Alana on Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene

All right. So first, I hope you do well on your tournament. You want to say what the tournament you're in doing today?

Yeah. So the one I'm doing today is just a local tournament in Temecula, in San Diego. It's called Spookfest, which is ironic because it's not even October, but it's okay. Yeah, I'm doing varsity, which is going to be a new challenge. Because I'll be finding girls a little older than me, but that's okay because I love challenges.

Good for you, good for you. Speaking of challenges, how was the first chapter of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for you?

It was good. It was, uh, I had to read it, I had to read the same section a couple times to kind of understand what it meant, but there was a couple things that I like actually understood and could I think, but not the whole thing.

Got it. No problem. I remember certainly when I first went to college and was reading difficult material, sometimes I would have to read it 3 times to make sense of it, and even then not complete sense. So what struck out? What themes did you find most interesting in that first chapter of The Selfish Gene?

Well, there was 2 that I distinctly remember and understood. The first one was right in the beginning. Where he— I'm paraphrasing, but he said something like, um, a species isn't really intelligent if it doesn't understand evolution. So that means that humans weren't actually intelligent until Charles Darwin discovered evolution, or figured out evolution, which I thought was interesting because it depends on what you define intelligent as, the species. And then the second theme was him defining selfishness and altruism. And I meant to look up altruism, I just haven't yet. But what I've been getting from the book, or at least when he was giving examples, or he was giving examples, um, in like wildlife. So an altruistic relationship, um, would be when you're risking your, uh, your life for another, or for another member of your species, whereas selfishness, you'd be— I mean, selfish and not risking your life for anything.

Got it. Um, did you know about, um, praying mantises? Uh, well, probably not, but there are two examples of cannibalism, basically. Both praying mantises, cannibalistic, and then some bird, I think it's some kind of gull.

Had you ever heard of things I've heard of cannibalism in the wild, but never really been given an example. So that was interesting.

Got it. So fair enough that those examples of being selfish, eating the baby birds of another family or eating the male after mating.

Yeah.

Selfish enough.

I, for the, for the bird example, I think that's pretty selfish. I mean, you're eating another person's baby, which, or another bird's baby, which is kind of sad, even though you might like really need the food. Um, and then the second, I know, oh, I think that happens with some type of spider too. And I think the spiders have grown to like know that that's a thing, that that happens. So they might, I mean, if they had brains, bigger brains, they might not define it as selfishness, but just a way that life goes, maybe? Unless the male spiders don't want to be eaten. I don't know. I can't feel.

It sounds like you've got the beginnings of a very interesting science fiction story there, a fantasy story about a world in which—

That actually sounds— Yeah.

They're intelligent.

That's a great idea.

Of course I will be eaten afterwards. So, and then how about the altruism? What's the best example of altruism that stands out for you?

Um, I forget the details exactly, but there was an example, um, of some kind of mammal, or maybe it was a bird, where the child was in danger and the mother risked her life to like take back the child, defend the child. And I think that was the example for altruism, so risking life.

Yeah.

Risking your life for another species. Yeah.

And I think that mothers, all, I think all mammal mothers, mammalian mother, mammal, mammalian mothers all sometimes risk their life for their children. I kind of think that birds do it too, but I'm less sure. But I think that birds do it too. Do you have a sense if it's mammals and birds or just mammals?

I don't see why it couldn't be just mammals, or I don't see why it couldn't be birds as well, but I don't have any.

And so then he also talks about the selfish gene. Did you get a sense for why he was talking about the selfish gene?

Well, he was trying to explain his opinion about how and why the gene, which I think refers to human, is selfish, but I'm not actually exactly sure how to describe it.

Got it. Do you have a sense for— do you know anything about genes at all, or genetics?

I, I know, um, the basics, like hereditary genes and traits and things like that, but I'm not some kind of scientist or veterinarian.

Okay, so why do— I guess the question is, you could talk about selfish human beings or altruistic human beings, selfish animals or altruistic animals, but why does he switch from talking about individual animals, individual humans or individual animals, to talking about genes and the notion that the genes themselves would be selfish?

In his examples, he was— or at least when I think of it, when he's talking about like a bird, he's talking about species as a whole. But I think when he refers to gene, like, he's referring to the individual. And I feel like since our emotions are more complex, um, we can have more dynamic personalities. So one human can be more selfish than the other.

So you're thinking that, um, Well, I'm— so you blanked out just a little bit. The video is rough for a minute. So I didn't quite get what you said about why gene rather than individual, or what's the distinction you're making?

Oh, my bad. So I was saying how I think he refers to the gene as— or I know he defined his use of gene as the individual human being. And I thought that was interesting because in his examples, he was talking about like the species of that animal as a whole. And I think when he refers to the human gene, so the singular human, or I think he does that because humans can be more dynamic in their personalities. So one human can be more selfish and one human can be more altruistic when you use his definitions.

Got it. I guess then the puzzle that comes up for me is, um, why would, why would a mother sacrifice herself for her children?

Um, I mean, if you— I think if you believe that the ultimate goal for all organisms is to reproduce or to get their genes into the future, then it would make sense for a mother to want to protect her child because her child carries her genes and she birthed it, I guess. I'm not a mother yet, so I wouldn't know that it stinks, but I think that's it.

Would the same logic apply to a father?

I think it depends on that species' behavior. Like, with humans, I know it depends. Um, my father would, and maybe for specific, like, specific other animals where there's like co-parenting, because I know sometimes the mother is left to raise the children of the animals. But I think for the species that do co-parent, I think that's true also.

Which makes sense that it might vary by species. But the logic that you explained to me about why mothers might sacrifice themselves for their children was that you said something like the species wants to tenu, or to use Dawkins' language, you know, the gene wants to perpetuate itself. And so if the child has half the mom's genes, then the mom, if we wanted to use this kind of logic, the mom would be willing to sacrifice 50% of the time to save her baby's genes. Or does it not work that way?

I don't think it works that way. I feel like you can't just go, oh, I got— you know, I rolled the dice and I got 1 instead of 2, I'm not gonna sacrifice my life for my baby. Um, I think it's deeper than just probability. Um, and especially— not especially, but even if your offspring is only 50% you, it's still your species and it's still your young. And besides just like, oh, I want to I want my species to live. I think there's like a motherly instinct, at least for most animals. I don't know about all, but, you know, I think that's what I think.

Right. And again, one of the things we're sort of trying to explain is where does the motherly instinct come from? That is, is it just kind of magic fairy dust? Or my understanding is you're— you have a pretty scientific worldview and not a religious worldview. Is that correct?

Yes, mostly.

So if we, if you had a religious worldview, you could say, you know, God made mothers to love their children. But if it's all science and therefore all evolution, then we need an evolutionary explanation for why mothers love their children. And I guess I'm wondering, do you think that perpetuating the genetic line is at least part of the explanation for why mothers not only love but would be willing to sacrifice themselves for their children?

I think that's part of it. Um, I don't think that's the whole reason though. I think there's some sort of other factor. I don't know if it's like hormonal or just motherly. I don't really know how else to describe it, but yes.

Got it. Although presumably even the hormonal factors are determined by the genetics, that is.

Yeah.

Yeah. So, uh, and then just to switch to the dads, why should things be different between moms and dads in terms of their commitment to sacrificing for their children?

Um, well, if you're talking about species, um, maybe not human, because humans can vary. But I feel like it might be more deeper and important for the mother because the mother actually carried the child. If we're talking about humans, not eggs, I don't know. I don't know if that's the same thing. Um, and Maybe, and I know in wildlife there's like different roles assigned to the parents, so maybe one parent goes to find food and one parent cares for the baby, or they do both or whatever. But I think it depends on the dynamic. I know not every species is the same.

Got it. How about siblings? Do you think siblings have any interest in sacrificing for each other?

I think if we're talking about non-human species, I'm not Sure, because I can't see like a little nest of baby birds, like one baby bird is like, I don't know, getting captured by a big bird and then the other baby bird's like, no, take me. I don't know, I can't see that happening just because they're babies and they don't know anything. But I don't think they have the same relationship as the parent-child, especially not humans, I guess. But I would I mean, I would try to save my brother, but I think that's because we have a deeper emotional connection.

Got it. And so the puzzle that I'm looking at is, um, it sounds as if maybe having shared genetic, shared genetics makes, has some impact, but it also sounds as if the shared genetics alone are not enough to explain when and where somebody will sacrifice themselves for another person. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, I think so. I mean, it doesn't need to be a parent. You don't need to be a parent to someone to sacrifice yourself for someone, at least on a human level.

Got it. So what do you— is that your brother?

No, there's just kids. They were making noise.

Got it. Um, we'll wrap up in a minute, but what do you make of this project of trying to explain selfishness versus altruism based on genetic commonality. Do you think that it's a promising kind of project scientifically, or do you think it misses too much about human nature?

Did you say it misses too much?

Yeah, that is again one— when I was pushing the logic, you could in theory— one way to understand this is you can determine what percentage of genetic commonality any two individuals would have and that could push what the probability is of them sacrificing for each other. And you've already rejected that, certainly in the case of the mother. That said, would you say that principle carries no weight at all, or is it somewhat valuable to look at how close people are genetically in terms of the likelihood of sacrificing for each other?

I think it's valuable to look at it, especially with non-human species. But I know for humans, it depends on the relationship. I mean, it, yeah, I think it depends. But with different animals and loving families, I think it for sure depends on genetics. Like, some random bird wouldn't sacrifice itself for a baby bird that's not his or hers.

Got it. And just going forward, You know, we read The Odyssey. I know, you know, you had read it before, and when you were younger you were interested in myth. I was thinking that now that you're getting older, maybe science might be more appropriate. Um, do you have an interest in going more deeply into science? Would you like to go back to fiction? Would you want to do something else? What, what books and directions most interesting to you at this point?

I think that going forward more scientifically might be interesting because I've never actually like indulged in like scientific books or texts or reading, so that might be interesting. I've done a lot of fiction.

Okay, that was my— you're kind of ready to start exploring science. Was this just a little bit too difficult or was it completely okay?

Uh, this one's okay, I think. I just, um, you know, need to read it a couple times, but That's okay.

Okay, and part of this is this is your first piece of a serious— you know, this is, this is the sort of thing that serious adults read, you know, college students, scientists, people, you know, in the real world, not just young people. So part of it is, hey, you're 13, now time to read grown-up stuff. So let me look around and I'll find something else interesting in science. It's a little bit different because I think especially the whole issue of evolution and behavior is super interesting. And you can already see that when I say puzzles, yeah, genetics probably has something to do with it, but it's not the whole thing. And exactly how, or exactly what that means, or exactly in what way genetics influence behavior, um, may be worth exploring in, in different ways. Fair enough?

Yes, for sure.

Okay, in which case, have a wonderful time at your tournament, and I will find something else for us to read soon.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.