What Do Selfish Genes, and Memes, Really Mean?

Dan Agin has boldly waved selfish genes goodbye in his report on my article with E.O. Wilson in the November 3 issue of New Scientist, which is a digest of a more comprehensive article that will appear in the December issue of Quarterly Review of Biology titled "Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology." Agin´s farewell provoked a flurry of comments that raise the issue of what selfish genes, and memes, really mean.

The problem with these words is that they have both a broad and narrow meaning. Selfish genes broadly refer to all genes that evolve by natural selection, which by definition are more fit than the genes they replaced. Similarly, "selfish memes" broadly refer to all traits that spread by cultural evolution. It would be impossible to say goodbye to these definitions because, by including everything that evolves, they come perilously close to explaining nothing in the first place.

No one would care about selfish genes or memes if they didn´t imply something more specific. Selfish genes were originally regarded as a drop-dead argument against group selection, and so they are still regarded by many. Selfish memes suggest a number of specific implications; that culture can be atomized into gene-like bits, that they are encoded as something gene-like inside the head, and especially that culture can be like a virus that propagates itself without benefiting human individuals or groups. I repeat: the broad meanings of genes and memes are not restricted to these implications, but the narrow meanings give the words their power to influence the way we think about the world around us, and to which we can bid adieu.

It´s not just the general public that is confused about broad vs. narrow meanings, but the master himself, Richard Dawkins. In dozens of passages he cautions that selfish genes don´t really imply selfish individuals, and in dozens of other passages he asserts that they do. One of his most recent essays, titled "Atheists for Jesus", is a gem for revealing the limitations of his thought. He proclaims that "Natural selection is a deeply nasty process" and that "From a...Darwinian point of view, human super-niceness is just plain dumb." By human super-niceness, he means the fact that "so many people are kind, generous, helpful, compassionate, and nice." Notice that he is not referring to universal niceness, which after all is extremely rare in our species, but merely the garden variety of human niceness that goes beyond nepotism and mutual-back scratching.

Since human super-niceness is beyond Dawkins´ imagination as an adaptation (either genetic or cultural), he can explain it only as an evolutionary mistake that must be perpetuated to make the world a better place. Dawkins says:

The best I can offer is what I hope may be a catchy slogan. 'Atheists for Jesus' would grace a T-shirt... [P]erhaps the oxymoronic impact of 'Atheists for Jesus' might be just what is needed to kick start the meme of super niceness in a post-Christian society. If we play our cards right - could we lead society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into kinder and more compassionate uplands of post- singularity enlightenment?

A slogan on a T-shirt is our best hope for achieving peace on earth? Sadly, Dawkins is a victim of his own limited view of memes as little bits of culture that spread like viruses. It is beyond his imagination that culture might take the form of complex systems of belief and practice that adapt entire groups to their environments, including forms of niceness that go beyond nepotism and narrow back-scratching. The broad definition of selfish genes and memes could be taken in that direction, but that is not where Dawkins takes it.

But Dawkins was not alone and was standing on the shoulders of giants who turned group selection into a pariah concept ten years before the publication of The Selfish Gene. Nor is it necessary to personify ideas; there is much to recommend the gene´s eye view, once we see the fallacy of regarding it as an argument against group selection. And culture is manifestly important, regardless of whether we use the word "meme." Saying goodbye to selfish genes and memes involves questioning everything that has been associated with these concepts and reviving what they seemed to deny: the concept society as organism.

This means regarding most people as innately disposed to function as team players in the pursuit of common goals, not just consciously but to the roots of our unconscious mental processes. It does not lead to the naive view that everything is nice, since superorganisms display the same spectrum of relationships known for individual organisms, from extreme conflict to mutualism. It does not automatically lend support to any particular political ideology, but rather explains all political systems, religious systems, and other cultural systems as roughly like species in ecosystems. Put simply, it enables human behavioral and cultural diversity to be approached in the same way that evolutionists already approach the rest of life. And it leads to more sensible recommendations for improving the human condition than slogans on a T-shirt.

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

Um instead of studying sociobiology or whatever
you call that eldritch half-bakery, how about
studying fuels science or something? Curiously,
SOME countries in the world don't USE imported
petroleum. They drill their own, or do without.
Iceland is going to say 'fuck gas and diesel'
in the future, of course they've got the old
geothermal to drive off of there. Literally.
Hydrogen cars. Iceland ROCKS. I think they
actually have rocks there, too.

[rixhex56]

At the risk of appearing as obtuse as I may actually be, I find this essay confusing at best, unless there is some hidden agenda here of which I am unaware. The assault against Dawkins in this essay is baseless. These two statements make no sense to me:

"Dawkins is a victim of his own limited view of memes as little bits of culture that spread like viruses. It is beyond his imagination that culture might take the form of complex systems of belief and practice that adapt entire groups to their environments."

A "system" is an amalgamation of things creating a more complex whole. The phrase, "complex systems of belief" would imply smaller units of culture (memes)that form the "complex systems of belief"; would it not? To believe that a complex system of beliefs simply exists without first evolving from smaller, simpler units is absurd.

There is also no basis in fact for the assertion that Dawkins contradicts himself – I found no evidence supporting that claim.

Another baseless statement: "Since human super-niceness is beyond Dawkins' imagination as an adaptation (either genetic or cultural), he can explain it only as an evolutionary mistake..." Dawkins' statement was not as it is presented here, but rather an illustration that in PURELY Darwinian terms, it would APPEAR a mistake – Dawkins is more referring to the wonder of evolution than denouncing "super-niceness" as a mistake, as Wilson insinuates here (how many evolutionary adaptations are likely the result of just such "mistakes"?). However, beyond that point, Dawkins is, in fact, presenting this apparent mutation as "an adaptation" that should be propagated and spread.

My perception is that Dawkins is being taken out of context to serve some unknown-to-me purpose.

[whit]

The fully silly thing is the implication that genes want something, selfish or otherwise (let alone that ideas/memes do). Genetic selection is just a trend, fully non-conscious, with no desire to continue on the part of the genes involved. Genes are finally mechanistic, wanting things in no greater degree than your car - to which it frankly makes no difference at all whether it's polished daily or left out in a field to rust.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Wilson,

I have to say your article is inspiring, and lead me on an interesting afternoon adventure that was extremely enjoyable to me.

That said, and I do not wish to be critical, yet I find myself having to cut to the quick (so to say) here.

1) Seems, although you use many scientific studies (disciplines) one thing that you have missed in your understanding is *time* and its relationship to the human psyche, especially in the cognitive science of psychology.

2) Seems, to me that you don't completely or are not aware fully, of the science of psychology in the modern scientific sense, you're still stuck in Jungian concepts (don't get me wrong, Jung was a genius *for his time*"TIME") but the *SCIENCE* of psychology has move expotentially in the last few years, especially do to neurosciences and technology.

Philosophy vs. Psychology ???

3) Philosophy is *not* a science, and *Never* will be, it's a subjective "Art form", enjoyable?, Yes, it can be, intriguing for its questions?, absolutely. Can philosophy answer the tough questions? Nope! subjective speculation is the best you'll get. Philosophy can be an implement, but as is the case with most tools, they can be used by man to do both good works or bad.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to studing more of you work, without question U-R darn good at this. Agape. (Love in fellowship of our shared fragile humanity)

[nammy50]

What is so strange about "Atheists for Jesus"?

If you separate Christ's words from his place in Christian orthodoxy you have the wisdom, compassion and empathy.

My t-shirt reads- Love, peace & evolution!

[Bateman]

Dr. Wilson:

I am glad that you are addressing some of the fallacies regarding group selection.

Some common fallacies:

1) Group selection (GS) is a kinder and gentler process than individual selection.

2) GS necessarily implies egalitarianism.
3) GS necessarily results in within-group forgiveness, mercy, and care for the weak.
> See well-known eusocial species for 2) and 3).

4) GS necessarily promotes more progressive and enlightened politics than does individual level selection.

5) GS-generated social behaviors are more "authentically" altruistic than those produced by traditional inclusive fitness.
>How so? It is still individuals acting on some instrumentalist benefit to some entity due to a distal evolutionary cause.

6) GS is not about benefit to the genes (or some other lower-level replicator - "meme"), nor is it about genetically-based behaviors, nor is it adaptationist.

7) Internal competition, driven by selfishness, is necessarily destructive to the higher-order entity.

>Lower level competition can be towards ends that enhance the viability and performance of the higher order entity. For example, somatic selection processes provide adaptive immunity and neurological functional complexity. Healthy markets promote the economic wellbeing of participating communities. Rivalries between neighboring city states resulted in the technological advances of whole civilizations relative to others. Competition between individuals and species promotes the variability and stability of an ecosystem.

However, lower level competition can also be destructive to the higher level entity. For example, some kinds of selfish genetic elements can injure the fitness of their hosts. Cellular selection processes can result in virulent cancers. Monopolistic markets dominated by oligarchs result in economic dysfunction. Aggressively invasive species can degrade the ecosystems they inhabit, making it unlivable even for them. Under-regulated global techno-market activities have resulted in potentially catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

On the other hand, during evolutionary history compensatory defenses to destructive "ultraselfishness" have enhanced the robusticity and functional complexity of biological systems. Anti-cancer defenses, for example.

Competition and cooperation, selfishness and altruism, at all levels of biological organization have driven the complexity and diversity of life.

[peterg76]

There is a problem with the word 'selfish', because people are not used to evaluating their self-interest in a genuinely comprehensive way. 'Selfish' defined by a few minutes of human reasoning and 'selfish' expressed by millions of years of natural selection are not the same. A gene is a *strategy* for survival of the information of the gene, not the physical gene itself, and not the individual. The fact that under certain circumstance it can be dysfunctional for the individual is unsurprising.

[Dave24]

We need to separate fact from fiction, and art from reality. Science is our only chance at understanding reality as it is - and calling this attitude "scientism" is not a rebuke. Art pushes creativity and perspective both collectively and individually, and is meant to represent and even influence reality - but only within the subjective context. I do not believe in mind/body duality, but I do believe in objective/subjective duality. Science for the former; art for the latter.

[veracitatus]

David,

What a thrill to see you post here. I very much enjoyed your (and Elliott Sober's) book, "Unto Others". Its a read I recommend to everyone who wonders about the nature of moral sentiment.

I have been struggling with the meme meme for some time. I've read Dawkins, of course, but also Blackmore, "The Meme Machine", and more recently Aunger's "The Electric Meme". Interesting ideas but still not sufficiently explanatory in my view.

I prefer the systems approach to thinking about evolution. Groups, for example, are subsystems of the larger population system, etc. Somehow cast in that framework, multi-level selection seems to make a lot of sense.

Regards and I hope to see more of your work.

V.

[CriminallySane]

"A slogan on a T-shirt is our best hope for achieving peace on earth?"

Only if it is seen with its broader implications. Something that is straightforward and "sticky" will need to be the "front meme" for such an idea, or it will never take hold.

Part of the progressive paradox is that we lean towards complex ideas, communicate them badly, and then express frustration when they do not catch on, all the while disdaining the very sort of turn to catchiness that would ensure that. All the while, the right revels in its simplistic retrograde sloganeering, knowing full well that they are able to succeed in appealing to our baser instincts by making the call both memorable and easily understood.

We continue to miss this critical point at our peril.