The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author

Perhaps when this book first dropped 30 years ago as the blueprint for evolution it was considered radical. Today it's taken as a given that the primary motivating force for behavior has a genetic basis. This shift in attitude may be a direct result of the widespread influence of The Selfish Gene, but I wouldn't know. I wasn't around then. But this is a fine work to help everyone understand the core essence of human nature, and how we can use our superior capacity for reason to create a society of compassion that compliments our biological imperative.

With the existence of such formidable works as this, it remains positively astounding that any debate should remain on the matter of Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever transparent euphemism is currently fashionable amongst the fundamentalists so populous in rural regions.

Of particularly acute interest to those seeking a slight edge in the competition of the fit should be chapter 9. This is something I most certainly will be passing on to those with whose success I have a genetic interest. Most, however, will never find their way to it, which suits me just fine. The less you know, the better it is for me. Hahahahaha!

Very well written book. Anyone with no background in Biology will be able to understand this book without any trouble. Richard Dawkins also provides good evidences and detailed explanations throughout the book. If you are a religious person, beware that this book might shock you in several ways.

A mind blowing book. I read it 30 years ago and just re-read the slightly enhanced newer edition. Chapter 2, which introduces the idea that genes, not organisms, are the focus of evolution always gives me a feeling of awe, the closest I can come to a religious experience -- but, of course, Dawkins would not approve of that.

Some of the chapters could be heavy going to a casual reader, demanding quite a bit of thought to follow the arguments. Along the way there are some nice descriptions of weird animal behavior.

One of the additional chapters discusses the extended phenotype, and made me want to read Dawkins' book of that title.

After reading this book a while back, I really did not get the impression from it that many people got. Some became depressed because of it?! It just does not make any sense.

This book does not tell us that we are no more than automatons, or that we are no more than our genes, or that we live a purposeless life, doomed to live out whatever was programmed into us by our genetic code. Sure, there are some spectacular statements that Dawkins makes for effect, but if one reads the entire book, one can understand that he is much of the time using metaphors to get a message across.

What is the general message? That we are survival machines for our genetic code. Our DNA contains code that works for its own survival, and why not? Who will really argue that we have no instincts? Instincts are something assigned only to "animals" by those of an anti-science mentality; instincts do not apply to "humans" as separate beings from the natural world. No, we are above all of that, the anti-science crowd will tell you.

However, remove things such as food, shelter, sex, loved ones, etc, and see how this human behaves. We are not set apart from the natural world, and we have drives and instincts that are hard-wired, just like all the other animals. These drives are for our own protection and for the protection of the ones closest to us, and if threatened by danger, we see who comes first in our eyes.

Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.