Dawkins & Weinstein [Oct 2018]
Brett Weinstein & Richard Dawkins
BW: Both of them are evolutionary biologists, dyed in the wool
There are areas of notable difference, though
Disagree on specific areas of evolutionary theory
RD wrote The Selfish Gene at 35 years old
Still feels cutting edge, to BW
The current era has been much quieter, theoretically
At first, BW thought RD + Fisher + co had run the table, closing most questions
Then realized there’s a lot of open questions still
e.g., why do males engage in elaborate displays before mating?
Why has progress slowed, given all the open questions that remain?
And where are the biologists that can wield tools in the same bold way?
Darwin noticed the advertising capability of males e.g., peacocks
Darwin left it at aesthetic consideration
Wallace, co-discoverer of natural selection, hated the simple explanation
The advertisement has to have some utility
Invoking taste, in Wallace's opinion, was bordering on mysticism
One theory: the male is so fit, it can survive in spite of the ostentatious display
Less aggressive theory: it showcases parasite / malady resistance
BW: if females are picking, based on good genes..
Then in a few generations, the need for display should disappear
Female vigilance should drop, once genes leave the pool
Or, it should be oscillating; bad genes appear periodically, need to be sorted out
RD: This seems to be a matter of mathematical modeling
It’s an active field of research, nowadays
BW: Well, count me skeptical
Math can spit out answers that aren’t feasible
RD: Certainly the remedy is better models..
BW: Not so sure; math seems like a fallback option here
BW: The current field seems to defer to these very powerful models/tools
And these have yet to predict or prove anything substantial
George Williams paper on senescence (feebleness of age)
Put forth a theory, and stated what we should see in nature
BW is a fan of this sort of reasoning and inquiry
It wasn’t simply that aging/deterioration is “good for the species"
Genes are modified by other genes
Things that kill you when you’re past reproductive age are favored
Overwhelming genetic “pressure” is on genes that favor younger pursuit
RD: Nationalism might be an even greater evil than religion
Might not be helpful to discuss in Darwinian terms
There’s lots of complexity layered atop the base biological terms
BW: Disagree; think it’s vital to discuss in biological terms
The complexity could be uniquely human, with social + genetic interplay
To confront the problem, we do need to confront who we are
BW: We need to look at “selfish replicators”
To resist the will of the replicators, we need to stare straight into the motivations
We know there’s a genetic component to homosexuality
BW: The older brother / right-hand rule
The more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay - but only if you are right-handed
Very odd; but suggests there’s some structure
Suicide: RD can think of psychological and mimetic reasons
BW thinks biology has instantiated a bad assumption
We’ve over-indexed on individual fitness, versus group fitness
The motivation might be for the familial continuity
RD: doesn’t seem helpful to couch this in Darwinian terms
Suicide, nationalism et al are not instances of Darwinism
They’re complex intertwining of sociology, psychology..
BW: So let’s dig deeper
If Darwinian, then digging into their nature is essential to rectifying the problems
e.g., understanding when the genocide program is “triggered”, genetically
RD: Still, the framing seems like a simplistic rationalization
You can acknowledge the relics of our genetic past
BW: Agree we can get carried away with these logical traversals
RD: Let’s think about the Nazi invasions to the east
You have layers of motivations; state-level, down to personal
How can we make Darwinian claims across strata?
Even so, we can recognize phenomena like tribalism
Common motifs, played upon in common ways
BW: Catholics contain a non-reproductive caste
RD: Worker bees don’t reproduce
Alleges in Selfish Gene that celibacy in clergy is a failure of evolution
Priests forego reproductive viability due to certain memes
BW: Person involved in failure or Darwinism is goading others to reproduce
RD: His memes are spreading, if not his genes
RD: Catholicism is a complex of mind viruses, yes
BW: We disagree on that
There’s lineage level adaptations, responsible for the spread of beliefs
RD: Taking a step back: Darwinian natural selection is all about the survival of replicators
Memes are some; genes are others
Vehicles are bodies, brains
We unite the genome; but individual genes are like viruses
A set of independently tussling replicators
Some replicate by going in “gangs” ; others occupy lone vectors
BW: Agree with most of what you’ve said
Genes are entrapped in shared fate at conception; this causes an organism
RD: The notion of an extended phenotype
e.g., beaver dams; bird nests - not part of the body, but genetically instigated
You can have genes that ultimately lead to consumption by a “terminal” host
The ecology is not functionally divisible from the organism, in this lens