>The Selfish Gene

>I know absolutely nothing when it comes to evolutionary biology and zoology or whatever it’s called. I know I love sex, but that’s about it. I believe sex is a part of evolution… ;)
Nevertheless, having read Richard Dawkins‘ amazing book The God Delusion (I wrote a bit about it here. Also check steve austin’s runthrough (in Swedish) here.), I decided to try his old masterpiece The Selfish Gene. I’ve come across the title several times when reading about religion, and especially when reading what the Young Earth creationists have to say. These comedians seriously believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. It is estimated that 47% of Americans hold this view, and almost 10% of Christian colleges teach it. No wonder the world is a fucked up place!

However, when reading The Selfish Gene I’m so fascinated by this whole thing called existence, I’m almost willing to submit to the idea of Intelligent Design and whatever the hell these crazies (EDIT: the creationists) are talking about. It’s really that amazing. There’s a lot more to evolution than many people realise. And I mean a lot more!
Dawkins, just as in The God Delusion, argues like the professional he is, but it’s never a dull read and even people who aren’t the slightest interested in the theory of evolution should enjoy this book if they only gave it a fair chance. It’s not hard going and Dawkins provides a lot of interesting examples that’ll make your brain flip because they’re pretty mindbending and thought-provoking.
I don’t know, maybe die hard biologists think Dawkins’ simplifying and dramatising ideas, often using sweeping statements, are laughable. I like it, though.
But what struck me, me being a Spenglerian (or at least having read a lot of Spengler stuff and liked it), is that Dawkins’ argumentation leaves little room for the influence of culture and individuality when it comes to human development. Even so, he apparently coins the term ”meme” in this book, meaning ”a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, suggesting that such “selfish” replication may also model human culture, in a different sense” – or ”a unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices; such units or elements transmit from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena”.
I have the feeling I will return to this book when reading Spengler further on…

Anyway, this is probably the best popular science book I’ve ever read. If you decide to read it, make sure you get the 30th anniversary edition (yes, it was originally published in 1976!), since it includes a very large selection of notes which offer an additional perspective to many topics.
As for the title, The Selfish Gene: it’s kind of a metaphor describing the behaviour of genes, where altruism is an integral part of the so called ”selfishness”.

I read Charles Darwin‘s On the Origin of Species some 15 years ago, and I think that kind of got me started on the anti-Christian (left hand) path, and I’m re-reading it right now.
Still, I feel I know nothing. Like Manuel.

2 thoughts on “>The Selfish Gene”

  1. >”However, when reading The Selfish Gene I’m so fascinated by this whole thing called existence, I’m almost willing to submit to the idea of Intelligent Design”

    What do you mean? Dawkins is definitely not talking about intelligent design. I mean, the differential survival of genes, the Evolutionarily Stable Strategies, the games of chance, all presented in the book under the umbrella of Natural Selection, picture a world of blind fate, a world of trial and error, a world without a real purpose, except maybe, reproduction, and nowhere is there even a glimpse of an Intelligent being working behind the scenes.

  2. >Dawkins is definitely not talking about intelligent design.

    I know. I was referring to my rants about creationism, which quite often is mentioned alongside ID.
    So what I meant was that Dawkins’ writings about genes is so fascinating to me had I been a creationist I would probably dismiss what he says and refer to this “intelligent” being called God.
    I’m with Dawkins all the way, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *