On 27 December 1831, a young naturalist by the name of Charles Robert Darwin set upon a voyage of discovery on the HMS Beagle which was to last five years and take him all over the globe. He came back with a lot of specimens, copious scientific notes and an explosive theory which was to rock the world of ideas: the theory of evolution by natural selection. Suddenly, God became an unnecessary and unlikely hypothesis: man was pulled down from his high throne as the master of creation: and existence became a cacophony of chance events rather than a carefully co-ordinated orchestra. Naturally, the religious establishment rebelled. But like all ideas whose time had come, evolution hung on with great tenacity to become the widely accepted idea it is today.I have been fascinated with the idea ever since I was introduced to it in high school. As far as I am concerned, the very argument that theists put forward against evolution is its greatest strength; viz. the complexity of the natural world. According to the believer, such a complex and “perfect” (whatever that means!) system has to have an architect behind it. But the fact is that it is not “perfect” – nature is dynamic. What we perceive as stability is homeostasis, a seething mass of life, eating one another and being eaten; and as nature shifts her stance, so does life, whole species dying out (like the dinosaurs) to make way for others.But wait! Humans are different, aren’t we? We compete, true: but we also show altruism. People lay down their life to protect their progeny, their brothers and sisters, their countrymen… if we were selfish survival machines, why would we do this? It means we have the spark of divinity within us, doesn’t it?Well… not exactly, according to Richard Dawkins. It only means we have the “Selfish Gene” within us.The Selfish Gene needs no introduction. This is one of those iconic “pop” science books which everyone seems to have read, like The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris. I was a bit late (well, about 37 years!) in getting to it. However, the book has lost none of the charm, and the idea any of its power, due to the ravages of time: if at all, it has become stronger.What is a gene?Dawkins confesses that there is no universally agreed definition of ‘gene’. We now know that the blueprint for building of each human being is coded in 23 pairs of chromosomes, one of every pair being inherited from each parent. The code inside the chromosome is written in DNA molecules, the famous ‘Double Helix’ that Dawkins terms the ‘Immortal Coils’.The DNA molecules are replicators. They replicate themselves; they also manufacture proteins, the basic building block of life as we know it. These DNA molecules (some version of them) were the original “life” in the “primeval soup”: they reproduced themselves and competed with one another to survive. Natural selection defined which lasted and which died away.Dawkins defines a gene (a definition borrowed from G. C. Williams) as “any part of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection”. In other words, a gene is a copier with high “copying-fidelity”: that is, it ensures that it copies itself without mistakes so that longevity in the form of copies is ensured.So in the primeval soup, these genes went on happily competing with each other, evolving newer and newer ways of surviving in an environment which got increasingly complex. As part of survival technology, the genes built a lot of machines, bunching together to form gene complexes in the context. The machines got more and more complex, from the single-cell amoeba to the human being.Dawkins starts the book with the question “Why are people?” This is his answer – so that the gene can survive and replicate. We are nothing but vehicles for the genes, who exist to ensure their survival.Pretty disillusioning, isn’t it? But Dawkins is far from done. After pulling down humanity from its pedestal as the “pinnacle of creation”, he proceeds to explain all the lofty sentiments such as love, altruism, sacrifice etc. as the result of strategies for gene survival – extremely selfish strategies at that. It is very difficult to stomach for a generation which has been trained to behold human beings as somehow special, and the above sentiments as the proof of their exclusivity which separate them from the “lower” animals. As one disgusted poster said in one of the fora where this book was discussed: “So altruism is like going to the potty? Oh dear!”But even though disheartening at first, as Dawkins begins to back up his arguments with solid scientific reasoning, it is difficult to dispute him, and difficult not to get excited when he presents his theory with mathematical precision.Aggression and StabilityOne of the most common arguments put forward against evolution is that an uncontrolled state of aggression will lead to a free-for-all and the “stable” environment we see cannot exist. Dawkins explains this with the concept of an ESS (Evolutionary Stable Strategy), which leads to a dynamic equilibrium or homeostasis: he posits a theoretical society populated by pure aggressors (“hawks”) and pure pacifists (“doves”), and proves logically that over a period of time, the number of hawks and doves will stabilise in roughly equal proportion. This is because it is not the survival machines which are having the final say on who will win: it is the genes. This concept is further expanded with fine variations on the behavior – ultimately, every time, a dynamically stable configuration results.In Chapter 12, ‘Nice Guys Finish First’ (added as part of the second edition), Dawkins takes this theory further and presents a varying set of evolutionary strategies, modelled on Game Theory. It describes in detail various evolutionary stratagems he tried out on his computer (with contributions from a lot of scientists) and the outcomes. This is a fascinating analysis and in my opinion, the most interesting part of the book – but that may just be the engineer in me, who loves anything mathematical!AltruismOh yes. The old stumbling block. The favourite saw of the creationists. If we are all selfish, how does altruism come into the picture? Why do parents sacrifice themselves for their children, why do siblings do the same for each other, why do we co-operate at all? Should we not be at each other’s throats, all the time?No, according to Dawkins. If we look at it from the gene’s point of view, it all makes perfect sense.When we are talking of genes, we are talking of gene pools here: a group of genes working together so that the survival of each is maximised. Dawkins makes a brilliant analogy to a rowing team. If a coach is choosing a team, he would over a period end up with a group who can pull in such a way that the winning chance is maximised – an individual rower, however brilliant he is, would find no place in the team if he did not contribute to the group effort. In the case of genes, natural selection plays the role of the coach. Those genes which could not co-operate simply get discarded in the evolutionary race over a period of time.Also, one should bear in mind that a gene is not a single physical bit of DNA; it is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world. A gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this could be the origin of altruism. Dawkins calls it ‘genesmanship’. He spends four chapters explaining how it applies to siblings, offspring, lovers and apparent strangers. In the last chapter (‘The Long Reach of the Gene’), Dawkins extrapolates the above argument to how the gene in one species can extend its reach to another species, possibly to the detriment of the latter, to explain parasitism.One may take it or leave it, but the arguments are well thought-out and presented with great clarity; with cold, scientific logic. There are no opinions here. It makes fascinating reading, even though the mathematical analysis may put some off!MemesThe concept of the ‘meme’ is possibly the most revolutionary one expressed in this book. Dawkins defines a meme as a unit of cultural transmission, a basic idea which gets replicated in human brains, in the ‘primeval soup’ of human culture; which, according to him, is in the same state as the biological ‘soup’ was at the dawn of life on earth. To quote the author himself:Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.According Dawkins, all prevalent ideas (including the idea of God!) is a meme: the meme survives because it has a survival value in the meme pool. If we subscribe to this idea, the whole intellectual arena is nothing but a group of memes grappling for survival – not a very edifying thought. It seems Dawkins appreciates this, because he ends the chapter on memes with the speculation that man has the capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. He says “We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”I, as a fan of the Jungian idea of the Collective Unconscious, could not help speculating on whether the meme could be embedded way down in the gene itself? Maybe the Collective Unconscious is nothing but little bits of consciousness, embedded inside the DNA, which guided the process of survival? If so, it could be case for Intelligent Design – or rather, Intelligent Evolution.This is one of those ‘pop-science’ books which are enlightening and enjoyable at the same time. A must-read. Read the review also on my BLOG.
Finally, and after an excessive period of time, the main cause of which was college overwhelming demands, I managed to read and finish, from cover to cover, the book that launched the fame of the most distinguished evolutionary biologist in the world (Richard Dawkins): The Selfish Gene.Dawkins is often characterized as the World's Most Outspoken Atheist. This may be true, but it's concerned with a relatively recent development in his character. I think such reduction is misleading and unfair, quite frankly. Dawkins is an intelligent evolutionary biologist and he has contributed a lot to the field over the past three or four decades. He is very passionate about Darwinian Evolution that I'm surprised that he's not been referred to as "Darwin's pitbull" as much as Sir Huxley was known as "Darwin's Bulldog"!The book is an attempt by Dawkins to offer a meticulous explanation of organisms' behavior, especially animals. Animal behavior is such an intriguing subject, indeed!. Dawkins tries to explore this phenomenal world through the lens of what he calls, "The Selfish Gene Theory".The Selfish Gene Theory establishes that organisms evolve by Natural Selection, but the unit of selection is, surprisingly and against all common knowledge and conventions, the gene. It's not the species, as I used to firmly hold, not even the individual, but the gene, the selfish gene. Genes were here first long before us the multi-cellular organisms. In addition, they are "the replicators" who will live on, unlike us the mortals. They are the immortal units of selection, and we merely are "survival machines" as Dawkins affirms throughout the whole book. This, to me, has a very profound implication. It seems to me to negate the "hypothesis" of morality being also a product of our evolution because if the Selfish Gene Theory is true, then I don't see how the "survival of the species" would have mattered from the first place. However, Dawkins makes the case that selfish genes might "program" survival machines to adopt some forms of "altruistic" behaviors to meet their "selfish" ends.Dawkins' language is that of a "reductionist" which doesn't surprise me as a student of biology familiar with the scientific doctrine of "Occam's Razor". However, I understand how his language might disturb some readers. Dawkins reduces all forms of relationships and attributes them to "genetic" factors including those among family members. Altruistic behavior vs. selfish behavior can all be calculated mathematically. Your mother cares about you because you contain half of her genes! Forget love, affection, and all of that emotional talk. We're merely survival machines designed by our selfish genes to propagate them. Pretty disturbing, huh?Yet, this also has a crucial implication. Dawkins affirms in the beginning of the book that it's one of "biology", not "ethics". He states that we are "selfish by nature", but we can teach our children to be altruistic. To me, this raises a very important question: doesn't that assert that we, indeed, possess free will? This is a profound implication that I believe Dawkins was not aware of when first writing this book. He attempts to briefly discuss this matter in the endnotes by rejecting it, but I think he didn't succeed.There's some form of dualism that the theory suggests in our case: the conscious Homo sapiens.It's very evident and prevalent.One chapter of the book is devoted to what Dawkins call, "memes". It's such a great idea and it shows Dawkins' skill as a "philosopher". Simply, a meme is a "replicating idea" as Daniel Dennett defines it. It makes so much sense to me that memes are replicators just like genes floating from one mind to another and manipulating subjects to insure their survival. It seems to me that religion is an example of a meme that replicates itself (from followers to followers) and struggle for survival through consistent "adaptation" (modification)! Dawkins' animosity towards religion is probably as old as this book is, but he offers a very mild criticism of it which makes sense given that it's not really the center focus of this book.The Selfish Gene Theory is a revolutionary idea. However, even more revolutionary is the concept of "The Extended Phenotype" which illustrates the "long reach of the gene". Dawkins dedicates a whole book to this idea, and devotes the last chapter to it. The notion simply suggests that selfish genes influence very "indirect" behaviors such as, building nests in birds. I must read his book "The Extended Phenotype" since Dawkins explores the idea much more deeply and thoroughly.To conclude, the Selfish Gene Theory (or should I say hypothesis?) is indeed a profound seductive idea as an explanation of organisms' innate behavior. I don't know, though, how much of it is predicated upon scientific evidence and how much is mere speculation, but I do know that the book is a must-read for anyone interested in animal behavior. The book brilliantly offers answers to puzzling phenomenons, but it also raises a lot of profound questions."The only kind of entity that has to exists in order for life to arise, anywhere in the universe, is the immortal replicator." - R. Dawkins
What do You think about The Selfish Gene (2006)?
The Selfish Gene has become a classic in scientific popular literature. It is the herald of a certain popular genetic reductionism that still pervades biology.Its merit is to make a competent presentation of evolution in a genetic perspective, using numerous examples and applications of neo-Darwinian logic. Additionally, there is a good selection of "stories and tales" of natural life, which color and elucidate the aridity of their arguments and make the book more interesting.Nevertheless, the book is the product of a brutally reductionist conception of life - a conception of living beings as "gene machines". This position is protected under the argument that it is only "describing things as they are - not as we wish they were." But this is not the point. Except for the views of "the evolution of species," Dawkins fails to really discuss alternative hypotheses to his general framework.The book strengthens a dominant view, and makes no serious discussion of the main alternatives that emerged outside the dominant discourse. Although not compromise the clarity of his explanation, this attitude impoverishes the reader's understanding (which, as he says, is just a layman), giving a mistaken notion of a definitive explanation and consensus, when in fact, this is a field full of uncertainty and debate. Lacked respect for diversity of interpretations and the spirit of scientific debate. Thus the work becomes manifest only one of the voices of the debate - the predominant voice.He denies, therefore, important evidence of directional processes that complement the statistical randomness of mutations. With this, presents the reader a model excessively simplified of the dynamics genetic of organisms - conveniently not mentioning mechanisms that can by in check various points of his own perspective. It also hides important non-genic processes that participate in the formation of organisms and act as "shock absorbers" or "normalizers" of mutations, from holistic characteristics of the formation of tissues, organs and the organism as a whole, which directly influence the probabilities of survival.We found some of the best moments of the work when Dawkins makes your writing more essayistic, with greater freedom to develop hypotheses - as, for example, in the brief passage in which he speculates on the origin of self-consciousness, the cause of which is the development of a social mapping whose sophistication requires the inclusion of a model of yourself.In the last chapter, he presents the hypothesis Meme - perhaps the main reason for the popularity of the book. It is a thought provoking and should have their share of truth. However, suffers from the same crass reductionism of the central theory. In fact, it is even worse because memes are not even measurable phenomenon, and its definition in practical terms even more difficult than the genes themselves.- - - - O Gene Egoísta tornou-se um clássico científico contemporâneo. É o arauto popular de um certo reducionismo gênico que ainda impregna a biologia. Seu principal mérito é fazer uma apresentação competente da evolução em uma perspectiva genética, utilizando-se de inúmeros exemplos e aplicações da lógica neodarwinista. A isso se soma uma boa seleção de "histórias e causos" da vida natural, que colorem e elucidam a aridez de seus argumentos e tornam o livro mais leve e interessante. Não obstante, o livro é produto de uma concepção brutalmente reducionista da vida -- uma concepção dos seres vivos como "máquinas gênicas". Essa posição intransigente se protege sob o argumento de que está apenas "descrevendo as coisas como elas são -- e não como nós gostaríamos que elas fossem". Mas não é este o ponto. Exceto no caso das visões de "evolução da espécie", Dawkins falha por não discutir realmente as hipóteses alternativas ao seu quadro geral.O livro reafirma uma visão majoritária, e não tem espaço para discussão séria sequer as principais alternativas que emergiam na margem do discurso dominante. Embora não comprometa a clareza de sua explanação, empobrece o olhar do seu leitor (que, como ele mesmo diz, é apenas um leigo esclarecido), dando um noção equivocada de uma explicação definitiva e consensual, quando, na verdade, este é um campo bastante discutível. Faltou respeito à diversidade de interpretações e ao espírito do debate científico. Assim, a obra passa a ser apenas o manifesto de uma das vozes do debate -- a voz predominante. Nega, portanto, importantes evidências de processos direcionais que complementam a aleatoriedade estatística das mutações. Com isso, apresenta ao leitor um modelo excessivamente simplificado da dinâmica genética dos organismos -- convenientemente não mencionando mecanismos que podem por em cheque vários pontos de sua perspectiva. Também oculta importantes processos não-gênicos da formação dos organismos que atuam como "amortecedores" ou "normalizadores" de mutações, a partir de características holísticas da formação de tecidos, órgãos e do organismo como um todo, que influenciam diretamente as probabilidades de sobrevivência. Encontramos alguns dos melhores momentos da obra quando Dawkins torna sua escrita mais ensaística, com maior liberdade para elaborar hipóteses -- como, por exemplo, no breve trecho em que especula sobre a origem da autoconsciência, cuja causa ser a elaboração de um mapeamento social cuja sofisticação exige a inclusão de um modelo de si mesmo. No último capítulo, ele apresenta a hipótese do Meme -- talvez a principal razão para a popularidade do livro. É um pensamento instigante e deve ter sua parcela de verdade. Porém, sofre do mesmo reducionismo crasso da teoria central. Na verdade, é ainda pior, porque os memes sequer são um fenômeno mensurável, sendo sua definição em termos práticos ainda mais difícil que os próprios genes.
—Giovanni Gigliozzi Bianco
When I read this a couple of years ago, I loved it. I've also been at a loss to see why people had troubles liking Richard Dawkins, sure he was harsh sometimes in debates, but mostly I found him intellectually honest.It's higly ironic that not even a week after I was defending my idol Dawkins against accusations of his research being biased, I find myself in some serious doubts regarding my previous respect for him. This is to the best of my memory what happened last week: My fellow beer drinker: You can't take any book written by Dawkins seriously since he's an agressive ranting atheist. Me: Wrong. You should never confuse the personal opinion a person holds with their science. If their evidence holds up it shouldn't matter. I wouldn't care if he was [searching my mind for one of the most offensive thing a person could be to me] a SEXIST, that wouldn't change my view of his research. They are two seperate things. Fellow (male) beer drinker nods and looks slightly perplexed that I, a raging feminist, would defend anyone who was a sexist. Me vs. MFBD: 1-0And then I read this today: Scientific American and this: Blag hag If you don't feel you have the time to read the articles this is a short summary of what happened:(view spoiler)[The whole elevator thing is quite simple, a man hit on a woman at a atheist conference in a situation that she felt was less than comfortable (in an elevator in the middle of the night), she said no and they both moved on. She then mentioned the situation (with no names) in a vlog post. In her video she was not attacking the guy just saying that for future reference she did not enjoy being suggested in an elevator after a long day of talking about sexism, she just advised people that she would not be favourable for any such propositions. And then suddenly all these men got very angry and said she was a feminazi and that someone should actually rape her at the next conference. That's where the actual sexism enters in my opinion. The guy in the elevator was just clumsy and perhaps a bit creepy, and that is in my mind all she said. She wasn't saying anything in the video about him being a patriarchial opressor, just that maybe he should reconsider his game strategy. And for this she gets the response that she's should be punished and raped! That is most certainly sexism.Into this debate enters Richard Dawkins, the guru of the sceptics movement, and chastises the woman in question for mentioning silly stuff such as choosing to reject offers in late night elevators, when there are other women being actually raped all around the world. Logic? Who needs it! (hide spoiler)]
—Leajk
Selfish gene is the story of evolution and animal behaviour written in an almost impeccable style by Dawkins through the language of genes. With advances in biology, we definitely need to employ this outlook towards understanding why and how does an organism evolve from a single celled free living entity to merged symbiotic establishments eventually giving rise to complex multicellular organisms. It is all the course of the 'selfish gene' trying to survive in this dynamic, highly selective world. In fact, every animal/plant behaviour can be reasoned out through their underlying genes. Dawkins' analogies are simply wonderful when he explains such a slow complex phenomenon of evolution. This book has definitely given me a different perspective in analysing and comprehending the link between species development and genes per se. A must-read for those who want to know the mystery of how and why many of us are here in this planet. All the world's a stage, And all the beings merely players- the story,however, is being directed and narrated by the Genes!
—Rohini
