Interviewer: A general question. Do living organisms
behave as if they want to pass on their own genes, or do
they behave as if each of their genes is trying to
replicate itself, possibly at the expense of other genes
of the same genome?
Hamilton: This is a very deep and difficult question I
think. One's impression is that there is a conflict between
selfish genes, but largely it is being overridden by a kind
of democracy that has arisen in the genome. It combines to
suppress this intergene conflict and the outcome is that the
organism acts largely as a whole.
Interviewer: You write that evolutionary ideas "turn out to
have, or are perceived to have, the unfortunate property of
being solvents of a vital societal glue". What kind of glue
is this? Hamilton: The glue that I am thinking of is
various myths that tend to hold societies together. When
these myths are wrong, I think that they exist because they
have helped people to be more cooperative than they would be
if proceeding with a full understanding of evolutionary
theory. This is the most unfortunate fact about teaching
evolution. I also think that it is the threat that is dimly
perceived by all religious people. They think that if people
'believe' evolution instead of believing, say, the gospels,
they will no longer be able to celebrate simple honesty, or
kindly and warm feelings toward others, as unequivocally
'good'. I think they exaggerate the danger, but they don't
exaggerate a nothing. There is a danger of that kind.
Interviewer: How are evolutionists trying to deal with
this problem?
Hamilton: They are trying to deal with it by showing that
the implications of a fully rational and evolutionary theory
of behaviour, and that includes human behaviour, is not such
a nasty thing as it may seem at first. If you believe that
we evolved out of animals, are animals, and have the same
kinds of drives, it doesn't mean that we have to be selfish
and inhumane. When you fully work out the consequences of
the rules of kinship and of reciprocation, and ensure
maintenance of the standards implied, you will see that the
outcome is in fact quite a moderate kind of behaviour,
avoiding evil and as good in holding the society together as
are the religious myths. Indeed, under a rational theory we
should be able to do better for human happiness by avoiding
various naive errors. Interviewer: You write that long ago
there was a man who claimed that humans descended from
bears, and not from apes. As his theory got rejected and the
man got more and more isolated, he probably looked like an
angry bear. Didn't this description for a long time fit
sociobiologists? "The world doesn't understand us and
doesn't like us"? Hamilton: I guess it fits anyone who
feels himself to be very isolated, so I guess and hope we
have gone recently from being angry bears to being rather
comfortable and accepted bears. I wish I could remember who
it was that founded this ridiculous theory about bears. I am
sure that it exists, but I have not managed to recall the
book. Perhaps one of your readers can help to remind me.
"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
survival value." Stephen Hawking