The Selfish Gene

N

Nin'

Registered Member
I was wondering if anyone had some thoughts to share about this book?

I'm currently in the process of reading it and only have finished the first couple (1 & 2) of chapters. I get the general idea though. We are simply 'vehicles' or 'survival machines' made for our genes. We are programmed for the purpose of increasing our survival chances may that be through selfish acts or altruistic acts, which in the end are simply selfishness in disguise.

So far it's a rather bleak outlook...:)
 
We are programmed for the purpose of increasing our survival chances may that be through selfish acts or altruistic acts, which in the end are simply selfishness in disguise.
Click to expand...

It's not that we are programmed. Our genes are programmed. But, if you read to the end, you'll see that Dawkins is very careful to make the point that we are not our genes. Even if our genes are "selfish", that in no way means that we, as people, should be or must be selfish.
 
James R said:
It's not that we are programmed. Our genes are programmed. But, if you read to the end, you'll see that Dawkins is very careful to make the point that we are not our genes. Even if our genes are "selfish", that in no way means that we, as people, should be or must be selfish.
Click to expand...

/eek

i take it you concur with dawkin's point?

/excited
 
hmm
i have room to maneuver?
to what degree?
obviously i cannot say no to the second kidney, ja?
 
I read that book and a few others. Not bad for their time.

If I remember correctly each gene is also competing with the other genes in the body all trying to get a copy of themselves made.
 
The gene is driven to replicate; the human to survive. Therefore the gene is selfish but the human not necessarily so. Indeed humans have learned to survive by co-operating with other humans beyond the familial;not entirely selfless but nor is it rampantly self interested.

Check the current world population figures....
 
James R said:
It's not that we are programmed. Our genes are programmed. But, if you read to the end, you'll see that Dawkins is very careful to make the point that we are not our genes. Even if our genes are "selfish", that in no way means that we, as people, should be or must be selfish.
Click to expand...

What's inaccurate about saying we're programmed? I think that's more accurate to say than to say our genes are programmed. Our genes are the "programmers," and we are the robots carrying out their "will," granted we have minds and we are not complete slaves to our genes, e.g. birth control, risking our lives for strangers, etc. I think we're very obviously programmed.

That said, I think that's the most important book I've ever read. Dawkins says it's his least favorite of his books, mainly because people so badly misunderstand it and he blames himself for their bad reading comprehension. It's actually very clear and hard to misconstrue what he means if you're unbiased and a reasonably clear thinker.

Basically for me, the book confirmed what I expected all along: that the fundamental units of the world are necessarily selfish, and it's nothing to take personally. It's a really philosophical book. I really like how he weaves all things together, from exploitive cuckoos, to the altruistic hymenoptera to the mathematics of successful game theories and how the Prisoner's Dilemma is relevant to everything. It really gets to the crux of things, and explains an incredible amount of the stuff we see in our everyday world, even to huge greedy corporations and corruption. It's nothing to take personally. It's all comes out of the mathematics.
 
The fundamental units of life do not actually exhibit 'selfishness' as this is a human value judgement. Dawkins used 'selfish gene' as a metaphor that has since been misunderstood and misrepresented. Genes replicate; organisms reproduce.

Greedy corporations and corruption reproduce greed not healthy humans.
 
sniffy said:
The fundamental units of life do not actually exhibit 'selfishness' as this is a human value judgement. Dawkins used 'selfish gene' as a metaphor that has since been misunderstood and misrepresented. Genes replicate; organisms reproduce.
Click to expand...

My point is that things that survive do so because they have self-preservation mechanisms. Genes replicate to preserve their pattern. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist for us to observe. How does that not conform to this definition of selfish:

devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
Click to expand...
?

Greedy corporations and corruption reproduce greed not healthy humans.
Click to expand...
Corporations and businesses that are friendly and not particularly self-preserving will die due to natural competition with other more aggressively self-preserving (selfish) corporations.

It's funny, because like how altruism in the natural kingdom is really fundamentally selfish, altruism in corporations is also fundamentally selfish. If corporations do not appear to be good, they will not receive investments. If Microsoft didn't donate and do a lot of good things, it would seem like a total asshole firm due to the other shady things it's done. What's really important for corporations is to appear to be ethical and unselfish, but to actually be aggressively selfish at the same time. That's true in the animal kingdom. It would very advantageous to a bat to appear to be altruistic by other bats, without actually being altruistic. That way it could get food from others without having to give up any of its own food. But other bats usually have adept mechanisms and memory to prevent that sort of exploitation.
 
Its just anthropomorphism on another scale. The most replete societies die out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top