Selfish to the core

Our understanding of life and life processes in the natural world has been maximally contributed by Darwin's theory of evolution. Since the days Darwin had impressed upon humankind his articulate and extremely well researched yet elusively simple theory, much of future investigations in the life sciences have only reinforced his original idea. It is conventional wisdom today to know that we humans have evolved from the apes who in turn had evolved from other primates before them. Every other organism inhabiting the natural world is supposed to have evolved out of its primeval counterpart(s) and is known to possess physical and social characteristics that enable its kind to propagate through time. 'Survival of the fittest' is a fairly common term that appears in high school textbooks in chapters that expound Darwin's theory of evolution. Though scarcely anybody today would challenge 'evolution' as a principle characteristic of our construct, the underlying processes that evolution entails have not yet been clearly understood.

Most famous approaches to answering this problem hypothesise a basic biological motive that translates itself into the behaviour of the organism, pervading its consciousness and its actions. For instance, if 'nourishment' is a self-motive that has been programmed into my biological structure, then that would cause me to eat to my fill rather than choosing the alternative to starve. Of course, this is only a crude example to illustrate a 'biological motive' and a much learned lateral thinker would immediately point out the fact that if 'nourishment' was not a motive and 'non-nourishment' was, then life would end before it even began! But 'seeking nourishment' is a behavioral need that has evolved out of 'natural selection', considering the fact that our bodies would violate the second law of thermodynamics if they lived healthily without a balanced and nourishing diet.

The example of 'seeking nourishment' as a biological motive to explain 'natural selection' is perhaps too trivial, almost to the point of being a misplaced illustration. But I believe it will facilitate an understanding that while 'natural selection' itself is an indispensable weapon for adaptation and propagation of life, every physical or behavioral motif cannot be so easily linked with natural selection as easily and trivially as 'seeking nourishment' can. For example, straight and sinewy beaks are 'natural selection' for woodpeckers but would be useless for a parakeet, for which 'natural selection' bequeathed a short and curved beak (almost like a betel-nut cracker) that makes it easy to consume a fruit.

Physical characteristics may perhaps be easily correlated thus but theories on 'natural selection' take a beating when it comes to explaining behavioral characteristics. This is because 'sinewy beaks', 'prehensile tails', 'sharp incisors' and 'seeking nourishment' may be understood as natural selection at the most basic levels for the respective organisms. But not every behavioral aspect can be linked to such a basic need so easily and so trivially. For example, it is found that if a gull sights a predator hovering near their communion, it gives out an alarm call that sends across a message to the other gulls to evacuate/take cover immediately. But this act attracts the attention of the predator onto itself, thereby posing a threat to its own life while it can be sure that none of the other gulls are going to pull out any acts of bravado as an acknowledgment to its altruistic act. This was just one example out of many. Behavioral patterns can also be observed not just at the level of the community, but also of the family. Why does an animal feel closer to its offspring rather than to its second cousin? Why do middle aged women attain menopause whereas there isn't a similar conspicuous event in the lives of men? The question we need to ask with regards to 'natural selection' is the following:

"What aspect of our psychobiological construct governs and causes the process of natural selection unlocking the mechanism of which will enable us to understand and interpret the observed characteristics of living organisms?"

Darwin and his apostles said that it was the 'species' that governed natural selection. In other words, each member of the specie would possess physical characteristics and behave in such a way so as to benefit the species as a whole. Let me digress here and enunciate that the word 'behave' doesn't come out of any diktat that is tutored to each member of a specie, a code which he/she follows out of his/her consciousness. It is similar to a computer program with certain rules that is engraved into the biological construct of a particular specie and if the rules were the opposite of what are observed in nature for a particular specie (e.g. a deer attempting to be a carnivore), then (the biological construct being the same) the organism or others of its kind would be unable to survive. Once again, let me add a disclaimer that I don't mean to suggest we are all mechanical beings devoid of consciousness. The 'rules' I am talking about at this point are really very basic ones which govern our behaviour through the eyes of natural selection which is necessarily not antagonistic to consciousness. For example, walking in a sandstorm would make a man immediately shut his eyes (an instinctual response to a stimulus which doesn't evolve out of a conscious decision making process - natural selection for his benefit) but he can very well keep his eyes wide open and blind himself, thereby asserting the power of his consciousness and his stupidity.

Coming back to where we left, the idea that sought to explain Darwin's theory of evolution was that of "Group Selection" or "Species selection". For a long time, "Group selection" was thought to be synonymous with natural selection. The Group selection theory essentially states that members of a particular 'species' behave so as to ensure that the numbers in the specie are preserved and that they propagate. The altruistic act of martyrdom by Jonathon Livingston Seagull might seemingly appear to support this theory. Many behavioral characteristics of other species like the honeybees, baboons, ants may also appear to be easily explained by the group selection theory.

Group selection may seem to account for the reasons behind observed groupism and comradeship between animals. Nonetheless, the theory falls apart when we look at other behavioral instances of animals. Macabre cannibalism has been observed in the cases of black-headed gulls (which feed on younglings of a neighbour as soon they hatch) , the black widow spider and certain mantises (where the female feeds on the male while they mate). While the group selection theory may be able to account for observed altruism for the community (or the species) as a whole, it cannot account for the aforementioned examples of brutal selfishness. Scientists have also proposed 'Individual selection' as a foil for the group selection theory, but even this theory faces problems of its own. We shall not delve into this one other than stating that today, neither 'group selection' nor 'individual selection' is favoured as a complete theory by biologists or ethologists across the globe.

Well then, what next? The problem or predicament if simply stated, is that of identifying a suitable entity that can serve as a convenient unit of natural selection, something which 'the group' or 'the individual' failed to do. Richard Dawkins and a few other thinkers like Pinker and Dennet propose(d) that selection takes place at the genetic level. In other words it is 'gene selection' as opposed to 'group selection' or 'individual selection'. Now then you would say that's obvious! But I believe you'd be confusing gene selection with gene evolution. The view of the 'gene' as the most basic unit of evolution has been long legitimated by many scientists but the debate as to whether it is indeed the unit of selection is an ongoing one. More about genes, gene selection and gene selfishness in the next post.