Customer Reviews

The Selfish Gene (New Edition)

5 star:		(148)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

More than a quarter-century after its first publication, Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" remains a classic of popular science writing. This edition includes two new chapters as well as extensive endnotes that do much to perfect the original text and correct the few mistakes that were found in it. "The Selfish Gene" is explicitly directed at the layman, and absolutely no knowledge of biology is assumed. While this presents a danger of boring readers (such as myself) who are already familiar with DNA and meiosis, the colorful metaphors Dawkins uses throughout the book do much to keep the reading engrossing and entertaining.

After a lengthy exploration of basic biology, covering topics such as DNA and the origin of life, Dawkins introduces the gene-centered view of evolution that has long been textbook orthodoxy. Dawkins uses the remainder of the book to look at various types of animal behavior in an effort to convey some general conclusions and tools to help the reader understand evolution and natural selection. Much of his effort is devoted to explaining behavior in terms of the 'selfish gene' - especially social behavior that has long been held to have evolved 'for the good of the species.' Dawkins shows that how fundamental axiom of natural selection (that the genes best at surviving and reproducing will eventually spread through the gene pool) leads directly to the selfish gene and the behavior exhibited by nearly all animals (humans being the prime exception).

Many of Dawkins's metaphors have caused raised eyebrows - one outstanding example is his characterization of living things as "lumbering robots" built to protect the genes that hide in them - but the metaphors are always (eventually) brought under control. The title is one such metaphor that has often been misunderstood by superficial analysis. The 'selfish gene' is simply a gene that does not aid others at its own expense. Such genes would be better able to reproduce and spread through the gene pool than those that did sacrifice themselves for others, and therefore completely dominate the gene pools of all species as a result of billions of years of evolutionary pressure.

I cannot hope to adequately summarize Dawkins's arguments in a mere review, so I sincerely urge you to read "The Selfish Gene" for yourself. I should warn that conservatives would probably not enjoy the book nearly as much as I did. Dawkins is an open secular humanist with socialist leanings, and is not worried about offending the delicate sensibilities of creationists and fundamentalists. This book should only be read by those willing to 'accept' the validity of natural selection and evolution; others would only waste their time. I would direct readers seeking a more scientific discussion of these issues to G. C. Williams's "Adaptation and Natural Selection." All others will most likely enjoy "The Selfish Gene" a great deal and finish the book with a new appreciation for and understanding of evolution and biology.

I wish I could rate this book at 5 stars and 0 stars at the same time. It is a fascinating book, very well-written, and it conveys a real sense of how life works on the biological level, how all sorts of diverse factors interact with each other to create an incredibly complex system (the evolution of life, in this case); it also just as vividly conveys a sense of how scientists come to understand these processes.

I started it many years ago at the suggestion of a friend, thinking I wouldn't find it very interesting, and not much liking the kind of philosophy of life that (on the basis of my friend's description) seemed to lie behind it. But only a chapter or two in, I was completely hooked, and wanted to read more Dawkins.

On one level, I can share in the sense of wonder Dawkins so evidently sees in the workings-out of such complex processes, often made up of quite simple elemental mechanisms, but interacting so complexly to produce the incredibly complex world we live in.

But at the same time, I largely blame "The Selfish Gene" for a series of bouts of depression I suffered from for more than a decade, and part of me wants to rate the book at zero stars for its effect on my life. Never sure of my spiritual outlook on life, but trying to find something deeper - trying to believe, but not quite being able to - I found that this book just about blew away any vague ideas I had along these lines, and prevented them from coalescing any further. This created quite a strong personal crisis for me some years ago.

The book renders a God or supreme power of any sort quite superfluous for the purpose of accounting for the way the world is, and the way life is. It accounts for the nature of life, and for human nature, only too well, whereas most religions or spiritual outlooks raise problems that have to be got around. It presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature, and makes life seem utterly pointless; yet I cannot present any arguments to refute its point of view. I still try to have some kind of spiritual outlook, but it is definitely battered, and I have not yet overcome the effects of this book on me.

Richard Dawkins seems to have the idea that religion and spirituality are not only false, but ultimately unable to give a real sense of meaning and purpose in life. Their satisfaction is hollow, empty, and unreal, in his apparent view, and only a scientific understanding of life can give a real, lasting sense of wonder and purpose.

I would question this. While I am not sure what (if anything) there is spiritually, I know that a scientific view of life cannot offer the slightest hope of life after death, and since we're all going to die and most of us don't want to, this is a crippling drawback to the kind of scientific vision Dawkins wants us all to have. If there is nothing beyond death, no spiritual dimension to anything, and everything is just a blind dance of atoms, I fail to see how this by itself can give one a real sense of purpose, however fascinating the dance that Dawkins describes - and it *is* fascinating; let there be no mistake about that.

Because of this, I have the curious feeling of dichotomy about Dawkins' book that it is certainly fascinating on one level, but that I cannot give even qualified emotional commitment to the outlook on life that seems to lie behind it. I would in the end rather have the hope of something wonderful and purposeful that only some spiritual outlook can offer, even though it may be a deluded fantasy, than the certainty of a scientific vision that eliminates any possibility of long-term hope, that condemns us to an empty, eternal death of nothingness in the end. This scientific view may be completely rational; but rationality is not the only important consideration to shape our outlook on life.

Anyone who has a narrow religious view of life, who is absolutely sure their religion is completely right, would be best off avoiding this book like the plague - it probably won't change their views, but they will quite likely get very upset and outraged. And anyone with an open-minded spiritual view had better at least be prepared to do a lot of thinking, and perhaps be willing to change some of their views, because this book *will* challenge almost any spiritual or religious viewpoint I can think of - whether it is of the open-minded or dogmatic sort.

Some critics of this book have found its reasoning unconvincing, its materialist reductionism too superficial and shallow. But, from my perspective, the problem does not lie here; the problem with the book is that it is *too* convincing, that it is *entirely* convincing. The book makes it very difficult to continue to believe in anything that contradicts its basic premise, but which might be more comforting, and might give a greater sense of hope and inspiration, and provide a real sense of purpose in life.

Such have its effects on my life been that, in my more depressed moments, I have desperately wished I could unread the book, and continue life from where I left off.

It has been said that each of us has a God-shaped hole inside, and that we spend most of our lives trying to fill it with the wrong things. I firmly believe that God-shaped hole is there, that we have inner longings of a wonderful sort almost impossible to describe in words. Whether a God exists to fill it, I do not yet know. But what I am sure of is that, as wonderful as Dawkins' view of nature and of life may be on its own level, it will not fill that God-shaped hole.

I must say this book is excellent. The concepts are explained in a way that makes them very easy to grasp. The metaphors are truly illuminating. Dawkins may be the best science writer I have ever read.

The people who gave him one star must have serious problems in comprehending simple logic. I read one review where the guy was criticizing Dawkin's for titling the book "The Selfish Gene". His argument was that genes being molecules could not be selfish. WELL NO DUH!!! The genes are not selfish in an anthropomorphic sense they just behave as though they were only interested in their own replication. And this behaviour arises because they descended from succesful ancestors that had the same behaviour. Even the word "behaviour" is not absolutely the best fit here. We could say the genes operate to maximize their replication.

But all that rewording is only necessary for people who cannot bring themselves to accept the stark true logic of Dawkin's book. To the rest of us once Dawkins has illuminated the concept its logical appeal is self evident. Nitpicking the semantics is pretty lame.

Reading Yehouda Harpaz' review, I realized that some people have trouble understanding Dawkins' ideas, apparently because they would rather confine evolution to a limited area -- the biology of animals -- and keep it from applying to humans, most especially to our minds. I'd like to express some of the ideas in Dawkins' book to entice you and clarify these misconceptions.

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.

This book was first published in 1976, and instantly became one of the classics of popular science. It stands as the best available introduction to modern evolution theory for the lay reader.

Curiously, while the actual content of the book has been becoming more and more mainstream over the past twenty-odd years, the book itself has been acquiring a reputation for controversiality. My own feeling is that most of the critics cannot have ever read past the title. Dawkins makes it abundantly clear that the selfishness of genes is metaphorical. How anyone could have read the book and come away with the impression that Dawkins ascribes motives and attitudes to genes defies my understanding. The theories that Dawkins puts forward are utterly mechanistic, and entirely in accord with conventional genetics and molecular biology (which are indeed outlined quite clearly in the introductory chapters).

Another misunderstanding (now fortunately less common) is that Dawkins predicts the selfish behaviour of all animals. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, 'The Selfish Gene' attempts to show how the forces of evolution give rise to [a limited degree of] altruism when they would seem, at first glance, to promote utter selfishness.

Richard Dawkins certainly has a genius for witty explanations of complex phenomena. "The Selfish Gene" is among the best and most fascinating books on evolution ever written (and remains so today!). Dawkins may not be the first or the only proponent of the selfish gene theory, but he's certainly the most eloquent and captivating.

If the intellectual aha! experience of seeing that selection works at the genetic level isn't enough, read the last few chapters, where Dawkins hides a brilliant idea everyone else would die for. It is here that Dawkins proposes the revolutionary idea of the meme, or the "unit of imitation" (p192 in my copy) - in other words, the replicator responsible for cultural evolution. Since he first proposed the idea, the meme meme has really spread far and wide, which is a testament to its excellence...this is a great example of reformulating an old idea in a new way and ending up with something radically different.

This is the book that first introduced me to evolutionary theory as a study in its own right, and I hope it will stimulate your mind as much as it did mine. I've been a big supporter of Dawkins ever since!

Richard Dawkins's book is, for the most part, what people say it is: lively written, intriguing, and an exposition of evolution from the "gene's eye-view perspective." I found it rather interesting to read this book and Dawkins's notion of viewing evolution from the gene perspective (by the way not, as many claim, a notion that was entirely his) can certainly open up much debate in biology and beyond.

I do have some concerns with _The Selfish Gene_, however, namely that the prose is a bit too "lively." Repeatedly, Dawkins reiterates that he does not want to anthropomorphize genes, granting them consciousness and a will. Instead, his metaphor of genes "building survival machines" and willfully acting to increase their own propagation is simply what Dawkins calls "the language of convenience." Moreover, with words such as "selfish" and "gene," Dawkins carefully defines these words to try and avoid trouble. He uses this language of convenience in order to keep the tone of the book light and to keep lay people interested.

While these definitions and metaphors may be "convenient" for Dawkins, they are also downright misleading. Despite the fact that he takes measures to warn us of his "convenient" language, I am not sure that the average reader is careful to make these distinctions and to translate his convenient language back into the language of disinterested evolution. When you engage someone in conversation about this book, what they remember is the image of these little genes, running around making "selfish" decisions in order to increase their own survival rate. By "selfish," of course, I mean a psychologically selfish decision, and not the unconscious "selfish" behavior that Dawkins redefines. If you don't believe me, just ask someone who has read it. Thus, we are right back at a Lamarckian view of evolution, with young children believing that if the giraffe just strains its neck a bit more, they will grow longer necks. If one does read this book, which I do recommend, he or she would be wise to keep a tight focus on Dawkins's use of metaphor in order to not be misled by it.

What interests me more, especially as a student of philosophy, is the degree to which people have viewed this text as a definitive doomsday device for religion, ethics, and morality. One can see the problems Dawkins has caused by reading the upset reviews on this website. I believe that this despair is wholeheartedly mistaken and arises from common misunderstandings about these issues. First, evolution does not necessarily kick God out of the picture (though, many may have to modify their definition of "God" in order to recognize it). Secondly, the truth of ethics and morality does not rely upon the existence of a "God." There are many ethical theories that do not make reference to the supernatural and philosophy has been hard at work crafting these theories for some time now. Thus, even if Dawkins's arguments are completely true, it still could be the case that there is a "God" and, even if there is no "God," there still are very good reasons for believing in ethics and morality. One need not, therefore, despair.

It boils down to this point: even if Dawkins's theory of genetic evolution is correct and the human body is merely a "survival machine" built solely for the continued existence of our genes, the fact that humans have developed into rational, conscious beings sets us apart in some ways from many other "survival machines." Thus, not only do we have the ability to rise above our genetic programming (as Dawkins suggests we might), but it could also be the case that our particular constitution morally requires it. I would recommend reading this book as a landmark work of popular science in the field of evolutionary biology. Just keep your hand on your wallet and make sure you don't get tricked into believing something Dawkins is not arguing for.

Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is a wonderful non-fiction book. It was a joy to read from cover to cover, and leaves the reader with revolutionary new insights into the evolution of nature and man.

The simple premise of the book is that self-replicating genes are what matter - bodies, and even minds, are tools they have constructed to further aid in their reproduction. "Altruistic" acts - acts that aid other replicating genes at the expense of the gene committing the deed, would gradually be removed from the pool. Some people object to this line of reasoning - and this book for having proposed such - fearing that it reduces man to selfish automatons. It does not, for two reasons that Dawkins discusses in detail.

The first is an analysis of game theory, drawn from Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation". Dawkins soundly demonstrates that many apparently "altruistic" acts are actually a form of mutual cooperation, benefitting both parties. Dawkins shows that many of these cooperative behavior strategies would be expected to arise spontaneously in nature, and remain stable in the population after doing so.

Dawkin's second line of reasoning, dealing almost exclusively with humans, is perhaps the most revolutionary part of the book. According to Dawkins, humans have another type of replicator besides our genes - our ideas. Dawkins names such replicators "memes" ("memory + gene"). Dawkins dicusses the (dis)similarity of the replication of genes and memes, and how memes might well explain a great deal of altruism.

Overall, this was one of the most insightful and exciting works I have read in some time. I looked forward to the moments when I could set down and read another chapter, and was sorely disappointed when I reached the final pages. Highly recommended.

The Selfish Gene is the best popular science book I have ever read, PERIOD. In it, Dawkins provides clear explanations of the mechanism of evolution, to the point that the reader can teach someone about evolution right after reading. It does not in any way patronize the reader, but instead delves deep into complex subjects, ranging from game theory to psychology, to explain evolution.

The main idea in the book is to change the perspective of evolution: it is genes that use bodies and organisms to reach their goals of reproduction. In my opinion, however, the most brilliant part of the book is the very beginning, in which Dawkins explains how it could come about that some chemicals (genes) actually would grow a "wish" to reproduce. The answer makes the reader feel really smart, and that is what pop science is all about.

Much of the book is devoted to showing how evolution can in fact explain altruism, agression, aging, cooperation, sexual relations, etc. He spends a lot of time debunking the theory that animals act a certain way "for the good of the species". His argument is that animals have no want, it is the genes that want more of themselves available.

I highly recommend this book to anyone with a wide open mind, a logical train of thought, and deep curiosity about life. Dawkins will change the way you see life, and he will hold your hand through the entire process, quenching your thrist for knowledge. It is written in such a simple way that it is hard to understand why this book is not recommended at high schools. Anyways, I hope you choose this book, it is one of those that make you sad to have finished.

While engaged in some rather heated discussion over Dawkin's latest work - THE GOD DELUSION - I realized I had never reviewed his first book. Even though 30 years old, it is still fresh. Since that time we've completed the Human Genome Project, computers now defeat chess champions on a regular basis and our knowledge of genes is far more extensive than what Dawkins could have ever realized in 1976. These do not however invalidate his theme - the gene as the basic unit of evolution and its selfish actions.

Dawkins's view of life is completely mechanistic - we are only the sum of our composite matter. He has extended this argument over the years, arguing that emotions and even ideas are simply the result of chemical interactions, reaction to stimuli and environmental causes. However, he does acknowledge the role of human consciousness in permitting altruistic behavior despite being composed of selfish genes. In other words, the whole is greater than the individual parts. The exact thing could be said about the brain - a single neuron has no idea what your favorite color is but a collection of neurons, working together, have that knowledge.

One might ask, why should the gene be the basis unit for evolution? Why not the molecule, the atom or even sub-atomic particle? He gives an explanation involving the definition of life. Dawkins has created a world of genes, their interaction, behavior and how they affect the "survival machines" where they reside (the individual). Several of his ideas (group theory, sexual competition, kin relationships, competition, etc) are variations of ideas from other scientists that have been given a twist. Some readers are bothered by his dispassionate treatment of all survival units as equal - fish, plants, bacteria, humans, birds. He does, though, admit that consciousness changes the landscape and allows other choices.

As a textbook on the inner workings of Darwinian evolution - and by this I mean more than just physical changes over time - it is excellect, in fact it is superb. The conflict between the actions of the gene and its "survival machine" is a constant strain and is the subject of the last chapter, one of the best. The chapter notes at the end are revealing. He cannot help but insert his personal likes (socialism), dislikes (religion) and continues the infuriating habit of calling to task any scientist who disagrees with him, many times offering a prim reprimand. He has become defensive over the charge that he is a "genetic determinist" yet his teachings come tantalizingly close to this concept. My Grade - A-