Biology was yet another language used in the 70s for the debate between capitalism and communism over how we are allowed to organize our society. Dawkins offered a language where the 'market' and 'selfishness' are the foundation, while 'solidarity' is a fragile superstructure. And this was the greatest gift to capitalism in its struggle against communist collectivism. At the height of the Cold War, science became part of the intellectual space where two systems clashed — communism and capitalism, collectivism and individualism.
The triumph of the 'selfish gene' theory in the 70s was not merely a scientific event, but a conceptual turn that was surprisingly in tune with the spirit of the times. The idea that competition and individual interest lie at the heart of behavior fit naturally into the logic of capitalism, while simultaneously serving as an intellectual contrast to the communist idea of collective priority.
Thus, the priority of the individual level in biological explanations proved to be more than just a scientific hypothesis; it was an intellectual model that harmonized with the values of the capitalist world and stood in opposition to the collectivist logic of communism.
D. S. Wilson, E. O. Wilson ... must keep your Wilsons apart. Here is mnemonic: "D" stands for "dad" of Katie Wilson, the current Seattle mayor. "E" stands for "entomologist" and hence the famous quip "great idea - wrong species"
Interesting...Only one mutation in 10,000 is even slightly favorable, and that gene has a good chance of being lost in the mating process..So evolution would normally be an extremely slow process, unless the owner of that gene had many offspring....Where do the interests of the group enter into this? The group would benefit from any gene that makes individuals fitter for their environment, but might lose if the gene also negatively impacted group harmony and coordination....On the whole, however, the first consideration will predominate...The superior hunter benefits the group a lot, while his antisocial tendencies can be dealt with...Whereas a mutation that makes him a better team player, while useful, will not be worthwhile if he isn't productive....So the gene will likely be lost if access to many mating opportunities isn't available...Who gets access in most groups? The high status male, a hunter or a warrior back in the days when even subsistence could be difficult...and that seems to have been the case in the Bronze Age...70% of modern Europeans, I have read, were descended from just 3 Bronze Age chieftains, while Genghis Khan has 20 million living descendants....
So I'm inclined to believe that fitness that leads to leadership predominated in the genetic competition up to the modern Welfare State society....and is probably being lost overall as fitter humans are having fewer children than their competitors....
This type of argument really needs to be translated into a mathematical model -- the problem is too difficult to reason through with "naked" human brain unaided by computers.
Take a look at Koos Boomsma's recent book "Domains and Major Transitions in Evolution" It is the definitive treatment of these issues, and shows why selection at higher levels is always maximizes gene transmission even at the expense of the individual organism's health and longevity. https://www.amazon.com/Domains-Major-Transitions-Social-Evolution/dp/0198746180
The book download is available free at university libraries with an OUP subscription. A related short article is Boomsma, J. J. (2022). A punctuated history of understanding social adaptation. In J. J. Boomsma, Domains and Major Transitions of Social Evolution (1st ed., pp. 1–24). Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198746171.003.0001
A corollary of MLS evolution is that it is rational, desirable, even moral for individual humans to act consciously in defence of their family and their ethnic group (which are really the same thing). Refusing to do so, insisting on the fantasy of equality, is not following the science. And of course we must all follow the science.
sociobiologist, Professor Choi in Korea, learn from E O Wilson, suggest to read selfish gene, blind watchmaker, ant and peacock, red queen, all sort of evolutionary psychology books Geoffrey Miller, Robert Tribus, Martin Daly... he is very famous and respected figure now and worked alot to make ppl interested more on Darwin.
but if they r not absolute truth, what other book lists I can read?
guys, in the double helix curve of inequality and wellbeing of Turchin, 1968 inequality level is low. but why at that time there were some historical riots in US and France etc. ? anyone can help me pls?
I think multi-level selection is likely more powerful among human organizations (for example, for polities) than other biological organisms because humans can consciously copy other humans (which genes can’t). Any time that there is a military or economic competition between societies, there is a powerful incentive to copy what works.
Biological competition between animals does not lead to copying of genes.
I must say I found R. Dawkins very convincing when I read the 'Selfish Gene' a couple of decades ago (so quite late actually) then tend to see thing differently since I started to read DS Wilson's 'Darwin's Cathedral'. And it's a very interesting controversy indeed with numerous ramifications on how and why primates then humans began to collaborate with each other and organized themselves into societies.
I’ve thought for a while that Marxism can be viewed as an attempt to force an evolutionary transition from the individual to the society, with the revolution being that transition and the anti-liberal, collectivist ethos being the result (think of the one child policy).
Biology was yet another language used in the 70s for the debate between capitalism and communism over how we are allowed to organize our society. Dawkins offered a language where the 'market' and 'selfishness' are the foundation, while 'solidarity' is a fragile superstructure. And this was the greatest gift to capitalism in its struggle against communist collectivism. At the height of the Cold War, science became part of the intellectual space where two systems clashed — communism and capitalism, collectivism and individualism.
The triumph of the 'selfish gene' theory in the 70s was not merely a scientific event, but a conceptual turn that was surprisingly in tune with the spirit of the times. The idea that competition and individual interest lie at the heart of behavior fit naturally into the logic of capitalism, while simultaneously serving as an intellectual contrast to the communist idea of collective priority.
Thus, the priority of the individual level in biological explanations proved to be more than just a scientific hypothesis; it was an intellectual model that harmonized with the values of the capitalist world and stood in opposition to the collectivist logic of communism.
Not surprising -- scientists are social beings, just like any other humans
This is a sharp historical reading — but I think it still operates on the level of narratives, not mechanisms.
“Selfishness” and “solidarity” may not be opposing biological truths, but interpretations of how a system behaves under different conditions.
If flow is intact — across gradients, membranes, and scales — systems tend to appear coordinated, even cooperative.
If flow is constrained, fragmented, or unstable, behavior can shift toward what we label as competition or “selfishness.”
So what we call “the selfish gene” might not be a principle of life, but a description of life under specific constraints.
In that sense, biology doesn’t necessarily align with capitalism or collectivism — it reflects whether a system can still move what it has.
And maybe that’s the deeper layer we keep missing: not ideology, but the conditions that make integration possible in the first place.
D. S. Wilson, E. O. Wilson ... must keep your Wilsons apart. Here is mnemonic: "D" stands for "dad" of Katie Wilson, the current Seattle mayor. "E" stands for "entomologist" and hence the famous quip "great idea - wrong species"
I know David well and met Ed once, so I have no difficulty distinguishing them...
Of course, Professor. This is quite expected. My comment was for those of us who did not have that priviledge.
What would be truly wonderous, though, if you were still in communication with Ed.
I wish I was, but sadly he passed away.
THANKS FOR THIS!
:)
Interesting...Only one mutation in 10,000 is even slightly favorable, and that gene has a good chance of being lost in the mating process..So evolution would normally be an extremely slow process, unless the owner of that gene had many offspring....Where do the interests of the group enter into this? The group would benefit from any gene that makes individuals fitter for their environment, but might lose if the gene also negatively impacted group harmony and coordination....On the whole, however, the first consideration will predominate...The superior hunter benefits the group a lot, while his antisocial tendencies can be dealt with...Whereas a mutation that makes him a better team player, while useful, will not be worthwhile if he isn't productive....So the gene will likely be lost if access to many mating opportunities isn't available...Who gets access in most groups? The high status male, a hunter or a warrior back in the days when even subsistence could be difficult...and that seems to have been the case in the Bronze Age...70% of modern Europeans, I have read, were descended from just 3 Bronze Age chieftains, while Genghis Khan has 20 million living descendants....
So I'm inclined to believe that fitness that leads to leadership predominated in the genetic competition up to the modern Welfare State society....and is probably being lost overall as fitter humans are having fewer children than their competitors....
This type of argument really needs to be translated into a mathematical model -- the problem is too difficult to reason through with "naked" human brain unaided by computers.
Oh, I agree Professor, I was merely suggesting some reasons why this issue is very far from being decided and a line of investigation......
Take a look at Koos Boomsma's recent book "Domains and Major Transitions in Evolution" It is the definitive treatment of these issues, and shows why selection at higher levels is always maximizes gene transmission even at the expense of the individual organism's health and longevity. https://www.amazon.com/Domains-Major-Transitions-Social-Evolution/dp/0198746180
Interesting, thanks for the pointer.
The book download is available free at university libraries with an OUP subscription. A related short article is Boomsma, J. J. (2022). A punctuated history of understanding social adaptation. In J. J. Boomsma, Domains and Major Transitions of Social Evolution (1st ed., pp. 1–24). Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198746171.003.0001
A corollary of MLS evolution is that it is rational, desirable, even moral for individual humans to act consciously in defence of their family and their ethnic group (which are really the same thing). Refusing to do so, insisting on the fantasy of equality, is not following the science. And of course we must all follow the science.
sociobiologist, Professor Choi in Korea, learn from E O Wilson, suggest to read selfish gene, blind watchmaker, ant and peacock, red queen, all sort of evolutionary psychology books Geoffrey Miller, Robert Tribus, Martin Daly... he is very famous and respected figure now and worked alot to make ppl interested more on Darwin.
but if they r not absolute truth, what other book lists I can read?
guys, in the double helix curve of inequality and wellbeing of Turchin, 1968 inequality level is low. but why at that time there were some historical riots in US and France etc. ? anyone can help me pls?
ah, it was bc of youth bulge? elite competition
I think multi-level selection is likely more powerful among human organizations (for example, for polities) than other biological organisms because humans can consciously copy other humans (which genes can’t). Any time that there is a military or economic competition between societies, there is a powerful incentive to copy what works.
Biological competition between animals does not lead to copying of genes.
This book claims that natural selection is mathematical impossible. Seems legit
https://amzn.eu/d/0iIN0fdJ
Yeah, speaking of a change in paradigms.......
You'd think at the age of computer modeling this controversy would be solved in a week...
Thanks for this summery.
I must say I found R. Dawkins very convincing when I read the 'Selfish Gene' a couple of decades ago (so quite late actually) then tend to see thing differently since I started to read DS Wilson's 'Darwin's Cathedral'. And it's a very interesting controversy indeed with numerous ramifications on how and why primates then humans began to collaborate with each other and organized themselves into societies.
Yes, a lot of people found him convincing. This is the nature of paradigmatic shifts: each paradigm reigns supreme -- for a while.
I’ve thought for a while that Marxism can be viewed as an attempt to force an evolutionary transition from the individual to the society, with the revolution being that transition and the anti-liberal, collectivist ethos being the result (think of the one child policy).