Also, the selfish gene metaphor was misleading in the sense that it is of course nonsense to ascribe any kind of motivation to genes. I think it was useful to break a common misconception, that evolution would work for the benefit of the individual.
So those are well-defined categories. That one might just be a detour to the other doesn't seem to be relevant.
And, of course, the problem is that, far too often, fans of economic theory make the opposite mistake, and consider cooperative behaviour as a failure of rationality, when in reality they are just not thinking it through to the end.
In the economic framework, "selfishness" just whatever personal objective a person is optimizing for. Cooperation is tactic for achieving "selfish" goals, and not necessarily at odds.
People donate to charity in the pursuit of what they personally value.
I agree that some "fans of economics" make the mistake of viewing outcomes that don't increase a personal bank account as irrational. Well respected economic thinkers clearly understand that people have other goals in life. On the flip side, "critics of economics" make the opposite mistake, thinking that values in life besides maximizing your bank account are at odds with economic theory.
My formulation is just as correct as the standard economics one, but not as misleading, because it rightly implies that you are part of/made of larger and smaller entities, whereas the economics formulation falsely implies that you are an independent entity, capable of pure selfishness. If one cell in your body is selfish, that's called cancer and you die.
> [...] And we need coop-cop regulations of selfishness at every level to avoid parts harming their needed wholes. Otherwise, harsh karma awaits as our co-fate for allowing a plague of parasitic plutocratic plundering.
what can economists predict?
They present it as a celebration of "rational" yet self-defeating selfishness.
There's a lot of crazy things said in and by economists, but I dont think I've ever heard anyone actually claim that.
What it is useful for, what it "predicts", is that even perfectly, better than humanly-possible, smart people can still find themselves in situations where they can't get the best outcome for themselves by doing whatever is best for them alone.
The general conclusion and recommendation that arises is to implement some kind of meta-regulatory framework to ensure that the more desired outcome arises.
And indeed, we see exactly that in situations like criminal gangs, that co-operate to punish those that "snitch" and so solve the dilemma. The evolutionary coop-cop things mentioned are other examples.
Because the ideal and reality of the "prisoner" part so often diverge, I generally prefer the example of trying to do a drug deal or spy swap. You have something they want, and they have something you want. But unless theres some guarantee you wont be ripped off, then the profitable to both trade won't happen.
It gets labels like "cartel" and "monopoly"