Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
To begin with, for someone who laments all the misconceptions and misunderstandings of the book, Richard Dawkins should bear most of the blame in choosing what is probably the worst imaginable choice for the title. As Dawkins would admit later, three better alternatives would have been The Cooperative Gene, The Immortal Gene, or The Altruistic Vehicle.
In the title The Selfish Gene, the emphasis should be on “gene,” not on “selfish,” as in a gene that codes for selfishness. But Dawkins should have anticipated the confusion and the tendency for critics to use this against him without even reading the book. Nothing screams social darwinism more than the title The Selfish Gene, even though the book is clearly anti-social darwinism in content.
There’s even a passage Dawkins wrote that, as he states in the introduction, he wishes he could remove: “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” This again conveys the wrong idea.
I can’t help but think this should have all been anticipated, and so this detracts from the otherwise brilliant ideas in the book. Here are what I take those ideas to be.
The main idea represents a new way of thinking about evolution in terms of “replicators” and “vehicles.” The replicators are strands of DNA that are housed, copied, and transmitted by and through bodies, which act as vehicles for the replicators.
While it’s natural to think of an animal body as using DNA to reproduce and replicate itself, Dawkins reverses this and claims that a better, more accurate way of depicting the situation is as replicators using bodies to replicate and transmit themselves.
And so the unit of natural selection is at the level of the gene, not the individual. And this shouldn’t be controversial because it’s not even possible for an individual to act as a replicator. A replicator must be copied with high levels of accuracy to be passed on, and an individual cannot copy itself with any degree of accuracy at all. An individual is a unique assortment of genes in specific arrangements, and during reproduction only half of his/her entire genome is transmitted to offspring, and even in this half the genes are shuffled and reconfigured in different arrangements. The only things that live on in the same arrangement are particular genes, the immortal strands of DNA that pass through the vehicles known as animals and plants.
You can say that natural selection works at the level of the individual, not the gene, because genes are shielded from the environment. This seems to be a contradiction of the selfish gene theory, but it isn’t. Here’s why: genes provide the instructions for building bodies, and so have phenotypic effects (a phenotype is an observable characteristic resulting from genetic instruction). Natural selection works on individual bodies, but the bodies are constructed based on instructions from the genes. So in a sense natural selection is working at both levels, but it is only the gene that is acting as a true replicator.
For example, if a hard shell protects an animal and offers a reproductive advantage, this animal will survive and reproduce at higher rates. Natural selection has operated at the level of the individual. But the genes for producing a hard shell are what’s being passed on to other bodies during reproduction, so it’s really the level of the gene where evolution is taking place and it’s really the gene that is being selected for.
It’s important to remember that evolution by natural selection is a mechanical, physical process, and “viewing” the process at different levels is just a matter of pedagogical convenience. This clarifies another misconception: genes are not consciously “trying” to replicate themselves, it just helps to understand the phenomenon through personification. If we think of genes as selfishly acting to perpetuate themselves, we can understand the process more clearly.
The final misconception I want to cover is the connection between biological evolution and morality or politics. As Richard Dawkins clearly states in the book, there is no necessary connection between evolution and how we should structure our behavior or organize our society. Evolution has crafted our brains, but our brains have long taken over the process of everyday living. As Steven Pinker reminded us, he has chosen to not have children, instead dedicating his life to teaching, writing, and friends, and if his genes don’t like it they can go jump in the lake. Dawkins also thinks it should be obvious that our brains can override our selfish genes, using the obvious example of contraceptives.
A good rule of thumb is, if you hear someone make a moral claim based on evolution, they probably don’t understand how evolution works. And if they do, they’re making the obvious mistake of not noticing how our consciousness has allowed us to escape the dictates of our biology. More than likely, they’re just using biology to justify an archaic and dogmatic social arrangement in which they stand to benefit.
The last thing I’ll mention is the connection between evolution and human meaning. Some people have commented that reading this book has sent them into a state of depression, as it paints a rather bleak and mechanical view of the world. I have three responses to this:
1. Truth is truth, whether we want to believe it or not. The universe is under no obligation to conform to our wishes. We must have the courage to face reality, wherever the evidence and our reasoning leads. Anything else is childish self-delusion.
2. Most people do not derive life satisfaction based on the ultimate fate or nature of the material world anyway. Even if the arguments from the book are true, what does this have to do with family, friends, hobbies, music, art, positive emotions, and everything else that makes life worth living?
3. Scientific knowledge is never complete or certain. Our limited senses capture only portions of reality, our scientific knowledge is incomplete, and future discoveries are presently unforeseeable. I’m not suggesting anything supernatural here, only that we have both knowledge and ignorance about the world. Turning ignorance into knowledge via religion, superstition, mysticism, etc. leads only to confusion and inaccuracy, but at the same time we cannot close our minds to thinking our knowledge is complete. If this is enough for you to hold out hope for deeper meaning infused into the universe, then that is a legitimate position.
In the title The Selfish Gene, the emphasis should be on “gene,” not on “selfish,” as in a gene that codes for selfishness. But Dawkins should have anticipated the confusion and the tendency for critics to use this against him without even reading the book. Nothing screams social darwinism more than the title The Selfish Gene, even though the book is clearly anti-social darwinism in content.
There’s even a passage Dawkins wrote that, as he states in the introduction, he wishes he could remove: “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” This again conveys the wrong idea.
I can’t help but think this should have all been anticipated, and so this detracts from the otherwise brilliant ideas in the book. Here are what I take those ideas to be.
The main idea represents a new way of thinking about evolution in terms of “replicators” and “vehicles.” The replicators are strands of DNA that are housed, copied, and transmitted by and through bodies, which act as vehicles for the replicators.
While it’s natural to think of an animal body as using DNA to reproduce and replicate itself, Dawkins reverses this and claims that a better, more accurate way of depicting the situation is as replicators using bodies to replicate and transmit themselves.
And so the unit of natural selection is at the level of the gene, not the individual. And this shouldn’t be controversial because it’s not even possible for an individual to act as a replicator. A replicator must be copied with high levels of accuracy to be passed on, and an individual cannot copy itself with any degree of accuracy at all. An individual is a unique assortment of genes in specific arrangements, and during reproduction only half of his/her entire genome is transmitted to offspring, and even in this half the genes are shuffled and reconfigured in different arrangements. The only things that live on in the same arrangement are particular genes, the immortal strands of DNA that pass through the vehicles known as animals and plants.
You can say that natural selection works at the level of the individual, not the gene, because genes are shielded from the environment. This seems to be a contradiction of the selfish gene theory, but it isn’t. Here’s why: genes provide the instructions for building bodies, and so have phenotypic effects (a phenotype is an observable characteristic resulting from genetic instruction). Natural selection works on individual bodies, but the bodies are constructed based on instructions from the genes. So in a sense natural selection is working at both levels, but it is only the gene that is acting as a true replicator.
For example, if a hard shell protects an animal and offers a reproductive advantage, this animal will survive and reproduce at higher rates. Natural selection has operated at the level of the individual. But the genes for producing a hard shell are what’s being passed on to other bodies during reproduction, so it’s really the level of the gene where evolution is taking place and it’s really the gene that is being selected for.
It’s important to remember that evolution by natural selection is a mechanical, physical process, and “viewing” the process at different levels is just a matter of pedagogical convenience. This clarifies another misconception: genes are not consciously “trying” to replicate themselves, it just helps to understand the phenomenon through personification. If we think of genes as selfishly acting to perpetuate themselves, we can understand the process more clearly.
The final misconception I want to cover is the connection between biological evolution and morality or politics. As Richard Dawkins clearly states in the book, there is no necessary connection between evolution and how we should structure our behavior or organize our society. Evolution has crafted our brains, but our brains have long taken over the process of everyday living. As Steven Pinker reminded us, he has chosen to not have children, instead dedicating his life to teaching, writing, and friends, and if his genes don’t like it they can go jump in the lake. Dawkins also thinks it should be obvious that our brains can override our selfish genes, using the obvious example of contraceptives.
A good rule of thumb is, if you hear someone make a moral claim based on evolution, they probably don’t understand how evolution works. And if they do, they’re making the obvious mistake of not noticing how our consciousness has allowed us to escape the dictates of our biology. More than likely, they’re just using biology to justify an archaic and dogmatic social arrangement in which they stand to benefit.
The last thing I’ll mention is the connection between evolution and human meaning. Some people have commented that reading this book has sent them into a state of depression, as it paints a rather bleak and mechanical view of the world. I have three responses to this:
1. Truth is truth, whether we want to believe it or not. The universe is under no obligation to conform to our wishes. We must have the courage to face reality, wherever the evidence and our reasoning leads. Anything else is childish self-delusion.
2. Most people do not derive life satisfaction based on the ultimate fate or nature of the material world anyway. Even if the arguments from the book are true, what does this have to do with family, friends, hobbies, music, art, positive emotions, and everything else that makes life worth living?
3. Scientific knowledge is never complete or certain. Our limited senses capture only portions of reality, our scientific knowledge is incomplete, and future discoveries are presently unforeseeable. I’m not suggesting anything supernatural here, only that we have both knowledge and ignorance about the world. Turning ignorance into knowledge via religion, superstition, mysticism, etc. leads only to confusion and inaccuracy, but at the same time we cannot close our minds to thinking our knowledge is complete. If this is enough for you to hold out hope for deeper meaning infused into the universe, then that is a legitimate position.
informative
Dawkins explains complex biological concepts with clarity and wit, making the science accessible. His central idea, that genes, not individuals or species, are the primary drivers of evolution, reshapes how we understand behavior, competition, and cooperation in the natural world.
The writing is sharp and engaging, filled with vivid examples that bring the science to life. Even decades after its original publication, the book feels fresh and relevant, sparking curiosity about everything from altruism to survival strategies.
This is a fascinating and intellectually stimulating read that challenges assumptions and deepens appreciation for the beauty and complexity of life. A must-read for anyone interested in science, evolution, or the workings of the natural world.
The writing is sharp and engaging, filled with vivid examples that bring the science to life. Even decades after its original publication, the book feels fresh and relevant, sparking curiosity about everything from altruism to survival strategies.
This is a fascinating and intellectually stimulating read that challenges assumptions and deepens appreciation for the beauty and complexity of life. A must-read for anyone interested in science, evolution, or the workings of the natural world.
informative
medium-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Interesting overview that tries to accompanied the interpretation of the gene and replicators as its definition evolves. Really worth it
Mixed bag. Important from a historical perspective. A solid baseline for genetics and evolution. Well written. I appreciate the endnotes clarifying what I felt were obvious obnoxious flaws. He’s even a bit humble and bashful about those mistakes - and I found that charming.
I just don’t like the writing style, tone, and attitude of the book. And I find some of his interpretations too still be pig headed.
I just don’t like the writing style, tone, and attitude of the book. And I find some of his interpretations too still be pig headed.
An important book for its chapter outlining memetic theory. Flawed in many ways, but still of interest.