The Selfish Gene

Mar 28, 2013 Manny rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: science, strongly-recommended, pooh-dante

- What some people seem to find hard to understand is that there's a part of you, in fact the most important part, that's immaterial and immortal. Your body is really no more than a temporary shell for the immortal part, and houses it for a little while until it dies.

The rest of this review is in my book What Pooh Might Have Said to Dante and Other Futile Speculations

40 likes · like · see review

view all 55 comments

Ted Energy is God? Then is God, according to Thermodynamics the 2nd, becoming increasingly disorganized?
Mar 30, 2013 07:04am

Aussiescribbler Aussiescribbler Magdelanye : You ask : "Isn't that God?" In my mind the answer is "Yes". I discovered a while ago that there is a name for my belief system regarding...more Magdelanye : You ask : "Isn't that God?" In my mind the answer is "Yes". I discovered a while ago that there is a name for my belief system regarding God and that is pantheism, the idea that everything is God. And, of course, everything is energy at base. I believe that Richard Dawkins refers to pantheism as "sexed up atheism". Well, if one is going to be an atheist, it might as well be the sexy kind. :o) But, seriously, I think the difference between pantheism and atheism is that pantheism asserts that the universe is a single entity - a single system. This is similar to James Lovelock's Gaia theory which says that the Earth's ecosystem is a single organism. This is not contradicted by the presence of conflict within the system - the human body is a single system but it contains bacteria and other organisms which conflict with each other. The earth has a single meteorological system but it incorporates winds blowing against it other. Atheism doesn't preclude this belief, but it doesn't insist upon it. The conclusion to which it leads me with regard to human psychology is that our basic consciousness is the consciousness of the universe - that on the deepest level of awareness, below emotion and below thought, we are all the same entity, i.e. God. Our ego is like a cookie mould into which this stuff has been pressed and thus we have an individual outer identity. Our deeper connectedness is evidenced by the phenomenon of love, i.e. when we communicate honestly, openly, spontaneously and generously with another we temporarily lose our sense of separateness. So our real self, the raw stuff of our consciousness is immortal, because the universe isn't going anywhere, but our ego will die and any information we have gathered in our life will disappear if it has not been shared with others. What is the most important task for us? I think it is to heal our neurosis and return to a life characterised by honest, open, spontaneous, generous communication. Once we realise that we are one, there is no point in competition. All that makes sense is to solve our individual and collective problems through cooperative efforts and spend the rest of our time giving each other pleasure. We over-rate the benefits to ourselves of selfishness. Which would you rather do - take part in an orgy or sit in the corner masturbating? Without love, without the experience of oneness with each other, nothing else has much value. Some may place a great deal of importance on whether or not their is an after-life, but I think that what we are really afraid of is not death. We are afraid to live.(less)
Mar 30, 2013 07:17am

Dec 03, 2012 Leajk rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, science, evolution

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 drinke...more

8 likes · like · see review

Apr 21, 2008 Jono Davis rated it 4 of 5 stars

One of the most important things I took from The Selfish Gene is an idea that I find a bit difficult to put into words. Richard Dawkins is really good at crafting metaphors to describe scientific principles that on their own may be not be so interesting, or may be stubbornly inaccessible. While his rhetoric may make concepts more accessible and convenient to discuss, he openly warns that no metaphor is completely accurate. Understanding that the metaphors must be viewed skeptically, he offers...more One of the most important things I took from The Selfish Gene is an idea that I find a bit difficult to put into words. Richard Dawkins is really good at crafting metaphors to describe scientific principles that on their own may be not be so interesting, or may be stubbornly inaccessible. While his rhetoric may make concepts more accessible and convenient to discuss, he openly warns that no metaphor is completely accurate. Understanding that the metaphors must be viewed skeptically, he offers this,

"If we allow ourselves the license of talking about genes as if they had conscious aims, always reassuring ourselves that we could translate our sloppy language back into repectable terms if we wanted to, we can ask the question, what is a single selfish gene trying to do?"

All things being even, genes that are long-lasting or that replicate quickly, and genes that can replicate with high fidelity are going to outnumber those that are slow or erroneous in replication. Dawkins calls this the “selfish” nature of genetic replication. He chooses his words carefully though, and applies metaphors of self-interest only to genes that are, or are not, selected for by indifferent and unthinking mechanisms.

Where this metaphor breaks down, as Dawkins admits, is when the idea of “selfishness” is brought up from genetics to the level of individuals within a group, or groups within a species. He criticizes such concepts in sociobiology, where claims are made that an individual’s actions are inherently selfish in order to serve their genes in themselves, or in other related individuals.

While genes may be “selfish” in order to be selected, this doesn’t necessitate that individuals (“survival machines” as he so affectionately calls us) must as well act only in self-interest. In this video introduction to the book, Dawkins suggests that,

"…if you have “selfish” genes, which only means that natural selection works at the level of the gene, if you have “selfish” genes, then, you may have altruistic individuals."(less)

28 likes · like · see review

Jun 09, 2012 Ali Alyami rated it 4 of 5 stars

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, qu...more 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(less)

13 likes · like · see review

May 08, 2008 Brian Hodges rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, science, bloody-brilliant, life-changing

Although I consider myself a Jesus-loving, god-fearing, creationist, I simply LOVE reading about evolution. I'm not sure what it is, but I find the whole concept, when explained by a lucid and accessible author, fascinating. And Dawkins is nothing if not lucid and accessible. He presents the topic and various questions and scientific controversies in a way that anybody with a willingness to pay attention can follow it. Some of the chapters were a bit more of a slog as Dawkins has to resort to sc...more Although I consider myself a Jesus-loving, god-fearing, creationist, I simply LOVE reading about evolution. I'm not sure what it is, but I find the whole concept, when explained by a lucid and accessible author, fascinating. And Dawkins is nothing if not lucid and accessible. He presents the topic and various questions and scientific controversies in a way that anybody with a willingness to pay attention can follow it. Some of the chapters were a bit more of a slog as Dawkins has to resort to scary scary math and numbers to prove some of his points and set up for even more mindblowing stuff in future chapters. But most of the time, this book is chock full of insanely interesting examples and user-friendly analogies. Dawkins sure knows his way around language too. One of my favorite lines is: "Sex: that bizarre perversion of straightforward replication."

On the science of it all, as I said, I'm a creationist, but I like to read up on the other side and at least understand, if not appreciate, what their take on the matter is. And to read Dawkins is to realize, yes, this does sound like a very solid theory. My one stumbling block to getting onto the evolution train one hundred percent is time. Perhaps my comprehension of just how long hundred million years is is faulty, but I just can't wrap my mind around how all of these ACCIDENTAL mutations, with no conscious will on the part of the group, individual or gene itself, could possibly result in the complexity of life as we see it now. There is an adage that if you gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. To believe evolution is to believe that you now have a FINITE amount of monkeys and a FINITE amount of time and yet they STILL manage to produce the complete works of Shakespeare... and they do it OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Just doesn't seem plausible. But perhaps further reading will sway me at a later date.(less)

15 likes · like · see review

Oct 02, 2007 M D rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Anyone

I read this book when I was a student and studying genetics at the time. This helped a lot, it made an awful lot more sense than what I was learning and I have Professor Dawkins to thank for making me look like a genius in a lecture and completely getting my head round an essay.

I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins, and this is his genius. I admire his ability to argue something so comprehensively and convincingly. I first discovered him in a book of essays where he wrote a letter to his daughter Ju...more

14 likes · like · see review

Oct 02, 2007 rachelm rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction

Writing lucidly about science for a lay audience while remaining scientifically rigorous is not easy, and Dawkins does a tremendous job as he examines evolution from the point of view of the gene rather than the organism.

I found this book to contain a number of "aha" moments -- for example, that rather than pose the question "Why is DNA an efficient mechanism for an individual organism to reproduce itself?", we should ask instead "How did a giant, complicated lumbering robot such as myself beco...more

12 likes · like · see review

Nov 12, 2007 Luke Baumgarten rated it 5 of 5 stars

The book, ostensibly about how evolution acts primarily at the level of genes rather than organisms, is damn cool. Also, though, tacked into the back is the coining and brief explanation of the idea of memetics, applying a genetic evolutionary model to the way ideas disperse amongst cultural groups and become entrenched in the societal fabric. It's an utterly mindblowing epistemological theory that's totally changed the way I think about ... everything really ... and it's included almost as an a...more

7 likes · like · see review

Aug 17, 2007 Jason rated it 5 of 5 stars

listen to this story.
10 people in a private room with a big deal/money insurance company eating expensive steaks and drinking expensive wine. one guy says to the effect: "simple starches convert almost instantly to sugar, sugar actually makes you more hungry."

so i say to the guy "so, evolutionarily we have develop to take advantage when we find food with alot of sugar. like hoarding."

to which the gentleman, well dressed, presumably well paid, replies: "i don't believe in evolution."

holy fuck. i...more

8 likes · like · see review

Feb 05, 2013 Osho rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2013

Perhaps the best use of the audiobook medium I've heard for non-fiction, with Dawkins and the narrator switching back and forth to indicate quotes and footnotes.

The central motif is the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), which Dawkins explains and explores throughout. It reminded me very much of the only perpetual SimLife scenario I was ever able to construct, which included only wolves and sea turtles but ran indefinitely.

Some sections seemed oversimplified; there is what seems like an ove...more

4 likes · like · see review

Jul 29, 2011 Becky rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: audiobook, non-fiction, 2011, reviewed, blog_etb, challenge-1010

I know that you're all swooning now and sitting in awe of how incredibly well read I am, but let's just all settle down a minute so that I can tell you what I thought of this. Because really, that's why we're here. ;)

Overall, I thought that this was really interesting. I like Dawkins already after listening to The God Delusion (although I liked that one much more than this one). I think The Selfish Gene is intriguing and plausible and actually makes a lot of sense. It was really interesting to l...more I know that you're all swooning now and sitting in awe of how incredibly well read I am, but let's just all settle down a minute so that I can tell you what I thought of this. Because really, that's why we're here. ;)

Overall, I thought that this was really interesting. I like Dawkins already after listening to The God Delusion (although I liked that one much more than this one). I think The Selfish Gene is intriguing and plausible and actually makes a lot of sense. It was really interesting to learn about the different possibilities for design and evolution, and to see the cause and effect of different variations of a gene. I liked the risk and reward concept as well... It all makes a lot of sense to think of things in this kind of philosophical way -- Everything we are and will be is a carefully honed creation of time and trial and error and cause and effect. It kinda makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Where this one fell a little flat was in the reading and the very last quarter of the book. The reading was pretty good. I'd give it a B- overall. Lalla Ward and Richard Dawkins alternate reading this one, and mostly do a good job with the tone and pacing and all that. But there are times when it was just plain distracting, too. Lalla Ward speaks very proper British, e-nun-cee-a-ting her words and speaking very crisply and clearly, almost to the detriment of what she's actually saying, when all I can focus on is her pronunciation. Even when it's not WAY strange pronunciations like "hah-reem" instead of "hare-em" for "harem", her pronunciation just gets in the way, and at times just sounds a little school teacherish.

Richard read all his own end notes immediately after the section in which they pertained, and sometimes he sounded almost bored and sad. And other times he sounded very pompous and critical of others. At one point in an end note, he went on a little tirade about computer programmers creating computer viruses, which has nothing at all to do with the point of this book.

Which brings me to the last quarter of the book, in which he goes off on a statistical and odds game ramble for AGES. Explaining different types of betting and games of chance, and possible outcomes and options depending on whether one plays this way or that way... Sort of relevant to genes, but not really new, in that he'd already illustrated the odds and possible outcomes of genes ending up one way or another, and the cooperation of genes with another to improve odds or to effect a desired outcome, etc. Kinda glazed my eyes over a bit in this section because it was just a rehash of information already provided, and in a much less relevant and interesting (to me) way.

Overall, I enjoyed this one. I feel like I learned something, and that's why I read it. Could have been a bit better in the execution department, but I can't complain too much.

You may resume swooning now. :D(less)

6 likes · like · see review

Apr 27, 2008 Dave rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: anyone who wants to learn more about the world

I was led to read this book by way of one of those six-degrees-of-separation links that make the world the place that it is... I was watching the excellent documentary "The Smartest Guys in the Room" about my former employer, Enron, and it struck with me that the movie mentions "The Selfish Gene" as being one of Jeff Skilling's favorite books. A reader of Stephen Jay Gould's, I already had a bit of an interest in genetics and understood the book to expound upon one of my favorite subjects, Darwi...more I was led to read this book by way of one of those six-degrees-of-separation links that make the world the place that it is... I was watching the excellent documentary "The Smartest Guys in the Room" about my former employer, Enron, and it struck with me that the movie mentions "The Selfish Gene" as being one of Jeff Skilling's favorite books. A reader of Stephen Jay Gould's, I already had a bit of an interest in genetics and understood the book to expound upon one of my favorite subjects, Darwinism, so I though I'd check it out for myself.

Richard Dawkins does a superb job of laying out his logic in a convincing and thorough manner, and there were a number of moments in reading the book that concepts long discarded to the periphery of my knowledge were brought into sharp focus. Some examples include the mechanisms of evolution during the days of the primordial soup, the workings of symbiosis and parasitism (and how and why they cross paths), and the concept of the game the "Prisoner's Dilemma"(as well as its relation to genetics).

I loved this book and would highly recommend to anyone with a slight interest in biology, evolution, or a curiosity for learning more about the fundamental forces at work in our world. I am somewhat amused that Dawkins' assertion, roughly and ineloquently summarized as organisms, including you and me, being the vehicle by which genes keep themselves immortal, is reminiscent of a Vonnegut book I read years ago called Hocus Pocus. More specifically, the similarities are to a book within the book Hocus Pocus, called the Elders of Tralfamadore, which contains one of my favorite sayings, that I say almost every day - "What germ ever lived a life this full of challenges and opportunities?"

Dawkins can be arrogant at times in a way that borders on hubris, but I find that this aspect of his writing is more a mechanism of his deep and considered thought and very quick intellect than of an overinflated ego. That said, it bears keeping in mind during this book that some critical thought and a questioning mind can be helpful in keeping Dawkins' assertions in perspective.
(less)

5 likes · like · see review

Apr 26, 2013 Priscila Jordão rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: britânica

Although a lot has changed in social biology and ethology since this book was originally published in 1976, “The Selfish Gene” brought me numerous insights which made my respect for Dawkins grow immensely. I’ll explain why.

First of all: the book can be considered today almost out of date, I think, and there’s much in it to be criticized. Dawkins language is particularly reductionist as he explains various types of animal behaviors mathematically while attributing them solely to genetic factors....more Although a lot has changed in social biology and ethology since this book was originally published in 1976, “The Selfish Gene” brought me numerous insights which made my respect for Dawkins grow immensely. I’ll explain why.

First of all: the book can be considered today almost out of date, I think, and there’s much in it to be criticized. Dawkins language is particularly reductionist as he explains various types of animal behaviors mathematically while attributing them solely to genetic factors.

He says, for instance, that an animal has 1/8 of chance of saving one of his cousins from drowning because there is a chance of 1 in 8 that he and his cousin have genes in common. Or that a mother cares about her babies just because their body is transporting half of her genes.

I’m not questioning it because I found the theory insensitive or cruel (especially when it comes to human beings). We all know very well how important are genes determining behavior. But today we also know how deeply are another factors involved in this process. They are certainly relevant in different measures between animals and humans, but I’m inclined to believe that even in animals they do not exert this kind of dictatorship. And even if they did, it would be almost impossible to use mathematics to calculate things like the probability of an animal saving his cousin's life.

In chapter 11 Dawkins introduces the notion of “memes” and makes an exception to the sovereignty of genes: he mentions briefly that culture may change what was genetically “predetermined” to happen and, surprisingly, that it can be considered another type of evolution. However, most of the book doesn’t take this possibility into account, which is one of the reasons why I find it out of date.

Conversely, Dawkins brings up some really interesting ideas that had never come to my mind in other ways. One of them is mentioned in the second chapter, in which he explains the origins of replicant molecules (DNAs) and is confronted with the inevitable and very contemporary question: when does life begins? He solves the problem masterfully in my opinion: “Should we then call the original replicators ‘living’? Who cares? (…) Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use. The mere presence in the dictionary of a word like ‘living’ does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world”.

Another of my favorite parts is the one where the talks about the evolution of the capability of simulation in animals. His theory is that conscience emerged because the simulation that brains do to calculate probabilities and risks associated to everyday tasks became so complex at one point of the evolution that it was inevitable to start including the “self” in it.

I was also positively impressed by how Dawkins describes adaptation as the predominance of evolutionary stable strategies in opposition to unstable ones. It is an interesting approach to Darwin’s theory that he would probably have agreed with. Additionally, the descriptions of various behaviors to exemplify his theory are also very engaging.

Finally, the already mentioned chapter about memes is a good surprise at the end of the book, and reveals some of Dawkins’ skills as philosopher (as someone mentioned in a review below).

For all these reasons, and although I was bored at many moments because of its reductionism, I found “The Selfish Gene” worth of reading. It certainly deserves its fame as a classic.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 04, 2012 Alexander McNabb rated it 5 of 5 stars

I asked Twitter for reading recommendations just before Christmas and one of them was this book. It's so outside my comfort zone (a book about genetics? Are you MAD?), I just went for it. And I am very glad I did.

That's the great thing about Kindles. You can do mad stuff in seconds flat.

Skip the forewords and introductions, they're sententious verbiage. Just start reading the book - by the time you've done, you'll actually WANT to go back to the forewords and revision notes. Because this book is...more

6 likes · like · see review

Jan 20, 2013 Simona Bartolotta rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: saggistica

"Non voglio sostenere che le cose in cui un particolare individuo ha fede siano necessariamente stupide. Possono esserlo o no. Il punto è che non c'è modo di decidere se lo sono e non c'è modo di preferire una articolo di fede a un altro perché le prove vengono esplicitamente evitate. In effetti il fatto che la vera fede non ha bisogno di prove è considerata la sua più grande virtù; questo era il motivo della mia citazione della storia di San Tommaso, l'unico dei dodici apostoli veramente ammire

...more

"Non voglio sostenere che le cose in cui un particolare individuo ha fede siano necessariamente stupide. Possono esserlo o no. Il punto è che non c'è modo di decidere se lo sono e non c'è modo di preferire una articolo di fede a un altro perché le prove vengono esplicitamente evitate. In effetti il fatto che la vera fede non ha bisogno di prove è considerata la sua più grande virtù; questo era il motivo della mia citazione della storia di San Tommaso, l'unico dei dodici apostoli veramente ammirevole".

Sarò sincera: dico sempre che i libri bisogna iniziarli scevri da ogni pregiudizio, ma già da quando ho visto la copertina de Il gene egoista ho capito che mi sarebbe piaciuto. Ero così convinta che l'avrei amato che forse gran parte del mio entusiasmo deriva proprio da lì. Così come potrebbe derivare dalla mia viscerale passione per la biologia. O per la soddisfazione che provo nel 'collezionare stranezze' -del tipo: sapete che esiste una specie di formiche parassite la cui regina si infiltra nel formicaio da infestare e produce una sostanza che fa sì che le operaie si convincano di dover uccidere la propria regina? Così la parassita si installa al posto della povera madre uccisa e non ha dovuto neppure far la fatica di ammazzarla lei. Ammazza- e di stranezze così il libro ne è pieno.
Anyway, qualunque sia la ragione, nel caso non si fosse capito la lettura di questo saggio per me è stato qualcosa di eccezionale. Eccezionale nei contenuti, nello stile, nell'approccio all'argomento.
Quello che i più rimproverano a Dawkins sono le teorie troppo azzardate, la mancanza di umiltà nell'esporle e infine il suo ateismo, che qualcuno trova ostentato. Insomma, non lo sopportano perché è troppo intelligente. Un tale su IBS è arrivato a dire, e cito testualmente: «Qualsiasi persona che crede ciecamente a Dawkins oggi, può di fatto essere paragonata a chi qualche secolo fa credeva ciecamente nella resurrezione di Gesù Cristo e alla immacolata concezione, infatti entrambe le posizioni sono dogmatiche e penso che ciò sia facile dimostrarlo.»
E qui mi ricollego alla citazione introduttiva. Sono più che sicura che tra il dimostrare l'esistenza dei geni e tutto ciò che da essi deriva e il dimostrare l'esistenza di Dio ci sia un abisso insormontabile. Se poi mi dici che secondo te tutti i progressi scientifici che l'umanità ha fatto sino ad oggi sono paragonabili ad una finzione letteraria solo perché tu, singolo individuo, non hai le conoscenze e gli strumenti per verificarle direttamente... allora non so cosa dirti. La tua insignificanza mi ammutolisce.
Abbandono ora il tema dell'ottusità mentale di certa gente, in primis perché il parlarne potrebbe scatenare la mia aggressività inducendomi a mandare a quel paese l'educazione, e poi perché so che ho di meglio di cui parlare.

La teoria che Dawkins espone ne Il gene egoista, sostanzialmente e ridotta all'osso in maniera quasi sconveniente, è che l'evoluzione è avvenuta non nell'interesse dell'individuo, né tantomeno della specie, ma solo ed esclusivamente a vantaggio del gene, che per questo lui definisce "egoista". Mi rendo perfettamente conto che, esposta in questi termini, la novità non suona per niente eclatante, ma a pensarci bene questo semplice assunto implica una rivoluzione di pensiero di proporzioni enormi. Se l'evoluzione è avvenuta per il gene e non per il corpo di cui fa parte, allora non è il gene a lavorare per il corpo, ma il corpo che diventa la macchina del gene. Ed ecco la situazione capovolta, all'improvviso tutto è in mano ai microscopici geni.
Dawkins riporta decine di esempi a favore della teoria del gene egoista, perfino i casi d'altruismo che possiamo osservare nel regno animale.
Per citarne uno, gli animali che si spulciano a vicenda lo farebbero solo perché quella dell'aiuto reciproco è l'unica strategia evolutiva stabile, dal momento che ci sono parti del proprio corpo dove non l'animale non riesce ad arrivare da sé e rifiutandosi di aiutare un compagno c'è il rischio che in seguito il compagno si rifiuti di aiutare te, e così via per tutti gli altri membri del gruppo o quel che sia. Oppure avanza l'ipotesi, però non accertata, che alcuni virus facciano sviluppare al soggetto sintomi come la tosse per avere così un modo più rapido e comodo di diffondersi e infettare altri organismi. Ma questi banalissimi casi sono solo due dei tanti curiosissimi e strabilianti fatti riportati da Dawkins. Come si può immaginare, è difficile spiegare bene il concetto del gene egoista senza dilungarsi molto e senza entrare nel merito, tanto più che la teoria non è stata del tutto accettata dalla comunità scientifica. Le verifiche da fare non finiranno mai.

C'è un'altra interessante osservazione che Dawkins fa, in uno dei capitoli di più difficile comprensione (forse il più difficile) dell'intero libro, "Memi: i nuovi replicatori". Un replicatore è qualcosa in grado di creare copie di sé, e il suo successo è determinato dalla fecondità, dalla longevità e dall'accuratezza o fedeltà della replicazione. In pratica, Dawkins applica il concetto di gene al piano culturale, e nel "meme" identifica una "conoscenza" umana. Un meme può essere un pezzetto di una melodia, un concetto, insomma, una unità di evoluzione culturale, e si propaga attraverso la memoria o supporti di essa, come libri o registrazioni.
Un ragionamento di questo tipo può sembrare sterile, ma un'idea simile è talmente affascinante e terribile che sono certa aprirà le porte di un nuovo campo di studi. Ad esempio il memismo, lo studio dello scibile umano e di come esso può essere conosciuto.
Giuro che a volte non riesco a capire la differenza tra fantascienza e scienza. E' tutto così meraviglioso.

Riguardo invece al fatto che possa essere letto da chiunque, anche i "non addetti ai lavori", non saprei. Io ho sedici anni e l'ho letto dietro consiglio della mia professoressa di scienze; come ultimo argomento avevamo trattato l'ereditarietà dei caratteri, quindi avevo una infarinatura più che buona, contando anche il fatto che l'argomento mi aveva interessata molto e che quindi lo avevo anche approfondito più di quanto la necessità scolastica mi imponesse. Ma sono certa che non sarei riuscita a comprendere questo libro così bene se prima non avessi avuto la mia brava infarinatura.

E per concludere, un breve apologia di Dawkins (del quale, per inciso, ho intenzione di leggere tutti i libri in circolazione). Il suo può sembrare fatalismo. Sembra che voglia dirci a chiare lettere "Siamo frutto dell'interazione dei nostri geni e non abbiamo nessun controllo sulle nostre vite. Il destino esiste ed è scritto nel nostro DNA". Se vi ho fatto anche solo per un attimo pensare che sostenga una cosa del genere, me ne dispiaccio e vi chiedo scusa. In realtà, Dawkins non avrà una grande fiducia in Dio ma ha di certo fiducia nell'intelletto umano e nella sua miracolosa unicità. Tant'è che lui stesso, alla fine del capitolo sui meme, scrive:

"Siamo stati costruiti come macchine dei geni e coltivati come macchine dei memi, ma abbiamo il potere di ribellarci ai nostri creatori. Noi, unici sulla terra, possiamo ribellarci alla tirannia dei replicatori egoisti."

(less)

1 like · like · see review

Feb 20, 2012 Rohini Nair rated it 5 of 5 stars

Recommended to Rohini by: Riku Sayuj

Shelves: evolutionary-genetics

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...more

5 likes · like · see review

May 09, 2008 Michaelbert Humperdink rated it 4 of 5 stars

I can't believe this book has been around for so long and I'd never heard of it! This guy coined the word "meme"! And had lots of intelligent things to say about evolutionary theory. He even made clear just what is meant by a gene!

This is not your usual, vague, bio-jabberwocky-laden, strained- metaphor-filled, popular science book. Dawkins is a mathematician at heart; he sure isn't one of those all too common people who chose the "softer" sciences because he was afraid of rigorous thought, comp...more

5 likes · like · see review

Oct 06, 2007 Charles rated it 2 of 5 stars

This is the crown jewel of Dawkin's popular works. It is a masterpiece of choice illustration, finely honed definitions and pedantically nuanced distinctions, all framed by his engaging, pacey style. It has justly made him an iconic populariser. It is his best referenced and most tightly reasoned book.

He starts with characteristic confidence: Darwinian evolution is as established as the earth's solar orbit. Blind prejudice or intellectual deficiency alone could misinterpret the data. The debate...more This is the crown jewel of Dawkin's popular works. It is a masterpiece of choice illustration, finely honed definitions and pedantically nuanced distinctions, all framed by his engaging, pacey style. It has justly made him an iconic populariser. It is his best referenced and most tightly reasoned book.

He starts with characteristic confidence: Darwinian evolution is as established as the earth's solar orbit. Blind prejudice or intellectual deficiency alone could misinterpret the data. The debate about his ingenious central thesis, the validity of a gene-focussed and gene-preserving explanation of altruism and other counter-intuitive behaviours, continues 31 years on.

Strange then that as an exponent of hard-nosed empiricism, that his second chapter should take flight into the hyperspace of imaginative speculation. From p.12-14 see the brave professor leaping confidently into the realm of pre-biotic evolution. A world of hydrogen and methane, lashed with lightning, in which pre-biotic substrates accumulate to such excess they form a scum on the primordial soup. Serious doubts about the duration and degree of an intensely reducing atmosphere are voiced by geologists, but this is no deterrent to our bold champion. Watch the analytical chemists sucking their teeth and wincing as the author leaps further into the abyss, the bungee cord of tedious documentation and observation already looking dangerously frayed. Where are the pyrimidine nucleosides? (quite impossible to synthesize). What of the instability of cytosine? How can phosphate be preserved without precipitation? What on earth will enable bases, sugars (requiring quite different synthetic conditions) and phosphate to meet, and then miraculously and without enzymes to fuse correctly as even the most primitive proto DNA/RNA. The gaping abyss of data appears unending, yet Poppins-like, our professor seems to assure us, if we wish for it hard enough, however impossible - anything can happen. The difficulties have but just begun, what of chirality, what of the propensity of polymers to hydrolyse, how to survive intense ozone-less UV radiation? But lo! (p. 15) Our seer perceives a miracle - a virgin birth! * No, more amazing still, a virgin Replicator, unbegotten yet always begetting! Intrinsically unstable enough to have been formed initially, but stable enough to fill the whole earth with copies. Despite a studied vagueness here he suggests a primitive form of DNA (now his latest vogue is AATE). In p 18. our mysterious replicator wonderfully accumulates longevity, fecundity and copying fidelity. By p.19, wonder of wonders, it has metamorphosed into a `simple' cell, with protein synthetic machinery, chiral purity, an intact membrane barrier, metabolic, transport, repair functions and most marvellous of all the ability to reproduce the whole. By p.20 the miracle transformation of `goo' to you is complete.

Here is narrative that makes the wildest encounters of the Enterprise or Galactica look as mundane as Coronation Street by comparison. Here is drawn out, revivified spontaneous generation similar to the kind Pasteur definitively crushed in 1862, 3 years after the Origin was published. The imaginary link in chapter 2 is indispensable to the chain of Dawkin's whole thesis. But this is not science - it's wishful supposition. Here is a religious materialism that avoids the data, rather than re-examine its assumptions, however increasingly ridiculous they appear.

*(Footnote to p.16. Dawkins' over forced distinction between two Hebrew terms is artificial, as 10 min reference to a concordance might have warned him. It suggests over-reliance on doubting colleagues, dubiously disguised as theologians. See the Hebrew of Joel 1.8.) (less)

5 likes · like · see review

view all 8 comments

Abi It is NOT 'foundational'! I have no idea why you think that the ORIGIN of life is fundamentally important for an explanation of the DIVERSIFICATION of...more
Jun 14, 2008 06:51am

Charles Do you think the origin of self replicating genes is somehow unimportant to or divorced from evolution? RD and most biologists I know do not. It's no...more
Jun 14, 2008 09:02am

Oct 03, 2007 Nathan rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: People who think atheism isn't a religion.

Shelves: science, science-social-theory-etc, books-i-hope-die

Didactic, patronizing, condescending and arguably neo-intellectual twaddle. I do not believe in a God, certainly not any God that's been conceived by man, but I also believe Richard Dawkins is a self-satisfied thought-Nazi who is as fundamental in his view of religion as any right-wing minister. Fundamentalists of all faiths scare me, and atheism is just as much a faith as any religion. The existence or non-existence of a God cannot be proven, nor can the existence or non-existence of a soul, an...more

19 likes · like · see review

Jan 11, 2010 Boognish3 rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Science geeks and knowledge-junkies

I am about 2/3 of the way through. I generally tear through a book, but this one is taking a bit longer. It is very well-written though and successfully covers topics of evolution, behavior and genetics. I think most anyone could pick it up and have an easy time understanding the concepts Dawkins covers, but I have a background in science so perhaps I am biased. I think though, that it more clearly states the workings of genes and evolution than most students will receive in introductory biology...more

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 20, 2008 Jessica rated it 3 of 5 stars

Recommended to Jessica by: Science and Inquiry Book Club

Shelves: science

The Science and Inquiry Book Club selection for August. Also the inaugural selection - yippie!

-- -- --
Key concepts for me:
+The universe is populated by stable things
+"In sexually reproducing species, the individual is too large and too temporary a genetic unit to qualify as a significant unit of natural selection."
+"The individual is a survival machine built by a short-lived confederation of long-lived genes."
+Evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS), instead of group selection
+Stable polymorphis...more

6 likes · like · see review

Dec 22, 2012 Matthew rated it 4 of 5 stars

I'm in the last stages of this famous and fascinating book. I don't have a science background or much of a head for figures, which can make it a difficult read for me at times. However, it provides a fascinating explanation for the development of life on the planet, and the way in which that life thrives. In spite of its misleading title, I feel that the book offers a hopeful vision, where altruism and doing the right thing are seen to have clear benefits.

1 like · like · see review

Jun 23, 2007 Eric rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: systems

Some guy here said this book is "thoroughly unscientific" which is on the right track. This is a philosophical work - exploring the philosophy of genetics. As a manifesto, its logic is extremely compelling. As science, it's all holes - but hey, this is not science, it's a book about science. Still, it has inspired hard scientific research to support many of the book's claims.

The revolutionary idea presented in The Selfish Gene is "memes" which has informed many systems philosophy approaches su...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 30, 2007 Ethan Fixell rated it 4 of 5 stars

I was hoping that this book would focus more on the social relationships between humans, but instead it was truly a biological examination of gene theory. Which is cool and all, just not what I was expecting.

Pretty fascinating shit, actually... Dawkins' revolutionary theory basically revealed that the meaning of life is defined by our genes' "desire" to replicate themselves. In other words, it's not that we, as individuals or "vehicles" are looking to duplicate ourselves, but the genes themselve...more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 08, 2007 Pierce rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Geeks

Lukemon's birthday present.

I'm not really qualified to give an scientific assessment of this. I have not read opposing evolutionary theory. (Or the Bible, hahaha.)

It was very engaging. Made the theory seem remarkably complete. I guess a lot of the examples seemed kind of selective, but the chapter on social insects (sharing DNA, cooperating so as to propagate genes through the queen's DNA. Almost not individual animals) made so much sense compared to "the good of the group" or "the good of the s...more

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 02, 2007 Toni Daugherty rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: everyone

We are just survival machines for our genes. The choices all animals make are programmed by our genes and sometimes the individual benefits from the choices but it may also pays the ultimate price, based on it's environment and how capable those preprogrammed choices are in the environment in which we find ourselves. This book discusses animal nature (including humans) from an entirely science/nature perspective on why one would make the decisions it would, even though a different choice would h...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 05, 2007 Casey rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: all students interested in life sciences

Shelves: cognitive-scientists-do-it-in-lab, knowledge-is-good, dear-ones

This book was recommended to me while I was working on a research project in Evolutionary Psychology at my university. Being a student in Psychology, I had background knowledge in evolution and natural selection, but this book changed the way I thought about evolutionary theory.

It may not be hard science (it is, after all, popular science writing), but it will open your eyes to different ways of thinking about genes and genomes. It's also a fun read, that can be read in a day (which is more than...more

2 likes · like · see review

Feb 25, 2007 Lee Drake rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: evolutionarybiology

I read this book in a day as I traveled from Philidelphia to Laramie, Wyoming. Couldn't put it down. This ground-breaking and highly influential book transformed the field of evolutionary biology by arguing that natural selection acts on genes and genes alone - effects on organisms and species being secondary products of this. Prior to it's authorship evolution was more concerned with "good of the species" arguments. After this book, the cutting edge fields of homeobox genes, genome sequencing,...more

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 27, 2007 Anne rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: all evolved human beings

I was assigned this book for an animal behavior class, but once I started I couldn't put it down. This is the most definitive work on evolutionary theory since Darwin's Origin of the Species, explaining the journey of genes all the way from the prebiotic soup in captivating and easy to understand terms. With opponents to evolution ever more vocal and effective in their quest to subtract reason and science from public schools it is increasingly important for every person to have a good understand...more

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 18, 2009 Edgar rated it 5 of 5 stars

The book that changed my life, all of you should read this book, I have no lines to say all important was to me, but is the most scientist book showing you "the why" of human behavior...

1 like · like · see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
In Need of Advice	6	81	Apr 10, 2013 01:54am
Evolution Unlimited: The Tyranny of the Selfish Replicators	1	6	Jan 13, 2013 04:03am
Why something rather than nothing then?	29	115	Nov 20, 2012 02:33pm
Freewill	12	93	Jun 24, 2012 04:13am
In Need of Advice	4	48	Jun 13, 2011 11:36am

title link	preview: The Selfish Gene
avg rating	preview: The Selfish Gene Goodreads rating: 4.14 (31849 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61535.The_Selfish_Gene?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1366758096l/61535.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61535.The_Selfish_Gene?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins[/url]

The Selfish Gene

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (56)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Richard Dawkins

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Selfish Gene

Quotes from The Selfish Gene