Q&A: Genetic Altruism
Genetic Altruism
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I saw that you wrote in an article that according to Dawkins, survival happens by preserving genes and not by preserving the individual. But what exactly does that mean? Which genetic material? After all, my genetic makeup is exactly 100% my genetic makeup, as opposed to 50% of my baby's, so why would I sacrifice my life for him according to Dawkins? And what about other human beings who aren’t my family? Is a soldier who sacrifices his life doing so because of similar genetic material? And what about chimpanzees? They too have genetic material relatively similar to ours. So how similar does someone have to be for me to sacrifice my life for him? And does this even make sense, because as I noted, I myself contain all of my own genetic material, so it would make sense for me to preserve that at the expense of everything else…
And the same question, just in a more specific example—what is the evolutionary logic in sacrificing myself for my child? Or giving him food if there isn’t enough for both of us? And even if, say, there is some mechanism that gives me satisfaction for such behavior—why? Why would evolution promote such a thing? If the genetic material were completely identical, then maybe I could understand it, since the child is younger and healthier and there would be a preference that he survive in order to spread the genes. But once there is no complete identity in the genes—what is the logic in that? Why sacrifice of yourself for someone else? Maybe I’m not understanding the genetic logic here…
Thank you and have a good day
Answer
In simple terms, I would put it like this: a group in which there is willingness for self-sacrifice will survive. People whose genetic makeup does not include that willingness will not survive. Therefore, through an evolutionary process, such a willingness develops in people (that is its survival advantage).
Discussion on Answer
Hello A.,
There definitely is a connection. If there is no genetic similarity, then the group may survive, but in the next generation nothing will remain of it. Without genetic similarity there may perhaps be natural selection, but there will be no inheritance to the next generation, and without inheritance there is no evolution. Therefore there also has to be genetic similarity.
1. Because a mother who does not protect her child—her genes will not survive (because her child will die), and in any case there will not be such mothers in the future.
2. That really doesn’t matter. It could be purely by chance. But a group that came together and has these traits will survive.
What I wrote is exactly evolution, with no goal-directedness at all (that would be Lamarckism).
But at that very moment when she sacrifices her life for her child, she is supposedly wasting 100% of her genetic makeup for the sake of the 50% that is in the child. So how is that worthwhile?
And if she didn’t do it, 100% would be lost. We’re just grinding water. This is basic material on evolution that can be found anywhere.
So then it has nothing to do with genetic similarity between members of the group. Just an aggregation of different individuals in order to survive better together.
1) I still don’t understand why a mother would protect her child. According to your explanation, he doesn’t benefit her in any way, so she has no reason to sacrifice herself.
2) By the way, how did such a trait develop? How did a group begin to act together if they had no genetic connection because of which they work together? After all, at some point group cooperation had to start developing, but the moment such a tendency began to exist in a certain animal, it would have gone extinct because it would sacrifice itself while such a trait had still not developed among all the other members of the group. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that all the wolves simultaneously began to work as a group. After all, first a random tendency arises, and then if it is good for survival it remains. But if only one of the wolves acts “collectively,” why on earth would it survive? In other words, how did this trait catch on among all of them? Hope the question is clear…
In general, the explanation you wrote to me feels more goal-directed than something that arose by chance and remained. Maybe I didn’t understand correctly, but evolution doesn’t “know” that it’s better to work in a group and therefore the trait developed. Rather, it develops, and if it helps, it remains. On the other hand, I don’t understand how such a thing developed, for the reason I wrote.