Comment by qb45 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by qb45 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I was inspired to this rant the other day when watching a video of tortoises flipping each other over [1]. Early in tortoise evolution there are HUGE benefits to a male that doesn't flip his buddies over and gets all the ladies as a result.

I'm not sure if you are actually disagreeing with TSG.

Dawkings repeats several times in the book that to him evolution is not about individuals, but about genes. Heck, even the title is "selfish gene", not "selfish tortoise".

Your tortoise benefits from screwing over his competitors, but his genes might not. Like, for example, suppose there is a combination of genes for noncooperative tortoise. He leaves others to die so the next generation is all assholes like him and they die out because there is noone to help when they inevitably get in trouble. Boom, genes are gone.

In fact, TSG also tries to analyze how cooperative and noncooperative strategies may coexist in single species and tend towards some equilibrium, which depends on costs/benefits of particular behaviors. And, iirc, such crude strategies like "always defect" often ended up outsmarted by subtler ones.

Yes, I guess in the right light a selfish gene operating locally ends up promoting cooperative behavior for exactly the reason suggested to the local detriment of the individual (It is just that there is unlikely to be any single gene that can do that). It would be interesting to see what the carrying capacity of such defector genes is as a function of population size. I usually interpret 'selfish' to mean genes that produce defectors (ie no flip) since there is a local benefit to the organism (and thus the gene itself over short timescales) but Dawkins does use it a bit more broadly. I still find implying telos to genes is misleading since the same gene (allele) can produce opposite effects when surrounded by different environments and thus any function it may appear to serve is not intrinsic but conditional.

> I usually interpret 'selfish' to mean genes that produce defectors (ie no flip) since there is a local benefit to the organism (and thus the gene itself over short timescales) but Dawkins does use it a bit more broadly.

Dawkins seems to define "selfish gene" as "one caring about its long term survival and spread", whether individual tortoises like it or not. Because that's what ultimately counts - contemporary tortoises are shaped by genes which survived millions of years by whatever means happened to be successful, which needs not to be defection.

And, btw, you may want to actually read TSG, it's pretty cool :)

"And, btw, you may want to actually read TSG, it's pretty cool :)"

I second my sibling poster. You are clearly a very smart person who has no qualms about confidently misrepresenting a book you haven't read. It's not a charming combination - acquire some rigour in your thinking (for your own sake, if nothing else).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com