A clear indication of how popular this essentially dead dogma still remains is the frenzied demand enjoyed by Richard Dawkins' scientifically illiterate book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins puts forward the theory that genes created us so that we could spread and reproduce them. Using logic to make completely illogical conclusions, he not only wrote an absurd parody of science fiction, but also left far behind the most severe reductionism, reducing organisms to the status of simple biological machines in the service of genes.
After all, Dawkins points out, genes last for many generations, while humans only have one life. Genes are the driver, and man is just a machine that needs to be replaced with a new model after it has run 5 million miles or lived 120 years, whichever comes first. Dawkins' suggestion is akin to the ancient belief that the chicken is simply a tool for eggs to produce new eggs.
But why is the gene called selfish? Therefore, argues Dawkins, genes have the same desire to survive as we do, and they ensure their own survival, not caring about the survival of the organism or even the species in which they live. According to this theory, the goal of evolutionary adaptation from generation to generation is not to ensure the survival of the organism, but to increase the reproductive capacity of the genes themselves. And even if such an adaptation does not ensure the survival of the organism, the selfish gene does not care about this.
And since the central dogma says that everything in life is determined by genes, it is quite reasonable to reason (however unreasonable this reasoning may be) that, in the words of Dawkins, "we are all born selfish." And he also believes that natural selection favors those who cheat, lie, dodge and exploit others - they say that genes that encourage children to behave immorally gain an advantage over other genes. Altruism, according to the author of this book, is inherently unproductive, since it goes against the tendencies of natural selection. The same goes for the practice of taking foster children; Dawkins believes this is "against our instincts and the interests of our selfish genes".
Fortunately, few people embrace Dawkins' extreme materialistic views. Nevertheless, as we have seen with Enron, his ideas serve as the scientific basis (or so it seems to some) for the most ruthless manifestations of social, commercial, industrial, and governmental Darwinism. Dawkins calls himself an atheist and claims to believe in neither a caring Creator nor caring people. Unlike many humanists, who also do not believe in a personal God, he simply brushes aside everything that is not deterministic, materialistic and overtly selfish.
If survival equals success (as Dawkins argues), then metastatic cancer is highly successful. Exactly until then, of course, until he kills the owner. However (assuming the idea that our DNA controls our fate) at the time of the death of the host, the selfish genes that caused cancer had already managed to ensure their survival by introducing themselves into the genetic structure of the host's offspring, in which future copies of this gene will repeat this gene again and again. the same process... until the disastrous situation spreads like a cancer.
There is a feeling that from the point of view of the biosphere, human activity is like a cancerous tumor that reproduces and copies itself until it destroys its environment. Now that humanity has gone out into space, we have taken the first step towards leaving our beloved Earth to die and set off to infect new planetary systems ourselves - thereby ensuring our continued survival.
Richard Dawkins
Geoffrey R. Baileys. "Animal Behavior".
We are created by our genes. We animals exist to keep them, and serve as machines to ensure their survival, after which we are simply thrown away. The world of the selfish gene is a world of fierce competition, ruthless exploitation and deceit. But what about the acts of sheer altruism seen in nature: bees committing suicide when they sting an enemy to protect a hive, or birds risking their lives to warn a flock of a hawk's approach? Does this contradict the fundamental law of gene selfishness? No way: Dawkins shows that the selfish gene is also a very cunning gene. And he cherishes the hope that the view Homo sapiens- the only one on the entire globe - able to rebel against the intentions of a selfish gene. This book is a call to take up arms. It's a guide and a manifesto at the same time, and it grabs you like an action-packed novel. The Selfish Gene is Richard Dawkins' brilliant first book and still his most famous book, an international bestseller translated into thirteen languages. Notes have been written for this new edition, which contain very interesting reflections on the text of the first edition, as well as large new chapters.
"... highly scientific, witty and very well written... intoxicatingly great."
Sir Peter Meadower. Spectator
Richard Dawkins teaches zoology at the University of Oxford, is a member of the New College Council and is the author of The Blind Watchmaker.
"A non-fiction work of this kind makes the reader feel almost like a genius."
New York Times
Preface to the Russian edition
I have the rare pleasure of presenting to the reader a translation of the second edition of the book The Selfish Gene by the famous English evolutionist R. Dawkins. The need for its translation has become clear to me since I got acquainted with its first edition. Let's hope that someday we will see in Russian other works of this brilliant naturalist-philosopher - "The Extended Phenotype" and especially "The Blind Watchmaker".
I will not present the content of the book so as not to spoil the impression of readers, but I will express a number of my comments, because, despite admiring Dawkins, I cannot agree with some of his provisions unconditionally.
Dawkins is a convinced Darwinist. Ultimately, the whole of The Selfish Gene is strictly derived from two of Darwin's statements. Firstly, Darwin wrote that “non-hereditary change is not essential for us”, and secondly, he was aware and clearly indicated that if a trait was found in any species that is useful to another species or even - taking into account intraspecific struggle - another individual of the same species, this would be an insoluble problem for the theory of natural selection. Nevertheless, such concepts as group selection, kin selection, reasoning about genes and the evolution of altruism, etc., have become widespread. no matter how altruistic the behavior of any living creature may seem, in the end it leads to an increase in the frequency of occurrence in the population of the "egoist gene" that determines this trait.
All this is true, but ... what is egoism at the gene level?
The author proceeds from the widespread concept of the "primordial soup", in which the primary genes-molecules-replicators were born, capable of creating copies of themselves. Replicating from generation to generation, they become potentially eternal. From the moment the replicators appear, a struggle for resources begins between them, during which they build for themselves “survival machines - phenotypes. First, these are cells, and then multicellular formations - complex organisms. Our bodies are temporary, transient structures created by immortal replicator genes for their own needs.
One can argue with such a statement. After all, genes are not eternal, their synthesis during replication is semi-conservative. In dividing cells, only 50% of the DNA is inherited from the mother cell, the second strand of DNA is built anew, and after 50 generations the proportion of the original genes in the population decreases by 2^50 times.
The same is true with phenotypic structures - cytoplasm and cell membrane. Daughter cells inherit 50% of the cytoplasm of the mother cell, their descendants 25%, etc. All the difference between phenes and genes is that their replication is not direct, information about it is contained in the genes. But even a gene, taken separately, without a phenotypic environment is powerless, it cannot replicate.
The picture of the first replicator genes floating in a warm "primordial soup" is too idyllic to be true. A successful replicator mutation is diluted with the entire volume of the primordial ocean. The consummation of such an evolution could be the thinking ocean of the planet Solaris, described by S. Lem. But just such an evolution cannot take place: the probability of meeting and joint action of successful replicators, diluted with the entire volume of the Earth's hydrosphere, is equal to zero.
So it looks like the cell predated life. The replicators reproduced in primary vesicles bounded by semipermeable membranes, which are now obtained experimentally (Oparin coacervates, Faks microspheres) or found in sea foam (Egami marigranules). And from the first protocell, which could be recognized as living without much stretch, the replicator gained an advantage in the struggle for existence, replicating not only itself (these “daffodils” were just dying out), but also the structures of the primary cytoplasm and membrane. For genes, the best way to survive is to replicate once in a cell and spend the rest of the time and resources replicating other polymers.
Whether it's selfish, I don't know. Rather, such a strategy is similar to the concept of "reasonable egoism" put forward by N. G. Chernyshevsky. Or maybe, when describing biological phenomena, it is generally better to abandon such terms as “altruism”, “egoism”, etc.? After all, the very idea of "genes of altruism" arose in the struggle with those who believed that Darwinism is reduced to an endless "struggle of fangs and claws." Both points of view are a departure from the direct path.
One of the greats said that it is easy to determine the importance and non-triviality of any judgment: the judgment deserves these assessments, if the opposite is the same. Dawkins writes: "They [genes - B. M.] are replicators, and we are the machines they need in order to survive." The opposite statement is: "We are replicator cells, and genes are the details of the memory matrix we need in order to survive." From the point of view of cybernetics, we are all self-reproducing von Neumann automata. Copying, matrix replication is not life yet. Life begins with the genetic code, when the replicator reproduces not only its own structure, but also others that have nothing in common with it.
I will end my doubts with the words of the cyberneticist Patti: “Where there is no distinction between genotype and phenotype, or between the description of a trait and the trait itself (in other words, where there is no coding process that connects the description with the described object by reducing many states to one), cannot be evolution through natural selection."
Dawkins is right: "All life evolves as a result of the differential survival of replicating units." But the replicating units are not just replicator genes, but their discrete units with phenotypic traits. This is what I once called the first axiom of biology, or the Weismann-von Neumann axiom. Let us leave the terms "egoism" and "altruism" to the moralists. Outside of human society, there is only a greater or lesser probability of successful replication of a replicating unit.
You might think that I am too carried away by criticism. Therefore, I hasten to say what I liked most about Dawkins' book. This is ch. 11 - "Memes: New Replicators". Also Darwin in ch. XIV of the Origin of Species for the first time drew a clear analogy between the evolution of species and the evolution of human languages. Dawkins introduces the concept of "memes" - stable elements of human culture, transmitted through the channel of linguistic information. Examples of memes analogous to genes are "melodies, ideas, buzzwords and expressions, ways of brewing stew or constructing arches". I’ll add from myself: as well as words and ways of combining them, the theories of Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein, religions with all their prayers and rituals, dialectical materialism, etc., etc. (I note in brackets that I would transcribe the word memes in Russian as “memes” by analogy with the words “memoirs, memorial”, however, the transcription of “mime” has already entered the literature.) Just as our genes are located on chromosomes, memes are localized in human memory and are transmitted from generation to generation from words, spoken or written.
The book of the famous scientist, English biologist Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" caused a controversial reaction in the literary and scientific circles. In it, he popularizes a gene-centric view of evolution, introduces the concept of "meme", meaning a cultural unit that one person can copy and transfer to another. This information has properties for mutagenesis, natural selection and artificial selection. It is noteworthy that the release of the book was marked by positive reviews of this work, but after several years this work caused heated debate. Some, such as well-known scientists W. Hamilton, D. Williams, and R. Trivers, expressed positive opinions about this book, seeing somewhere even innovation in the methods and approaches of the theory of the selfish gene, while others, especially believers, called the book extremist .
Critics criticized Richard Dawkins for the fatality of this theory, for the fact that too much in our life is predetermined before birth, and what a person will be, all this is determined at the gene level. However, the author of The Selfish Gene says that there are inclinations that are given to us from birth, but we can change them. Only humans are capable of this. Under the influence of society, upbringing, education, we are able to fight the tyranny of selfish replicators. In the "Gene Machine" section, the scientist explains that genes are not strings in the hands of a puppeteer with which he controls his puppets. Genes only control protein synthesis in the cell. And in the course of the evolution of genes, a developed brain arose that is able to adapt to environmental conditions, assess the situation, simulate it and make independent decisions. Genes can only give general recommendations on what to do. For example, how to avoid pain, danger, etc. In other words, the author does not deny that not everything in the body depends on genetics. Culture and education play an important role in this process. We ourselves can soften our "selfish gene".
The main feature of any individual is selfishness. It is closely related to the process of evolution and natural selection, where the strong always win over the weak. Weakened individuals do not survive. Nothing has changed in our modern world. Successful people are often those who are willing to go over the heads of other people for the sake of their goal. This is an experience, an instinct, a gene that came to us from those distant times, when people lived in caves and hunted mammoths. If you are not a strong, hardy egoist, you will simply be killed. Although wild times have passed, our genetic memory, experience, remembers all this. And that is why it is so important from an early age to learn altruism, to help others, because such qualities are absolutely not inherent in our biological nature, says the author of the book The Selfish Gene. We can achieve this only by hard work on ourselves, says Richard Dawkins.
On our literary site, you can download the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins for free in formats suitable for different devices - epub, fb2, txt, rtf. Do you like to read books and always follow the release of new products? We have a large selection of books of various genres: classics, modern science fiction, literature on psychology and children's editions. In addition, we offer interesting and informative articles for beginner writers and all those who want to learn how to write beautifully. Each of our visitors will be able to find something useful and exciting.
The Origin of Altruism and Virtue [From Instincts to Cooperation] Ridley Matt
The Selfish Gene
The Selfish Gene
In the mid-1960s, a real revolution took place in biology, the main instigators of which were George Williams and William Hamilton. It is referred to by the famous epithet proposed by Richard Dawkins - "the selfish gene." It is based on the idea that in their actions individuals, as a rule, are not guided by the good of the group, or the family, or even their own. Every time they do what is beneficial to their genes, for they are all descended from those who did the same. None of your ancestors died a virgin.
Both Williams and Hamilton are both naturalists and loners. The first, an American, began his scientific career as a marine biologist; the second, an Englishman, was at first regarded as a specialist in social insects. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Williams, and later Hamilton, argued for a new, stunning approach to understanding evolution in general and social behavior in particular. Williams started with the assumption that aging and death are very counterproductive things for the body, but for genes, programming aging after reproduction is completely logical. Consequently, animals (and plants) are designed in such a way as to perform actions that are beneficial not to themselves and not to their species, but to their genes.
Usually genetic and individual needs coincide. Although not always: for example, salmon dies during spawning, and a stinging bee is equated with suicide. Subordinating to the interests of genes, a single creature often does what benefits its offspring. But even here there are exceptions: for example, when there is a shortage of food, birds abandon their chicks, and chimpanzee mothers ruthlessly wean their babies from the breast. Sometimes genes require actions to be taken for the benefit of other relatives (ants and wolves help their sisters raise offspring), and sometimes for a larger group (in an effort to protect the cubs from the wolf pack, musk oxen stand up as a dense wall). Sometimes it is necessary to force other beings to do things that adversely affect themselves (when we catch a cold, we cough; salmonella causes diarrhea). But always and everywhere, without exception, living things do only what increases the chances of their genes (or copies of genes) to survive and replicate. Williams formulated this idea with all his characteristic frankness: "As a rule, if a modern biologist sees how one animal does something in the interests of another animal, he believes that the first is either manipulated by the second, or is guided by hidden selfishness" 12 .
The above idea arose from two sources at once. First, it followed from the theory itself. Given that genes are the replicating currency of natural selection, it is safe to say that those that induce behaviors that increase their likelihood of survival must inevitably thrive at the expense of those that do not. This is a simple consequence of the very fact of replication. And secondly, this was evidenced by observations and experiments. All kinds of behaviors that seemed strange when viewed through the prism of a single individual or species suddenly became understandable when analyzed at the level of genes. In particular, Hamilton proved that social insects leave more copies of their genes in the next generation, not reproducing, but helping their sisters to breed. Hence, from the genetic point of view, the striking altruism of the worker ant turns out to be pure, unambiguous selfishness. Selfless cooperation within an ant colony is just an illusion. Each individual strives for genetic eternity not through its own offspring, but through its brothers and sisters - the royal offspring of the uterus. Moreover, she does this with the same genetic egoism with which any person climbing the career ladder pushes rivals. Ants and termites themselves might have renounced the "Hobbesian War," as Kropotkin argued, but their genes hardly 13 .
This revolution in biology had an enormous psychological impact on those directly affected. Like Darwin and Copernicus, Williams and Hamilton dealt a humiliating blow to people's conceit. Man turned out to be not only the most ordinary animal, but, in addition, a disposable toy, an instrument of a community of selfish, selfish genes. Hamilton remembers well the moment when he suddenly realized that the body and the genome are more like a society than a well-coordinated mechanism. Here is what he writes about this: “And then the realization came that the genome is not a monolithic database and a steering group devoted to one project - to stay alive, to have children, which I imagined it to be before. It began to seem to me akin to a boardroom, a battlefield where individualists and factions fight for power ... I am an ambassador sent abroad by some fragile coalition, the bearer of conflicting orders from the masters of a fractured empire.
Richard Dawkins, then a young scientist, was just as dumbfounded by these ideas: “We are just survival machines: self-propelled vehicles blindly programmed to preserve selfish molecules known as genes. This is the truth that still continues to amaze me. Despite the fact that she has been known to me for more than a year, I just can’t get used to her” 15 .
Man turned out to be not only the most ordinary animal, but, in addition, a disposable toy, an instrument of a community of selfish, selfish genes.
Indeed, for one of Hamilton's readers, the selfish gene theory turned out to be a real tragedy. The scientist argued that altruism is just genetic egoism. Determined to refute this harsh conclusion, George Price studied genetics on his own. But instead of proving the falsity of the statement, he only substantiated its undeniable correctness. In addition, he simplified the mathematical calculations by proposing his own equation, and also made a number of important additions to the theory itself. The researchers began to cooperate, but Price, who was showing increasing symptoms of mental instability, eventually turned headlong into religion, gave away all his possessions to the poor, and committed suicide in an empty London closet. Among his few possessions were found letters from Hamilton 16 .
However, most scientists simply hoped that over time, Williams and Hamilton would fade into the shadows. The very phrase "selfish gene" sounded too Hobbesian, and this repelled the bulk of sociologists. More conservative evolutionary biologists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin fought a never-ending rearguard fight. Like Kropotkin, they were clearly disgusted by the reduction of any manifestation of altruism to fundamental egoism, as insisted on by Williams and Hamilton and colleagues (we will see later that such an interpretation is wrong). It's like drowning the diversity of nature in the icy waters of self-interest, they resented, paraphrasing Friedrich Engels 17 . author Jeta Casilda
CHAPTER 12 The Selfish Meme (Evil?) Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, coined the term "meme" to refer to a piece of information that, through learning or imitation, can spread through society in the same way that a preferred gene spreads through society.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
(No ratings yet)
Title: The Selfish Gene
Author: Richard Dawkins
Year: 1989
Genre: Biology, Foreign educational literature, Other educational literature
About The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, atheist and popularizer of science. He studied zoology on the faculty at Balliol College, Oxford under Nobel laureate Nicholas Tinbergen. The work of the scientist concerned the features of modeling the behavior and reactions of animals.
In 1966, Richard received his Ph.D. and transferred to the University of California. While teaching science at Berkeley and Oxford, he always promoted the exact sciences and questioned various religious beliefs.
The biologist-philosopher gained controversial popularity with his first book, The Selfish Gene, published in 1976. The research work caused a storm of emotions among atheists and believers. There was a case when a religious fanatic committed suicide after reading a book. This terrible event only added to the popularity of Dawkins and increased interest in his works.
The book sold a record circulation for the popular science genre, was translated into many languages of the world and received unique reviews in well-known journals. In the Times, a well-known journalist summarized that this treatise is a work that allows you to feel like a genius at the time of reading.
Even the name "The Selfish Gene" was not chosen by the author by chance. For English-speaking readers, this phrase is consonant with the fairy tale "The Selfish Giant" by Oscar Wilde, which enhances the provocative effect. Richard Dawkins in his book boldly suggested that natural selection does not occur among the representatives of certain individuals, but according to the "plan" of genes that living organisms use to survive.
In the work "The Selfish Gene", the scientist proposed a new scientific direction - memetics. The term "meme" is used as a cultural unit. According to Dawkins's theory, memes multiply, are transmitted from person to person and mutate in society, thereby completely changing it.
The Selfish Gene is written in simple language for the average reader. Richard Dawkins presents scientific materials in an accessible form for people who do not know the intricacies of biology. The main idea of the book "The Selfish Gene" is the assumption that the basic elementary particle of all living organisms is not a cell, but a gene that controls the cell. People and animals, according to the scientist, are just survival machines for genes.
On our site about books, you can download the site for free without registration or read online the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins" in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot of pleasant moments and a real pleasure to read. You can buy the full version from our partner. Also, here you will find the latest news from the literary world, learn the biography of your favorite authors. For novice writers, there is a separate section with useful tips and tricks, interesting articles, thanks to which you can try your hand at writing.
Quotes from The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
There is another curious aspect of evolutionary theory - everyone thinks he understands it.
Selected examples can never serve as serious arguments for any generalization worthy of trust.
Philosophy and the subjects known as "humanities" are still taught as if Darwin never existed.
The confusion in ethical ideas about the level at which altruism should end - at the level of the family, nation, race, species, or all living things - is reflected, as in a mirror, in a parallel confusion in biology regarding the level at which manifestations of altruism should be expected in accordance with with evolutionary theory.
Genes act by regulating protein synthesis. This is a very powerful way of influencing the world, but a slow way. You have to patiently pull the protein strings for months to create an embryo.