Buy it now from Amazon

The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author

Richard Dawkins

Oxford University Press, USA

• List price: $19.95
• Lowest new price: $9.40
• Lowest used price: $7.87

Average customer rating:

A revolutionary book that examines evolution from the gene's perspective

This book is just as exciting as it is groundbreaking. The idea behind it carries much weight and force, and is very hard to argue against. It is a universal fact that every organism's primary concern is survival, save for a few strange exceptions. Dawkins provides lucid metaphors and in depth explanations as to how evolution works from a genetic viewpoint, and how our behavior is ultimately aimed at propagating our genes.

Dawkins talks alot about genes that determine behavior, or 'miss-firing' genes causing deviant or irregular behavior. I would agree that our genes may predispose us to inherit certain traits or behaviors to some extent, but our enviornment and other external influences undoubtedly contribute to effect our behavior as well.

One concept I can't entirely agree with Mr. Dawkins on is that of Memes. Yes, ideas are spread from person to person, and they effect our culture, etc, but they are products of our own minds, not seperate entities. Also, a meme cannot be analyzed, nor does it have any specific substance, it seems to me like an imaginary thought replicator. To me the whole idea is so entirely subjective and speculative that I do not feel it is legitimate. However, his example of a meme that causes a fear of going to hell was a very good example. I prefer to name credulity and superstition as the causal factors.

Overall, this book is very well written, and the examples given to support the selfish gene theory are superb. I highly recommend this book to anyone considering it, you won't be dissapointed!

Thank God for selfish genes

This is not really a review of Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene". Rather, it's a rant about that provocative and annoying metaphor and sound bite. Which one? Why, the selfish gene, of course!

Personally, I find the metaphor unfortunate. Dawkins himself admits that much in a mea culpa foreword to this new edition, writing that he may as well have titled the book "The Eternal Gene" or "The Altruistic Vehicle". Indeed, he could have gone one step further. Why not call it "The Altruistic Gene"? After all, most genes co-operate with other genes (that's why *we* are here), so you might as well call the genes - or most genes - altruist. Dawkins seems to have picked his metaphor due to abstruse philosophical reasons, but since he also writes "we are born selfish", this obviously gives the impression that the genes, too, are selfish in this vernacular sense.

However, one could also turn the debate around, and ask: What's so wrong with selfish genes anyway? But perhaps it's better to rephrase the question, and ask: What's so wrong with "selfish" organisms? According to Neo-Darwinism, altruism has evolved for two, perhaps three, reasons. First, there is altruism towards kin, as when birds have "helpers" at their nests. Second, there is reciprocal altruism, the classical example being the vampire bats. Thus, altruism is ultimately "selfish" in the sense that it either helps promoting the genes of your relatives (which are similar to your own genes), or is based on the principle "I scratch your back and you scratch mine". The third reason, perhaps only applicable to humans, is broadly similar to the second. Humans often carry out altruist acts which certainly seem completely unselfish. However, this could simply be a way of signalling that you are a reliable person when it comes to altruism towards kin, or reciprocal altruism. In other words, even unselfish acts are at bottom rooted in a kind of genetic or organism-related selfishness.

To some people, this sounds awful and terrible. Isn't there any *really* real altruism in the world, then? This impression of awfulness is often added to by a certain kind of evolutionary biologist, who just loves to respond "no" to this question. Well, if you believe that "real" altruism means doing what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, for purely Kantian reasons, then (of course) there is no "real" altruism in the world. After all, there are no deontological robots set on self-destruct!

But, honestly, is that really such a bad thing?

Imagine a world in which half the organisms would be programmed by evolution to unselfishly, unthinkingly serve the other half, who are not programmed in this way, and hence take advantage of the poor and purely altruistic creatures. Would we really want to live in such a world? I think not. It would be the worst form of oppression and exploitation!

Thank God for the selfish genes...

I consider it a *positive* that altruism is based in "selfishness". And no, I'm not a Randian. Quite the contrary. The fact that altruism towards kin, and reciprocal altruism towards non-kin, evolves for "selfish" reasons, show that there isn't any necessary contradiction between the social and the individual, between the collective and the personal, between "one for all" and "all for one". Really, what more do we want? Deontological ants?

Incidentally, I don't believe that all unselfish human actions are "really" based on the need for social recognition. Humans are much more complex than that. We have evolved to a point where we can change the human nature evolution has given us - not completely, to be sure, but to a sufficiently large degree to stand out among other organisms. As Dawkins once put it: "I'm not particularly interested in humans. That's only one species, and a particularly aberrant one at that". Precisely. We don't need to explain Holocaust rescuers, Christian martyrs or even pet-owners who save their dogs from dangerous fires by claiming that this is directly "adaptive". It isn't. Why does it have to be? Is religion or abstract math "adaptive"? What about Rococo paintings? But even if it could be proven that Holocaust rescue is "adaptive" in the sense that this acts of conscience is really rooted in our not-so-altruistic need for self-recognition, so what? I'm sure the Jews didn't mind. The Nazis, for their part, did!

What's the point of this non-review? Nothing, really, except perhaps to wake some people up from their dogmatic slumber...

Outstanding explanation of evolution for the Lay Person

Professor Dawkins's book on evolution is geared to the non-scientist and presents evolution, and the underlying idea that it is the gene that is surviving not the organism, in clear, understandable and interesting language. It is a must read for anyone interested in the topic. In particular, the Professor gives numerous examples that illustrate his points, which sustain the interest throughout.

A disproved soufflé of a book

Just in case many people assume that all negative reviews are from people who don't believe in evolution, I want to state that I have absolutely no doubt that evolution is true. My criticism isn't against evolution but against the theory that is in this book.

At the beginning of the book, Richard Dawkins says that "this book is mainly intended to be interesting" and he certainly succeeded at that!

He took the idea of kin selection (the theory that asserts that natural selection in evolution works at the level of the individual plus kin which share the individual's genes) and made it thoroughly interesting by asserting that it's actually the gene that matters in evolution. According to the selfish gene theory, we humans and all other organisms are simply vehicles" or "survival machines" built by the genes in order to pursue their own self-interest - i.e. competing with other genes to make copies of themselves through reproduction. So we are reduced to "lumbering robots" and "selfish machine[s]" whose only true purpose is the survival of our genes. Isn't that interesting? Well, much more interesting than the question of what level natural selection works on, usually is, and, accordingly this book was much more popular than a book about the subject usually is.

While I personally like Dawkins and believe him to be an honorable, intelligent man who is truly concerned about humanity, I believe this book which made him famous is flawed. Please understand that my criticisms are not of evolution itself but of the particular theory that Dawkins set forth in this book decades ago, before the human genome project and many new discoveries which show some of the weaknesses of kin selection and the selfish gene theory.

In 1976, when the book was written, the theory of kin selection seemed quite plausible, 33 years later, as I write this review, much of what seemed to be evidence of this theory has been disproved. The author, of course, cannot be blamed for not knowing what was not known at the time. One of the things that will change your reading experience significantly, and I recommend this, is to read the endnotes to see some of Dawkins own comments on what he originally wrote. Interestingly, in the introduction to this edition (30th anniversary), he states that there is almost nothing he would change about the book, contradicting what he himself wrote in the endnotes. I think it's important that anyone looking to learn about this subject by reading this book today, understands the flaws in the theory as they are known today and, unfortunately, very few of the reviews have touched on this.

Criticisms:

1. What the author calls "one of the most spectacular triumphs of the selfish gene theory" - the explanation of the worker bees who don't reproduce because they serve their genes more by helping to raise their sisters and brothers with whom they have a 3/4 relatedness - has been disproved. Dawkins acknowledges this in the endnotes of this updated edition: "...new facts lead us to doubt the importance of the 3/4 relatedness hypothesis". It turns out that different males mate with the queen so the relatedness goes down to 1/4, but, worse yet, worker bees frequently move and work in another colony where the queen and other workers are completely unrelated to them.

2. The explanation of surplus DNA has also been disproved. It turns out that the DNA that was thought to be unused actually serves a regulatory function - it is not a parasite.

3. The book uses deceptive math, which is explained in a way that the author himself calls "a bit of a cheat" [endnotes p 288] that makes many people believe that we share 50% of our genes with our children and siblings, and 25% of our genes with our grandchildren and cousins while, in reality, we share well over 99% of our genes with every human, even when unrelated; and we humans share about 95% of our genes with chimpanzees. The theory that we care about kin because they share our genes seems much weaker when the real numbers are used.

4. The author himself, again in the endnotes [page 313], says that the handicap principle, if true, which he now believes it is, may necessitate "a radical change in our view of many of the issues discussed in this book."

5. The entire "Battle of the Sexes" chapter is based on a theory which the author himself, in the endnotes, says does not make sense. His original argument: "the female sex is exploited, and the fundamental evolutionary basis for the exploitation is the fact that eggs are larger than sperms." In the endnotes he takes it back: "even if one sperm is small and cheap, it is far from cheap to make millions of sperms and successfully inject them into a female against all the competition."

6. The whole book is based on an empty premise that he himself says no sane person would believe [intro to 30th anniversary edition] - the selfishness of the gene. Obviously genes can't be selfish, but he states because of the selfishness of genes, organisms are naturally selfish. This is where the soufflé comes into play: the hot air is the "selfishness" of genes leading to selfish organisms. Useful genes survive. Useful genes lead to selfish organisms doesn't sound quite as convincing.

7. The author himself claims he wasn't clear about the difference between a gene and an organism, such as a person, at the time he wrote the book [intro to the 30th Anniversary Edition]. Shouldn't that make us question his conclusions about organisms?

8. In the 30th anniversary edition, the author responds to a reviewer who gave the book 5 stars but says that it has caused him bouts of depression since the theory leaves no room for a deeper meaning to life, by saying that no sane person would tie his "life's hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos." This seems like a rather heartless and unrealistic response, unworthy of the caring man I believe the author to be. Of course we care about meaning in life and evolution does not preclude meaning.

9. It has been pointed out that kin selection theory is just group theory among relatives and has the same flaws; it is open to cheating and is, therefore, not part of an evolutionary stable system.

10. Dawkins asks us to face up to the question: What on earth do you think you are, if not a robot...? I don't believe it's helpful to fight religious myths by ignoring the difference between living, breathing, caring human beings who took billions of years to evolve and robots. This is done by many evolutionary scientists: reduce humans to something less, in order to sound more scientific and distance yourself from religion; I think ignoring facts makes one less of a scientist.

11. New findings have shown that DNA is fluid and responds to the environment - including our own feelings - in order to better help us adapt and survive. As Bruce Lipton points out: "Genes are here to serve the individual, the individual is not here to serve genes!"

Recommended reading:

The Biology of Belief by cell biologist Bruce H. Lipton

Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonca & Marion Lamb

Signs of Meaning in the Universe by Jesper Hoffmeyer

Darwin's Lost Theory of Love by David Loye

The Handicap Principle by Amotz and Avishag Zahavi (though they also have a dim view of humanity and their chapter on humans is quite weak, it is a fascinating and convincing theory which has made Dawkins reconsider his views - according to the endnotes).

The Genie in Your Genes by Dawson Church (though this book focuses more on health issues)

You can also search online for information about the latest findings and thinking by searching for combinations of phrases like: "horizontal gene transfer", evolution tree "web of life" pattern; epigenetics, "fluid genome", "triadic evolution". You may be very pleasantly surprised by the views of evolution and related topics that you will find.

It is up to you to decide what you believe yourself to be and what you believe the meaning of your life to be. Whether you decide to read this book (hopefully, endnotes included) or not, my most sincere hope is that you use your wisdom and discretion in making those decisions.

I Prefer The Selfless Gene

The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author by Richard Dawkins is a book written by a author who wants to help the reader understand evolution and natural selection. The author has his own slant on evolution targeting a 'selfish gene' that has evolved for the good of the species. The best gene at survival and reproduction will ultimately multiply through the gene pool.


+ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Are you a spiritual retard, or are you on the path to ENLIGHTENMENT?
+ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +