You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
medium-paced
legt de principes van evolutie op een dieper niveau zó helder uit. dit is het soort uitleggen waardoor je iets écht begrijpt.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Book club read #1. Really enjoyed this. I always find it fascinating to read about evolution (probably because I grew up with such a twisted view of how life originated, and science in general). Richard Dawkins is the master of metaphors in this book as he tries to get us to understand how genes could 'choose' (unconsciously) to do selfish things in order to further their genes. Love the conception of living things being "survival machines"; it makes me feel like I'm living in a science fiction book.
This is the first real book I've read about evolution. I learned a great deal, but since it is the first book about evolution I've read I can't really compare it to other texts.
One interesting thing about the book is Dawkins invents the word "meme" in here, in an almost offhand kind of way. And in a humorous turn, the word meme turns itself into a meme that propagates far enough that most English speakers know this word now and have a rough idea of what it means.
The only downside to this book is that Dawkins takes unnecessary potshots at religion/faith. I guess he just couldn't resist the urge. It doesn't overwhelm the book by any means, but might upset some readers.
One interesting thing about the book is Dawkins invents the word "meme" in here, in an almost offhand kind of way. And in a humorous turn, the word meme turns itself into a meme that propagates far enough that most English speakers know this word now and have a rough idea of what it means.
The only downside to this book is that Dawkins takes unnecessary potshots at religion/faith. I guess he just couldn't resist the urge. It doesn't overwhelm the book by any means, but might upset some readers.
One of the most intellectually impactful books I have ever read. It fundamentally changed the way I thought about altruism, game theory, human and animal evolution, social constructs, morality, and society as a whole. I've read this book 3 times in the past decade and have bought countless copies for friends and family.
informative
slow-paced
(TW inaccurate science and misused concepts) many of my very selfish genes mutated and became resolutely suicidal over reading this book.
not sure where to begin and i can't help but wanting to oversimplify my feelings and say that this book was bad in more than one way. there are things to be learnt, but at what cost?
first, imagine writing a book that some neo-nazis think support their views, knowing that your work has been recuperated by the british national front (see dawkins's interview with frank miele), and yet not making any comment about this in an introduction to the said book. this is the 40th anniversary edition, by the way. much of dawkins's point in the interview also seems to be that his book laid out facts, which should not be confused with moral injonctions. the most obvious problem with this view may be that the very title of the selfish gene brought morality into the picture, and dawkins's critical distance with it in the introduction to the 30th anniversary edition is not enough to correct this, especially given the many problems of his work.
dawkins is insufferable at times - condescending, criticising "philosophers" and "anthropologists" several times as though they were all like-minded, and making long-winded yet still confusing points. to be fair, he does recognise his mistakes in notes here and there, saying for instance that he may have been too cynical (commenting on the opening sentence of chapter 9: "if there is conflict of interest between parents and children, who share 50 per cent of each other's genes, how much more severe must be the conflict between mates, who are not related to each other?"); but most corrections feel wrested out of from a place of arrogance and pedantry.
i wish i could be fair and explain that not everything should be thrown away. but others have praised the book enough already, and this was much too painful and exasperating a read for me. i could only honestly recommend it to two kinds of people:
- (truly) left-wing biologists (with solid mental health) who are willing to make a thorough critique of it for us laypeople
- people looking for that last reason to kill themselves. seriously, if you're feeling depressed, deceived and lonely as shit, and looking for a push to end it, this could be the book. reading this with trust issues still freshly stirred was like sinking to the bottom of the mariana trench.
it's not even primarily about the bleak idea of natural selection being driven by "selfishness". i do wish i knew precisely which ideas are debated and which are commonly accepted today, but the core of the theory here does not seem shocking if you already know a thing or two about natural selection: basically, the main argument is that the process occurs at the level of the smallest replicable genetic units - genes (whatever they are exactly, this seems a complicated topic). but the guy just killed my joy. i'm used to turning to biology for wonder, and the selfish gene took that away these past few days and i wish i had not read it. the world turned dark, and this despite being somehow familiar with the most important ideas exposed. in fact, the central issue may be the way dawkins puts it all - the obnoxious metaphors and the worldview that comes with them.
he may say that his images should not be taken literally and language not so seriously, words and concepts do so much, and this is particularly true when you aim at popularising science. we are all bound to think of the world in familiar images, but he takes it all the way to the wrong places. business metaphors, insurance metaphors ("individuals can be thought of as life-insurance underwriters"), ... let us not forget, also, that the man indulged in comments on topics he has no expertise in, saying for instance that the state is "unnatural" (dawkins uncritically works with a nature/culture binary) and that: "since we humans do not want to return to the old selfish ways where we let the children of too-large families starve to death, we have abolished the family as a unit of economic self-sufficiency. but the privilege of guaranteed support for children should not be abused".
my sheer disgust for the image of bodies as "survival machines" is without a doubt exaggerated, but the view of bodies as machines and its roots in capitalism run so deep that it bothered me every time it was used. on a less political tone, there are really just too many metaphors and most do not make things clearer. the oarsmen and coach metaphor is still a mystery to me. which is connected to another issue i have with the book: game theory. honestly, i learnt about some interesting stuff but the foundations of all points pertaining to game theory (and there are many) seem so flimsy to me: talking about game theory is talking about variables and there are so many things you must take into account - so many limits to what even the best scientists can see, how could you hope to translate the world into mathematical language?
going back to an earlier point about using commonplace images uncritically: talking about males and females, and then starting to talk of husbands and wives out of the blue - of "domestic-bliss strategy", "loose females", ... needless to say, on top of the doubts about eugenics, some of the language is indebted to misogyny, just as his arguing that "mankind is having too many children", given some of the discourse since the book was first published, smacks of unchecked racism. having your work republished several times, there are no excuse not to clarify such things.
so many more things to say but the vent is long enough already. i know i have been harsh but i can't sincerely praise anything here.
not sure where to begin and i can't help but wanting to oversimplify my feelings and say that this book was bad in more than one way. there are things to be learnt, but at what cost?
first, imagine writing a book that some neo-nazis think support their views, knowing that your work has been recuperated by the british national front (see dawkins's interview with frank miele), and yet not making any comment about this in an introduction to the said book. this is the 40th anniversary edition, by the way. much of dawkins's point in the interview also seems to be that his book laid out facts, which should not be confused with moral injonctions. the most obvious problem with this view may be that the very title of the selfish gene brought morality into the picture, and dawkins's critical distance with it in the introduction to the 30th anniversary edition is not enough to correct this, especially given the many problems of his work.
dawkins is insufferable at times - condescending, criticising "philosophers" and "anthropologists" several times as though they were all like-minded, and making long-winded yet still confusing points. to be fair, he does recognise his mistakes in notes here and there, saying for instance that he may have been too cynical (commenting on the opening sentence of chapter 9: "if there is conflict of interest between parents and children, who share 50 per cent of each other's genes, how much more severe must be the conflict between mates, who are not related to each other?"); but most corrections feel wrested out of from a place of arrogance and pedantry.
i wish i could be fair and explain that not everything should be thrown away. but others have praised the book enough already, and this was much too painful and exasperating a read for me. i could only honestly recommend it to two kinds of people:
- (truly) left-wing biologists (with solid mental health) who are willing to make a thorough critique of it for us laypeople
- people looking for that last reason to kill themselves. seriously, if you're feeling depressed, deceived and lonely as shit, and looking for a push to end it, this could be the book. reading this with trust issues still freshly stirred was like sinking to the bottom of the mariana trench.
it's not even primarily about the bleak idea of natural selection being driven by "selfishness". i do wish i knew precisely which ideas are debated and which are commonly accepted today, but the core of the theory here does not seem shocking if you already know a thing or two about natural selection: basically, the main argument is that the process occurs at the level of the smallest replicable genetic units - genes (whatever they are exactly, this seems a complicated topic). but the guy just killed my joy. i'm used to turning to biology for wonder, and the selfish gene took that away these past few days and i wish i had not read it. the world turned dark, and this despite being somehow familiar with the most important ideas exposed. in fact, the central issue may be the way dawkins puts it all - the obnoxious metaphors and the worldview that comes with them.
he may say that his images should not be taken literally and language not so seriously, words and concepts do so much, and this is particularly true when you aim at popularising science. we are all bound to think of the world in familiar images, but he takes it all the way to the wrong places. business metaphors, insurance metaphors ("individuals can be thought of as life-insurance underwriters"), ... let us not forget, also, that the man indulged in comments on topics he has no expertise in, saying for instance that the state is "unnatural" (dawkins uncritically works with a nature/culture binary) and that: "since we humans do not want to return to the old selfish ways where we let the children of too-large families starve to death, we have abolished the family as a unit of economic self-sufficiency. but the privilege of guaranteed support for children should not be abused".
my sheer disgust for the image of bodies as "survival machines" is without a doubt exaggerated, but the view of bodies as machines and its roots in capitalism run so deep that it bothered me every time it was used. on a less political tone, there are really just too many metaphors and most do not make things clearer. the oarsmen and coach metaphor is still a mystery to me. which is connected to another issue i have with the book: game theory. honestly, i learnt about some interesting stuff but the foundations of all points pertaining to game theory (and there are many) seem so flimsy to me: talking about game theory is talking about variables and there are so many things you must take into account - so many limits to what even the best scientists can see, how could you hope to translate the world into mathematical language?
going back to an earlier point about using commonplace images uncritically: talking about males and females, and then starting to talk of husbands and wives out of the blue - of "domestic-bliss strategy", "loose females", ... needless to say, on top of the doubts about eugenics, some of the language is indebted to misogyny, just as his arguing that "mankind is having too many children", given some of the discourse since the book was first published, smacks of unchecked racism. having your work republished several times, there are no excuse not to clarify such things.
so many more things to say but the vent is long enough already. i know i have been harsh but i can't sincerely praise anything here.
medium-paced
Patronising and painful to read. Concept is interesting, but you get the gist from the first few chapters so maybe stop after that.
Probably one of the most important books I have read. It is extremely well written allowing the reader to grasp and think about the complex concept of evolution. When it was written it was considered controversial in academic circles, but hardly today. Still, most people probably think of evolution in as it was seen before this book, and thus it remains a must-read for everyone.