Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
recall, is what makes society possible, though to a limited degree only.
Hence for Wilson, the
most elaborate forms of social organization, despite their outward appearance,
serve ultimately as the vehicles of individual welfare. Human altruism appears
to be substantially hard-core when directed at closest relatives, although still to
a much lesser degree than in the case of the social insects and the colonial inver-
tebrates. The remainder of our altruism is essentially soft. The predicted result
is a mélange of ambivalence, deceit, and guilt that continuously troubles the indi-
vidual mind.
45
This perspective seems to leave us in a rather melancholy state at best
and total despair at worst. From a biological perspective, both Wilson
and Dawkins seem to have placed us squarely in the middle of a
Hobbesian world. This view was promulgated most clearly in Dawkins's
The Selfish Gene,
the main argument of which was that “a predominant
quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. . . .
Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the
welfare of the species as a whole are concepts which simply do not make
for evolutionary success.” Indeed as Dawkins says, “I think 'nature red
in tooth and claw' sums up our modern understanding of natural selec-
tion admirably.”
46
Summation
So where do these considerations leave us in exploring
human nature? First, I think in a very confusing place. In part, this is
because terms and their meanings vary from author to author. But it is
also because authors are attempting to develop integrating theories of
human behavior without appealing to motives. Nonetheless, there is an
appeal to some kind of an ethical theory on which people can be held
accountable. Second, the authors operate out of an evolutionary frame-
work that shapes their perspectives. They correctly note that we simply
cannot speak of human behavior without simultaneously speaking of
genes and their effect on the total organism. But third, the primacy seems
to be on the role of the genes. Though the authors explicitly affirm the
role and significance of culture, they return to the role of the gene. Wilson
is most explicit when he says that culture is held on a genetic leash.
Dawkins is more ambiguous when he says we can rebel against our
culture, but the basis for that is not clear. Additionally, one would
wonder if there was a genetic consequence for straying from our genetic
