The Selfish Gene

by Richard Dawkins

I think that Rose and his colleagues are accusing us of eating our cake and having it. Either we must be ‘genetic determinists’ or we believe in ‘free will’; we cannot have it both ways. But—and here I presume to speak for Professor Wilson as well as for myself—it is only in the eyes of Rose and his colleagues that we are ‘genetic determinists’. What they don’t understand (apparently, though it is hard to credit) is that it is perfectly possible to hold that genes exert a statistical influence on human behaviour while at the same time believing that this influence can be modified, overridden, or reversed by other influences. Genes must exert a stastical influence on any behaviour pattern that evolves by natural selection. Presumably Rose and his colleagues agree that human-sexual desire has evolved by natural selection, in the same sense as anything ever evolves by natural selection. They therefore must agree that there have been genes influencing sexual desire—in the same sense as genes ever influence anything. Yet they presumably have no trouble with curbing their sexual desires when it is socially necessary to do so. What is dualist about that? Obviously nothing. And no more is it dualist for me to advocate rebelling ‘against the tyranny of the selfish replicators’. We, that is our brains, are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them. As already noted, we do so in a small way every time we use contraception. There is no reason why we should n...

Good point