Dawkins himself admitted that the title of his book "The Selfish Gene" may have been less misleading if it had been named "The Immortal Gene", but I bet that would have caused a few other confusions
Isn't it screwed up how christian conservatives give him crap for writing a book called "The Selfish Gene" and decry it for advocating selfishness (even though it doesn't), yet they admire people like Ayn Rand who wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness" which DOES advocate selfishness?
+AgeOfSuperboredom Christian Conservatives who claim to be objectivists are kidding themselves. Their faith is based on altruism, Ayn Rands philosophy of objectivism rejects all forms of altruism as evil. It's one or the other guys :)
+James Tindale How can anything be objective if everything that is to be considered needs an information processor-in this case, our brains-to be perceived? I'm no subjective extremist, but I'm certainly not an objectivist. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, more skewed towards subjectivism, since we're all living in our heads.
Jim Zheng I agree that to be 'objective' is a fallacy. No matter how 'objective' we try to be we cannot escape the subjective nature of our characters. However, with this analogy we are referring to the dictionary terms of objective/subjective. 'Objectivism' is not merely applying these definitions to life. Objectivisms base theory is "That things really do exist (existence), and our ability to recognise them as 'things' is real (consciousness). So the two axioms we cannot escape are Existence and Consciousness (that it exists and we know it). so the rule of all knowledge is that A is A. When ever a situation comes up where A is somehow not A, we are dealing with a fallacy. Last point is whose reason. It is your reason that counts.
The selfish gene I understand. (I would still need to read the book for full context, but I understand what he is saying here) Kin altruism and reciprocal altruism doesn't really escape survival instinct and therefore isn't above survival instinct and therefore isn't the highest and most efficient implementation of altruism. True altruism, which is value driven rather than survival, is without the selfish gene (to survive) completely. However, true altruism cannot be inherent and cannot be optimized before self actualization (which requires selfishness at first). This slightly paradoxical road to altruism only seems so at surface level, but is not. Once self actualization is achieved, selfishness should not to motivate altruism. Lastly, I love this quote: "The joy of being conscious human beings is that we rise above our origins our misfiring selfish genes mean we don't ape the nastiness of nature, but extract ourselves from it and live by our values" I agree with Dawkins here, now, we have to decide what values are we going to live by?
For me this is by far one of the most encouraging and heartening perspectives on our shared humanity to date. I have to humbly admit I may even have started shifting from being a cynical old bastard to an immature infant of hope.
I don’t wish to re-ignite your cynicism, but softly suggest you may not fully comprehend Dawkins proposition. He is suggesting that non kin altruism is simply a state of error, the output is the same hormonal driven kin altruism but because of our new social environment it just so happens to be applied to non kin. This is technically contrary to the efficiency of propagation of one’s own genetic code, therefore if one assumes Darwin correct, we would expect this error to be corrected for by a decrease in altruistic behaviour over the next millennia. I’m not his biggest fan but there is a logic and clarity to his observations. It’s brutal in its outlook but all data and observations tally, so it’s the closet answer we have so far to explain our place in the universe, our essence is of being gene replicating machines. I’m sure that Darwin will be further refined in time, for example there are some mathematical challenges in relation to formation of new species, and first life is still not water-tight, but it’s what we know is correct so far.
@@yp77738yp77739 I want to suggest as well that you too might not have understood him completely. I mean, what you said is correct, but it's not the full explanation for altruism, as there are 2 additional factors on which Dawkins also mentions in his book. One of them is not so easy to understand, and has received a lot of flack for difficulties in falsifying it, but it is real: Zahavian signals. These appear in sexual selection, but not only. Basically, altruism can be a social signal that shows health and fitness. The other explanation is based on game theory: in a social species, even in groups that don't have this characteristic of relatedness between the members, it pays off to be "nice" so as to avoid conflicts. This is described more at length in The Selfish Gene. It can be modeled mathematically and computationally, so it's not controversial. Terms related to this phenomenon are: Nash equilibrium and prisoner's dilemma.
I like thinking about how I'm just a mec suite for my genes! xD It's nice to see them debating and not just arguing and denying the others perspective.
Species in which individuals actually care about everyone, not just kin, may have an advantage over more selfish species. When there exists a proclivity to help others (which is reciprocated perhaps not by the specific individual helped, but by other members of your species when you need help), it creates a safety net for all and lays the groundwork for a society in which the advantage conferred by an increased security of social cohesion may benefit all members via increased productivity, stability, cooperation, etc. It may not be, as Dawkins states, a misfiring for us to feel empathy towards those that are not kin, but may instead be what has propelled us to the top of the hierarchy when competing with other species, and has also helped when confusing with other population groups (ie other countries).
the selfish gene concept is about explaining altruism, and Dawkins explains it well by explaining that there really is no altruism, because behind it is a self serving agenda, whether you are talking about gene survival, or just human acts of altruism that make humans feel good
Keylanos Lokj And the reason why they are unselfish even if only partly is that their genes make their brain produce endorphins and dopamine every time they help someone!)
We aren’t unselfish. There is always a motive or a chemical going off in our brain. We are not inherently good. Which is fairly obvious when observing the world.
@@Sharetheroad3333 selfish is neither good or bad, it is what it is. It is the law of the universe. Selfish is like the universal force of gravity, larger celestial bodies sucking smaller bodies indiscriminately and unconsciously
Trump supporter the selfish gene is not about “morals.” We are more than what you described nonetheless. As well some of us can over ride primitive wiring when it’s not useful for the greater good. We are social animals with empathy and cooperation. It’s highly improbable you have many of those qualities if you’re a trump supporter, and/or can comprehend any of what I just wrote.
The word "selfish" in the title is very misleading indeed because there is no such thing as a "selfish gene" , the word selfish is used as a descriptive term to the outcome of the process of natural selection/sexual selection.It has more of a poetic meaning than a scientific one , it's just playing with words.
The seeming altruism has its deep scientific root, manifested mainly through kin selection and reciprocal altruism. A so-called "pure" altruism is detrimental to the genes, therefore it won't last in the process of natural selection. As an example for reciprocal altruism, we know that a friend who doesn't return favors will be ostracized slowly but surely.
I agree that he might’ve named it something else...like The Immortal Gene...because of the amount of misrepresentation out there about the book BASED SOLEY on either misunderstanding the title or misunderstanding the science of the book. Dawkins makes it clear in the opening chapter what he means by the “selfish gene”...yet a basic misunderstanding of the entire book persists amongst fools who don’t understand it, but insist on behaving as if they do. Astounding.
Dawkins mentioned that our niceness to complete strangers without any favour in return, is the result of our misfiring selfish genes. Well instead, could helping strangers be something instrumental for our survival, because it simply makes us happy and contributes to our well-being(part of fitness in the Darwinian world)? What do you guys think of this? Thanks! :)
There's a difference between sincere altruism and fake altruism like someone doing good things in vain. Fake altruism wouldn't have the same outcomes as sincere altruism regarding immortality. I don't think the origins came from selfishness which works in the short term and has negative consequences. The quality of sincerity is important along with other valuable traits that led to human survival and domination.
I'm confused how Richard didn't conclude this. This altruistic behavior among people is the same selfish gene in the first place. Living in groups adds factor of unknown. If you let a kid slice a cake knowing which piece goes where, he will take the biggest slice and other slices will differ in sizes by how good friendship he has with each individual friend. If you change the situation and give cakes randomly, he will make all the slices the same. We help one another for a very good reason. It's because you never know who is going to pay you back. It is the same selfish gene as before.
Croatian Science Studio I think the word "selfish" is a misnomer when considering the context of the phrase "selfish genes". The other scientist alluded to this. Genes have no motivation other than survival. There is no intent there. A gene is neither selfish nor selfless. It just seeks to propagate. The phrase survival of the "fittest" can also be misleading. Survival can so often be based on chance. I happened to be born in an area well above sea level and therefore I am less susceptible to flooding. Another person may be born next to the ocean and be susceptible to flooding and have a higher chance of mortality. I may not be as physically fit as the individual closer to sea level but there may be a greater probability of my survival than the survival of my beach bum counterpart. My genes have a higher chance of surviving and propagating. My point is that survival is based more on chance, accumulated experience and environment. It is not always based on any individual motivation or the motivations of the components (genes) of individuals.
This message is the direct anti-thesis to Jordan Peterson's philosophy about dominant hierarchies. It's deeply confounding to me how Dawkins' message [about the altruism of the selfish gene] just passed by all the modern Social-Darwinist in our modern debate.
Frans de Waal, featured here as an opponent of Dawkins and his "selfish gene" theory, notably takes the work of the naturalist Peter Kropotkin quite seriously. De Waal's criticism of what he calls "veneer theory" traces the longstanding, establishment view of nature as inherently brutish, violent, and most importantly structured upon selfishness, which he dates back to at least the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. In Kropotkin's day, around the turn of the 20th century, perhaps the most major proponent of the view of nature as a "war of all against all" was Thomas Henry Huxley, whom Kropotkin criticized as taking a wholly reductive view of natural phenomena and merely upholding the ruling social sensibilities of the Victorian ruling class. Kropotkin developed extensive arguments that, while selfishness is certainly observable in the natural world, it is rather a tendency toward "mutual aid" among life-forms which stands as the key principle of evolution. This effectively reflects the general opinion of the Russian school of Darwinian naturalism at the time. This clip of course does not feature much of de Waal's serious counterpoints to Dawkins, and clearly cuts out at moments when de Waal is only beginning to explain his argument. Even for the sake of understanding the other side, whether or not one might ultimately agree with it, reading de Waal's writings on "veneer theory" is essential. So too should more people interested in this debate read Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" and his "Ethics: Origin and Development"-these studies remain a critical point of reference for challenges to theorists of natural egoism such as Dawkins.
I am very moved by this encounter of two great scientists -- Frans de Waal and Richard Dawkins. I don't think it has been resolved entirely, but still...
Perhaps altruism is part of the extended phenotype and sometime has positive effects toward others even if they are much less likely to reciprocate than is warranted by the expense ? I mean, our intellect can see past the goals of genes and into realistic goals for either the species or at least your own culture or nation (if not religion).
(EDIT: After having watched the entire video...I see now that he explains what I said far better than I could or did) I believe the altruistic part that he further explores is just a by-product of the survival of the selfish gene that so many animals share...it’s not a primary, but a secondary effect. Sort of like why people who cannot (or do not want to) reproduce still have the desire to copulate. There is no benefit for it, aside from the enjoyment. That’s a by-product of the primary “goal” of the survival of the gene. And evolution is still in the process of perfecting the mechanism.
but if dawkins selfish gene theory was correct, then a gene for altruism could never become ubiquitous in a population because it advantageous to an individuals competition, not the individual in whom the gene first appeared. Being generous to strangers in a population full of selfish individuals does not provide you with a survival advantage.
We should not think that "genetic relation" is so limited. Humans are intelligent enough to understand that we are all genetic relation to to a high degree. Even large superficial differences, for instance skin color and eye shape, are minuscule genetic variations.
Before the "Selfish Gene" you would look at a fly and see a single organism trying to survive and reproduce as described in "The Origin Of Species" but Dawkins goes further and describes it in more detail and in effect, puts the organism in a new perspective.The fly is not just a single organism it is a package of parts( wings, legs, eyes) each with its instructions and properties, simply put each part with its specific set of genes, genes that try to work their way in the next generation.
The act which seems altruistic actually stems from selfishness.Actually the organism by helping his close relatives to survive is not helping them actually but organism is helping his own genes to perpetuate because a portion of his genes are contained within his close relative.
What about people and pets? RU-vid has endless examples of people devoting inordinate amounts of money, time, and energy to taking care of all sorts of animals.
I know that having empathy towards your relatives and friends has some self serving interests but why do we agree that slaughter houses and the conditions in which the animals live, being locked up in small cages, living in their own piss and feces is wrong. What does it serve us to kill the animals in a more humane way? Thanks in advance for your answers.
There are synergistic benefits from cooperation, even with non-relatives, due to the division of labor (Adam Smith's pin factory), particularly when tasks are arranged (assembly line) to minimize the possibility of shirking. Perhaps it's not misfiring, but just enlightened self-interest that gives cooperators an edge over non-cooperators.
What I mean to say is an altruism that surpasses kin selection and direct reciprocity. All animals can and do display altruism. Apparently, it appears that many animals, even rodents, also have a sense of empathy. However, for many animals, this altruistic behavior stops at kin and reciprocal partners (this is debatable for primates however). I would say altruism has to be seen on a continuum. So while all animals are altruistic, I would say humans are superior in terms of degrees.
OR, perhaps altruism is evolved to bridge the gap between vastly differing genes. A well functioning group and intimate interpersonal relationships being the ultimate survival mechanism, and one we can't live without. Genes that control the organism for their own benefit and propagation, are either evolving a creature that can make it's own decisions on how best to survive, or they are not. In the former the phenotype is not a passive carrier of genes.
Dawkins also has the talk on Game Theory. Capitalism is like the person who always competes. Socialism is like the person who always tries to cooperate. Since in game theory the person who tries to compete (or defect) sometimes does better, it sometimes requires the other to compete also. This might be perhaps the reason why Capitalism tends to win over Socialism , perhaps economically?
- نجاة الجين (هو الهدف من الغيرية في نفس الفصيلة) زي إنقاذ الأم لابنها - الهدف الآخر هو توقع تبادل المنافع (نجاة الجينات المسئولة عن تبادل المنافع) بين الفصايل المختلفة ولكن هل هذا كافي لتبرير التعاطف والحنان بين أبناء الجنس الواحد؟ ألا يحدث أحيانا دون انتظار أي منفعة؟ ولا حتى توارث الجين؟ ويحدث بين البشر خصوصا ناحية أشخاص بعيدين تماماً عن الفرد (ليسوا أبناءه ولا ينتظر منهم أدنى منفعة ؟ الحل من وجهة نظره أنه جينات موروثة لفترة أما كانت مجموعات البشر صغيرة وتبادل المنافع وتوراث الجينات متوقع !
in general, the evolutionary mechanics that motivates us to do evolutionary functions may not be related to them. ex. -we perform selfless tasks and think that they are selfless, but it is more an unrealized benefit of others eventually helping us. -sex is evolved to be far more pleasurable than food and sleep and we would choose it over the latter two even if it is not essential for the individual's survival. The intense pleasure of sex is not realized by animals and before humans to be a motivating mechanism for the sperm to fertilize the egg
He didn't explain the cause of human altruism, he explained the effect/result. Circular logic. He said we are altruistic because altruism survived in us. The question is why did it survive not how. Sugar-coated speech filled with flawed logic.
What? you're an idiot. It's obvious why it survived, just like all genes: because individuals who had the gene survived more. Those who had the altruistic gene cared for their kin and helped them survive. Individuals who didn't have the gene didn't help their kin survive and so it multiplied less than their altruistic counterparts.
@@oiuyuioiuyuio Helping your kin isn't altruism, because some of them will also have the altruism gene. Altruism is helping individuals you are not related too, which helps their genenome (which doesn't have the altruism gene). When the altruism gene first appeared, it would be beneficial to other individuals in the population. Being generous to strangers reduces your fitness when you're the only individual in a population that behaves that way.
I am a believer Muslim and trying to understand this theory I find that selfishness according to my belief does not mean the Self e.g. the 80 Kilo entity. According to Toheed Theory everything immerged in Toheed and when I help any person without any hope of benefit and I even do it for my own benefit but it may be for my extended SELF i.e. "the creation or creator". As a Muslim I find no contradiction in the Saying of Dawkins, but only the understanding of the meaning of Selfishness. Physical law action and reaction are equal guide us also to act sympathetically without any hope of benefit at the same time but with the possibility in future. Selfish Gene or promoting Gene may be an actor out of “MY body” and in the body of my love ones. If we consider this theory from other angels it is very much awakening and able to be interpreted according to the teachings of Islam and to real Christianity. Who is aware of his SELF is aware of GOD was said before 1400 years is proved to be true. Chaudhry Columbus Khan Adv.
I don't want to belittle the role that genes play in altruism but I can't help but wonder if our intelligence doesn't also have something to do with it. We, as thinking agents, can perceive that if everyone were altruistic, it benefits us. We alone among the animal kingdom have the ability to overcome our programed behaviour, at least on some level.
I believe our morality stems from and need for Universally Preferable Behavior. Because we live in communities and groups, it is understandable why species that treat other in such a way that they help each other because it is preferable and would hope for the same treatment would have an evolutionary advantage compared to species that cannot show empathy to others
Because that system is susceptible to cheats that do not inhabit those same altruistic traits, thus filling that once altruistic population with their "selfish genes" or selfishness.
Also the mother who goes into the burning building to save her child, she is still selfish. She only went to avoid living with the pain of guilt caused by her lack of initiative as the most probable reason.I don't think selfishness exists anyway, survival genes is the only thing that can't be denied like this , i mean in report to what point of reference could you name something as "selfish" ? You could say that the universe is a dark place OR that the Earth is just lit up :), kinda relative ...
I disagree with Dawkins that it is random kindness. Rather than being nice to all people equally, humans are more likely to be nice to those humans which share a tribal affiliation to them. This then creates modern racial dynamics, as well as inter group conflicts in politics, such as bipartisanship in American politics as an example. The kindness is probably rationally allocated across different "tribes" to which the human feels the most kinship, and kindness or favors are spread accordingly. This explains why people of similar ethnicity tend to stick together in similar communities, or the same grouping within religious sects. So it's not that humans have somehow transcended our evolutionary roots, it's more like we maximize our bets chances of return. A more familiar analogy I could use is diversifying stock positions for minimizing risk.
Couldn't our advanced empathy and morality be caused by our conscious brain function? In this way it is empathy through similarity. When we see a being who we feel, through our brain function, to be similar to us, we help them because it is like helping ourselves. Not in a reciprocal way, but because we connect with them in a way that their pain is our pain. This empathy is developed from early childhood, explaining why infants can be so "evil," and continues to develop throughout our lives.
Selfish gene what happens to those people who aren't selfish and don't have self interest? What if you have social anxiety and don't know how to be in crowds of people
So his conclusion is, we're kind to each other because we can think "further" than what our instincts tells us to do. I don't think so. I think the reason why we're kind to each other is because it's a one great way to keep a society intact. Human is a social animal. Why? because we're stronger in groups. Why crave for strong? to debunk any other species ofcourse. So the reason why we're kind to each other, is not because we "rise above" our instinct, but because of selfish reason.
So, after all Mr Dawkins is not evil as many people think. He is chained and struggling with his won morals and human tenets. He can't explain why he is behaving altruistically which is contrary to his own selfish gene attitude. Did I miss something?: Please let me know. Thanks Mr. Dawkins. You just told us how humans are different form animals even though they share the selfish gene mechanism. And that is the vivid missing link between humans and other species.
great guy, great book, one of the classics. but no! reality is cruel and beautiful. I am a very empathetic and altruistic person but I am afraid it is sometimes because of misfiring (like some women's mother insticts left and right) , and most of the times because i let it work and channel it accordingly so it gives me allies and favors, girlfriends and sex, protection from others, better estimation of the future decisions because of proximity, great reputation and in general gives me higher chances to live, live nice and reproduce. It's just a more complex way to keep my gene going, Yeah it feels so good and that's my reward, the conditioning my dna imposes to its living isntance, that it allows it to still exist and mix with others. It's just some formation/information moving forward and slightly changing for some reason..
@@Aethelhadas not at all, reasoning and interpretation of phenomena (right or wrong) has nothing to do with empathy. if you have it you can't help it, you just do kinda feel how others feel. Now if you disagree is something else. Check the term "Psychological Egoism"
I disagree with your epistemology. The animals are NOT engaging in self-sacrifice. The are very much interested in survival (self-interest) by trading grooming and connecting with the group as they cannot survive alone outside of the group. They each can groom themselves individually or they can trade grooming and I don't see how their behavior is a sacrifice.
If I got that right animals did not adopt altruism on a large scale because it did not help them procreate. Now, if we humans accidentally apply altruism, doesn't that mean that the reproduction of our genes is endangered by it?
+JustI478 Accidentally or intentionally, altruism will always endanger the genes of the individual who decides to act in such a way. If you place the well being of another above ones self, then you are the first to suffer the consequences. Your chance of death has been amplified by your decision to be altruistic.
Interesting video. Human altruistic behavior goes beyond just helping complete strangers though. How often do you see humans nurture and care for other species of plants and animals in need. The rose does nothing for the human, not does the kitten that shows up on your door that has been abandoned. However, it is not unusual for a human to care for the abandoned kitten.
+Chad nonyat yeah... I once found three abandoned kittens, took them home and what followed next was 2 months of semi sleepless nights because they had to be fed, regular visits to the vet since one of them turned out to have a serious infection, quite a bit of expenses - artificial formula, medicine, etc - but most of all worrying and panicking and being afraid they won't make it without their mother. they made it, I gave them all away to good homes. it didn't benefit me, the wooden floor in my room now has a noticable protrusion because that's where the kittens liked to urinate lol. I think humans are much more complex than Prof. Dawkins chooses to believe. it's not just saving kittens or looking after a plant, is it? sometimes it's covering the embrasure of a machine gun pillbox with your body, etc
So, you watched the video but you didn't get the point. Dawkins is wondering about humans altruism which he cant find in animals. Animals seem to act selfishly within their own groups to survive. Dawkins noted that is not the case with humans even we share same origins. Did you get it now. The answer for Dawkins is that there is a missing link between humans and animals. Dawkins won't be very proud if you're his student.
"Claiming to be wise, they became fools,and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
So feel free to rail on me for this, but I'm just throwing it out there. Couldn't this, for lack of a better term, superior human altruism have been learned by things like cultural ideals? But then again, I guess we would then have to keep regressing to know where the ideals came from
Could wars fought between groups of humans be the explanation for the love for other groups of strange humans? That there is a part is us thinking it is better for our survival to not be at war at all (losses), whereas another part believes we should only care for our own group, or the group members who look most like ourselves (this would explain racism). What do you think?
we (humans) do anything that doesn't affect our gene survival like we do charity and donate blood till it doesn't affect us and these things makes us get laid which makes our gene survive
8:28 "We live amongst large anonymous populations of strangers, not kin who share our genes, and not people who we might expect to return favors. And yet we still have a lust to be nice." I don't think most people have a lust to be nice towards strangers, and the first sentence perfectly explains why. Nobody wants to help people they don't share genes with, or who are not likely to return a favor. Unfortunately, humans do not share the same levels of genetic relatedness as ants in a colony. When an ant helps another ant of its colony, it is basically helping its own genes survive: "How did eusociality evolve? How did bee colonies undergo evolution to become superorganisms?" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-J83qyLXAsN4.html There are protests against immigrants, and nationalism is rising, in several countries around the world, because "nationalists are concerned above all by the fortunes of their own tribe": www.ft.com/content/59a37a38-7857-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475 In an individualistic society, you don't need anyone but yourself, you just use and dispose people for your own success, and it seems that's the path we are following: "Much of the research on the manifestation of rising individualism-showing, for example, increasing narcissism and higher divorce rates-has focused on the United States. Our findings show that this pattern also applies to other countries that are not Western or industrialized... Although there are still cross-national differences in individualism-collectivism, the data indicate that, overall, most countries are moving towards greater individualism." www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/individualistic-practices-and-values-increasing-around-the-world.html Sad but true. It seems we only help each other when we need each other to survive, and maybe currently we don't. Maybe in 1000 years... maybe in another planet... or maybe, as @TheLamelyNamed said, we will "die like pathetic selfish idiots", like rats in a closed space: "That Time a Guy Tried to Build a Utopia for Mice and it all Went to Hell" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5m7X-1V9nOs.html
everything can be explained in evolutionary theory, but i believe that the idea of self has been confused. we are one. the more you can empathize (which does not mean to feel sorry for. it only means the ability to understand someone more fully) this can also be free will. . i believe its possible to do things for other people because it helps you in the sense that you ARE other people not because it necessarily helps you personally. smoke it in your pipe
You are certainly on the right track :D If this topic interests you I would recommend reading the recent publications from Franz De Waal and Alan Bloom, "the atheist and the Bonobo" and "Just Babies: the origins of good and evil" respectively. Your comment bears resemblance to de Waal and Bloom's distinction between "empathy" and "compassion."
I don't like how he uses the word selfishness in the context of genes. Selfishness requires logical thinking with a self awareness, and logical thinking with selfawareness requires a form of mind. Evolution is not a selfaware mind, it follows the way of the nature.
André Villela But that is what is bugging me, I don't understand his viewpoint in this matter. I thought the only reason why he regreted his usage was due to the complete missunderstanding and/or missusage of his description of the original theory. But i did mail him personaly, so hopefully i will get a answer, or maybe even change his mind about his views. But to believe that Richard Dawkings doesn't share the more natural view on it, might be naive. But im not sure about Dawkins, in my view, he's not sucha deep thinker. It wouldn't suprice how ever he stands on this subject. Un less he has a even deeper philosophical view on the matter, because here is where i draw my line of expectations from Richard Dawkings lol.
ahyaok100 But such thing as selfishness is a form of inteligen self preservatory function, it requires some form of selfawareness and evaluation. The gene doesn't have this realy. For a self to exist, demands a mind which thinks with concepts.
I think he does a pretty good job explaining what he means by "selfish gene." I also enjoyed how he explains how altruism comes about because of the selfish gene--it actually pays off to be nice to one another, thus assisting the gene to stay alive, which is really the entire purpose of the gene, unconsciously of course.
I thought the same. I think genes that enhance collective survival through cooperation would increase the chances of individual survival. Also, regarding kinship, I think the reason why we survive is that we reproduce... its clear that only animals that reproduce survive. Our internal genes do not know who are kinsmen are... we just evolved to take care of little children... Look at how outraged we get when a child dies as opposed to an adult. The reason why kinsmen are important is individual bonds. We also have the ability to create bonds either to a whole group or certain individuals. By bonds I mean a readiness to sacrifice by each individual for the other.
