9 von 66 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Rezension bezieht sich auf: The Selfish Gene (Taschenbuch)
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.
Sortieren: Ältester zuerst | Neuester zuerst
1-2 von 2 Diskussionsbeiträgen
Ersteintrag: 22.01.2012 12:49:06 GMT+01:00
Tin Sulejmanpasic meint:
Despite Dawkins' constant warning not to take the analogy of genes puppet masters, it seems that some, such as yourself, have indeed done exactly that. Dawkins' wrote a popular book, with analogies suited for such writing. The observation that genes were "selfish" does not imply that they are selfish in any conventional sense of humans followed by greed, zeal and envy. He was talking about "statistical selfishness", that every gene which tries best to make the organism survive will have a greater likelihood of being passed on.
The point of "teaching generosity and altruism", is that the selfishness of genes influences the pre-programming of individuals, but does not influence the program once it has started. Some of these programs have evolved to making our cognitive abilities very sophisticated, but it cannot (and, indeed, did not) influence our thoughts. Therefore the "altruism" and " generosity" which we can do stems from our minds, and not our genes.
Veröffentlicht am 25.07.2014 03:12:51 GMT+02:00
"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."
Why do I smell a religious mind behind this ridiculous review?
‹ Zurück 1 Weiter ›