Refuting the "Selfish Gene" Theory

[Stoppelmann]

James Hillman was concerned that science has suggested to us that life is all about passing on genes, but the ability to reproduce is limited, which would suggest that we become superfluous to evolution (if that were the driving force). He suggests that old age has other values that contradict “The selfish gene theory [that] puts the egg before the chicken”:

The endurance of older women signifies more for propagation of the human species than carrying viable eggs and birthing babies. As Moscow grandmothers stood in front of Russian tanks and stopped them cold, could a “grandmother hypothesis” stop the flattening steamroller of genetic reductionism?

Elderly women add to culture and help perpetuate the species by caring for the young, relieving pregnant and lactating mothers. Their care serves to reduce infant mortality, although they themselves may be infertile. “Grandmothers empowered the human species to become the planet’s dominant animal,” writes Theodore Roszak in his exposition of the “grandmother hypothesis.” They also carry cultural knowledge.

We may imagine elderly ladies void of ova but packed with memes. Memes are the cultural equivalent of genes. Like genes they are independent of their carriers. They transmit bits of culture from generation to generation. Daniel Dennett describes them: They are deposited in cultural artifacts like “pictures, books, sayings,” “as complex ideas that form themselves into distinct memorable units” (italics (italics in source). “A meme’s existence depends on a physical embodiment in some medium.”3 Why not grandparents as that embodiment, that medium?

Grandmothers and grandfathers maintain rituals and traditions, possess a hoard of primal stories, teach the young, and nurture the memory of the ancestral spirits who guard the community. Grandparents listen to dreams, and tell you what a new word means; they can tie a fly, bait a hook, and know where the best place is. They live among odd objects, which they cherish, and smells unforgettable. They have little time left, yet so much time to spare.

Hillman, James. The Force of Character: And the Lasting Life (pp. 227-228). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

 

[Paco Dennis]

It is surprising to read your post this morning. Misa's ( my partner for 36 years ) son and grand daughter visited here this past weekend. She wanted to spend some quality time with them, and bond with her grand daughter as she will be heading out the door of her parents. First stop Puerto Rico. She is 17.

I watched as Misa's son dominated the action and conversations. Any attempts to bond with her was suspended by the momentum that her son exuded, It was disappointing to watch. Misa has much to offer her grand daughter in the way of being human. At the age her son is and the busy work schedule he has, it is understandable that he is filled with what is happening in his life, and he doesn't have much room for sensitive human value stuff.

The instincts of the grandmother are vital to pass on to her brood. They show how to survive and thrive in a very challenging world. I often appreciate and acknowledge the wisdom that is shared here on the SF from our grandmothers.

 

[Stoppelmann]

I was quite sensitive as a child, feeling my father's grief at the loss of his crew in an accident and my mother's struggle with my two brothers and me. During my parents' brief separation, my paternal grandmother took care of me and introduced me to the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs. His Tarzan books in particular reminded me of our family's time in Malaya in the 1960s. Those books inspired me to become a writer, although I never made any money from it.

My grandmother's husband was a clown who always entertained me, but she was more introspective and reserved. There was a beautiful portrait of her in the best room, where the books were kept. I often wondered how she ended up marrying my grandfather, but being from a working-class family in hard times, that was how life worked. The houses they lived in when I was young were eventually demolished because they were in such poor condition.

When we returned to my hometown when I was about fourteen, I spent a lot of time with my grandmother and my aunt, who was older than my father. I enjoyed their presence. When I left home to join the army, I used to visit them while on leave. When I was posted to Germany, she once said, "Don't go and marry a German girl. There are girls here in England waiting for you". When I came back and introduced her to my German wife, she said, "You know I was only joking, don't you?" I was the last one to visit her, and just before we left, I said, "See you next time, Grandma". She said, "No, my dear, we won't see each other again".

She died that night, and I got the phone call the next morning. Perhaps she was the reason I worked in elderly care.

 

[dilettante]

I'm beginning to wonder if self-extinction is a natural result of high-density living. It seems to be borne out in animal experiments and nobody really questions it there. So why not in people as well?

In farming, mining, logging, etc. kids are an asset as labor. In urban industrialization they become expensive liabilities. Post-industrial urbanization carries it a step further. Maybe more so when lives get caught up in "seeking meaning" where artificial adventure is craved. Clubbing, fine dining, practicing poseuring in art museums, seeking to be seen in general... golly, these just aren't the same with kids in tow or needing care at home.

I'm not convinced that Richard Dawkins and George C. Williams were entirely wrong though. What's changed is the rise of the selfish individual, overpowering the avarice of the gene.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Both of my maternal grandparents were wonderful assets in my life as were my parents for my kids. I don’t have any grandchildren.

 

[VaughanJB]

James Hillman was concerned that science has suggested to us that life is all about passing on genes, but the ability to reproduce is limited, which would suggest that we become superfluous to evolution (if that were the driving force). He suggests that old age has other values that contradict “The selfish gene theory [that] puts the egg before the chicken”:

Superfluous to evolution? What does that mean, exactly? We are the result of evolution, but evolution doesn't have an end goal. Evolution is simply a process we all participate in. Am I missing something in your statement, or just being dumb?

The Hillman quote you posted also seems odd to me. Evolution doesn't suggest we only have value if we're fertile. A woman who can no longer conceive is still a fellow human being, and so will have all kinds of useful roles and purposes.

I don't know the book you quote, so perhaps the context is lost of me. I have read The Selfish Gene though. The book takes a specific context for its ideas, but it's a deliberate ploy to focus on the cultural aspects of our evolutionary past, and future. It's also worth noting, Even Hawkins now thinks he should not have called the book "The Selfish Gene". He said he should have called it "The Immortal Gene".

 

[Paco Dennis]

It seems a universal truth of most all living things that self-preservation is a major factor in being alive,

 

[Stoppelmann]

Superfluous to evolution? What does that mean, exactly? We are the result of evolution, but evolution doesn't have an end goal. Evolution is simply a process we all participate in. Am I missing something in your statement, or just being dumb?

Hillman questioned the idea that procreation was the point of living from an evolutional point of view, which you still often hear said. He made the point you made here:

A woman who can no longer conceive is still a fellow human being, and so will have all kinds of useful roles and purposes.

He suggests that the woman who becomes infertile with age now has memes to pass on. She was the storyteller and source of wisdom in many pre-industrial and ancient societies.

I don't know the book you quote, so perhaps the context is lost of me. I have read The Selfish Gene though. The book takes a specific context for its ideas, but it's a deliberate ploy to focus on the cultural aspects of our evolutionary past, and future. It's also worth noting, Even Hawkins now thinks he should not have called the book "The Selfish Gene". He said he should have called it "The Immortal Gene".

Dawkins has made many mistakes in his books, not so much in the science itself but in interpreting it into society. There is an interview with Alex O'Connor in which the weaknesses of his argument against religion are exposed.

 

[horseless carriage]

James Hillman was concerned that science has suggested to us that life is all about passing on genes, but the ability to reproduce is limited, which would suggest that we become superfluous to evolution (if that were the driving force). He suggests that old age has other values that contradict “The selfish gene theory [that] puts the egg before the chicken”:

Reading the quotation I came across the expression: "genetic reductionism." Having never heard the expression I looked it up:
"Genetic reductionism is the belief that understanding genes is sufficient to understand all aspects of human behaviour. It is a specific form of reductionism and of biological determinism, based on a perspective which defines genes as distinct units of information with consistent properties."
That's as about as clear as mud. What exactly is the selfish gene and who is being accused of selfishness? It comes across that old people who live way beyond their production life are being selfish. Can the same be said for couples who refrain from parenting?

 

[VaughanJB]

Hillman questioned the idea that procreation was the point of living from an evolutional point of view, which you still often hear said. He made the point you made here:

He suggests that the woman who becomes infertile with age now has memes to pass on. She was the storyteller and source of wisdom in many pre-industrial and ancient societies.

Dawkins has made many mistakes in his books, not so much in the science itself but in interpreting it into society. There is an interview with Alex O'Connor in which the weaknesses of his argument against religion are exposed.

Ain't no-one perfect. I do consider him an incredibly intelligent fellow though. If only more were like him.

From my perspective - and I may have gotten this wrong from the quote you posted - there are two distinct things: Evolution, and societal behavior. What you posted works in the realm of societal thinking, and therefore I think I may have picked up the wrong end of the stick.

Evolution itself is just a thing, as I said, a process. It doesn't care about what happens.

 

[VaughanJB]

Reading the quotation I came across the expression: "genetic reductionism." Having never heard the expression I looked it up:
"Genetic reductionism is the belief that understanding genes is sufficient to understand all aspects of human behaviour. It is a specific form of reductionism and of biological determinism, based on a perspective which defines genes as distinct units of information with consistent properties."
That's as about as clear as mud. What exactly is the selfish gene and who is being accused of selfishness? It comes across that old people who live way beyond their production life are being selfish. Can the same be said for couples who refrain from parenting?

Someone wrote an entire book on what the "Selfish Gene" is all about. It wasn't me.

I'd suggest that when you go into the realm of "the belief that understanding genes is sufficient to understand all aspects of human behaviour", you're on dangerous ground. Surely environment, nurture, diet, etc. matters which ever way you cut it. That said, we can learn a lot about humans from understanding our DNA.

Made to order babies, which to an extent can be done today, are going to be with us at some point, imo. And we've already began to detect genes which radically suggest a particular cancer or trait. Surely, some time in the future, we will alter peoples DNA to drastically reduce, say, instances of breast cancer?

 

[Warrigal]

Superfluous to evolution? What does that mean, exactly? We are the result of evolution, but evolution doesn't have an end goal. Evolution is simply a process we all participate in. Am I missing something in your statement, or just being dumb?

The Hillman quote you posted also seems odd to me. Evolution doesn't suggest we only have value if we're fertile. A woman who can no longer conceive is still a fellow human being, and so will have all kinds of useful roles and purposes.

I don't know the book you quote, so perhaps the context is lost of me. I have read The Selfish Gene though. The book takes a specific context for its ideas, but it's a deliberate ploy to focus on the cultural aspects of our evolutionary past, and future. It's also worth noting, Even Hawkins now thinks he should not have called the book "The Selfish Gene". He said he should have called it "The Immortal Gene".

Hawkins? Don't you mean Richard Dawkins?

I read The Selfish Gene too. I wouldn't call it a theory, more like an hypothesis. It is hardly testable and supporting evidence is little more than opinion.