Suckers, Cheaters and Grudgers

            Throughout chapter 12 Dawkins carefully explains and analyzes a game called Prisoner’s dilemma. The game consists on having to options: either choosing to cooperate or to defect with your opponent/partner, none of the players may see the action chosen beforehand and therefore they must wait until the turn ends. If both cooperate then each receives an equal reward, if both defect each receives a lesser reward or even a punishment. However if one defects and the other chooses to cooperate, the one who defected earns a greater reward than if both cooperated and the one who foolishly cooperated gets the worst reward or punishment. Through this game Dawkins analyzed human behavior and selfishness using various scenarios. For instance, let’s take the prisoner’s one: if two men have been accused of murder but not enough evidence has been collected all the authorities may rely on is that both suspects tell on each other. Before they can make any agreement each is brought to the interrogation room separately,  as the interrogation develops both men betray each other and present substantial evidence that gets them both heavily convicted. This would be an example of a double defection in the game. Had the two men chosen to cooperated with each other the sentence would have been a much more lenient one. Yet, as explained by the selfish gene theory we instinctively think of our wellbeing alone and how we might get betrayed. Not only is this the natural reaction because we might be saving ourselves by blaming everything on the other guy, but because if we cooperate and he defects, he will be saved and I the one who cooperated will get the worst conviction.

            We played this game in class after reading the chapter. Although not as intense as manipulating a conviction, we took to another level by putting our own grade at risk. We would be given five rounds to play, if one cooperated and the other defected the “traitor” got a .5 bump, if both cooperated each earned a .3 bump and if both defected a .1 deduction would take place. When the preliminaries begun, since our grade was not at risk we did not betray each other and played more freely and my partner and I were loyal to each other. Nonetheless, when the finals took place things changed completely. Logically, the best option would have been to cooperate on all the five rounds so each would get a significant increase, but our selfishness came into play. None of the finals round proceeded without one defect. In fact, the first round were five straight double defections, the following two had one player who betrayed the other on the fourth or fifth round. Just like in the scenario we had no way of making an agreement to ensure we wouldn’t naively be cheated through defection, so most of us fell to temptation.

            This game impeccably portrays society and the way many partnerships end up breaking up due to mistrust. Ideally, both parties could equally benefit from the agreement and end up as winners. But we always want more, or in some cases to do less. If we somehow may manage to do less work and earn equal recognition we will do it, or less work and more rewards we will do it as well. Simple selfish gene theory. This where being a sucker, grudger and a cheaters comes into play. A person who would constantly choose to cooperate regardless of being cheated continuously, will unequivocally be exploited and never benefit. Cheaters would lose their partners’ trust as soon as they cheat them once, the grudger effect will finish them off and neither will receive the benefits. Either option will result in detrimentally for at least one party involved. Rationally, the best option would be to cooperate as much as possible, but society simple does not work that way and cheaters end up winning all the time. Even grudgers who know they might get cheated again, may trust a cheater repeatedly to save an enterprise or an important investment. This game accurately simulates conflictive decision making and how temptation may overpower goodwill, even at a “friend’s” expense.

Altruism, Magnanimity, Selflessness, They Are All Not Happening

In this Chapter Dawkins proposes several theories on the evolution of species and how animals such as ants and birds have developed as societies. In every example of the animal kingdom Dawkins cleverly proved his point and defended his selfish gene theory. For instance, when certain organism give alarm calls to the rest of the group, the theory states “genes have to come up with a convincing advantage of giving alarm calls which is big enough to counteract this danger (of being spotted and eaten by the predator)” (169). In every case presented the theory was proven right and apparently nature has no space for self-sacrificing beings, at least not if they intend to transmit their genetic information. After all what would a survival machine be for if it willingly sacrifices itself for the benefit of another.

            As the chapter develops Dawkins presents a complex situation that may serve as a starting point for our capacities to deceive. In Dawkins scenario, a population is composed a species that behaves in three distinct patters: indiscriminant helpers, those who get help but don’t help back and those who help everyone except those who denied them help. The first are called Suckers, the latter Cheaters and the last Grudgers. It is very easy to compare these behaviors with our daily life where we meet many people who get our help, but do not help us when we need it or not as much as we expected they would. In fact, it relates very closely to our society where very commonly partnerships do not work, since one partner may be doing everything while the other does nothing. In the real world that can be a problem if it gets known you “cheat” on those who help you, or you simply never work. It is the hard workers who know who to work and avoid being “cheated”, who ideally should succeed the most. At least, that is how it works in nature or how it did with the Suckers, the Cheaters and the Grudges. The first died exploited by the Cheaters who never paid their favors, yet when the Cheaters no longer had their naïve relatives around Grudgers refused to help and eventually Cheaters got extinct as well. Ultimately, in nature it is no use being indiscriminately altruistic, or indiscriminately selfish. Because the Grudges are selfish nonetheless, as they feel the necessity to remove a poisonous parasite in the future, in Dawkins specific scenario, is more important than the energy they waste helping a “partner” who has it at the present time. It is all a cost versus gain relationship. The genes will always thrive for the most gain at the least expense to propagate themselves. That’s what all “the selfish gene theory” is about.

     Moreover, Dawkins defines the relationship employed by Grudgers, and other organisms such as cleaner fish with other big fish as symbiosis. A relationship where two species or two organisms from the same species benefit mutually, or reciprocal altruism as explained in the above paragraph. Dawkins explains that possibly our brains’ complexity revolves around the idea of symbiotic relationships. That feelings like “envy, gratitude, guilt, sympathy” came from natural selection to avoid being cheated, cheat more effectively or not to be confused with a cheat (188). This hypothesis implies many things, one of the most impacting ones is that ultimately our brain’s great processing is: without being cheated, to cheat as much as possible and without being caught cheating. So as cheaters got more effective, so did Grudgers at recognizing them; hence slowly each organism got more sophisticated at getting the most out of reciprocal altruism. This hypothesis contradicts the “ideal society” proposal or that of a good community, where everyone knows that may help everyone without getting cheated. However, someone always takes advantage of what will be called today “Suckers”, yet if no altruism exists inevitably our societies will collapse. If trust cannot be developed in things as sensitive as representation then a country may not function well, if reciprocal altruism does not exist then the whole structure on which we live cannot function properly. For instance, a President has the responsibility to meet his country’s needs if he takes advantage of his power to enrich himself then the country won’t progress. Resulting in the overall detriment of the community; altruism or at least reciprocal altruism are essential to the survival of our species. 

Selfishness, Immortality, Genes and Senility

Dawkins defines a good gene as a “replicator” with the characteristics of longevity, fecundity and copying fidelity. If the genes possess these traits then it is likely to attain immortality through its copies or the replicas it has made during its existence in its survival machine. By having favorable or effective cooperation with its environment then the gene may live for hundreds of millions of years, the nearest as it gets to immortality. Dawkins also adds to these set of necessary traits the idea of being selfish; you do not worry for the other genes’ survival but your own. The alleles which also inhabit the survival machines are the “mortal rivals” and a gene cannot afford to be altruistic and sacrifice itself for the benefit of others; hence a good gene that will live long enough is a selfish one. These immortal coils can only become so if the set of factors for their survival machine is correctly developed, if not enough food is present or if one is unlucky enough to be “strike by a lighting” then the process of replication will not be completed. The trait of selfishness, implies a “gene is the basic unit of selfishness”; an indispensable trait if survival is intended. I was amazed by this explanation, since we have always been taught to help others whenever we can expecting nothing in return, yet as explained by Dawkins it goes against our most basic form of self.

            I founded fascinating how Dawkins explained that our mortality at a certain age occurs because off spring were conceived before lethal genes came into action. So by the time we are eighty or so they activate themselves and ultimately we die of old age. Senility occurs because we inherited the lethal genes that triggered it from our ancestors who had children before the gene actually killed him. Dawkins uses Sir Peter Medawar’s definition to explain and catalog genes that kill us at out “old age” as semi-lethal and lethal genes that act not at our youth, but in most cases after we have reproduced and thus passed them onto our children.  

            These hypothesis leaves space for a much vast and longer human existence if it were correct. Dawkins gives us two ways that we may achieve it. First, one must understand we die at a certain age because late action genes take effect at that moment, had we not inherit them from our parents then we would live longer. If we could eliminate those genes from a population’s gene pool then slowly the average life expectancy would increase. But in order to do so a minimal age for sexual reproduction must be established, so that the people who are going to die before forty do so and do not pass their late genes into the next generation. Dawkins explains that if we follow this “minimum age limit” the life span of humanity may last centuries.

            The other way follows a more complex chemical process and not a social system. In this case doctors would have to identify the properties that young bodies have and institute them in older bodies, so that the late semi lethal and lethal genes are not activated. Overall avoiding death. But as explained in the book, this process would be incredibly complicated as substance “S” might simply come from lettuce, yet if it accumulates over time and triggers a “late-acting deleterious gene” doctors might classify it as a mortal substance. So it is not as easy as it may seem creating a more lasting human species. Plus it will take a couple centuries changing the life span so that the late lethal action genes disappear from the gene pool our species use. However, perhaps one day we may use the second form and reinvigorate the old bodies into more youthful ones.