More on Selfish Gene Theory

In this space, in recent days, we have been paying homage to the Z-grade yet schlocktastic sciffy movie MARS NEEDS WOMEN by posting as many pictures of Yvonne Craig as possible. I have also, between pictures, been discussing and debating whether or not morality is objective rather than conventional.

By objective, I mean the principle of ‘do as you would be done by’ applies to everyone, and is always and everywhere a valid standard for discriminating morally licit from illicit. I do not mean all applications of of all rules have the same force and effect in all circumstances, especially where two principles conflict. Conventional means that the principle only applies by convention, use or tradition, that is, it applies only to your own kin, comrades, clan, tribe, nation, or race, but not to others’.

Now, the most common and most persuasive argument an atheist or materialist can make in favor of universal morality is a genetic argument. The argument is that, as a matter of pure game theory, any races and breeds that develops a gene which imposes an instinct for altruism toward other members of one’s own bloodline, will, as a matter of course, have a definite statistical advantage in the lottery of Darwinian survival, and will come to outnumber those races and breeds that do not.

The argument is that the purely blind and selfish drive of the genes we carry in us therefore mesmerizes us with an instinct to altruism and self-sacrifice which is not in our immediate self-interest, but unintentionally serves the self-interest of the family, clan, tribe, breed, bloodline, and race.

The argument is that this mesmeric spell makes us hallucinate that there is such a thing as a moral code we are bound to obey, but whether this hallucination is true or false, it serves the blind and selfish reasons of the parasites called genes dwelling inside us, whom we much, willy-nilly, serve and obey.

Putting this argument to the test, I asked a hypothetical question about the following rule of behavior:  “Abducting Nubile Young Woman to Serve as Concubines, Dancing Girls, or Breeding Stock is bad.” Is this a rule that bind only those who share the non-abduction gene, or does it bind all men, including those with not one gene in common with us? I used the hypothetical example of an abductor who is a Man from Mars. He is not of our tribe, nation, or race. He is, at least during the Obama Administration NASA days, beyond the reach of any reasonable expectation of retaliation from Earthlings.

Is it objectively wrong for the Martian Warlord to abduct a luscious Earthgirl like Yvonne Craig to his horrible harem of terror atop Olympus Mons? Or is it only wrong because the Selfish Gene says it is wrong? Is it wrong objectively, or only genetically?

(Of course I mean to use this as an excuse to post more pictures!)


Our Hypothetical yet Evil Martian Warlord

The genetic argument as a basis of morality makes me laugh until I puke green foam from my nose. It is obvious enough that if my instinct for altruism is proportional to how many selfish genes I have in common with another, that I will always prefer my self over my brother, my brother over my cousin, my cousin over my second cousin, my family over my clan, and my clan over my race, and my race over the Slavs and Jews and Untermenschen.

(Okay, So We Need a More Scary Outerspace Villain for Our Hypothetical)



Racism, and I mean REAL Nazi-style kill-the-Jews racism, is not only excused by the genetic argument for altruism, it is demanded by it. Aiding anyone outside your clad and clan and bloodline is treason to the Selfish Gene, ergo, by this logic, immoral.


Our Hypothetical yet Nubile Victim

For that matter, women’s liberation causes a drop in fertility rates, so it also is treason against the Selfish Gene. for that matter, monogamy is treason, polygamy is demanded, and the consent of the concubines in the breeding harem is not required, because the gene does not care if you wanted to have happy children, only many children.


She Endures the Frightful Cold of Mars!

So, logically, if altruism is basic on the Selfish Gene, abducting dancing girls and nubile starlets to the breeding harem is not only licit, it is the highest and most saintly and most moral of all possible actions!


How Does the Selfish Gene Feel About Dainty Costumes?

Looking at cheesecake pictures of the delicious Miss Craig in her youth, I am perfectly aware of where my genetic instincts, my fallen nature, my unsightly yet primitive lusts, and my inner ‘Ming the Merciless’, and  fall on the issue.


Remove the Earth woman! Prepare her for our pleasure!

So why is it that my conscience and canon law and common law agree that this thing Selfish Gene theory says is the most good and saintly of all things, namely, abduction and rape, is not just a bad thing, but the worst thing, and merits not just execution, but execution by slow hanging and burning after public castration by the chief women of the tribe?


Anyone Pulling a Ming on Yvonne Craig Must Die!

My conclusion is that since Selfish Gene theory lowers your chance of reproduction since women will shy away from any dweeb stupid enough to buy such pseudo intellectual dreck, Selfish Gene theory ergo demands that no one believe Selfish Gene theory.


No Matter What the Selfish Gene Says, the COOLISH Gene says Yvonne Craig Belongs With Elvis!