Well, it seems that the father of sociobiology, E.O. Wilson has changed his mind: in the current issue of New Scientist (November 3, 2007), evolutionary biologists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson effectively end the hegemony of the selfish gene idea: they review the field and declare in a voice loud and clear that group selection was mistakenly cast aside during previous decades, that the evidence for group selection is too strong to be ignored, and that the current ideas about how evolution works need to be revised.
The scientific revision, well-known to professional biologists, has actually been in the works for more than a decade (see, Wilson, D.S. & Sober, E. (1994). Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17(4): 585-654) but with this new article in the popular media the public revision begins.
Here are the words of the authors in the New Scientist:
"The old arguments against group selection have all failed. It is theoretically plausible, it happens in reality, and the so-called alternatives actually include the logic of multilevel selection. Had this been known in the 1960s, sociobiology would have taken a very different direction. It is this branch point that must be revisited to put sociobiology back on a firm theoretical foundation. Accepting multilevel selection has profound implications. It means we can no longer regard the individual as a privileged level of the biological hierarchy..."It's a new game now. Watch the media gene-mongers twist and turn as they attempt to reconcile their years of bamboozling the public with cute stories about how this or that human behavior can be explained by a simple selfish-gene analysis. The routine has always been to completely neglect the interactions of individuals with their groups -- no group selection by evolution, only selection of individuals. Altruism was explained in terms of individual genetic cost-benefit analysis. The Wilsons have now turned the table over, dishes crashing to the floor, and announced that altruism is more readily explained by group selection -- groups with more altruists tend to do better than groups with less altruists, and such groups therefore thrive.
Of course, genes are not out of the picture: for one thing, the membership of an individual in a group provides nurturing and protection to increase the probability of reproduction by that individual -- the group improving individual gene replicability.
Plain talk: The Darwinian prop of the lone cowboy rugged conservative bundle of selfish genes has now been pulled out from under the cowboy and the lone cowboy has suddenly collapsed into a mumbling baffled cartoon.
Humans are pack animals. We live and die in herds. The group provides the individual with the means of physical and psychological survival. We need the group as much as the group needs us. It's a fair trade that's been evolving for millions of years.
The selfish-gene mantra of conservative psychologists and columnists is now more or less dead. Will we see the public media focus on this new development?
There will be die-hards. There are people who don't like the idea that society is as important as genes in determining behavior. They don't like the idea that nature can select societies as well as individuals. They don't like the idea that humans have some control over their own evolution, that behavior can be changed by changing social circumstances. They are people who think there is something glorious about the lone cowboy fending for himself with a gun and a campfire. They forget that lone cowboy was usually as unwashed, unschooled, and as mute as the cows he herded.
If anyone represents our future it's those astronauts up there who depend on each other for their survival. Not the lone cowboys down here who feed on the rot of greed.
It is amazing to me that we believe that as a society and people that we believe if we change our habits we can impact something as significant as global warming. Yet when it comes to personal behavior a society has no impact due to a selfish gene. Its as if we have all gone mad. As if no one can accept the idea of dynamic interactions.
I am tired of the gene talk and reports of how doctors and scientists are constantly looking for the gene responsible for this that and the other thing. If only it were that simple. Remember when germ theory was the predominant thought in medicine? If we could just rid ourselves of all the germs we would solve the health problems. Guess what? Not only did that theory not work it has to some degree made things worse by introducing exogenous toxins to our system which has fed into a much larger health problem. Genetics are a piece to the puzzle but just because someone has a genetic sequence that is common in people who have XYZ disease that does not mean it will manifest into that disease. The process of genetic expression is much larger and more complicated than isolating genetic sequences. It involves environmental, physiological, physical and social interactions that shape our individual and collective world.
So, the thought that the selfish gene theory was ever valid is the product of sociopathic logic.