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)

4.15 · Rating details · 162,931 ratings · 4,348 reviews

"The Selfish Gene" caused a wave of excitement among biologists and the general public when it was first published in 1976. Its vivid rendering of a gene's eye view of life, in lucid prose, gathered together the strands of thought about the nature of natural selection into a conceptual framework with far-reaching implications for our understanding of evolution. Time has co ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 30th Anniversary Edition, 360 pages

Published 2006 by Oxford University Press (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

1,678 books — 3,625 voters

The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson

Best Non-Fiction (no biographies)

5,915 books — 8,410 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.15 ·

Rating details

· 162,931 ratings · 4,348 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The Selfish Gene

Nov 22, 2008 Manny rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, pooh-dante, strongly-recommended

- 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)
...more

flag 315 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-social-theory-etc, science

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

flag 296 likes · Like · see review

May 08, 2008 Brian Hodges rated it really liked it

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

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 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 152 likes · Like · see review

May 24, 2015 Petra in Cancun being tortured by a dentist added it

Shelves: 2015-reviews, medicine-science, reviewed, books-reviewed-but-not-read, dnf-or-never-read

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 133 likes · Like · see review

Sep 14, 2008 David Rubenstein rated it it was amazing

Shelves: biology, evolution, nonfiction, science

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 ge 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 117 likes · Like · see review

Jun 08, 2014 Alex rated it it was amazing

Shelves: rth-lifetime, 2014, science

Richard Dawkins shot to celebrity in 1976 with this rabble-rousing book, which change the game by inventing the word "meme" and basically nothing else, the rest of his ideas range from "ehhh not exactly" to "yeah but so what." Fun to read though! The gist 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, fi Richard Dawkins shot to celebrity in 1976 with this rabble-rousing book, which change the game by inventing the word "meme" and basically nothing else, the rest of his ideas range from "ehhh not exactly" to "yeah but so what." Fun to read though! The gist 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 a tremendously engaging writer. He's good at explaining technical concepts clearly. And he's funny! This book is fun to read. And it's 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 89 likes · Like · see review

Apr 02, 2017 Bradley rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 2017-shelf, science, non-fiction

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 i ...more

flag 90 likes · Like · see review

Sep 13, 2020 Orhan Pelinkovic rated it it was amazing

Shelves: genetics, biology, biological-evolution, human-evolution, richard-dawkins, science

The Selfish Gene (1976) is exactly how I prefer my non-fiction science books to be written. Richard Dawkins is clear, stays on topic, and explains the necessary details and complexities using simple everyday life examples. Dawkins, is entertaining, and gives you a hand when you get lost in his genetic pool analysis.

His writing talks to me. His argumentation challenge and encourage me to think and feel that I am gaining knowledge. It's a rewarding read. The author discusses the plants, animals, The Selfish Gene (1976) is exactly how I prefer my non-fiction science books to be written. Richard Dawkins is clear, stays on topic, and explains the necessary details and complexities using simple everyday life examples. Dawkins, is entertaining, and gives you a hand when you get lost in his genetic pool analysis.

His writing talks to me. His argumentation challenge and encourage me to think and feel that I am gaining knowledge. It's a rewarding read. The author discusses the plants, animals, and humans selfish gene and their evolution by means of natural selection. There is no moral of the story as morals are not considered in the natural selection process.

What roll did natural selection have on primordial Earth? It selected to retain the stable forms of molecules and throw out the unstable forms. During the same period, simple replicating molecules were present with a capability to replicate themselves. Today we have a far more sophisticated self-replicating molecule, containing a complex recipe, called the DNA. Such stable molecules started to compete with one another in a struggle for existence. In order to increase their chances of survival and reproduction, these stable replicating molecules built machines for survival in which they would be accommodated. Those stable molecules today are our genes, and the machines for their survival, our bodies.

What is a selfish gene? The selfish gene is a short or rather small piece of a chromosome that lasts for many generations and has an extremely low probability to split up. It collaborates well with other genes and does not allow anything to penetrate it. The long lasting life of the selfish gene makes it an important unit of evolution by means of natural selection, and the replicating molecule (gene) a fundamental unit of natural selection.

The selfish gene created us to be self-centered and not altruistic. Our genes created us for their well-being and to fight for their survival and reproduce them through procreation. The selfish gene in living organisms is concerned for itself and individual in which they are housed. Therefore, our genes have a more egocentric approach for self-survival rather than an altruistic one that would benefit the group. Altruism is not the most stable evolutionary strategy for the genes and individuals, unless reciprocal altruism is at hand that would benefit each variety (of course there are exceptions). Parental altruism towards children can be viewed as genes investing in themselves as their genes are now found in their offspring. That is why it is important to teach altruism to our children, as it doesn't necessarily come naturally.

But our brain has developed up to a point that we are in a position to reject or rebel against our own selfish gene. Many people choose not to have children or use contraceptives and this way disobey the selfish gene. Others sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a group, for an ideal or a cause. In one chapter we see how a "meme" (idea or behavior), a unit of culture, acts as a replicator that is transmitted from individual to individual.

Since humans are conscious beings and aware that a future exists, it gives us the power to simulate and plan ahead. Also, we have written accounts of the past events - history. I would certainly hope that with our increasing knowledge about our genes, our finer capability of forecasting, and written history from different points of view, can act as tools to help us find a better balance between the common good of a society and the individuals interest i.e. balancing altruism and selfishness. ...more

flag 89 likes · Like · see review

Jul 22, 2019 Swrp rated it really liked it

This book is pretty good! Professor Richard Dawkins has narrated this topic on life and evolution in a very interesting way.

A must read - all about The Immortal Gene and The Immortal Replicator!

"Death, of course, is not a failure. Death is normal. Death may be the enemy, but it is also the natural order of things." ...more

flag 76 likes · Like · see review

Oct 03, 2011 Nandakishore Mridula 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 existenc ...more

flag 68 likes · Like · see review

Feb 06, 2020 Infinite Jen rated it it was amazing

Last night, while watching a fusillade of pyrotechnic spermatozoa ejaculated from gaudy tubes of erectile aspect, I saw the whole of human desire captured in Incarusian defiance. With shells striving to pierce the black ovum of space, but having their motility sapped by the deformational geometries which encircle our terrestrial biosphere. Disclosing their metal salts and iron filings with violent punctuations of barometric pressure and visual amplitude, only to be completely consumed, mere seco Last night, while watching a fusillade of pyrotechnic spermatozoa ejaculated from gaudy tubes of erectile aspect, I saw the whole of human desire captured in Incarusian defiance. With shells striving to pierce the black ovum of space, but having their motility sapped by the deformational geometries which encircle our terrestrial biosphere. Disclosing their metal salts and iron filings with violent punctuations of barometric pressure and visual amplitude, only to be completely consumed, mere seconds later, by silence and darkness. A stranger, perhaps sensing the melancholy which had gripped me by the haunches, innocently inquired, “Is something bothering you, sweetie?” To which I hissed, “I sometimes fantasize about blasting a champagne cork into someone’s mouth, mid sentence, then impaling them with the bill of sword fish.” I then turned back to the show, shaking my head, “You didn’t deserve that. I’m just thinking about the relationship between senescence and antagonistic pleiotropy and how you can’t make sense of certain biological realities unless your conceptual efforts proceed from the optimal level of granularity. For instance, when I, as a little girl, had the distinct terror of being chased by a Somali ostrich, and was subsequently trampled by said flightless bird, with my large strawberry milkshake pinned beneath me and exploding all over my white dress like a bazooka bubblegum claymore, (which appeared to onlookers as my ever loving guts being mashed out of my tiny body), it did not behoove me to attempt to understand its behavior at the level of quantum physics. I’m sure the whole dreary affair transgressed no physical laws, up to and including my mother screaming; “Saints be with us! The little idiot has finally done herself in!” I’m not saying that. But it was a far better use of attentional resources to focus on my behavior prior to the incident, wherein I was strangely compelled to harangue the temperamental bird about the dimorphic condition of its tiny head relative to its large body.” Laughing and turning to ask the man for a light, I realized that he had fled silently back into the crowd.

Not to be thwarted in mid rant, I singled out an attractive woman and stormed towards her, gesturing wildly as if the Cesar of my ego was experiencing bloody death curtesy of white hot senatorial stabbings administered by psychedelics. Shouting, “In precisely this way, it is difficult to make much sense of our ephemeral existence without the concept of antagonistic pleiotropy.” Drawing painfully close and smelling her hair. “Are you single? Don’t answer that! First, observe, at the proper level of magnification, the center of evolution’s dramas, not the individual, but the gene. Now, if we are going to attempt to understand death, this inability of ours to achieve the escape velocity of our mortality, like those mortars which currently spunk the night sky with their rainbow smithereens. To understand this spectral Bukkake, we must cudgel the knees of our tired frameworks and streak madly into the arms of lusty new paradigms. Observe! If we were going to ask the obvious question; why do we perish amongst abundance? Why must we bust a fat, prismatic nut, and never be heard again? If we have food sufficient to meet our caloric needs, should we not be able to repair the damage we incur indefinitely? I say unto you; Let us suppose that there was a gene, in our ancestral past, which controlled for more than one phenotypic trait (i.e the protein expression of the genotype under influence of environment factors). One of these traits was quite beneficial early in life and ensured that the humans who possessed it were more likely to take it to pound town, but the same gene was also responsible for one or more defects which would manifest outside of prime reproductive years. You would end up with a proliferation of these genes irregardless of their ultimate cost, (i.e the eventual demise of the screaming mortar as it goes ungently into that good night) because reproduction is key. The mystery of senescence now seems tractable, doesn’t it?”

Silently she takes my hand and leads me away from the crowd. Once we’ve made it to the top of a small hill overlooking the celebration, she turns to me and says;

"Sì, abbiamo un'anima. Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.”

This book is an account of one of the most successful science metaphors ever created, of how immortal genes are winnowed through the game theoretic calculus of natural selection into evolutionary stable states. About how the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators can produce all the various strategies which enable the carriers of this encoded information to survive and send it into the future. The Selfish Gene is one of the best books on evolution ever written. It profoundly communicates just what evolution is all about: the replication of genetic units of information, by whatever means possible. Viruses, retroviruses, parasitic insects, gut bacteria, mitochondria, the grotesque nuptial gifts of scorpion flies, and motorcycle accidents caused by toxoplasmosis - they are all successful cases of genes replicating in varied "survival machines," giving zero shits about how quaint their respective venues appear. It's an amazing, well-proved idea, wonderfully communicated by a passionate writer. It requires no advanced training or technical background to understand, and will reward your attention by permanently enriching your understanding of the natural world. ...more

flag 66 likes · Like · see review

Oct 02, 2021 Ahmad Sharabiani rated it really liked it

Shelves: 20th-century, biology, evolution, non-fiction, philosophy, science, psychology, british, genetics

The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins

The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theorizing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries.

A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species — the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960's, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz — but (un The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins

The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theorizing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries.

A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species — the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960's, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz — but (unconsciously) so that its genes go on.

Genes that cause birds and bees to breed survive at the expense of other genes.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز سوم ماه اکتبر سال 2011میلادی

عنوان: ژن خودخواه؛ نویسنده: ریچارد داوکینز؛ مترجم نرگس رستمی‌گوران؛ تهران، نشر چشمه، 1389؛ در 481ص؛ شابک9789643629946؛ موضوع تکامل و زیست شناسی از نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده 20م

عنوان: ژن خودخواه؛ نویسنده: ریچارد داکینز؛ مترجم جلال سلطانی؛ تهران، مازیار، 1396؛ در 432ص؛ شابک9786006043760؛ چاپ سوم سال1397؛ چاپ پنجم و ششم 1399؛

عنوان: ژن خودخواه؛ نویسنده: ریچارد داکینز؛ مترجم شهلا باقری؛ تهران، پژواک، 1399؛ در 581ص؛ شابک9789649309064؛

ریچارد داوکینز زیست‌شناس تکامل‌گرا، کتاب «ژن خودخواه» را در سال 1976میلادی منتشر کردند؛ بنیان بحث «داوکینز» در این کتاب در حوزه ی تکامل طبیعی، و علم ژنتیک است، ایشان ژنتیک را مبتنی بر نگرشی ژن‌محور شرح می‌دهند، و همچنین، رویکرد ایشان در زیست‌شناسی، متکی بر نظریه‌ ی «داروین» است؛ ایشان بر پایه نظریه ی «داروین» می‌پذیرند که تکامل طبیعی، از راه گزینش طبیعی کار می‌کند، و گزینش طبیعی به‌ معنی بقای شایسته‌ترین‌ها است؛ «داوکینز» نگرش ژن‌ مرکزی خود را در علم ژنتیک، با نظریه ی تکاملی «داروین» پیوند می‌زنند، و به این نتیجه ی پایه‌ ای می‌رسند که: «ژن»، عنصر اصلی گزینش طبیعی است؛ از نظر ایشان، هر چند رقابت مبتنی بر خودخواهی عنصر اصلی ژن برای بقاست، اما خودخواهی، صرفاً رفتار فردی ژن است؛ در عین حال، اولاً برآوردن خودخواهی ژن‌ها از اساس متکی بر همتاسازی، یا تکثیر شوندگی است، و ثانیاً این رفتار فردی در اوضاع و احوال ویژه ای روی می‌دهد، که امکان رویدادن اهداف خودخواهانه ژن را، به‌ منظور پایداری آن فراهم می‌آورد؛ در این اوضاع و احوال است که ژن خودخواه با دیگر ژن‌ها، که آنها نیز خودخواه‌ هستند، روبرو می‌شود و می‌خواهد رقابتی را با آنها پیش ببرد، که هدف آن نگهداری و بقای زندگی ارگانیسم، در کل، است؛ از دیدگاه «داوکینز» ارگانیسم موجود زنده، محیطی است، که رقابت خودخواهانه ژن را بر زمینه ی رقابت دیگرخواهانه‌ ای قرار می‌دهد، که بقای خود ارگانیسم زنده را می‌پذیرد؛ پس چشم همچشمی خودخواهانه ژن‌های خودخواه، در ارگانیسم به تعادل ژنتیکی، و بنابراین به بقای ارگانیسم می‌انجامد؛ «داوکینز» انتخاب یا همان گزینش طبیعی را، بازی بزرگ رقابت می‌داند، که در آن بازیگران یا رقابت‌ کنندگان اصلی، ژن‌های خودخواه‌ هستند؛ اما از آنجا که رقابت برای بقای ارگانیسم زنده انجام می‌شود، پس این رقابتی نه برای نابودی، که برای بقا یعنی تداوم زندگی است؛ از این رو «داوکینز» می‌کوشد در کتاب خود، تاریخ طبیعی را از دیدگاه علم تبیین کند؛ نخستین انتقاد مهم بر کتاب ژن خودخواه به همین نگرش به تاریخ طبیعی از منظر علم ــ علم ژنتیک ــ تا آن جایگاه است که می‌توان آن را با علم‌گرایی نویسنده توضیح داد؛ زیرا سنجش این موضوع یعنی حیات و تحول آن، موضوعی نیست که صرفاً از منظر علمی، و نظریه ژنتیک، به آن پرداخته شده باشد، بلکه باید از منظرهای دیگری نیز، به این نگره پرداخت، که نویسنده دیدگاههای دیگر را فراموش کرده است؛ مشخص است که از آن جمله هستند نگرش‌های دینی ــ در کنار نگرش علمی ــ برای این موضوع پاسخ‌های با قدمت بسیار وجود دارند که هنوز هم از سوی مردمان بسیاری در سراسر جهان پذیرفتی هستند و از این رو نباید چنین پاسخ‌هایی را نادیده گرفت؛ اما نکته‌ ی بسیار مهم این است که کتاب «ژن خودخواه» صرفاً درباره‌ ی علم ژنتیک، و ارائه‌ ی تبیین نوینی از نظریه‌ ی تکامل «داروین» نیست؛ اگر ژنتیک، در مجموع، به علم زیست‌شناسی مربوط می‌شود، اما «ریچارد داوکینز» فراتر از علم ژنتیک، به اتکای همان نگرش ژن‌محورانه، به دیگر قلمروهای زندگی اجتماعی انسان ــ مثلاً فرهنگ و تحولات فرهنگی ــ می‌پردازند؛ ایشان می‌کوشند قانون تکامل را در حوزه تحولات فرهنگی نیز تبیین کنند، و به اتکای آن، بقا یا زوال فرهنگ‌ها را به خوانشگر بنمایانند؛ «داوکینز» با تأکید بر تشابه تکامل فرهنگی با تکامل ژنتیکی، عامل تکامل فرهنگی را مِم ــ شبیه ژن ــ معرفی می‌کنند؛ ایشان با جعل مفاهیم «مم» و «ممتیک» می‌کوشند تکامل فرهنگی را در تشابه با تکامل ژنتیکی از طریق ژن و ژنتیک توضیح دهند؛ از نظر او «مم‌ها» ــ همچون آهنگ‌ها، ایده‌ها و شعارها و لباس، مد و...؛ ــ از راه تقلید، همتا سازی و تکثیر می‌شوند، و تحول و تکامل فرهنگی را ممکن می‌کنند؛ اگر در نظر او «ژن» واحد زیستی است، «مم» واحد اطلاعاتی است؛ در واقع «مم» آن هستیِ ذهنی است که «داوکینز» با جعل آن از حوزه ژنتیک (حوزه عمل خودخواهانه ژن) به حوزه فرهنگ عبور می‌کنند، و می‌کوشند تکامل و تحول فرهنگ را به خوانشگران بنمایانند؛ در عین حال، ایشان از همان مفاهیم رقابت، همتاسازی، خودخواهی و دیگرخواهی، در حوزه تحرک «مم‌ها» و انتقال و همتاسازی یا تکثیر آنها استفاده می‌کنند؛ دومین انتقاد مهم از «داوکینز» ناشی از همین تلاش ایشان برای یکسان‌سازی تحول ژنتیکی و تحول فرهنگی است؛ ایشان در این یکسان‌سازی تا آنجا پیش می‌روند که دین ــ وجهی از فرهنگ ــ را با همین الگوی نظری‌ خویش توضیح می‌دهند؛ برای نمونه، ایشان «ایمان» را، یک «مم» در حوزه‌ ی دین می‌شناسند که از راه تقلید، همتاسازی و تکثیر می‌شود؛ از اینجا می‌توان دریافت که در آرای «داوکینز» پیوند تکامل ژنتیکی، با تحول فرهنگی بسیار خیال‌پردازانه باز نموده می‌شود؛ این پاسخی نادرست نسبت به باورهای مذهبی است و به همین دلیل نمی‌تواند توضیح قانع‌ کننده‌ای از تداوم اندیشه‌های دینی در جهان ارائه کند؛ «داوکینز» می‌کوشند تحول فرهنگ را با نگرشی صرفاً علمی توضیح دهند؛ همین مسئله است که با انتقادات بسیاری مواجه شده است؛ «داوکینز» با یکسان دانستن تحول طبیعی و تحول فرهنگی، به تقابل علم و دین می‌رسند؛ در حالی که این دو شیوه‌ ی تبیین جهان، در همزیستی با هم قرار دارند و یکدیگر را نفی نمی‌کنند؛ «ریچارد داوکینز» از سال 1995میلادی تا سال2008میلادی استاد کرسی «چارلز سیمونی» برای ترویج علم، در «دانشگاه آکسفورد» بودند؛ ایشان از پدر و مادر بریتانیایی در «نایروبی» به دنیا آمده اند، در «آکسفورد» درس خوانده، و رساله ی دکتری خود را زیر نظر «نیکو تیبرگن» رفتارشناس برنده جایزه «نوبل» به سرانجام رسانده اند؛ ایشان از سال1967میلادی تا 1969میلادی در «دانشگاه کالیفرنیا» در «برکلی» استادیار بودند؛ سپس به‌ عنوان دانشیار و بعد استاد به بخش جانورشناسی «نیوکالج در آکسفورد» بازگشتند تا آنکه در سال 1995میلادی، به‌ عنوان نخستین استاد کرسی «سیمونی» منصوب شد؛ ایشان اکنون عضو ممتاز «نیوکالج» هستند؛

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 11/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی ...more

flag 67 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 61 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 easier, more comprehensible and comfortable to deal with. And you think talking to you won't cause him much trouble because you ar ...more

flag 46 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 beco ...more

flag 38 likes · Like · see review

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

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

Review 2022

This was somewhat repetitious since I've read quite a few books on evolution since I last read this in April 2018 & Dawkins takes pains in this, the 30th anniversary edition, to correct mistakes he made, updates others have made, & to answer some of his critics. Some of the explanations seem needlessly pedantic until I realized just how subtle & powerful his theory is. Even if it doesn't hold up in all circumstances (I'm not sure that it doesn't.) it has changed the field considerably ...more

flag 35 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, qu 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 34 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. 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 i 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 32 likes · Like · see review

Dec 02, 2020 Valliya Rennell rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: c-stand-alone, a-3-stars, c-non-fiction, x-reviewed-books, b-adult, d-science-fact

3 stars

and in this book, this concept is explained through the perspective of genes. Dawkins manages to present complicated topics like cell division, probability, and animal behaviours through the "eyes" of the gene which will use its survival machine (the organism) to survive.

It was fascinating to to learn about relationships and customs that I took for granted, and to now get more understanding on why they occur as they do (especially mutualism and parasitism). Since I learn a lot about this ...more

flag 30 likes · Like · see review

Mar 25, 2014 Sidharth Vardhan rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, 1-africa

“ 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 Smith’s Theory of Wealth of Nations’ was that he made the human selfishness as basis of his theory. It was stup ...more

flag 27 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 26 likes · Like · see review

Apr 03, 2020 Ms.pegasus rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: ecosystems-nature, history, nonfiction

Any reader of fiction understands the importance of narrative point of view. Influential evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins adopts that idea here. The point of view is that of the gene. His “selfish gene” is a metaphor, an anthropomorphic representation of a replicating sequence of genetic code.

He clarifies this idea with an astonishing admission: “There is no universally agreed definition of a gene.”(p.36) Starting with this blank slate frees him to create parameters that suit his own purp Any reader of fiction understands the importance of narrative point of view. Influential evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins adopts that idea here. The point of view is that of the gene. His “selfish gene” is a metaphor, an anthropomorphic representation of a replicating sequence of genetic code.

He clarifies this idea with an astonishing admission: “There is no universally agreed definition of a gene.”(p.36) Starting with this blank slate frees him to create parameters that suit his own purposes: “A gene is defined as any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection....[A] gene is a replicator with high copying fidelity.” (p. 35) In one analogy he compares a gene to a cooperative team of rowers. The individual is merely a vehicle for the focused efforts of this team. Instead of quibbling about the physical entity of the gene, Dawkins focuses his attention on salient properties: copying errors, fecundity (the rate of replication), chromosomal rearrangement, and chemical “rivalry.” These in turn govern observable properties of the organism: viscosity ( “...any tendency for individuals to continue living to the place where they were born.”) and memory (p.282)

His arena is a multi-generational dynamic of ephemeral winners and losers, quantitative dominance in the gene pool. He proposes various strategies for achieving that dominance, and asserts that the results are mathematically predictable through game theory. A step-wise picture of evolution emerges: “Progressive evolution may be not so much a steady upward climb as a series of discrete steps from stable plateau to stable plateau.” (p.113) Each plateau signals the achievement of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS).

This revolutionary book was published in 1976. Dawkins cites two important influences. William Donald Hamilton (1936-2000) developed the idea of “kin selection” – the basis for the principle that “...a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies....” (p.114) In a chapter titled “Genesmanship", Dawkins provides a simplified version of a formula for calculating the odds that two individuals share a particular gene.

George C. Williams (1926-2010) contributed the idea of pleioptropy – multiple effects of a single gene. An example is the activation of a gene when the chemical properties of aging accumulate. I mention these antecedents because I often felt I had fallen into a time warp. Dawkins' ideas are a far cry from the Mendelian genetics I learned in school. Readers familiar with these earlier evolutionary pioneers will have a much easier time navigating this book than I had.

I read the 40th anniversary edition, published in 2016. Extensive explanatory footnotes, often running on for pages, have been added and need to be read in conjunction with the text. This is expedited by the formatting of the Kindle edition.

Fortunately, this book is leavened with surprising behavioral examples. We learn that a whale song can continue for eight minutes without repetition. (p.68) We learn that a strain of worker bee has the “hygenic” behavior of detecting and culling grubs infected by a particular disease. The culling requires two steps: uncapping the wax cell of the larva and evicting the larva from the hive. (p.78) A strain of mice exhibit the “Bruce effect.” The male mouse exudes a chemical that causes a female impregnated by a different male to abort. (p.191) Vampire bats will regurgitate and share excess blood harvested during the night with unsuccessful bats. (p.298) Dawkins examines and explains these behaviors through the lens of his “selfish gene.” ...more

flag 24 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 Ju ...more

flag 24 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 ab ...more

flag 25 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.. ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Apr 28, 2016 Max rated it it was amazing

Shelves: biology

The Selfish Gene is still widely read 40 years after publication, remarkable for a science book, and it continues to cause controversy. In straightforward language Dawkins offers theories for the beginning of life, evolution, sexual differentiation and altruism in human behavior. He takes literary license and uses anthropomorphic language to describe genetic attributes best described by mathematics. This technique makes the book accessible to the lay reader but also makes it read like our genes The Selfish Gene is still widely read 40 years after publication, remarkable for a science book, and it continues to cause controversy. In straightforward language Dawkins offers theories for the beginning of life, evolution, sexual differentiation and altruism in human behavior. He takes literary license and uses anthropomorphic language to describe genetic attributes best described by mathematics. This technique makes the book accessible to the lay reader but also makes it read like our genes are consciously plotting their destiny. Dawkins inserts many disclaimers that this is not his intent. Detractors also assert that he is reducing human behavior and morals to nothing more than chemistry thus denying fundamental human value. Dawkins also goes to great length to deny this interpretation. I believe Dawkins succeeds. While very readable, Dawkins challenges our minds, requiring deep thought to reap equally deep rewards. My notes follow.

How did life start? Dawkins proposes replicators. Think of chains of amino acids, abundant on the early earth, forming protein like molecules that can change the structure of other amino acid chains to look just like them. Dawkins doesn’t mention prions, but replicators sound very similar to me and today we find prions in ever more places and responsible for a host of diseases from mad cow to Alzheimer’s. Eventually the replicators run out of raw material and start consuming each other. Mutations occur: some develop defenses such as prototypical cell walls, then others develop ways to penetrate the walls and evolution is underway at some point crossing the threshold into what we would call living. The replicators themselves become genes, the dictators of the individual organism’s attributes and behaviors. The organism is the survival machine the genes have constructed and with over 3.5 billion years to work in, these machines can become very complicated, even human.

How did this evolution take place? Natural selection operates at the level of the gene. Individual organisms are the vehicles for the gene. The gene operates its vehicle through phenotypic effects. If that effect promotes individual survival and reproduction the gene spreads. Eventually all the genes in a population plateau at an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS). Mutant genes will come and go but the rare positive one will disrupt the status quo until a new ESS is achieved. Dawkins key point is that natural selection operates not on what is best for the species or individual but what is best for the gene. This may seem like a truism, but this is where notes fall short. You have to read the book.

How did individual organisms become male and female? First were the isogametes which are produced by meiosis just like sperms and eggs. But unlike sperms and eggs isogametes are indistinguishable from each other. Thus any individual can mate with any other. Eventually sperms and eggs evolved as some gametes found it advantageous to be prolific and mobile (sperms) while others benefited by providing large and nutrient rich targets (eggs). The owners of the large and nutrient rich gametes invested more resources in their production. In animal evolution this led to females nurturing and caring for their offspring. Females adopted strategies to get help in the task including strategies to determine male faithfulness. Thus courtship is widely practiced among many species. If all males were faithful courtship would not be necessary. A readily compliant female would immediately attract a faithful companion and her genes would prosper. But too many easy females lead to philandering males who gain advantage for their genes propagating them widely. But a preponderance of philandering males in turn results in more females demanding evidence of commitment provided by courtship. Eventually the proportion of coy to easy female behavior and faithful to philandering male behavior balances out to an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. Keep in mind Dawkins presents this from the gene’s point of view. The genes are working to maximize their own numbers not the individual organism’s although that too may result.

Similar to the idea of an ESS that balances animal courtship behavior is the ESS of aggressive behavior. In general aggressive behaviors will occupy a proportion of individual behaviors that equalize overall payback. If all members were aggressive, too many would get hurt. If none were, one aberrant aggressor would run amok spreading genes until too many aggressors reduced the payback below that of the non-aggressors. Eventually the proportion of aggressors and/or the range of aggressive behaviors of individuals will come to a balance, an ESS. What is good for the genes as expressed through the individual not the species dictates behavior. Lions don’t try to eat other lions to preserve the species but because it is far safer for the individual lion to attack an antelope for a meal than another lion.

Dawkins elaborates on the Prisoner’s Dilemma game showing it to be similar to the way ESS’s develop when the game is played continuously for an unknown indeterminate length of time. This version is called Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. It’s too complex to explain here, but nice guys don’t finish last in this explanation of how reciprocal altruism develops in animal and plant societies. He fascinatingly uses his examples to explain the “live and let live policy” between the German soldiers and the British soldiers facing each other in the trenches of WWI in the first two years of the war. This was of course not a great strategy for the generals who had to win the war but it worked quite well for the soldiers. For those interested in game theory and evolution this chapter is a must read.

The genes that affect the individual’s fate are not only its own. Gene’s operate inside and outside the body of an organism. Dawkins gives the example of the snail and the parasitic fluke that preys on it. The fluke’s genes change the thickness of the snail’s shell which may not help the snail. Dawkins doesn’t mention the microbiome which has drawn so much attention lately. We now realize that most genes in and on the human body are not human but belong to the countless bacteria and microorganisms that populate our guts, mouths, skin, etc. The huge impact these foreign genes have on human wellbeing and behavior is just beginning to be understood.

In a presentation that otherwise seems to marginalize individual value in favor of the genes, Dawkins does acknowledge the power of human consciousness and culture to override genetic imperatives. Dawkins is famous for introducing the term meme in the The Selfish Gene. Derived from a Greek root to rhyme with the word gene, Dawkins christened meme the unit of transmission for the evolution of culture. It is the element of knowledge handed down generation to generation, be it language, song, fashion or ideas. The meme uses the human brain as its vehicle to propagate itself as it is transferred from person to person. Dawkins points to the concept of God as a particularly successful meme of great longevity and ubiquity and one that evolves just as genes do.

Even if you are uncomfortable with Dawkins thinking or his presentation style and even if some of the material is a bit dated, there is just way too much food for thought here to ignore. My notes are just a small taste of what this book provides. Five stars all the way. If you haven’t read it, please treat yourself. I hope it leaves your mind racing just as it did mine.
...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Aug 02, 2009 Elyse Walters rated it really liked it

Shelves: science-tech-engineering-math, philosophy, non-fiction

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. ...more

flag 20 likes · Like · see review

Jan 08, 2017 Florina rated it it was amazing

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.”

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Jul 16, 2012 Leajk rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, non-fiction, 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

flag 18 likes · Like · see review

Aug 11, 2009 Robert rated it really liked it

Shelves: evolution, biology, non-fiction, science

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 th ...more

flag 18 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
Goodreads Librari...: Combine Traditional Chinese Edition	3	9	Apr 19, 2021 05:17AM
Play Book Tag: The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins - 3 stars (too late for Oct Trim the TBR)	4	21	Nov 08, 2019 03:27PM
How to uninstall McAfee through App cleaning?	1	7	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	221	Aug 23, 2018 05:23AM
Why something rather than nothing then?	30	269	Apr 30, 2016 04:18PM
All About Books: Week 10 - (1976) The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins	18	40	Apr 10, 2016 02:47PM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Science

6,025 users

Nonfiction

3,844 users

Science > Biology

1,239 users

Biology > Evolution

698 users

Philosophy

506 users

Psychology

420 users

Science > Popular Science

274 users

Biology > Genetics

236 users

Audiobook

122 users

Religion > Atheism

109 users

See top shelves…

About Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins

18,866 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.” — 263 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.” — 145 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