Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Selfish Gene” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Selfish Gene

Richard Dawkins (Goodreads Author)

4.14 · Rating details · 129,930 ratings · 3,354 reviews

The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Editionwith a new Introduction by the Author

Inheriting the mantle of revolutionary biologist from Darwin, Watson, and Crick, Richard Dawkins forced an enormous change in the way we see ourselves and the world with the publication of The Selfish Gene. Suppose, instead of thinking about organisms using genes to reproduce themselves, as we ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 30th Anniversary Edition, 360 pages

Published May 25th 2006 by Oxford University Press, USA (first published 1976)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Selfish Gene, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Best Science Books - Non-Fiction Only

1,529 books — 3,328 voters

The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson

Best Non-Fiction (no biographies)

5,441 books — 7,655 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.14 ·

Rating details

· 129,930 ratings · 3,354 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The Selfish Gene

Nov 22, 2008 Manny rated it it was amazing

Shelves: strongly-recommended, science, 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 available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)

flag 224 likes · Like · see review

Oct 03, 2007 Nathan rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: People who think atheism isn't a religion.

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

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, ...more

flag 190 likes · Like · see review

Jan 07, 2017 Rebecca McNutt rated it did not like it

Shelves: religion, science, non-fiction, psychology

There's a good reason I imagine why The Selfish Gene was Jeffrey Skilling's favourite book.

I'm agnostic myself, so I'm impartial, but Dawkins is so cynical, so against the idea that there is more to us as individual human beings than just intelligent apes meant to give birth, grow old and die, that he seems almost, for lack of a better phrase, sociopathic or antisocial. He leaves very little room for the profound depths of emotion, companionship, imagination, nostalgia or anything that goes ...more

flag 147 likes · Like · see review

May 08, 2008 Brian Hodges rated it really liked it

Shelves: science, non-fiction, 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 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.

EDIT 6/3/15
I can't believe this review is still getting attention after all this time! And I love the thread that has developed in the comments. I should let you all know though that as of 2008 I have been living on the side of reason and rationality. I became an atheist after a LOT of reading and contemplating of the Bible (the link to my "de-conversion" story is down in the comments as well). I try these days to, as much as possible, follow the evidence wherever it leads. Additionally Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" was one of THE most beautiful books I've ever read. Check out my review if you're interested. ...more

flag 130 likes · Like · see review

May 24, 2015 Petra-X marked it as books-reviewed-but-not-read

Shelves: medicine-science, dnf-or-never-read, 2015-reviews, reviewed

If you are bored look up the Community Reviews, sort by 1-star. They are very entertaining. One of them as a uni professor advising a student to burn down the book store where they bought this book. Then we have the creationists, then the person who thinks it is all a capitalist manifesto. There are those who think he is arrogant, depraved, uses philistine language (!) ...

How can anyone be a creationist and not believe in dinosaurs and such? Do they believe that the earth is flat? Are they the ...more

flag 91 likes · Like · see review

Sep 14, 2008 David rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, nonfiction, biology, evolution

I read the 30th anniversary edition of this book--it is a true "classic". I note that there are over 48,000 ratings and 1,400 reviews of this book on Goodreads! Richard Dawkins put an entirely original slant on Darwin's theory of natural selection. The book has turned people around, to the understanding that the gene plays the single most central role in natural selection, rather than the individual organism. Over the course of generations, evolution plays a role to ensure the survival of the I read the 30th anniversary edition of this book--it is a true "classic". I note that there are over 48,000 ratings and 1,400 reviews of this book on Goodreads! Richard Dawkins put an entirely original slant on Darwin's theory of natural selection. The book has turned people around, to the understanding that the gene plays the single most central role in natural selection, rather than the individual organism. Over the course of generations, evolution plays a role to ensure the survival of the genes, not the individual or "the species".

Although the book is 30 years old, it has stood the test of time. There are a few passages--primarily about computers--that are 30 years out of date. But the vast majority of the book seems to have held up quite well.

Dawkins' prose is very approachable by the layman. There is a bare minimum of technical jargon--quite different from most other books about genetics that I've been reading in recent years. Dawkins takes the time to explain things, often with appropriate metaphors. There are very few diagrams in the book--additional figures could help clarify some points, in my opinion.

Much of the book is really about the role of game theory, in understanding genetics. Dawkins devotes several chapters to describe how various traits controlled by genes are held in an ESS-- "Evolutionarily Stable Strategy"--a term that Dawkins uses quite often, that I think is a synonym for the game theory term "stable equilibrium". Dawkins shows how an ESS is approached over the course of "iterations" of a game, that is to same, over many generations. These chapters were especially interesting to me, as I recently took an online course on the subject of game theory.

It is in this book that Dawkins coined the now-famous term "meme". The meme is a cultural analog of the biological gene. A meme seeks to self-perpetuate, and mutates if that aids its self-preservation. Dawkins devotes an entire fascinating chapter to his concept of the meme.

Throughout the book, Dawkins deals with the dichotomy between the "selfishness" required for survival, and the "altruism" of human behavior. How do we explain altruism? Dawkins explores this dilemma over and over again, showing in virtually every case how the selfishness of genes can help to explain apparent altruistic behavior of the individual.

This is an absolutely fascinating book. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in genetics, evolution, or sociology.

...more

flag 84 likes · Like · see review

Apr 02, 2017 Bradley rated it it was amazing

Shelves: non-fiction, science, 2017-shelf

Color me very impressed. I can now see why this is considered to be one of those hugely popular science books I keep hearing about and the reason why Dawkins has become so widely known and/or respected with or without his notoriety.

Indeed, the pure science bits were pretty much awesome. We, or at least I, have heard of this theory in other contexts before and none of it really comes as much surprise to see that genes, themselves, have evolved strategies that are exactly the same as Game Theory ...more

flag 71 likes · Like · see review

Oct 03, 2011 Nandakishore Varma rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science

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 ...more

flag 56 likes · Like · see review

Jun 08, 2014 Alex rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, 2014, rth-lifetime

Richard Dawkin's 1976 classic game changer The Selfish Gene contains information I still didn't know, almost 40 years later. His basic idea is that the essential unit of life is the gene; our bodies are just big fleshy protection robots for the gene. Dawkins says I'm a tool. Right? High five!

And you might be like "Okay, so who cares?" What difference does that make, right? Well, first of all I'm gonna go have some pie because fuck you, genes, you're not the boss of me. Woohoo! Other than that, Richard Dawkin's 1976 classic game changer The Selfish Gene contains information I still didn't know, almost 40 years later. His basic idea is that the essential unit of life is the gene; our bodies are just big fleshy protection robots for the gene. Dawkins says I'm a tool. Right? High five!

And you might be like "Okay, so who cares?" What difference does that make, right? Well, first of all I'm gonna go have some pie because fuck you, genes, you're not the boss of me. Woohoo! Other than that, no, no difference, carry on. It makes a difference to scientists, because when you look at it this way all kinds of behaviors make more sense, or make sense in a different way. Dawkins' particular focus is on behaviors we call "altruistic", like when an antelope warns his herd about an approaching lion. Dawkins would like to go through every altruistic behavior he can think of, which is a lot, and show you why it's actually not at all altruistic.

(The antelope is an easy one: he warns the herd by jumping up and down, which doubles as a sign to the lion that he is super bouncy and the lion should go chase someone less bouncy.)

So, no big surprise to those of us who know Dawkins in his latest incarnation as The World's Dickishest Atheist:* Dawkins does a lot of party pooping in this book. Did you think you were a nice guy? You are not. Your genes command you to behave nicely on occasion because in the end it will benefit you. (See: the Prisoner's Dilemma; also game theory. Or read this book, which will explain both to you.)

* which is more annoying to religious people, but also annoying to those of us who are atheists but don't feel the need to yell about it all the time

But Dawkins is also just a tremendously engaging writer. He's wildly good at explaining technical concepts clearly to lay idiots like me. And he's funny! This book is fun to read. And it's chock full of the kind of fascinating tidbits that make you turn to your spouse and say "Holy moley, did you know saddleback birds on an island in New Zealand make up new songs that then spread through the population like a Pharrell Williams single until everyone's singing them?" And she's like "Sounds boring! I'm reading Jezebel, did you know Justin Bieber was racist when he was fourteen?" and then the two of you look at each other like who even are you? And your genes are like who cares, you two should make out. ...more

flag 60 likes · Like · see review

Apr 19, 2008 Jono Davis rated it really liked it

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 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." ...more

flag 55 likes · Like · see review

Feb 13, 2011 Ali rated it really liked it

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, 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 ...more

flag 31 likes · Like · see review

Sep 12, 2007 rachelm rated it it was amazing

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 ...more

flag 29 likes · Like · see review

Mar 25, 2014 Sidharth Vardhan rated it really liked it

Shelves: africa, non-fiction

There are more possible games of chess than there are atoms in the galaxy.

Sometimes science books can become unintentionally funny:

What is the good of sex? This is an extremely difficult question for the evolutionist to answer. Most serious attempts to answer it involve sophisticated mathematical reasoning.

Okay!

One of stupidest criticism here on Goodreads of Adam Smiths Theory of Wealth of Nations was that he made the human selfishness as basis of his theory. It was stupid as Smith didn ...more

flag 25 likes · Like · see review

Jan 04, 2012 Alexander McNabb rated it it was amazing

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

flag 25 likes · Like · see review

Oct 02, 2007 M D rated it liked it · 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 ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Apr 19, 2018 Jim rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: 3classics, 2non-fiction, 1audio, science

This is the thirty year anniversary edition of the book (2006 rather than 1976) so it contains a lot of clarifications where he found there were misunderstandings. It also contains some corrections where he decided that he was either wrong or off target. He also mentions areas where other discoveries & papers took his work even further. I think I found these the most enjoyable. It's great to see science in progress. He also added a few extra chapters that were fantastic.

Of course, the main This is the thirty year anniversary edition of the book (2006 rather than 1976) so it contains a lot of clarifications where he found there were misunderstandings. It also contains some corrections where he decided that he was either wrong or off target. He also mentions areas where other discoveries & papers took his work even further. I think I found these the most enjoyable. It's great to see science in progress. He also added a few extra chapters that were fantastic.

Of course, the main reason to read this book is to read the origin of the word "Meme" which Dawkins created & loosed on the world in this book. I love origin stories.

This is the third book that I've read written & narrated by Dawkins. I liked it better than his autobiography, but not quite as much as The God Delusion. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so some of it went into more depth than I appreciated. It was always interesting & easy to understand, though. That he could make such complex topics so easily digested by a layman says a lot about both his ability as a writer & his knowledge of the subject.

His primary point is that evolution is about gene survival. We & other living beings are just the vehicles that the genes build to perpetuate themselves. He makes it very clear throughout the book that when he ascribes words such as 'selfish' to behavior that he is putting the behavior in human terms for ease of communication. When he didn't, he used math to show his point, but he didn't do a lot of that & it was always easy to follow even when the points were counter-intuitive. There were a fair few of those.

One example is the Prisoner's Dilemma problem & how it relates to selfishness. He spent quite a bit of time on this & even provided the results of several computer simulations done later by colleagues that prove out & explain the differences in iterated games versus single games. Wow. It really explains a lot about symbiosis, herd/group, & even cuckoos' behavior.

I'm just plain impressed by this man & his thought processes, but I'm not sure if I'll read any more of his books. He mentions where he goes into more detail in other books & papers throughout this edition of this book, but he covers enough of The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene for me here, I think. Maybe not. It's an intriguing subject. Perhaps if I come across the audio version I'll succumb to temptation. He & Lalla Ward do a great job of narrating & the ideas are fascinating.

It's amazing just how complex processes can arise out of such simple objects working in groups. Of course, there's been a LOT of time & trial & error. Statistically it makes sense. Dawkins has seen to that. Using his thoughts as a baseline for alien life is even more fascinating. I hope I live to see if his theories are born out.

Of course, I recommend this highly. Definitely get this edition, if you can. If you've only read the first edition, get & read this one. It's worth it. ...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

Apr 26, 2013 Priscila Jordão rated it liked it

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. Ill explain why.

The book can be considered today almost out of date, I think, and theres 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 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.

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. 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.
...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

Nov 07, 2015 Abubakar Mehdi rated it it was amazing

I love reading books that challenge my worldview and compel me to change it. This book is an excellent work on Evolutionary biology, Genes, Behavioral biology and Natural selection, among many other fascinating topics. Dawkins is succinct, eloquent and a very intelligent tutor. He uses examples and metaphors to illustrate his point and to coalesce them all to form one unifying picture, of a universe, not in perfect harmony, but in tumult and constant change. The chapter on Memes blew me off ...more

flag 21 likes · Like · see review

Sep 06, 2012 Melki rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: sciency-stuff

I didn't find this one nearly as interesting or as fun as The God Delusion. At times, reading it felt like a homework assignment, but for that I will have to fault my own intellectual shortcomings, and NOT Dawkins' logic or writing ability.

After all, I'm not about to criticize a man who manages to mention lawyers AND vampire bats in the same sentence..

flag 20 likes · Like · see review

May 25, 2018 Farhana rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science

Reading this book was like meeting with a person about whom you have heard a lot, who has some kind of legendary status, and overall so well-acclaimed that you cannot resist the temptation to meet the person.

Another thing you have heard is that the person is so simple, down to earth that he would take the trouble to talk to any layman, to make these biological terms much easier, more comprehensible and comfortable for him. And you think talking to you won't cause him much trouble because you ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Jan 08, 2017 Florina rated it it was amazing

Shelves: personal-library

One of the best books ever written :)

We are survival machines robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. ...more

flag 18 likes · Like · see review

Jul 16, 2012 Leajk rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, evolution, non-fiction

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 ...more

flag 17 likes · Like · see review

Aug 11, 2009 Robert rated it really liked it

Shelves: science, non-fiction, evolution, biology

I bought this book because I'm fascinated by the idea of evolution - I mean, at first glance it appears utterly preposterous, right? So I wanted to take a closer look. I started by reading The Origin of Species (Darwin, of course). That was well worth-while but clearly his theory was wrong, for many reasons, most of which are given in the book, by Darwin himself. The key problem for Darwin was that whilst he knew there had to be some kind of inheritance of characteristics, he had no idea what ...more

flag 17 likes · Like · see review

Aug 17, 2007 Jason rated it it was amazing

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

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Aug 02, 2009 Elyse Walters rated it really liked it

I read this years ago.. It was the first book I read with The Bay Area Book club..(the local book club I'm still in.
I don't think I was a member of Goodreads yet.

I thought this book was a little more 'textbook' in sections than I would have preferred .. At the time anyway..
But I got value.. It's a good book..,
And our book club discussion was excellent.

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Oct 06, 2007 Charles rated it it was ok

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 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.) ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Jun 25, 2014 Steve Van Slyke rated it liked it

Shelves: science, kindle, evolution, genetics

I'm a fan of Dawkins' work both in biology and skepticism, so take my praise and criticism with that calibrating qualification. I've read, I think, five of his books. I did not like this one quite as much as The Ancestor's Tale. While I agreed with the premise and theory proposed, sometimes his style of writing got in the way. Normally, I like analogies and metaphors to help explain complex ideas, but in this case I think he went too far in that direction, at least in the first half of the book. I'm a fan of Dawkins' work both in biology and skepticism, so take my praise and criticism with that calibrating qualification. I've read, I think, five of his books. I did not like this one quite as much as The Ancestor's Tale. While I agreed with the premise and theory proposed, sometimes his style of writing got in the way. Normally, I like analogies and metaphors to help explain complex ideas, but in this case I think he went too far in that direction, at least in the first half of the book. Although he was careful to use quote marks when attributing 'feelings' to genes such as 'wanting' or 'trying' to do this or that, I still felt that it muddled the message. I think he could have found a better stylistic method to get his points across. I also felt he could have done a better job of explaining how genes, proteins and enzymes create different cell types. His description was a bit vague for my layman's ears, and other authors have done better.

Although he appears to want to totally rule out the possibility of group selection, I think there is still room for that possibility in some circumstances, particularly in small, cohesive groups, bands or tribes of humans; i.e., hunter-gatherers. He suggests that free-loaders, cheaters and selfish individuals would eventually invade and take over altruistic groups. I don't think this is what actually happens. I think such individuals would be banished, ostracized and thus their survival and reproductive opportunities would be limited. Such groups use taboos and tribal religions to minimize free-loading. And although I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, there was a recent research paper about group selection in microorganisms. Given that this book is more than 30 years old, it's possible that Dawkins' own views may have changed ever so slightly.

It is unfair to criticize a book of this age for ideas that have subsequently proven to be false, or most likely so. For example he describes surplus (junk) DNA as “a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger...”. New research is suggesting that there may be no such thing as junk DNA, and it may have purposes we have yet to fully understand. Similarly, I wonder what changes he might make to a new edition in light of the recent “Epigenetics Revolution”.

One of my favorite passages of the book is when he asks “...will there be any principle that is true of all life? Obviously I do not know but, if I had to bet, I would put my money on one fundamental principle. This is the law that all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.” And I loved when he says that “...Darwinism is too big a theory to be confined to the narrow context of the gene.” And he shows how it applies in his new (at that time) concept of memes, that can be used to help explain the evolution of languages, religions and other facets of human culture.

My criticisms should be taken in the context of 'friend' and admirer of Dawkins who wants him to keep on writing and making his ideas as clear as possible to people like me who aren't near as bright as he is. This was and still is an important, classic work. ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Jul 29, 2008 Jessica rated it liked it

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 ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Jun 09, 2016 Ana rated it it was amazing

Shelves: page-turner, ebook, non-fiction, absolute, science

There's a point in this book where Dawkins tells the story of how, after publishing it, he received a letter from a man who said that this work has put him in depression. I can understand why. Although I see it as a brilliant work of science, I can't help but feel a little bit scared of the truth of it. Scared not in the sense of wishing it weren't true, but scared for understanding exactly how much of a nothing there exists before and after us, and how we are only vehicles for the tiny little ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Nov 12, 2007 Luke Baumgarten rated it it was amazing

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 ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Play Book Tag: The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins - 3 stars (too late for Oct Trim the TBR)	4	16	Nov 08, 2019 03:27PM
How to uninstall McAfee through App cleaning?	1	5	Mar 15, 2019 01:46AM
How to disable Kaspersky safe money on windows 10?	1	1	Mar 15, 2019 01:44AM
Goodreads Librari...: The Selfish Gene, Portuguese translation - not linked to original book	6	220	Aug 23, 2018 05:23AM
Why something rather than nothing then?	30	264	Apr 30, 2016 04:18PM
All About Books: Week 10 - (1976) The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins	18	37	Apr 10, 2016 02:47PM
Bio-Nerds: The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins	1	23	Jun 23, 2015 04:09AM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Science

4,885 users

Nonfiction

3,081 users

Science > Biology

959 users

Biology > Evolution

591 users

Philosophy

391 users

See top shelves…

About Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins

15,508 followers

Books by Richard Dawkins

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True

More…

Articles featuring this book

The 20 Highest-Rated Science Books on Goodreads

"Humanity’s deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest. And our goal is nothing less than a complete ...

Trivia About The Selfish Gene

4 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Selfish Gene

“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.” — 231 likes

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” — 117 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

The Selfish Gene

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Richard Dawkins

Books by Richard Dawkins

Articles featuring this book

Trivia About The Selfish Gene

Quotes from The Selfish Gene

See a Problem?

Preview — The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

The Selfish Gene

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Richard Dawkins

Books by Richard Dawkins

Articles featuring this book

Trivia About The Selfish Gene

Quotes from The Selfish Gene

new topic
Discuss This Book