In this blog post, we will examine the existence of pure altruism in the natural world—with a focus on Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’—and explore whether empathy is its root cause.
Richard Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ opened up new horizons in evolutionary biology. He explained that the subject of life is no longer the “individual” but the “gene,” and that all behavior and thought in living organisms stem from the selfish gene. However, unlike other animals whose entire way of life is determined by the selfish gene, Dawkins argued that humans can defy the premise of the selfish gene thanks to memes—various cultural elements that possess self-replicating properties similar to genes. In particular, he noted in ‘The Selfish Gene’ that through memes, humans can consciously cultivate and educate future generations in “unconditional” pure altruism—a concept that does not exist in nature—and that “on this planet, we humans are the only ones capable of rebelling against the premise of selfish self-replicators.”
However, can pure, unconditional altruism truly exist only through memes? Contrary to Dawkins’ claim, it is difficult to conclude that humans are the only special beings. Behaviors that can be interpreted as pure altruism have been observed in the natural world, and such behaviors do not necessarily manifest only through the cultural medium of memes. From here on, I will examine the reasons why Dawkins believed pure altruism is unlikely to exist in the natural world. I will then analyze examples of pure altruism found in nature to present a counterargument to his claim and explore the origins of pure altruism.
Since every individual strives to survive as long as possible and to pass on as many of its own genes to the next generation as possible, it is not easy for an individual to sustain altruistic behavior. For this reason, Dawkins argued that pure altruism—which is disadvantageous to survival, or the preservation of genes, under the law of the jungle—is unlikely to exist in nature. To support this, Dawkins used computer simulations to demonstrate which group—composed of “do-gooders,” “cheaters,” or “resentful individuals”—would have the greatest advantage in the competition for survival.
The “Benevolent Group” is a kind and generous group that helps other individuals without expecting anything in return. The “Cheaters” are a group that accepts help from others but refuses to reciprocate when it is their turn to help. Finally, the “Vengeful Group” remembers who the cheaters are and refuses to help them. When the simulation was run under these conditions, the Cheaters initially quickly overpowered the Benevolent Group. As the Altruists gradually dwindled, the Cheaters attempted to exploit the Resentful, but since the Resentful refused to help the Cheaters, the Cheaters’ numbers eventually declined, and the Resentful emerged as the ultimate winners.
Although the Resentful are a group that exhibits altruism, their altruism is not pure but rather reciprocal in nature, premised on a quid pro quo. In fact, vampire bats exhibit this “Grudge” faction behavior, supporting the idea that the results of Dawkins’ simulation can be observed in nature. Vampire bats have a very high metabolic rate, and since their lives can be at risk if they fail to find food, they share blood among their own kind. However, this behavior is primarily directed toward individuals who are likely to help them in the future—such as relatives or close neighbors—who are unlikely to betray them when they later ask for help. In contrast, sharing blood with a vampire bat they have just met is extremely rare, as there is a high probability of being betrayed later on.
Thanks to this “Hwan-eop-pa”-like behavior, their average lifespan—which would have been about three years without mutual aid—is known to have increased to approximately 15 years.
Since acting like Hwan-eop-pa is more advantageous for survival in the natural world, it is easy to assume that no species other than humans—who can explore ethics and pass them on to future generations through memes—exhibits pure altruism. However, in the natural world, there are indeed animals that exhibit behavior interpreted as pure altruism.
Pure altruism is also found in humpback whales. Since humpback whales and orcas have different prey, they rarely encounter each other, and it is also advantageous for humpback whales to stay away from orca pods to protect their calves. Nevertheless, marine mammal research has reported numerous instances of humpback whales actively interfering with orca hunts. In fact, according to a study synthesizing long-term observations, only a small fraction of the observed cases involved the protection of the humpback whale’s own calf; the majority were behaviors aimed at protecting other marine animals—such as seals and sea lions—that had no direct connection to the humpback whale.
In other words, humpback whales’ defensive and aggressive behaviors toward orcas do not occur only when their own calves are under attack, but also when other species are being attacked. One of the most widely known examples occurred in 2009, when a humpback whale lifted a seal being chased by a pod of orcas onto its chest, swam on its back, and protected the seal until the orcas departed.
According to Dawkins’ argument, since pure altruism does not exist in nature, the humpback whale’s act of helping the seal must also be interpreted as being advantageous for passing on its genes or ultimately resulting in some benefit to itself. However, the seal is not even the same species as the humpback whale, nor does it belong to the same order of cetaceans. Therefore, saving the seal does not expand the humpback whale’s gene pool; rather, given that it must risk attack by the orcas, this behavior can be viewed as disadvantageous from the perspective of gene preservation.
This raises the question of what form of symbiotic relationship might exist between humpback whales and seals. Even if a seal were to want to repay a humpback whale for saving it, there is virtually no help a seal could actually provide to a humpback whale. Humpback whales are so large that they are relatively safe from most predators, and since krill is their primary food source, it is realistically impossible for seals to rescue them from danger or provide them with food. Even in situations where they cannot expect future benefits, humpback whales—unlike vampire bats—continue to protect not only seals but also other marine animals without expecting anything in return.
This behavior of humpback whales resembles the “do-gooders” proposed by Dawkins, but unlike the results of the simulations, they did not fail to survive. The existence of humpback whales, which exhibit altruism even in such a completely non-reciprocal relationship, demonstrates that behavior interpretable as pure altruism does exist in the natural world.
To Dawkins, who viewed living organisms from the perspective of genes, living beings were nothing more than vehicles acting to preserve genes. Therefore, he believed that the primary goal of all living organisms is survival and reproduction, and since pure altruistic acts without any reward do not align with these objectives, they are unlikely to exist in the natural world.
However, through the concept of “memes,” he argued that only humans are capable of exhibiting pure altruism in the face of selfish self-replicators.
Yet, as we saw earlier, humpback whales display pure altruism and engage in behavior that does not necessarily align with the “survival” goal—the top priority pursued by selfish genes. According to Dawkins’ theory, since animals other than humans do not possess memes, this behavior in humpback whales can be viewed as having been triggered by other factors. If so, we can consider the possibility that pure altruism originated from a factor more fundamental than memes—one that is common not only to humans but also to other animals.
In fact, observations by researchers studying humpback whales indicate that not all humpback whales protect other marine animals; rather, individuals that have previously experienced attacks by orca pods are more likely to exhibit this behavior. This suggests that the humpback whale’s purely altruistic behavior stems from an ability to empathize—an understanding that other living beings might feel the same sense of urgency and fear that the whale itself experienced in the past.
Such pure altruism, stemming from empathy, has been observed not only in humpback whales but also in field mice. In 2016, researchers at Emory University in the United States conducted an experiment in which they divided field mice into two groups, administered mild electric shocks to only one group, and then reunited them. As a result, the mice that had not received electric shocks exhibited behavior that comforted the shocked mice. This was interpreted as altruistic behavior based on empathy—an understanding of and desire to comfort another’s suffering without expecting anything in return.
Of course, animals at the bottom of the food chain, such as field mice, must inevitably exhibit more self-serving behavior to ensure their survival, as even the smallest action is directly linked to survival—unlike humpback whales. Even when they do exhibit altruistic behavior, it is highly likely to be reciprocal altruism that also benefits their own survival, as seen in vampire bats. However, this experiment demonstrated that pure altruistic behavior stemming from empathy can emerge even in animals in relatively vulnerable positions.
Furthermore, this study suggests that the capacity for empathy does not necessarily require high intelligence. The scope of empathy can vary depending on an individual’s cognitive abilities—just as highly intelligent animals like humpback whales can empathize with other species. Nevertheless, pure altruism—the desire for another’s well-being without any expectation of reward—can manifest regardless of intelligence level. Ultimately, pure altruism can be viewed as a tendency that arises from the capacity for empathy and is present in various animals, rather than originating from memes, as Dawkins argued.
To Dawkins, who viewed living organisms from the perspective of genes, living beings were nothing more than vehicles acting to preserve genes. Therefore, he believed that the primary goal of all living organisms is survival and reproduction, and since pure altruistic acts without reward do not align with these objectives, they are unlikely to exist in nature. Through the concept of memes, he argued that only humans can exhibit pure altruism in the face of selfish replicators.
However, the humpback whale discussed earlier exhibits pure altruism and engages in behavior that does not necessarily align with the “survival” goal—the top priority pursued by the selfish gene. According to Dawkins’ theory, since animals other than humans do not possess memes, this behavior in humpback whales can be viewed as having been triggered by other factors. If so, we can consider the possibility that pure altruism originated from a factor more fundamental than memes—one that is common not only to humans but also to other animals.
In fact, according to observations by researchers studying humpback whales, not all humpback whales protect other marine animals; rather, individuals that have previously experienced attacks by orca pods are more likely to exhibit this behavior. This suggests that the humpback whale’s purely altruistic behavior stems from an ability to empathize—an understanding that other living beings might feel the same sense of urgency and fear that the whale itself experienced in the past.
Such pure altruism, stemming from empathy, has been observed not only in humpback whales but also in field mice. In 2016, researchers at Emory University in the United States conducted an experiment in which they divided field mice into two groups, administered mild electric shocks to only one group, and then reunited them. As a result, the field mice that had not received electric shocks exhibited behavior that comforted the shocked mice. This was interpreted as altruistic behavior based on empathy—an understanding of and desire to soothe the other’s suffering without expecting anything in return.
Of course, animals at the bottom of the food chain, such as field mice, must inevitably exhibit more self-serving behavior to ensure their survival, as even the smallest action is directly linked to survival—unlike humpback whales. Even when they do exhibit altruistic behavior, it is highly likely to be reciprocal altruism—such as that seen in vampire bats—which also benefits their own survival. However, this experiment demonstrated that pure altruistic behavior stemming from empathy can emerge even in animals in relatively vulnerable positions.
Furthermore, this study suggests that the capacity for empathy does not necessarily require high intelligence. The scope of empathy can vary depending on an individual’s cognitive abilities—just as highly intelligent animals like humpback whales can empathize with other species. However, pure altruism—the desire for another’s well-being without any expectation of reward—can manifest regardless of intelligence level. Ultimately, pure altruism can be viewed as a tendency that arises from the capacity for empathy and can be observed in various animals, rather than originating from memes, as Dawkins argues.
So far, we have examined the reasons why Dawkins believed pure altruism could hardly exist in the natural world and explored its origins by analyzing examples of pure altruism found in nature. It has long been believed that pure altruism cannot exist in the natural world because it is disadvantageous for survival under the law of the jungle. However, a review of actual cases reveals that behaviors interpretable as pure altruism are indeed observed in nature.
Ultimately, the examples of humpback whales and field mice confirm that pure altruism stems not from the higher-order concept of culture, but from the more fundamental capacity for empathy. It is true, as Dawkins argued, that humans possess characteristics that distinguish them from other animals. However, this does not mean we can conclude that other animals are merely mechanical beings driven solely by their genes. Even without memes, as humans have, they are active beings capable of sensing and understanding the emotions of other individuals and, based on that empathy, exhibiting altruistic behavior that is difficult to explain solely through the logic of the selfish gene.
