Might As Well Cooperate

Dawkins has been constantly reinforcing the idea that selfish organisms are the only ones that will survive. That for a maximum potential of success an individual most be egotistic and not think of anyone else. Although, this general idea still rings true, as it turns out, there are certain situations where being 'nice' is actually quite beneficial. 

To clearly illustrate this idea, Dawkins provides an example of Robert Axelrod's computer stimulation of an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game. Axelrod asked several people to submit different strategies and then played them against each other in a computer stimulation. His goal was to decipher which strategy was the most successful and why. In the game each player could use either a cooperate card or a defect card. The end result depended on what card the opponent played. If both players put forth the cooperate card then it was a mutual reward and each gained three points. If player one put a cooperate card and player two responded with a defect card then it was called sucker's payoff and player one was awarded zero points, while player two got five points for what was called temptation. If both players defected then each only got one point as punishment.  

Interestingly enough, the 'nice' strategies tended to fair much better than the more aggressive ones. "A nice strategy is defined as one that is never the first to defect."(p.212) Specifically, one certain strategy tended to constantly get positive results, this was the Tit for Tat strategy. This strategy was 'nice' as well as 'forgiving'. "A forgiving strategy is one that, although it may retaliate, has a short memory."(p.212) The main idea of the Tit for Tat strategy was that its first move was to play the cooperate card and each move thereafter was directly taken from the opponents last move. This enabled Tit for Tat to only defect as a measure of retaliation. If the opponent always played the cooperate card then the results were continuous mutual gain throughout. "So, we have identified two characteristics of winning strategies: niceness and forgivingness."(p.213)

Although Tit for Tat proved to be quite effective, a strategy's percentage of success will always be relative to the other strategies that it encounters.  Between Tit for Tat and Always Defect, "whichever stable point coms to dominate the population first will tend to stay dominant."(p.217) However, Tit for Tat will always have a definite advantage over Always Defect, this is that viscosity will play in its favor. "Viscosity means any tendency for individuals to continue living close to the place where they were born."(p.218) Tit for Tat does best when facing replicas of itself because both will have a constant, mutual gain throughout. Therefore, living in proximity helps them grow in population and what may start off as a small local population, can grow into a much larger local population. Meanwhile, the Always Defect strategy doesn't benefit from grouping together at all. This means that Tit for Tat has the ability to turn the tide in terms of population numbers. Even when Always Defect is most populous, Tit for Tat can became strong with the help of viscosity. Meanwhile, there is no such chance for the Always Defect strategy. "Tit for Tat has a built-in gift, even when rare, for crossing the knife-edge over to its own side."(p.219) "Always Defect, as we have seen, cannot benefit from clustering, and so does not enjoy this higher-order stability."(p.220)

The overall conclusion that can be made is that in some cases being 'nice' is very beneficial and taking a cooperative attitude will be rewarding for both partners. "So it is natural to ask whether his optimistic conclusions-about the success of non-envious, forgiving niceness-also apply in the world of nature. The answer is yes, of course they do."(p.229) Many times people assume that the most cunning player is the most successful. However Axelford has proved that this really isn't the case at all. Those strategies that were characterized as 'nice' seemed to stop thinking about taking down their opponent and instead focused on how to succeed in a much broader long-term way. They weren't concerned with how well or not their opponent was fairing, and even saw it as a good thing to allow mutual benefitting. In nature this rings true as well, cooperating with other fellow individuals will usually give the best results. 

Now this begs the question, what exactly does this imply? Are those who use 'nice' strategies altruistic? Or is it simply a disguised way of acting selfishly? Truly, this is just a matter of opinion, with enough evidence one could argue either side. However my stance is that cooperation is just a gentle way of pushing for ones own, selfish gain. Truly the reason why any organism cooperates is because it would like to gain as well. Sometimes it's not immediately, but some kind of repayment is implied. It is very rare for anyone or anything to be obliging, without thinking that in the long run, their apparent helpfulness will be reciprocated. Of course there are probably exceptions, however I believe that even in these, a hidden motive can be discovered that will generally lead back to a selfish purpose. The good news though, is that regardless of what drives this apparent generosity, there is room for it in this naturally selfish world.  

Sliver of Hope

            For most of the book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins focuses on elaborating his ideas on the replicators called genes. However, he reaches a point where he begins to specifically talk about humans. He explains that what sets us apart from all other ‘survival machines’ is our culture. This human culture has become a sort of primeval soup, similar to the one that created genes. The replicator in this new soup is what Dawkins calls a 'meme'. "Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes, fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches."(p.192) A meme is a "cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation."(p.192)

            Like genes its survival depends on its longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity. Longevity refers to how much time it will survive. Fecundity means its ability to spread. While copying-fidelity is how intact it will remain through time. What exactly is one meme though? "If the memes are closely 'linked' to use the genetic term, then it is convenient to lump them together as one meme."(p.196) "An 'idea-meme' might be defined as an entity that is capable of being transmitted from one brain to another."(p.196)

            Basically, a meme is a specific idea. Many times ideas evolve, like fashion trends. Several decades ago people wore their pants well above their waist line, yet now a days that idea has changed and we opt for pants that sit on or below the waist. Darwin's theory of evolution is widely accepted. However, over time each individual that has studied it, has modified it slightly to their personal understanding. The meme per se, has survived through the years, however the details of it have changed in order to satisfy new findings, different ways of thinking, and specific situations.

            Similarly to genes, memes have a blind sense of survival. We tend to say that they compete against each other, but in reality they simply have an embedded instinct to survive. We know it has nothing to do with being selfish or altruistic because they don't have any feelings on the topic. However, for the sake of conveying the concept, we can say that the memes are competing against each other for attention and time. If any given meme requires more time allotted to it, then it's at the expense of the other memes. A meme's success can be measured on how well it can be imitated. The more popular it can become the more chances it has to survive. 

            "When we die there are two things we can leave behind us genes and memes."(p. 199) Like I said in previous entries, our grandchildren are usually the last people that will remember us. Our gene combination will probably have an impact on our children and later our grandchildren. However, past the third generation not only will the memory of us fade away, but our specific gene combination will disappear as well. The good news is that our memes have the possibility of outliving both our gene combination and the memory of us. If we contribute to the world's culture in some way or form, it's quite possible that our meme will live on. Maybe our physical appearance, our personality, and our name will be forgotten, but  our meme might survive. There's a chance we might leave a small mark behind, maybe anonymous and minuscule, but nonetheless some kind of impact. 

            "Even if we look on the dark side and assume that the individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight-our capacity to simulate the future in imagination-could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators."(p.200) Technically, we are selfish, not because humans our wicked beings, but more because our main components have a strong selfish tendency. We our made up of memes and combinations of genes and both have a blind drive to survive, which makes them selfish and ruthless. Therefore, we as the unit that is created from a combination of the two will be selfish as well. However, there is a small sliver of hope. "We are built as gene machines and cultures as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."(p.201) We won't necessarily be able to reverse this deeply rooted selfish characteristic, however there is a small chance. There really is no guarantee, yet in the general scheme of things you could call it a little sliver of hope that maybe, just maybe, our fate of being driven by selfish impulses could be refuted. 

What's Your Motivation?

            There are several situations that potentially challenge the idea that all genes, along with their survival machines, are completely selfish. One of these such questions is the tendency for several species of animals to live in associated groups. For example, "Birds flock, insects swarm, fish and whales school, plains-dwelling mammals herd together or hunt in packs."(p.166) Why exactly does this happens? And how does it not contradict the selfish gene theory?

            The answer to this is actually quite simple. The reason that animals tend to "bunch" together, is solely for their own gain. "There is no altruism here, only selfish exploitation by each individual of every other individual."(p.168) Traveling in groups provides more protection than being alone. If they are being hunted, standing in large numbers not only diminishes each individuals chances of being the predators victim, but they also benefit from the mutual protection that being part of group naturally provides. Some animals tend to call out when they sense danger. Although, at first glimpse this might seem like an altruistic action, risking oneself to warn others that they should take cover, be cautious, or flee. However, it actually has a strong selfish connotation. When an animal such as a bird calls out to its fellow group members in the presence of danger it can usually be attributed to three different causes. The 'kin-selection idea', the 'cave' theory, or the 'never break ranks' theory. (p.169) The kin-selection idea mainly refers to the natural tendency that relatives have to protect each other, since many of their genes are similar and each other's survival is beneficial for the continuation of their genes. The cave theory consists of warning others to diminish the possibilities of having ones own chances of survival incriminated. To avoid detection by the predator, an individual can't only hide themselves, the whole group must hide, therefore the best way to do this is to call out to the others. The third theory is the never break ranks theory. According to this theory if an individual flees alone, then it is singling itself out and forfeiting the advantages of being in a group. 

            There are others situations that also appear to have altruistic characteristics. For example, hymenopterans, which are a large order of insects that include bees, wasps, ants, and sawflies, have an interesting reproductive system in place. Under this system one queen produces all future generations, while the worker organisms tend and serve her. However, in reality the reason they do this is because, "if you are a hymenopteran female, the most efficient way for you to propagate your genes is to refrain from breeding yourself, and to make your mother provide you with reproductive sisters and brothers in the ration 3:1." (p.176) Other relationships that might appear altruistic are symbiotic relationships, which is an interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both. Among these relationships is the interaction between Aphids and Ants. Aphids provide the Ants with juice extracted from plants in exchange for protection. Cleaner-fish decontaminate larger fish and in exchange they get a meal. Other animals develop 'mutual back-scratching arrangements'. The objective in these relationships is for fellow group members to groom the places where single individuals might have difficulty reaching, such as the head. If an individual has a tick in this spot the other member can safely remove it. Yet, for the relationship to work effectively the individual who was being groomed first, must then groom the other one and remove any harmful parasites. 

            What all these examples boil down to is the irrefutable fact that no matter how helpful an action might seem it is always driven by a selfish desire. If a school kid shares their lunch with a peer that forgot to bring theirs, it's only because they count on having the favor returned. Individuals don't do favors for others unless they benefit in some way or form. Of course it would be peasant to think that individuals look out for each other and that they do favors just because they want to help. However, that is simply not the case. All action is driven by motivation. Motivation originates in your genes. From a gene point of view passing themselves on is the most important goal, therefore the survival of their respective survival machine is always in their best interest. If they see a way to increase chances of survival then they will always opt for that path. Therefore, developing symbiotic relationships and living in groups is just a selfish way to proliferate the likelihood of survival. "In general, associations of mutual benefit will evolve if each partner can get more out than he puts in."(p.183)

Genes Moult Their Humans

It's curious how in genes being selfish is a favorable quality. From a young age, children are taught that sharing is caring. That being altruistic is essential to develop into a good human being. As kids grow older they are encouraged to put themselves in the position of others. Not judge anyone until they have walked a mile in their shoes. Always thinking about how others may feel, or how certain actions will positively or negatively affect others. 

However in the case of genes, being alturistic is clearly a negative quality. For survival means genes must think selfishly. They must constantly think of what is best for them. What they can do to outsmart their competition and manipulate other genes in their environment so that they will benefit from them. "At the gene level, altruism must be bad and selfishness good."(p.36)

In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins also explores the idea that we are simply the survival machines of these genes. Created by them, and then used by them until we die, which at some point we inevitable will. He highlights how truly temporary human life is in respect to genes. "They are replicators and we are their survival machines. When we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever."(p.35) 

Metaphorically, we are only as important to genes as a snake's outer skin is to the actual snake. These animals are constantly growing out of their shell. As time transpires, snakes shed their outer covering and grow a new one. The old one is simply left in the dust, now that it has outgrown its usefulness. We work much the same way. The genes create us and make us stable enough to reproduce and pass the genes on to a new body. Once we do though, our job is done. We will die (of old age if nature allows it) and that is that. Genes live on and we as individuals simply die. Of course exact chromosomes won't be identical in future generations, but the genes remain mostly intact. "The genes are not destroyed by crossing-over, they merely change partners and march on. Of course they march on. That is their business."(p.35)

Even though some people may disagree, in reality we are factors manipulated by genes. They create us, they make sure we reproduce, and afterward they let us die. It is not necessarily intentional, but it is the way that the world works. We tend to say that genes are ours. Claiming, that our children have our genes for this and that. Yet in reality, genes clearly don't belong to us. In fact, we belong to the genes. We are just their disposable, protective covering that delivers them from generation to generation. 

The Rudimentary Gene

In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins begs the question, “How did everything come to be?” At the very beginning of time atoms were mixed together in a loose sort of soup. These atoms eventually began to link up to form molecules. Then, these molecules developed the ability to replicate themselves. This was important because they could now increase their number in the general population.

Similar to Darwin’s idea of “survival of the fittest”(p.12), these early molecules were exposed to a process Dawkins deems “survival of the stable”(p.12). The gist of this process is that each of the molecules was up against the others in a type of competition. The failure or success of each depended on several characteristics. “[Certain] types would become relatively numerous in the soup, not only as a direct logical consequence of their ‘longevity’, but also because they would have a long time available for making copies of themselves.”(p.17) “Another property of a replicator variety that must have had even more importance in spreading it through the population was speed of replication or ‘fecundity’.”(p.17) The faster each molecule could replicate itself, the more identical replicas it would contribute to the soup. “A third characteristic of replicator molecules which would have been positively selected is accuracy of replication.”(p.17) If a molecule makes frequent mistakes then the copies it makes won’t be identical, therefore lessening its numbers, making it scarcer, and possibly leading to its extinction. 

However, for a molecule to be truly successful it had to have all three characteristics. Those that did, survived and began to build “survival machines for themselves to live in.”(p.19) At first these were rudimentary coatings at best, yet steadily they became stronger and more complex. “Now they [the replicators] go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.”(p.20) Clearly, it was a competitive, difficult process, but essential nonetheless. So essential in fact, that these early replicators have evolved into the basis for all life on earth.