Details

Buy it now from Amazon

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

Oxford University Press, USA

List price: $19.95
Lowest new price: $9.30
Lowest used price: $8.40

Average customer rating: 4.5 stars

Schopenhauer revisited

I've just read Schopenhauer's essay on 'Love', and found it dangerously close to Dawkings 'The selfish gene". Obviously, Schopenhauer's essay skips scientific jargon, and some of his observations are seriously wrong or dated, but nonetheless the essay itself constitutes a fascinating paralelism and just an amazing starting point for Dawking's theory. Two tumbs up for good old Arthur!

Simply amazing

It's one of the best books I've read!

I found the chapter about game theory particularly interesting and useful. Richard described the theory better than anyone else I've read.

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.