Implications of "The Selfish Gene" on Multiculturalism

Richard Dawkins in his book: "The Selfish Gene" put forward the evolutionary biologists' view that all living things are merely "vehicles", made by genes to replicate copies of themselves through the reproduction process. 

The argument goes that genes live-on unchanged through direct replication over generations of organisms. This is in contrast to the organisms themselves which only live for a limited time; and where their off-spring are significantly different from their parents. Only genes are faithfully replicated: not organisms.

One further point is that the best way for a gene to safeguard its survival, and subsequent replication, is to ensure that as many organisms carry a copy of it as possible. The more organisms carrying a copy of a gene, the higher the chance that gene has of being copied to the off-spring of future generations: the numbers game. 

The only way for a gene to enable larger numbers of organisms to carry a copy of itself, is to increase the chance of an organism's survival. A higher chance of survival for the gene's "vehicle", means that more copies of the gene are likely to be produced as organisms inheriting it are able to live to maturity and subsequently reproduce. However, if, at a later stage, the environment changes to the extent that the gene no longer improves the chance of an organism's survival, fewer copies of that gene will be made as more organisms carrying a copy of it begin to die out before reaching reproductive age.

In the case of humans, genes that increase the propensity of an organism to contribute to the survival of their own children, will have an even higher chance of being replicated, over time, because they increase the probability that the next generation inheriting a copy will also go on to reproduce and pass on fresh copies of the gene to their off-spring. 

In short: we are gene replicating factories. 

Genes contain the instructions for how living things interact with the world. An acorn with the right genes will grow into an oak tree that could last for hundreds of years: spreading many more acorns (containing copies of these genes) in the process. An acorn with the wrong genes may not be able to take root quickly enough, or may be out-competed by other acorns - as seedlings - or even other plants.

For us, this view of the world can seem disconcerting when it comes to "free will". If our genes determine our behaviour, then how can we act "freely"?

Fortunately, for those of us who want to feel that we are "free" - or, at least, act in a "free" way, Dawkins points out that part of the success of the human genome is that it gives us more freedom to act than simple "hard-coded" stimulus-response mechanisms. 

Our genes provide us with a powerful brain which is free to make its own decisions about how we interact with the world based on an analysis of the available evidence, or to use a computer science term: data. This data is provided to us through our powerful senses and stored for analysis to determine the next best course of action. We do this by understanding the relative success - or failure - of past actions so that we can better understand the potential for success - or failure - of future actions we might perform. The more likely the potential for success, the more likely we are to take that action.

To understand the relative success of any given action we must understand both the "cause" and "effect" of our actions. If we cannot determine whether any particular outcome (effect) was the result of a specific action (its cause), we cannot determine whether replication of an action is likely to have a similar effect. Thus, our genes must provide us with the ability to understand cause and effect, for us to have freedom to act in a way any more complex than simple hard-coded stimulus-response mechanisms. 

Philosophers, since at least Aristotle's time, have explicitly referred to our need to understand "causality" and how this is an innate human desire - or need - to understand why things happen. If we understand this, we are far better able to determine the relative success, or failure, of potential actions because we can come to understand what outcomes those actions caused in the past - distinguishing our actions from other causes. Flipping that on its head, we could also say that to achieve a specific outcome (effect) we must also understand what actions we need to take to make that happen (their cause).

What does this gene's-eye view have to do with multi-culturalism?

If we accept the that the success-factor for our genes is the reproduction and proliferation of more copies of itself, then they will bestow in humans the propensity to help, or support, other organisms in which those same genes are expressed. 

If we consider that 99.5% of human DNA is the same (1), then this could result in a strong genetic, or evolutionary, argument for altruism. More importantly, the rule of thumb is likely to be that the more similar someone is to us, the higher propensity we will have to ensure the survival of their genes as well as our own. 

Taking this assumption at face-value, all other things being equal, the more like us another is, the more we should be programmed to behave towards them in a positive way. This ignores the ability of humans to exercise free-will over our genes, where we feel that acting contrary to our basic programming is in our personal, and genetic, interest. 

This is where culture comes in. Culture, is how we work together, as a species, to choose desirable behaviours where "the whole-is-greater-than-the-some-of-its-parts".  A good example for this might be the reason we tend to favour dogs over mice. Even though we share more DNA with mice (90%) than dogs (84%) (2) dogs provide more support, assistance and protection than mice do resulting in a preference for dogs because they increase our own gene's chances of survival over any small benefit conferred to us by mice.

The point here is that although we might have a genetic propensity to favour those with more similar characteristics (genes) we can still override this tendency when we determine that it is in our overall interest.

The purpose of this article is to consider the possibility that the "selfish gene" view of the world popularised by Dawkins could help to explain the recent rise of populist parties in Europe, the Brexit and subsequent election of Donald Trump in the US.

Up until the last century, the vast majority of people who lived together would have been very closely related. When they went to war they would typically have fought with people more closely related to them in genes and appearance than the group they were fighting against.

I am thinking here about Saxons vs Celts, Romans vs. Gauls, Vikings vs. ancient Ukranians and Russians etc. As nation states developed, there was a natural alignment between the protection offered by the state and the genetic similarity of the population within it. If one went to war and sacrificed one's life for their country, they died protecting the liberty, land-rights and economic success of the people they were most closely related to.

In a modern multi-cultural society this relationship breaks down. In many parts of Europe, the US and UK immigration has led to a much more diverse genetic diaspora, with some areas - often in inner-cities - where the traditional inhabitants (mostly Caucasian) have found themselves to be in a minority in - what traditionally was - their own country, or region.

When this multi-culturalism resulted in improvements in the incumbents' living standards - and that of their families - then all was well and good. The problem occurs however, when this is no longer the case. A quick look at real median incomes in the US since 1993 tells a clear story:

Real Median Income Vs. Real GDP in US (3)

Since about 1999, real median incomes in the US have been falling, while overall real GDP has still been rising. The majority going to the top 1% (4). 

The idea is that a nation's people are only likely to accept a multi-cultural society when it is in the interests of themselves and those most closely related to them: in particular their families. When it no longer proves to be in the incumbent citizen's interest, a modern, liberal, multicultural society is in serious danger of breaking down.

? Michael Parks 2017

References:

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/science/04vent.html
2. https://education.seattlepi.com/animals-share-human-dna-sequences-6693.html
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
4. https://www.cnbc.com/id/101025377