In this blog post, we’ll explore how the formation and behavior of living organisms, altruistic behavior, familial love, and uniquely human culture and memes can be explained in terms of the self-replication and preservation of genes.
Last month, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) announced that “neutrinos travel faster than light,” a finding that astonished people around the world and sent the physics community into a state of shock and controversy. This is because CERN’s announcement directly contradicted the assertion in Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity—which holds an absolute position in modern physics—that “nothing in the universe travels faster than light.” However, it seems unlikely that this discovery will easily overturn a theory that has been accepted as established fact for nearly 100 years. Since the release of CERN’s findings, most papers published worldwide have pointed to the possibility of errors in CERN’s experiment. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sheldon Glashow, a professor at Boston University, argued in a paper that “even if a neutrino were to temporarily travel faster than light, it would immediately lose energy, making it impossible to reach the speed reported by CERN.” Furthermore, the paper that received the most support at the time was one by researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, which pointed out errors in the Global Positioning System (GPS) used by CERN. Professor Ronald van Elberg of that research team pointed out, “From the perspective of the satellites used to measure time, the Earth—where the detector is located—moves more slowly relative to the satellites, which results in the effect that neutrinos travel a distance slightly shorter than the actual distance intended to be measured,” adding, “Ultimately, this leads to errors in GPS time measurements.” In this way, Einstein and his theory of relativity hold a firm position and are widely supported within the physics community. In the field of evolutionary biology, there is a theory that occupies a similarly firm position, is considered to encompass the entire academic community, and presents fundamental principles. It is the theory proposed by Richard Dawkins, which states that “all living organisms are formed and their activities are determined to achieve the goal of the self-replication and preservation of genes.” Although much time has passed since the first edition of ‘The Selfish Gene’—the book in which Dawkins introduced his theory—was published, the theory possesses such theoretical completeness that its content has remained unaltered, and it has established itself as a major theory within the academic community. Charles Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ was the first to offer a biologically grounded explanation of our reason for existence and the nature of humanity. Since Darwin, discussions have continued regarding the traits and behaviors of individuals—which are essential to the evolution of both individuals and species—as well as the fundamental unit that determines them; Dawkins defined that unit as the “gene.” He further argues that living organisms, including humans, have evolved as machines designed to preserve genes. Genes exhibit behavior that is constantly self-serving, driven by the sole goal of self-preservation; this means that even acts of self-sacrifice or altruism on the part of an individual ultimately fall within the category of self-serving behavior aimed at preserving the gene itself or genes closely related to it.
Before life emerged on the primordial Earth, the first things to appear were mud-like pools where organic matter became concentrated as water evaporated in high-temperature environments. The highly concentrated organic matter within these pools frequently collided with one another until it acquired the ability to replicate itself exactly, and the number of these particles naturally increased. These organic replicators continuously replicated themselves using surrounding resources until they eventually encountered various limiting factors. It was at this point that life forms emerged as “survival machines”—evolving to preserve themselves and gain a survival advantage by differentiating themselves from other replicators. These replicators then came to exist as genes within living organisms, where they were guaranteed safety and secured a position favorable for replication. However, genes do not directly issue instructions to an organism for its own preservation and replication. This is similar to computer programming: when a system is designed and code is written for a specific purpose, all actions performed by the program naturally serve that purpose. Once an organism is created for self-preservation and replication, all of its actions ultimately serve the preservation and replication of its genes. However, one might question whether an organism truly exists solely for its own survival and the replication of its genes—that is, for reproduction. For example, could we not view a person on a diet as rejecting their own survival, contrary to what their genes dictate? However, such issues require a broader perspective that considers the purpose of the behavior itself. The purpose of dieting is clearly to achieve a healthy body. Alternatively, even if one is not healthy, it may be to appear attractive to the opposite sex. Therefore, considering the purpose of dieting, such behavior can be viewed, in a broad sense, as an act aimed at reproduction. The above can be summarized as follows: living organisms, as “survival machines,” were created by genes to more effectively achieve the goals of self-preservation and replication; and such organisms naturally act selfishly at all times to fulfill the goals of their own genes. This is the very core of Dawkins’ theory. However, Dawkins poses another question regarding his theory: if the preservation and replication of genes are limited to the single organism in which they are contained, how can we explain altruistic behavior, as well as acts of sacrifice and love commonly observed among close relatives or within families? He argues, however, that this can also be adequately explained by adopting the perspective that genes are the ultimate determinants of behavior. Since one’s own children or close relatives share many of the same genes, protecting and saving them is an act analogous to preserving and replicating one’s own genes. Specifically, the decision to engage in altruistic behavior to save a relative in danger can be determined by evaluating various factors, including kinship—which indicates how many genes are shared with that relative. Furthermore, a parent’s devotion and love toward their child can be interpreted as stemming from the fact that the child, who shares half of the parent’s genes, is likely to produce more offspring than the parent and has a longer life expectancy. However, even among close family members, the dynamics between a married couple who are not genetically related are difficult to explain solely by the sharing of genes; rather, it is precisely for this reason that, from the perspective of genetic nature, spouses may each seek to exploit the other selfishly. Given that genes seek to replicate themselves as much as possible, the behavior seen in some animals—where males abandon the female who bore their offspring and leave to find another female—can be viewed as consistent with the genes’ intent to maximize their own offspring. In addition to these selfish genetic goals, environmental factors come into play, along with strategies employed by females—such as holding males accountable to facilitate the rearing of offspring—to ensure that as many offspring carrying their genes as possible survive. These factors collectively determine the mating and parenting behaviors of each species.
However, how can we interpret altruistic acts—such as hunger strikes for a specific cause—that may lead to death but do nothing to aid the reproduction of one’s own offspring? This can be seen as a unique characteristic that distinguishes humans from other animals. Regarding the characteristics unique to humans that distinguish them from other animals, Dawkins proposed “culture”—something humans share, reproduce, and pass on to the next generation. He also mentions “memes,” which refer to the units through which culture is transmitted, or the units of imitation. Like genes, memes are based on self-replication and possess a structure that evolves during transmission. These memes are concepts formed through the ability to contemplate the future—a capacity unique to the human species. Thanks to this ability, humans transcend the level of animals that pursue only the self-replication of genes and instead consider the future consequences of their actions within the community. As a result, humans engage in reciprocal altruism toward the entire community—even those with whom they have no blood ties—to sustain the community, thereby establishing the foundation for forming memes and transmitting culture. Applying Dawkins’ argument discussed earlier, a person engaging in a hunger strike can be viewed as acting for the survival and prosperity of the entire community by considering the future of the community to which they belong. A person going on a hunger strike to represent a specific labor union is acting for the future of that union and its workers; in the case of Venerable Ji-yul, who opposed the KTX track construction project at Cheonseongsan Mountain, the community in question consists of those who would suffer harm due to the destruction of the local environment—and, viewed more broadly, humanity as a whole. In his book, Dawkins wrote about the principles by which all life arises and evolves. This principle is very simple: all living beings are formed and their activities are determined to achieve the goals of self-replication and preservation of genes. However, this principle has shaped all living organisms and humans today, and it continues to exert such a widespread influence that it still determines their behavior.
