From John Hind
The broader debates about evolution always seem to be tainted by the unjustified assumption that different forms of evolution have to follow exactly the same rules. Joan Roughgarden seems to accept that if genetic evolution is “selfish” then society has to be structured to reward selfishness. Because she does not like that kind of society, therefore she is driven to prove that evolution is not selfish (29 July, p 46).
Just because genes are “selfish” it does not follow that they will produce instinctive selfishness in animals – cooperative and even altruistic behaviour may serve the “interests” of the genes. And even if humans were instinctively selfish, it would not follow that we have to evolve societies that reinforce that trait. Genes do not have foresight and may well have outsmarted themselves by producing an animal that can formulate its own goals and even take control of its own evolution.
It is surely obvious that different forms of evolution (being defined as “the generation of complexity through mutation and selection”) will follow different detailed rules. For example, unlike genes, the mutable elements of mind, or memes, exhibit a large element of Lamarckian evolution – inheritance of acquired characteristics. So there is no reason to assume that findings about genetic evolution will directly inform studies of social evolution.
London, UK
