The Selfish Gene

 

The Selfish Gene (6/10/23)

Gail Wynand, the powerful publisher in Ayn Rand’s ‘The Fountainhead’, was exposed to a variety of literature while growing up. Devoid of any method or guidance, a multitude of authors and subjects influenced the young man. Thus, Gail grew in a highly disorganised manner.

I was like Gail Wynand in my younger days as my reading too was haphazard. I used to be engrossed in all kinds of non-academic books. 

Growing up, me and my brother were members of a local library. This instilled the habit of reading in us. We had a voracious appetite for comic books (initially) which later progressed to novels from the likes of PG Wodehouse, Jeffrey Archer, Sidney Sheldon, Arthur Hailey, Tom Clancy, Frederick Forsyth, Alistair Maclean, and Michael Crichton. Harshad and I also read many Marathi books written by creative geniuses like PL Deshpande, VP Kale etc. Thrillers, sci-fi, war dramas, romance, and British understated humour kept us engaged. Reading widened our horizons and offered us a glimpse into a world which lay beyond our cloistered lives.

Our reading preferences changed as age progressed. I got introduced to Peter Watson, Ayn Rand, Will Durant and Richard Dawkins. I was of an impressionable age and had plenty of time in hand. Most of these books were serious stuff. They were not the breezy, fast paced novels I was accustomed to.

Only a few books enticed me to stay till the end while many had to be abandoned mid-way. I didn’t have the intellectual acuity to make sense of them. Richard Dawkins’ writing in particular was completely incomprehensible to me. Dawkins has made a valiant effort by dumbing down complex subjects, and yet I am unable to grasp his books. Maybe basic background information or a more scientific bent of mind would have helped.

Among the two or three books of Dawkins’ which I toyed with, ‘The Selfish Gene’ remained in my thoughts for some time.

Now with the passage of time, I am able to recollect only the title, ‘The Selfish Gene’. The Selfish Gene is a book about evolution. Dawkins postulates that the basic unit of selection in evolution is not the individual, but the gene. This is because genes are the units of heredity that are passed down from parents to offspring. He argues that the selfish gene concept can explain a wide range of phenomena, such as altruism, cooperation, and competition. He also argues that the selfish gene concept can help us to understand human behaviour.

I still have trouble grappling with Dawkins’ theory. How can humans evolve to have seemingly opposite drives like selfishness and altruism? Do different individuals evolve in different ways? Maybe yes. The central theme of evolution says that species change and diversify in response to environmental pressures, but this change is not purposeful or intentional. It has no predetermined direction. 

----------

I was prompted to think about what drives people to perform acts of kindness where none is expected. A friend’s selfless act during the BNP Endurathon 2023 is a case in point. Our friend is known to help struggling runners during races. In the process he sacrifices his performance at many events. Why does this man keep doing this? Have his genes evolved in a different way than others? Does he have some dominant ‘altruism’ gene which others lack? 

Members of our exercise group volunteer to donate blood to unknown persons simply on the basis of a WhatsApp appeal. This is a selfless act of the highest order.

Rich philanthropists donate large portions of their wealth to worthy causes. Does the quantum of the endowment determine a person’s ‘greatness’? Is there any metric for this? 

Why is an aggressive, ambitious person perceived to be ‘selfish’? Is selfishness inherently bad? Our cultures encourage us to put others above self. But reality is different. One can think of others only after our own needs are fulfilled. 

People conspire for both, good and bad reasons. The interpretation depends on individual point of view. Nations indulge in espionage, which implies deceit and subterfuge at the highest level. This is condoned or even celebrated, as it is deemed to be in the national interest. Similar acts by individuals or corporates are frowned upon. Whistleblowers reveal dark secrets of corporates. Is it their conscience which makes them do this or is it plain vanilla vendetta? What motivated a person like Julian Asange? He is a person, both celebrated as well as derided.

Our perception of good and evil is dictated by social hierarchy.

-------------

Michael Crichton’s ‘Next’ had a profound impact on me. In ‘Next’ Crichton has written about the possibility of altering genes to enhance individuals. Crichton presents a futuristic world which has hybrid organisms and people with heightened skills. It is a world in which cancer can be cured by injecting a ‘special gene’ which only a certain individual has. Corporates doing research on genes license these special genes so that individuals can lay no claim on their own biological material. There is genetic material which helps reverse aging. Doctors in hospitals are shown toying with the idea of ‘designer babies’. I found the premise preposterous when the book was released but no longer do so.

This dystopian future may be far nearer than we assume.

Would we be able to enhance positive character traits like altruism? Or is it something one must be born with? Can someone get intelligent, calm, loving, optimistic, sincere etc. just by jabbing an injection? Will all babies born in the future be fair, tall, intelligent and possess all positive traits?

How does one discern people in such a world? Do we want to inhabit a world where human distinctiveness would be eliminated?

---------

Are my genes making me type this? Am I trying to propagate my foggy message to my friends?

I cannot answer these questions. 

But what I can surely do is to try and be better than what I was yesterday. Is this not a manifestation of evolution? Would I be wrong if I become ‘selfish’ and put my interests over others in a moderate way? One needs to strike a balance between Commerce and Philanthropy. 

Some people are more helpful than others. Few are vocal about their good deeds while some keep mum. Many deeds of kindness go unnoticed and unacknowledged but the person who performs them knows. Ultimately, the person doing good also benefits from the deed. Self-interest is paramount.

Humans are complex beings who are cursed with emotions. Can we ‘instruct’ our genes to seek happiness in all situations?

- Sandeep Oke