The Selfish Gene

S.A.M. said:
Yeah, now explain it to me in the context of anything that is not human.
Click to expand...

You can't think of an example of a chimp being a selfish asshole to another chimp? Jesus Christ, you find the most petty/uninteresting things to argue about.
 
S.A.M. said:
For example?



No, I don't consider my cat selfish for stealing another cats food.
Click to expand...

A bacterium. A virus.

Fine, I'll concede a small amount of anthropomorphism if it means we can get past this incredibly boring and tedious tangent.
 
francois said:
A bacterium. A virus.

Fine, I'll concede a small amount of anthropomorphism if it means we can get past this incredibly boring and tedious tangent.
Click to expand...

What are the selfish acts of bacteria? How does it act to preserve itself?
 
S.A.M. said:
Homeostasis is an act? Amazing.
Click to expand...

You need everything spelled out, don't you. It's shorthand for all the shit it does to maintain itself, like EATING. Okay, forget I said homeostasis.

Eating. I'm no longer replying to your inanities.
 
francois said:
You need everything spelled out, don't you. It's shorthand for all the shit it does to maintain itself, like EATING. Okay, forget I said homeostasis.

Eating. I'm no longer replying to your inanities.
Click to expand...

Inanities indeed.
Like I said, its an anthropomorphic definition.
 
Yeah, which is why unscientific definitions are not given weight.

Nothing can first of all, replicate itself. If you clone yourself, is your clone you?
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...

Why?

Selfish Gene said:
Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin.

Apart from its academic interest, the human importance of this subject is obvious. It touches every aspect of our social lives, our loving and hating, fighting and cooperating, giving and stealing, our greed and our generosity. These are claims that could have been made for Lorenz's On Aggression, Ardrey's The Social Contract, and Eibl-Eibesfeldt's Love and Hate. The trouble with these books is that their authors got it totally and utterly wrong. They got it wrong because they misunderstood how evolution works. They made the erroneous assumption that the important thing in evolution is the good of the species (or the group) rather than the good of the individual (or the gene). It is ironic that Ashley Montagu should criticize Lorenz as a 'direct descendant of the "nature red in tooth and claw" thinkers of the nineteenth century . . .'. As I understand Lorenz's view of evolution, he would be very much at one with Montagu in rejecting the implications of Tennyson's famous phrase. Unlike both of them, I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably.

Before beginning on my argument itself, I want to explain briefly what sort of an argument it is, and what sort of an argument it is not, If we were told that a man had lived a long and prosperous life in the world of Chicago gangsters, we would be entitled to make some guesses as to the sort of man he was, We might expect that he would have qualities such as toughness, a quick trigger finger, and the ability to attract loyal friends. These would not be infallible deductions, but you can make some inferences about a man's character if you know something about the conditions in which he has survived and prospered. The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals. 'Special' and 'limited' are important words in the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.

This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all toll numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with the above statements?
 
Last edited:
I agree entirely that The Selfish Gene is a very important book. It's one of those books that can easily change your hold worldview.
 
SAM:

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...

Why?
Click to expand...

Have you read the book, or is this another of Dawkin's books that you will be commenting on without having read it?

Briefly, the only thing a gene "wants" is to make lots and lots of copies of itself. Human beings, on the other hand, have much more complex motivations.

--quoted extract--
Do you agree with the above statements?
Click to expand...

Yes. Particularly the last paragraph, which you did not bold.
 
It is a fantastic work of popular science. I would only point out that Nin' has it a little wrong. We are machines for propagating genes, but as long as we do that, we can also have any number of unexpected properties. For instance, we depend, more than any other animal, on learned behavior. There is a limit to the amount of information that can be accumulated in the genes. The longer the gene, and the more information, the more opportunities there are for mutation, which is more often than not, bad. As long as our creativity and uniqueness as individuals is paramount, we will never again be mere programmed devices with predictable responses. An individual can surpass their programming.
 
James R said:
Yes. Particularly the last paragraph, which you did not bold.
Click to expand...

And in particular Sam, this one statement that pertains to you specifically.

"I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all toll numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case."

James R said:
Have you read the book, or is this another of Dawkin's books that you will be commenting on without having read it?
Click to expand...

Of course, why would we expect anything different from Sam?
 
James R said:
SAM:



Have you read the book, or is this another of Dawkin's books that you will be commenting on without having read it?

Briefly, the only thing a gene "wants" is to make lots and lots of copies of itself. Human beings, on the other hand, have much more complex motivations.



Yes. Particularly the last paragraph, which you did not bold.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because it contradicted the two statements I highlighted. I think Dawkins is falling back on his Anglican background of all people are born in sin. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top