Selfish Genes

Dawkins argues that humans will help other people selfishly due to their genetic similarity. Though I am helping another, I am ultimately helping myself by contributing the survival of my genes they possess.

Dawkins happens to be wrong. To be selfish, I need to behave in a way that benefits me. In order to make his claim true, that helping my genes is selfish, my genes must be me.

I am not my genes. Now, I have an intimate connection to my genes to be sure. I wouldn't exist without my genes. My development and continued survival depends on my genes. Someone with a set of my genes may be able to manufacture someone similar to me in many ways.

But I am not my genes, and my genes are not me. If you think you are your genes, then I apologize. It sucks to be you. You can wander about as a set of replicating, twisted nucleic acid pairs. The rest of us will continue in the swirling and nuanced flux of humanity.

Why genes, particularly? I couldn't live without the food I eat. I need it to develop and survive. I may be constituted by my genes, as I am constituted by my food. By why stop with food? I need air, mineral nutrients, environmental interactions, human relationships, personal experiences, and a whole host of other things in order to exist as I am.

I am in part my genes, perhaps. Just as I am in part the water I drink, the food I eat, the people I love, and the work I do.

So am I being selfish to protect the elements of which I am made? Am I selfish to protect air? Water? Minerals? The people I love? At what point do I start protecting the other?

To argue I protect all of creation to selfishly perpetuate my existence is really holding the candle for selfishness. Isn't it equally true that I protect myself to honor the existence of that which I am made?

In fact, a genetic view of humanity can be very other focused. Perhaps the only reasons I care for myself is to honor the genes given to me by my ancestors and to preserve them for my progeny.