I just finished The Selfish Gene. The book introduces the idea that the gene (the DNA based unit that passes on hereditary traits from one generation to another), in its natural inclination to survive and propagate, stands at the center of evolutionary development. While the first chapters were interesting, it was the section on the evolutionary development of ethics and altruism that I truly found fascinating. For years I’ve pondered on the idea of whether it’s worth it to be a “good” person. My loose and subjective definition of the term means a person who lives honestly and with integrity, someone who would not intentionally take advantage of others for selfish gains. The realist side of me is often disappointed at this world, when the media is filled with news of bad things happening to good people, and culprits of such deeds living with impunity. Since I’m still undecided about what death holds, I’d like to think that it is the conscience that makes it worthwhile to be a good person. Even if that means life may throw you a few more setbacks and you may be wounded once or twice or many times, at least your heart will be at peace. On the other hand, I’ve accepted that the world favors selfishness, since in its natural state, the world is completely impartial in its ruthlessness.
The book has a number of theories and examples of altruism and ethical behavior in nature, the one that surprised me the most was the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game. We’ve all heard of and studied Prisoner’s Dilemma at some point, and understood that rationally it’s better to defect than cooperate. In one iterative version (through a tournament organized by Robert Axelrod, an American political scientist), the game is played repeatedly against multiple players who program their own strategies, with complex algorithms that control behaviors such as initial hostility and capacity for forgiveness. When analyzing the top-scoring strategies, it turns out they had several things in common, and the most important one was just being nice. In this case, nice means you start off cooperating and never cheat before your opponent does. The other conditions included retaliation (don’t always turn the other cheek), forgiveness, and non-envious (don’t try to score more than the opponent). Perhaps I am just too cynical, but the fact that being nice, forgiving, and content actually pays off in the long run in a game of self-interest surprised me.
I say fact, but it’s really just a theory based on a few sets of test results in a controlled environment. But what is a fact? Is there such a thing as objective truth? Not long ago I had a few separate conversations with friends regarding religion. As an agnostic who still wavers between theism and atheism from time to time, I’m fortunate to have open minded friends who willingly share their own beliefs without judging mine. During one such conversation this was said: “what you deem as truth, others will see as your belief.” The original quote may differ, but this central idea remained with me. The quote can easily be reversed, what I consider as other people’s belief, is what they hold to be the absolute truth. If there is only one objective truth, then all conflicting alternate beliefs become lies. As an agnostic, I’m skeptical of religions and the associated gods, for this very reason. I am, at times, quite envious of those whose faith is strong enough to believe something they can’t prove to be the absolute truth. Yet other times, I find the search for truth, and the resulting conflicts, to be the root of many evils. Although I am still curious, I no longer have a strong desire to know “the truth,” since every truth will be called a lie by someone who believes differently.
The idea of niceness and forgiveness being rewarded by nature appeals to the optimist in me. I’d like to believe that the world would be a better place if everyone is nice, fair, and played by the rules. Naive as it may be, I would like to accept it as my truth. And that is the wish of this selfish heart.
Leave a Reply