Genes Are Selfish, Are We?

In 1809, Jean Baptiste Lamarck had a hypothesis about the inheritance of acquired traits. He thought that by the selective use or disuse of organs, organisms could acquire or lose certain traits during their lifetime. But Richard Dawkins clearly disagrees with this idea. “Genes do indirectly control the manufacture of bodies, but the influence is strictly one way: acquired characteristics are not inherited.” (pg.23).  Imagine if we could pass our traits on to our children. Although it would be interesting, it would also be chaotic. We would have a way of controlling evolution. If we want our offspring to be really fit, we could work hard at the gym to become strong. This acquired trait would be passed on to your future generations.  But this idea would not always be good. Imagine you were in an accident and lost an arm. Your children would also be born without an arm. But thankfully, “Each new generation starts from scratch.”(pg.23).

“The evolutionary importance of the fact that genes control embryonic development is this: it means that genes are at least partly responsible for their own survival in the future, because their survival depends on the efficiency of the bodies in which they live and which they helped to build”(pg.25).  The way that Dawkins talks about the human body as if it were just meant for the good of genes, seems a little unusual to me. But once I think about it, it actually helps me understand our actual purpose. Scientifically, the purpose of life is to survive and reproduce.  That is all our genes care about, they need us to survive to a certain age were we can reproduce and they can live on, which seems pretty selfish. No wonder the title of the book is The Selfish Gene. But if our genes are selfish, does it mean that we are all truly selfish deep inside?