & Lady Di (right)

In the eighties, the world followed a fairy tale that ended in tragedy. The story was a hoax, and many were the swindlers involved in it. Opinions are divided, and nearly all sided with Lady Di. According to the typical protocol, Prince Charles, who needed an heir to the English throne, could not marry Camilla and therefore sought the hand of his girlfriend, Diana, in marriage. Lady Di then discovered that she was not in a fairy tale and that her contribution to the marriage was only the “nobility” of her genes. Thus, she made no effort to hide from the world that she had been cheated. Human beings do not like cheaters. Lady Di was and still is admired by millions and millions of people worldwide. Recently, the couple’s first child, William repeated the fairy tale and Kate was the chosen one. The royal family seems to have learned something and not encouraged, again, the realization of a marriage based only on genes. William and Kate were motivated to date for many years, trying to avoid another scandal that could, once again, upset the fans of the British royal family.

In the modern society, especially urban and virtual, there is a new type of cheating. Think of a friend who is a friend of all. He is the one who pleases as many people as possible and rarely put himself in conflicts and never takes sides. He does take sides only when he has no choice, and for sure his choice is based on who he sees most likely to pay in return for his cooperation in the future. Whether consciously or unconsciously, his goal is always the same: self-benefit. That man calculates the cost-benefit of any choice to cooperate in the future thinking, and always seeking chances to benefit from the cooperation of the chosen short, medium or long term. His motto: invest in his social network. You’ve just been introduced to one of the newest products of the selfish gene, the contemporary dodger. He is a social chameleon, wears the personality necessary to suit the environment, but you never really know who he is, much less what he thinks.

Moral of the story: the genes have no morals, those who have morals are the animals, and especially men. Genes are not aware, those who are aware are people. The genes are potentially immortal while men are certainly temporary. Genes live for millions and millions and millions of years, people for just few years. Genes replicate, men die. The gene does not learn, it just replicates. Man learns, but takes his knowledge to the grave, or rather took it! Not anymore. In oral society, men lived an eternal cordless phone and knowledge could be lost easily. But humans, unlike other animals, invented writing and have since avenged death. Therefore, with death avenged, the knowledge built by Darwin and Mendel are immortalized and enabled the development of evolutionary theory presented here. Darwin descendants and some others have also contributed to the development of this theory. Mendel, in turn, had no children. And who cares? No one. His genes are gone, but his knowledge remained present. When his studies were rediscovered, many years after his death, they allowed the development of hundreds of studies that led to the understanding, treatment and often the cure of many genetic diseases.

Mike Wells in Karamoja, Uganda, 1980

The human being is the only animal on earth that can break the totalitarianism of their genes. The gene has created man and he is the only one that can turn against its creator. By rebelling, he can transcend his selfish nature and use his free will to re-design the future of the human race and planet Earth. Will is Power.

Curiosities:

Darwin had 10 children with Emma. Among them, 7 reached the sexual maturity but only 3 of them had kids, and together gave 9 grandchildren to Darwin. These 9 grandchildren had at least 25 children, which in turn had at least 34 children that certainty had many children, grandchildren, and maybe great grandchildren. These last generations represent the live descendents of Darwin between the sixth and ninth generation. In the sixth generation, each person has one in sixteen chances of having genes in common with Darwin. In the ninth generation, each person has one in one hundred twenty-eight chances of having genes in common with Darwin that means less than 1% of chance.

Mendel was born in Austria few years after Darwin, and he was a monk and scientist. He didn’t have any child. It is believed that he was not aware of the importance of his discoveries and therefore had never tried to talk to Darwin.

References:

Burt A, Trivers R (2011) Genes in Conflits: the biology of selfish genetic elements. Cambridge, London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Baldassari D, Grossman G (2011) Centralized sanctioning and legitimate authority promote cooperation in humans. PNAS Early Edition, June 20 [Epub ahead of print].

Raihani NJ, Bshary R (2011) Resolving the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: theory and reality. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, May 23 [Epub ahead of print].

Axelrod, R (2011) Lauching “The Evolution of Cooperation”. Journal of Theoretical Biology, April 22 [Epub ahead of print].

Dawkins, R (2006) The Selfish Gene (30^th anniversary edition). New York: Oxford.

Pinker, S (1997) How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Trivers, R (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1): 35-57.