The Selfish Gene [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

On the eve of the deciphering of the human genome, this is a terrific time to read this thought-provoking book. Basically, the book repeatedly looks at observed plant and animal behavior in terms of whether it furthers reproduction of a particular gene or set of genes. In most cases, Dawkins can construct a mathematical argument that is reasonably plausible to support his thesis. The only places where you may be uncomfortable is that the conclusions often depend on the assumptions that go into the models used. Those cited by Dawkins work. Others would not in many cases. That's where the room for doubt arises.

I was especially impressed when he took the same arguments into the realm of conscious behavior, looking at classic problems like the Prisoner's Dilemma and explaining it from a genetic reproduction perspective. He also built some very nice arguments for why altruism can turn out to be an appropriate form of positive genetic selection.

The main thing that bothered me as I read the book is that I was under the impression that in humans the female's genes account for 2/3rds of the offspring's total genes, while the male's genes account for 1/3. If that is true, then I am left at sea by the fact that all of the examples assume equal amounts of genes from the male and the female. I was left wondering if other species are typically 50-50, so that humans are the exception.

I don't know how to account for this because I lack that knowledge. The introduction says that the publisher would not let there be a wholesale rewrite of the book in the new edition. Perhaps this is something that Dawkins wanted to revise and could not. There are two new chapters, and they are both quite interesting.

If most mammalian species are 2/3 to 1/3, then many of the examples involving mammals are miscalculated. It would be worth redoing them if that is the case. I suspect that the conclusions would still be robust, however, directionally.

Any work of speculation will always be subject to refinement and revision. I hope Dawkins keeps working on this one. His thinking has great potential for outlining new questions for research.

One of the delights of this book is finding about plant and animal behaviors that I had never known about before. My favorite was the irresistible cuckoo gape. Apparently, a baby cuckoo in a next with its beak open begging for food is somehow so compelling that other birds carrying food back to another nest will stop by and give the food instead to the baby cuckoo. The book is full of thought-provoking examples like this that will keep me thinking for years.

Dawkins is a very fine writer, and employs a number of simple, but compelling stories and analogies to carry forth complicated mathematical arguments. Even if you hate math, you will follow and enjoy his writing. Unlike many popular science books, he writes to his reader rather than down to his reader.

Another benefit you will get from this book is a methodology for thinking through why behavior may make sense that otherwise looks foolish from the perspective of the individual (like bees dying to defend the hive). You will never look at behavior in quite the same way again.

Enjoy!

1) The central thesis is that genes act as if their intention was to selfishly help themselves spread throughout the gene pool. This is not because they have the ability to make decisions or are capable of being selfish the way a person could. It's simply that those that happen to act as if they had wanted to spread do spread, and they do so at the expense of the rest. This notion of apparent design from natural selection is the keystone of neo-Darwinism.

2) The idea of analyzing evolution by looking at how each individual gene spreads itself in the environment of other genes is not only clear but illuminating, solving problems that the organism-centered approach cannot. Remember, an environment consists of whatever circumstances, objects, or conditions one is surrounded by. That means that, just as it makes perfect sense to say that other people form part of each person's environment, it is logical that other genes form part of a gene's environment. A gene competes with other alleles -- alternative genes at its locus -- and often does so by cooperating with genes at other loci, as per Dawkins' rowing team analogy.

3) It's not that Dawkins ignores neurobiology, but that he supports the new understanding that there is neither biological nor cultural determinism for behavior, but rather development based on epigenetic rules. In other words, Dawkins denies the Standard Social Science Model of tabula rasa human nature, replacing it with a less extremist stance that is demonstrably true. As Steven Pinker makes very clear in _How The Mind Works_, humans are intelligent not because we are free from the instincts that drive other animals but because of our ability to use the mental organs that implement our instincts to solve general-purpose problems.

4) Dawkins does not in any way restrict cultural transmission to imitation. However, as his interest is in its neo-Darwinistic evolution, not mere transmission or random change, he focuses on the units of replication -- the memes -- that are naturally selected among. This is particularly interesting since it opens up the way to understanding the coevolution of genes and memes, as E. O. Wilson explains in _Consilience_.

In summary, if you want to understand these issues, don't take Yehouda's word on this or even mine. Get the book and read it for yourself. Life is so much more interesting than anti-evolutionists would have you imagine, and Dawkins is so painfully clear that even the layman has to work hard to misunderstand him. He is, quite literally, a joy to read.