The Selfish Gene is not about selfishness!

In Our Inner Ape primatologist Frans de Waal writes:

At the same time that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher preached that greed was good for society, good for the economy, and certainly good for those with anything to be greedy about, biologists published books in support of these views. Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene taught us that since evolution helps those who help themselves, selfishness should be looked at as a driving force for change rather than a flaw that drags us down. We may be nasty apes, but it makes sense that we are, and the world is a better place for it.

This is really a terrible misrepresentation of The Selfish Gene. The book is not about selfishness of the individual, but selfishness at the level of genes. It's simply a metaphor, and quite a powerful one as far as I'm concerned. Selfish genes do not necessarily make selfish organisms. In fact, Dawkins writes quite a bit about altruism and chapter 12 is even called nice guys finish first. Dawkins does not argue that seemingly altruistic behavioral patterns have ulterior motives. No, even though genes promoting altruistic behavior can only be evolutionarily successful if they lead to more copies of the altruistic behavior genes, the organism does not need to be, and typically will not be, aware of the genetically 'selfish' reasons for the behavior. The organism does not really know why it is helping others.

In the introduction to the 30th anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene Dawkins addresses the common misunderstandings of the book, which in part were caused by the title. His friend Desmond Morris suggested it would be better to call the book "the immortal gene" and now Dawkins is inclined to agree, if just to avoid misunderstandings by those who judge a book by the title:

The best way to explain the title is by locating the emphasis. Emphasize 'selfish' and you will think the book is about selfishness, whereas, if anything, it devotes more attention to altruism. The correct word to stress is 'gene' and let me explain why. A central debate within Darwinism concerns the unit that is actually selected: what kind of entity is it that survives, or does not survive, as a consequence of natural selection. That unit will become, more or less by definition, 'selfish'. Altruism might well be favoured at other levels. Does natural selection choose between species? If so, we might expect individual organisms to behave altruistically 'for the good of the species'. They might limit their birth rates to avoid overpopulation, or restrain their hunting behaviour to conserve the species' future stocks of prey. It was such widely disseminated misunderstandings of Darwinism that originally provoked me to write the book. Or does natural selection, as I urge instead here, choose between genes? In this case, we should not be surprised to find individual organisms behaving altruistically 'for the good of the genes'. Such kin altruism is only one way in which gene selfishness can translate into individual altruism.

Of course, the organism is not aware that it is doing what it does 'for the good of the genes'. It just has a natural tendency to do whatever the genes dictate. There are no cunning ulterior motives. The organism does not think "Hey, I'll help my kin, because they share my genes and that will increase the probability that those genes will be replicated by reproduction."

De Waal must really know that Dawkins is not talking about selfishness of the individual and he just seems to be creating a straw man against which he can posit his own view of a kind empathic ancestor of men and apes. This is all the more disappointing as he himself recognizes the 'selfish' origins of altruism and empathy in his book The Inner Ape:

From humble beginnings noble principles arise. It starts with resentment if you get less, then moves to concern about how others will react if you get more, and ends with declaring inequity a bad thing in general. Thus, the sense of fairness is born. I like these step-by-step progressions, because this is how evolution must have worked. Similarly, we can see how revenge may, via intermediate steps, lead to justice. The an-eye-for-an-eye mentality of primates serves "educational" purposes by attaching costs to an undesirable behavior.

and

The big question of human morality is how we moved from interpersonal relations to a system that focuses on the greater good. I'm sure it isn't because we have the good of the society foremost in mind. The first interest of every individual isn't the group, but itself and its immediate kin. But with increasing social integration, shared interests rose to the surface so that the community as a whole became a concern. We can see the beginnings of this when apes soothe relations between others. They broker reconciliations (bring parties together after a fight) and break up fights in an evenhanded manner in order to promote peace around them. This is because everybody has a stake in a cooperative atmosphere.

I really don't see much difference in the way De Waal and Dawkins write about selfishness and altruism, apart from the fact that De Waal, being a primatologist, focuses on ape behavior, and Dawkins, being an evolutionary biologist, focuses on genes.

"We are above animals"

In the Dutch program Knevel & Van den Brink I was struck by something that Roman Catholic priest Antoine Bodar said Wednesday during a discussion about ritual slaughter without anaesthesia:

We always compare ourselves with animals these days.... No, we are above animals.

Humans are above animals? What does that even mean? I suppose the idea here is that we are more important than animals. More important for whom? Well, a human values other humans more than other species, just like a chimp values other chimps from the same community more than other species. That's just the consequence of being part of a community, whether its a community of humans or apes or any other social animal. Is there any objective reason to value human life more than other species? Perhaps it could be argued that we have the most advanced consciousness and that we are the most intelligent species. But even if that's true, so what? It doesn't make us 'more important'. If there happened to be a species with a more advanced consciousness and a greater intelligence than humans, do you think we would value that species more than humans? I seriously doubt it.

It is quite obvious where Bodar gets this idea and that is his religion. In Genesis 1:26 it is written:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.   

Nevertheless, I think the bible is here just reflecting a natural tendency of humans to consider themselves more important than other species. It's also quite interesting to see scientists search for the special ingredient of our species. What makes us so special? Is it that we can use tools, that we have morality, that we have a theory of mind (can take the perspective of others), that we make war, that we can learn language, that we can imitate, or is it something else? Whenever one of these options has to be rejected on the basis of ethological evidence, one of the other options is pursued until that one must be checked off. As it happens chimps appear to have all of these abilities, even if they are less advanced than in humans. It's pretty much what we should expect given that our brain is more than three times the size of a chimp brain. Researchers haven't given up the search of course and currently the best bet is something like speech or syntax. Yes, chimps do not talk to each other, even though they can learn to use a form of symbolic communication by pointing to symbols they've learned. So those who argue that we are unique can be satisfied: we are the only chatterboxes in the world!

It is of course quite clear that in evolutionary terms there is a kind of continuity between species. Primatologists are always telling us how much humans and apes are alike, so what are we to make of the popular idea that we are somehow more important than other species? By now you may be getting the impression that I am suggesting that there is no reason to value humans more than other animals. By no means! We do not need objective reasons to value humans more than other species. Subjective reasons suffice. It is after all part of our evolutionary make-up to favor members of the same community, who also happen to be members of the same species. So why do some say that humans are above animals? Because they are human. Even the most extreme animal rights activist would not value a chicken as much as another human being.

Our Inner Ape

What does the phrase “our inner ape” bring to mind? Do you think of selfish behavior, acts of unruly, uninhibited behavior and acts of aggression, or do you think of compassion, kindness and empathy? Chances are you think of the former. We tend to see our inner ape as our savage, primitive instincts that need to be controlled by our civilized and uniquely human morality and empathy.

Indeed, our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees can be extremely aggressive. Male chimps vehemently fight for dominance within their groups and they are known to go on patrols on the borders between different communities in search of unsuspecting chimps from another group who will be lucky to escape unharmed. In chimpanzee politics Dutch Primatologist Frans de Waal tells the story of three rival chimps at Burger's Zoo in Arnhem: Nikkie, Yeroen and Luit. The three males had been left together in the night cages and this became fatal for Luit. Each of the males had been the dominant male for a while and at the time it was Luit who was in charge. Before this, Yeroen, the oldest of the three, had helped Nikkie become the dominant male after he himself had lost the position to Luit. Recently the partnership between Nikkie and Yeroen had broken down and Luit, the strongest of the three, naturally regained the top spot. This night Nikkie and Yeroen set out to take down Luit. In a brutal two-on-one battle Luit became seriously injured. The next morning he was found in a pool of blood missing fingers, toes and even his testicles. He did not survive this onslaught.

Yet, despite all the stories of chimp aggression we should not forget that they have a softer side and that they also know compassion and empathy. This other side of our ape relatives is emphasized by De Waal in his book our inner ape.

Having decades of experience working with chimps and bonobos, our closest relatives, De Waal sees the softer side of these apes. He argues that the phrase “our inner ape” can just as easily be applied to empathy and compassion as to power and aggression. In his book, appropriately called “our inner ape” he provides many examples of this human-like soft side of the apes. Here are two striking examples provided by De Waal. First, there's a bonobo called Kuni who tried to comfort a starling after it flew against the glass of her enclosure. She tried to help the bird by first setting it on its feet and then lifting it in the air and releasing it to let it fly. When this failed she climbed a tree and released it from there. Again, without success. Kuni then stood watch over the bird for a while, protecting it from any harm. Finally, the bird had recovered enough to fly away. Then there's Binti who helped a three-year-old boy who had somehow fallen amongst the gorilla's at Brookfield Zoo in Chicago. I can imagine the distressed parents as they await the fate of their child at the hands of these beasts. Well, Binti went to the boy and carried him to safety. After gently patting the boy on the back a few times she brought the boy to the zoo staff.



These examples are somewhat unusual as they demonstrate empathy towards members of other species, but apes naturally show empathy towards one another just as easily. They comfort each other when they are in distress, spend a great deal of time bonding with each other by grooming or even sexual acts (the bonobos). After fights there's often reconciliation between the apes. Sometimes other apes mediate when the two hot-heads don't immediately make up after a fight. According to De Waal a female chimp will go to one of the trouble-makers and start grooming him. Then, she will slowly go towards the other culprit with the groomed male following her, sometimes after some encouragement from the female chimp. She will then groom the other male and after a while she moves away, leaving the two aggressors together. The males will start grooming each other, which means that the peace is restored.

There is no doubt that De Waal is correct in stating that our kind, empathic, social side has an evolutionary history taking us back many millions of years, just like our cruel, aggressive, egoistic side. When we think of “our inner ape” perhaps we could try to give our pre-human ancestors a little more credit.