Selfish Gene - Preface

Robert Tulip · Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:37 am

In the Preface to The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins states "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.x) and describes animals as "the most complicated and perfectly designed pieces of machinery in the known universe." (p.xi). These are very provocative comments set against conventional philosophy and religion, but with an acute logic and insight. He goes on to say that he writes The Selfish Gene for three imaginary readers - the general lay reader, the expert and the student. There is much in this book that lay readers at Booktalk can learn from and debate.

The Selfish Gene is a superb book, still as relevant now as when it was published in the 1970s, and perhaps even more provocative now in the light of debates on evolution. My reading is that Dawkins sets out a compelling case to ground philosophy in zoology, essentially saying that the mathematical logic of evolution provides the context to understand morality and reality.

Further useful references are at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
http://richarddawkins.net/

DWill · Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:07 pm


	Robert Tulip wrote: The Selfish Gene is a superb book, still as relevant now as when it was published in the 1970s, and perhaps even more provocative now in the light of debates on evolution. My reading is that Dawkins sets out a compelling case to ground philosophy in zoology, essentially saying that the mathematical logic of evolution provides the context to understand morality and reality.

Thanks for that intro, Robert. Dawkins' agenda is similar to that of De Waal in broad outline: both would shoulder philosophy aside in favor of the truths of zoology. De Waal, though, disagrees strongly with Dawkins, whom he calls a Veneer Theorist. De Waal insists that genetically we are inclined to be social, cooperative, and finally moral, that we are "good by nature." Dawkins in the early going says that if our genes did have control over our morality, we wouldn't have any. The altruism that we and other animals show is really at the service of gene replication, and the morality we've developed depends on our ability to contradict how our genes would tell us to behave. This is what makes him such a thoroughgoing Veneer Theorist according to De Waal. Dawkins says we have to oppose our nature in order to be good.

CWT36 · Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:55 am


	Quote: 08 31 2009 10:15:32 President Camacho: For real. He's a cosmologist in the Ptolemic sense of the term. 08 31 2009 10:13:20 President Camacho: He's the most intelligent - albeit insane - guy I know. 08 31 2009 10:12:43 President Camacho: you ever see a beautiful mind? Where the smart guy goes f*cking insane? That's Robert Tulip. 08 31 2009 10:12:01 President Camacho: you ever talk to tulip help? That dude is crazy. 08 31 2009 10:10:22

Wow. That's one hell of an introduction for our leader

geo · Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:11 pm


	CWT36 wrote: Wow. That's one hell of an introduction for our leader

Yes, Robert is deserving of such praise if indeed that's what it was.

To bring Robert down to earth a bit, you only have to imagine his postings with an Australian accent. Probably something along the lines of Paul Hogan, am I right? And imagine he carries a big knife wherever he goes. You never know when you might be waylaid (that's wi-lied) by a big croc. Crikey!

CWT36 · Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:17 pm

geo wrote:


	CWT36 wrote: Wow. That's one hell of an introduction for our leader

Yes, Robert is deserving of such praise if indeed that's what it was.

To bring Robert down to earth a bit, you only have to imagine his postings with an Australian accent. Probably something along the lines of Paul Hogan, am I right? And imagine he carries a big knife wherever he goes. You never know when you might be waylaid (that's wi-lied) by a big croc. Crikey!

Oh man, a cross between John Nash and Paul Hogan. This is getting better all the time! :bananadance:

Robert Tulip · Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:40 pm

President Camacho has long regarded my ideas with intense suspicion. I'm happy to humour him to some extent, but I have never had any problems with my sanity.

John Nash is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash
His work is important for The Selfish Gene, especially regarding evolutionary stable strategies. http://www.stat.psu.edu/news/conference ... milnor.pdf says his major contribution, which led to his Nobel Prize, was to noncooperative game theory. Nash introduced the fundamental concept of equilibrium point: a collection of strategies by the various players such that no one player can improve his outcome by changing only his own strategy.

Penelope · Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:02 am

That Camacho!!!!!

Shall we gang up on him at playtime for your Robert?

My copy of the Selfish Gene has gone astray in the mail. I paid for it too.

Anyway, now I've ordered another one and that should be with me in a couple of days.

I remember reading reviews about it many moons ago.

Studying children at the age of three in playgroup, I am of the opinion that some children are born kind-hearted and caring and others need to learn.

The Selfish Gene - It's the nature/nurture debate with brass knobs on isn't it?

Robert Tulip · Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:27 am

CWT36 wrote:

geo wrote:


	CWT36 wrote: Wow. That's one hell of an introduction for our leader

Yes, Robert is deserving of such praise if indeed that's what it was.

To bring Robert down to earth a bit, you only have to imagine his postings with an Australian accent. Probably something along the lines of Paul Hogan, am I right? And imagine he carries a big knife wherever he goes. You never know when you might be waylaid (that's wi-lied) by a big croc. Crikey!

Oh man, a cross between John Nash and Paul Hogan. This is getting better all the time! :bananadance:

Well... I grew up in Sydney where Paul Hogan was a rigger on the Harbour Bridge and the original ocker Aussie. He advertised Winfield cigarettes to the tune of Tschaikowsky's Fifth Symphony and ran the Paul Hogan Show, and went on to later fame as Crocodile Dundee and tax battler. In 1983 I hitchhiked from Sydney to Uluru and back, and perhaps foolishly carried a knife in my sock for protection, which later reminded me of Hogan. It took me five days to hitchhike from Uluru (reminds me of Paul Simon). At the time I was studying Kant and Plato, who have an affinity with Nash.

Interbane · Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:42 pm

Penny: "The Selfish Gene - It's the nature/nurture debate with brass knobs on isn't it?"

Ha! You're in for a treat Penny, it's a great book. Read it slowly and deliberately, and speak up on booktalk if you disagree with anything. Not that I'm an advocate, it just helps the discussion.

stahrwe · Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:04 pm

Studying children at the age of three in playgroup, I am of the opinion that some children are born kind-hearted and caring and others need to learn.

Penelope,

why do you suppose that is?

Interbane · Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:50 pm

Star, I'll give a few answers to your question, pick the one that most resembles what you believe.

A) The children were behaving as their parents taught them to behave, and were especially careful to do so in front of other adults.

B) The children were following their basic instinct to cooperate with others, which has been evolved into them.

C) The children only appeared to be very kind, but instead were cruel and good at hiding it.

D) The children were children of god, created in his image and thus blessed with his kindness while in the innocence of youth.

E) The children haven't yet learned the benefit of being cruel.

F) Others do learn such youthful kindness, but choose to ignore the lesson.

G) None of the above.

Penelope · Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:20 pm

I know we learn a lot from just watching. Some children are kind people.

I don't know whether it is inherited (in their genes) or that they learn from demonstration by their parents. By the age of three, I suppose they have only watched their parents behaviour.

stahrwe · Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:56 pm

Penelope,

I grew up in a family of 3 boys. My mother has related on several occasions that should could tell which of was outside playing with friends by the tone of the activity. One of us would have the group agitated and arguing, the other had everyone cooperating and playing happily. My younger brother was not included in the observation because he was too young.

Interbane,

I suspect you believe I would pick D. However, there is that pesky problem of original sin, so my choice is G.

BTW, I think your wording of B is backwards. Something isn't evolved into us, our predispositions result in our evolution, assuming of course one believes in that sort of thing.

Penelope · Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:27 pm


	Quote: Interbane: D) The children were children of god, created in his image and thus blessed with his kindness while in the innocence of youth.

This is backside foremost - If you are taking The Bible's version of God, because the Bible says all of us are sinners, born in sin and it also advocates 'spare the rod and spoil the child'.

No, I just think that as some children have red hair or fair skin, or dark hair and olive skin, depending on which genes they inherit, some children inherit a good, kind or loving nature and others inherit the selfish gene. There seems to be truth in the maxim that there is good in the worst of us and bad in the best of us......and it depends what hand life deals you, as to whether the good is allowed to surface, or the bad. Perhaps??

Interbane · Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:49 pm

Star: "I suspect you believe I would pick D. However, there is that pesky problem of original sin, so my choice is G."

No, that would be far too obvious, don't you think? It was a trick question. The problem of the question is a matter of epistemology, no choice can be known by either of us to be correct, not even G. Penny would be most likely to know, be she possesses the intellectual humility to use the weasel word "suppose". The only reason I posed this question is because it is the way in which you believe that is the problem, rather than the content(with respect to Creationism). Don't get me wrong, I have a problem with the content as well, but I also understand it can all be rationalized within a particular person's worldview.

Star: "BTW, I think your wording of B is backwards. Something isn't evolved into us, our predispositions result in our evolution, assuming of course one believes in that sort of thing."

Actually, behavior is influenced by our evolutionary heritage. Some of our behaviors are what's called evolutionarily stable strategies(ESS's), which makes my wording correct. Also, evolution is a fact, not a belief.

Forum rules

Selfish Gene - Preface Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!