Selfishness is an unpleasantly common biological phenomenon. Recent research demonstrating how genetic mutations accumulate in sperm in middle and older age highlights this. Stem cells that emerge over time significantly increase the likelihood that sperm will have disease-causing mutations in older fathers—perhaps up to 5 percent of gametes by age 70, according to the study.
This finding goes further than simply demonstrating the benefits of having children at a younger age. Mutated stem cells don't care whether their abnormalities lead to problems in potential offspring, as long as their cellular offspring survive to the next generation. This is a great example of how the selfish gene remains the model of evolution that we must all arrive at together. Genes have no effect on anyone but themselves. And no matter how often some people try to defend the “survival of the best” theory in biology, explanations must always come back to genetic selection.
The broader debate is outdated and depends on whether you want to believe that evolution through natural selection favors cooperation and friendliness or competition and a cold, calculating organism designed to reproduce successfully at any cost. Over the last century or so, many biologists marked these opposing views of group evolution and individual selection. The difference between the two is fundamental to how we perceive the natural world—and each other.
The split between the two views has always been along ideological lines. Early ethologists thought organisms act for the benefit of the species. If I survive, according to this view, it will be good for all people, because another person will appear who can at least potentially contribute to the perpetuation wise man. Helping each other is an obvious way to achieve this common goal.
The problem—as nearly every major biologist has noted, from Ronald Fisher, who combined Charles Darwin's theories with genetics, to modern writers such as Richard Dawkins—is that organisms that accept help without giving it to others will always cope better with life. Individuals who undermine their groups have a better chance of success—provided the damage they cause is not so bad that it kills everyone else in the group.
The individual's optimum, from an evolutionary point of view, is to promote cooperation among others while refusing to cooperate themselves—and ideally no one knows they are doing this. Cooperation, rather than leading to the selection of good and useful traits, simply creates an environment in which competition or exploitation is most effective when it is unnoticed.
The problem of subversion undermines groups, whether we are talking about gametes, bacteria, animals or humans. The stem cell, which reproduces at the expense of the organism's offspring, does not see whether its success will harm future generations. The good of the owner, not to mention his appearance, does not matter.
The same is true for human societiesancient or modern. Those in positions of power – often older men around the world – monopolizes groups, however, can and often do target younger women. Given the negative consequences of keeping older men reproductively active, as evidenced by new sperm research, it's hard to see how anyone can take the group selection model seriously.
However, the most important thing is that these unpleasant truths about our biological heritage do not necessarily determine how we behave today. Mutual assistance is something we should strive for and not take for granted. And recognizing our selfish heritage, at all biological stages, right down to our genes, is the first step towards overcoming it.
Jonathan R. Goodman is the author Invisible Rivals: How We Evolved to Compete in a Cooperative World
Topics:
