The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Selfish Gene Theory Loophole

I'm dissectting 'The Selfish Gene'~R.Dawkins, and I ran into a roadblock.

How can the Selfish Gene Theory be used to explain the natural phenomenon
of foster parenting? I currently am bamboozled by this.

Although Wynne Edwards group Selection can be used as an alternative explanation,
how would even group selection explain interspecific adoptions?

Please Help!
Original post by VigneshSB
-


Dawkins acknowledges the phenomenon of adoption as being essentially unexplainable if we're only discussing this within the parameters of the selfish gene. However, I'd suggest that adopting a child confers non-specific survival benefits to the parents in the form of happiness and well-being for those who cannot pass on their genes because of an inability to conceive.

It makes biological sense for a mother to make use of her paternal instincts in some way or another. We see this phenomenon in nature quite often actually, for example, penguins stealing other penguins baby chicks if their own perish.

As for why two humans who possess the ability to procreate would actively choose to adopt rather than have their own children, well, I guess that is simply down to the nebulous quality of free will?
Reply 2
Avatar for nexttime
nexttime
22
I haven't read the book, but surely the answer is simply that parenting instincts become 'mis-placed'? Making us only be able to bond with our own children may simply be difficult to program biologically.

Combined with an element of group selection of course.

Original post by Caponester
However, I'd suggest that adopting a child confers non-specific survival benefits to the parents in the form of happiness and well-being for those who cannot pass on their genes because of an inability to conceive.


Which won't make a difference evolutionarily if they aren't procreating and passing on their genes. Unless you are referring to a group selection, which was already mentioned.
Dawkins acknowledged this in one of his books, don't remember which. There are several theories for it, and I tend to think that the theory the person above me listed is the best one. Basically people already have parental instincts that aren't surpassed by their knowledge that the child isn't biologically theirs. I think that part of this love for the child has either been the beginning of or evovled alongside with empathy towards peers too.

Edit about group selection: group selection is a theory that Richard Dawkins has never accepted and I agree with him. It doesn't make any evolutionary sense.
(edited 10 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you