The Selfish Gene, written by the biologist Richard Dawkins and originally published in 1976, is a classic which discusses genetics and its role in the history of life on Earth. Entertaining, informative, and easy to read, it is easy to understand why The Selfish Gene is considered a classic.
Dawkins begins his discussion by taking care to explain that genes are not actually conscious, despite his classification of them as being “selfish” - they do behave selfishly, trying to propagate as much as they can, but they do not possess sapience. And that is where biological organisms come in - each organism serves as a temporary carrier of the gene, and they are used by it to propagate, which ensures that before it dies, the gene will have found new hosts to inhabit. Richard Dawkins also states that his book was criticized due to its scientific nature, as some people felt disillusioned after reading facts - “A foreign publisher of my first book confessed that he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message. Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings” (xv). Dawkins responds correctly that if something is false, no amount of wishful thinking could make it true, and that denying the truth is a hopeless and foolish endeavor. He also states that he was surprised about learning that some people were unhappy upon realizing their lives had no cosmic or pre-ordained meaning, for most people don’t tie their lives to the “big picture” to begin with. Furthermore, “To accuse science of robbing life of the warmth that makes it worth living is so preposterously mistaken, so diametrically opposite to my own feelings and those of most working scientists, I am almost driven to the despair of which I am wrongly suspected” (xvi).
Dawkins talks in the foreword to the first edition of the book that humans commonly view chimpanzees with some degree of disgust, despite the fact that we share with chimpanzees “about 99.5 per cent of their evolutionary history” - our previous notion of chimpanzees as a “malformed, irrelevant oddity” is spurious, especially when considering that some see “themselves as stepping-stones to the Almighty” (xxv). Dawkins then correctly asserts that when it comes to evolution, no single species is “better” or more “advanced” than another, for evolution is indiscriminate, dispassionate, operating with no end goal in mind. Dawkins then narrates what natural selection looks like: “Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by a process known as natural selection. Within each species some individuals leave more surviving offspring than others, so that the inheritable traits (genes) of the reproductively successful become more numerous in the next generation. This is natural selection: the non-random differential reproduction of genes. Natural selection has built us, and it is natural selection we must understand if we are to comprehend our own identities” (xxv). He then states that Darwin’s brilliant ideas have been misused not just in the popular field (ex. social Darwinism), but also within science itself, as certain individuals may view humans as being “better” than other species and men as being superior to women; all these opinions were not intended by Darwin, and they’re all blatantly false.
Dawkins clearly and majestically illustrates the true scale of the gene’s effect on existence, stating that it would be possible that “If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: ‘Have they discovered evolution yet?’” (1). This is quite possible, as “Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand millions years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin” (1). Dawkins states that the genes of humanity stretch back to the very first microbes, which means that we can expect certain traits from humanity, such as selfishness. Although selfishness commonly manifests itself in obviously self-serving behavior, sometimes it engages in altruism to benefit itself (or copies extremely identical to itself). Take, for example, your family. Although the following example is extreme, I believe it illustrates the point: if your entire family was stuck in a room which was quickly filling with carbon monoxide, and you were given the choice to save them at the expense of your own life by diverting the gas towards yourself, would you take it? Many people would probably agree, and Dawkins explains that this kind of thinking is prevalent because the genes which are most similar to yours belong to your family, especially your immediate relatives (ex. your biological parents - you inherit 50% of your DNA from each). Dawkins then states that whenever he is describing the behavior of the gene, he isn’t encouraging people to become deliberately selfish or to create a moral system based on the gene; many times, what would be in the best interest of the gene would be amoral to conduct in real life.
Dawkins then states that other species also exhibit a willingness to sacrifice themselves to save those who are genetically close to them. Bees, for example, are eusocial, and due to their genes, are willing to sacrifice themselves to scare off a potential predator to protect the hive. Furthermore, certain birds may try to distract predators from their offspring and family. This isn’t true for many species, of course (penguins rarely volunteer to be the first to jump into the water to see if killer whales are there), but that is exactly the point - the Nuffield Biology Teachers’ Guide stated that “‘In higher animals, behaviour may take the form of individual suicide to ensure the survival of the species.’” (11). Dawkins states that humans are a curious mix, for while we are certainly selfish to a certain degree, we also admire generosity. However, our morality is certainly complicated, as “Often altruism within a group goes with selfishness between groups … At another level the nation is a major beneficiary of our altruistic self-sacrifice, and young men are expected to die as individuals for the greater glory of their country as a whole. Moreover, they are encouraged to kill other individuals about whom nothing is known except that they belong to a different tribe” (12).
Dawkins eventually comes to discuss the genome, and nicknames it the “replicator.” He states that the beginning of life through replicators was an extremely improbable event, but given hundreds of millions of years, the chance of it happening greatly increases in probability. Replicators replicated, making slightly varied replicators in the process. Eventually, space ran out, and to get sustenance, the replicators proceeded to devour each other. Over time, through accident, some replicators were able to build survival machines to help them thrive (biological bodies), “But making a living got steadily harder as new rivals arose with better and more effective survival machines. Survival machines got bigger and more elaborate, and the process was cumulative and progressive” (25). Dawkins then describes the DNA molecule as “a long chain of building blocks, small molecules called nucleotides … A DNA molecule is too small to be seen, but its exact shape has been ingeniously worked out by indirect means. It consists of a pair of nucleotide chains twisted together in an elegant spiral; the ‘double helix’; the ‘immortal coil’. The nucleotide building blocks come in only four different kinds, whose names may be shortened to A, T, C, and G. These are the same in all animals and plants. What differs is the order in which they are strung together. A G building block from a man is identical in every particular to a G building block from a snail. But the sequence of building blocks in a man is not only different from that in a snail” (27). Dawkins then writes that DNA is fairly distributed among cells, and the average human body has a thousand million million cells. What is amazing is that every single cell has a complete copy of the body’s DNA. Protein composes DNA and therefore the body, and DNA, as expected, plays a colossal role in embryonic development.
Dawkins then writes that the human body has 46 chromosomes, 23 coming from each biological parent. Some genes brought on by chromosomes are dominant (show themselves when paired with a recessive gene), while others are recessive (hide themselves when paired with a dominant gene). A gene pool is composed of all the genes within a population. Mitosis is normal cell division, while meiosis involves the cell division of sperms and eggs; meiosis takes place only in a person’s genitals. Dawkins then writes that every single organism differs, and that a gene can be labeled as “good” if it survives in most situations. Most genes have in fact been weeded out, as more than 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. There were five major mass extinctions (humans owe their existence to the Triassic extinction), and scientists believe that we are undergoing a sixth extinction (which is caused by human activity, seen in rampant consumerism, habitat destruction, climate change).
Dawkins then writes that most individuals feel like they are a single unit, not a conglomerate of cells. The brains of many animals help them survive due to it allowing them intuition to achieve their goals and to learn what to do in certain situations, but there are also drawbacks: brains take up a lot of the body’s energy, not to mention that an entire community can suffer if there are a few exceedingly selfish individuals who exploit others. Hence, it explains why people are, as a whole, selfish - those who were too softhearted and easygoing didn't pass on their genes, while those who were selfish benefited from their exploitation of others. It should be noted that it is believed by some that genes don’t influence behavior, which still supports Dawkin’s hypothesis, for if offspring are born into a society which is dominated by those who are selfish, they are likely to become selfish themselves in order to survive. Dawkins then explains that societies which are too selfish wouldn’t survive, for selfish individuals find it exceedingly hard to cooperate and to trust each other. This would lead to the population decreasing and the resurfacing of “nice guys.” This cycle would then repeat.
Dawkins soon talks about aggression, and he states that it is easily understandable from a biological perspective - early microbes devoured each other simply by engulfing each other due to their small size. However, as the carriers of replicators became more complex, developments had to be made to facilitate the capture of food, and organs were developed which would help process the sustenance when it is caught. While some animals simply run away from danger (ex. deer and zebras), others commonly defend their ground, which explains many of their instincts, including the fight-or-flight response. Furthermore, when it comes to complex social structures, while cooperation is needed to some extent for many societies, in certain cases “it might seem a good plan to kill, or at least fight with, certain particular rivals in a discriminating way” (89). This is especially prevalent when it comes to mating, for it is a standard ceremony for many species (including humans to some extent - think of defending one’s “honor”) to demonstrate to potential mates that you have the strength to provide and fight for them. Dawkins himself writes, “If B is an elephant seal in possession of a large harem full of females, and if I, another elephant seal, can acquire his harem by killing him, I might be well advised to attempt to do,” but due to being master of the harem, B can be inferred to be a good fighter, causing the potential challenger to know that “Even if I win the fight and gain the harem, I may be so madly mauled in the process that I cannot enjoy the benefits … If I concentrate on feeding and on keeping out of trouble for a time, I shall grow bigger and stronger. I’ll fight him for the harem in the end, but I may have a better chance of winning eventually if I wait, rather than rush in now” (89). Dawkins also categorizes retaliation as being a form of aggression, though it is usually more expected than simple aggression.
Dawkins then talks about “genesmanship,” or how you should treat others based on their genes (again, he isn’t advocating for people to actually behave from that perspective). Dawkins states that it is possible to find out what percentage of genes you share with a person based on the principle of generation distance - “climb up the family tree until you hit a common ancestor, and then climb down again … The total number of steps up the tree and then down again is the generation distance … multiply ½ by itself once for each step of the generation distance. If the generation distance is 3, this means calculate ½ times ½ times ½ or (½)3. If the generation distance via a particular ancestor is equal to g steps, the portion of relatedness due to that ancestor is (½)g.” (119). A person shares 12.5% of their DNA with their great-grandparents, 50% of their DNA with full brothers, sisters, parents, and children, and all their DNA with a twin. Furthermore, “Uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, grandparents and grandchildren, and half brothers and half sisters, are intermediate with a relatedness of ¼” (120). Dawkin states that genesmanship involves helping those who are related to you on a basis of what percent of their DNA they share with you, so, for instance, “If an individual could be sure that a particular person was his identical twin, he should be exactly as concerned for his twin’s welfare as for his own” (121). Dawkins then draws a line between kin selection and group selection, stating that kin selection involves matters between family members, while group selection involves those who are unrelated. Dawkins then gives examples of relationships between parents and their offspring in the animal kingdom.
Dawkins talks more about parental care, stating that mammals and birds care for their children the most compared to other species. While humans commonly take care of their young until they become young adults, turtles frequently lay their eggs on the beach and leave. The evolutionary strategy of the turtle is relatively effective, for even though the vast majority of the newborn turtles will be eaten by birds and other predators, a few would survive, just enough to continue the species. Dawkins states that overpopulation is a massive problem, for there is frequently an inverse relationship between the amount of people in a society and the quality of one’s life. “For instance, the present population of Latin America is around 300 million, and already many of them are under-nourished. But if the population continued to increase at the present rate, it would take less than 500 years to reach the point where the people, packed in a standing position, formed a solid human carpet over the whole area of the continent” (143). Things, of course, rarely get this extreme, for it is a common feature of population models to feature a peak in population growth, which is followed by a crash which involves the deaths of much of the population. Sometimes, “the result is outright extinction, at least of the population in a local area,” which clearly demonstrates how a gene can put short-run gains in front of long-run sustainability (145). Dawkins then remarks interestingly that in the wild, few die of old age, as “starvation, disease, or predators catch up with them long before they become really senile. Until recently this was true of man too,” seeing that “Most animals die in childhood, many never get beyond the egg stage” (145).
Dawkins then talks about parenting in the animal kingdom, stating that parents do not invest their resources equally among their various children, as their children usually differ from one another. For instance, an organism is more willing to feed a normal, healthy offspring than a runt which is disabled. Furthermore, Dawkins writes that age also plays a crucial factor: “If she has a straight choice between saving the life of one child or saving the life of another, and if the one she does not save is bound to die, she should prefer the older one. This is because she stands to lose a higher proportion of her life’s parental investment if he dies than if his little brother dies. Perhaps a better way to put this is that if she saves the little brother she will still have to invest some costly resources in him just to get him up to the age of the big brother” (162). In other cases, however, “If the choice is not such a stark life or death choice, her best bet might be to prefer the young one … The big one is likely to be more capable of finding his own food unaided” (162). Some organisms have a rather parasitic relationship with their caretakers (especially in species which mix their offspring with those of others, such as cuckoos) - they scream when they are hungry, which forces their parents to choose between feeding them or letting a predator come to devour them. Consequently, Dawkins states that these kinds of “selfish genes” are likely to be preserved, which caused him to say that “The phrase ‘the child should cheat means that genes that tend to make children cheat have an advantage in the gene pool. If there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature” (181).
Dawkins then talks about mating in the animal kingdom, first maintaining that males have XY, while females have XX. The X and Y chromosomes are given by the father, while the other X chromosome is always given by the female. Consequently, if we look at kings like Henry VIII in history who have beheaded their wives due to their inability of producing a son, we realize that the males were the ones who should be blamed and subsequently punished. Dawkins then explores different reproductive strategies that various animals use to mate. Some animals seek no long-term relationship with others, and mate only with those which prove themselves to be superior to the others. Once the female is pregnant, the male is not expected to remain - contrary, he is expected to do the same thing to other females. This principle suggests that males are much more likely to cheat than females, as males aren’t capable of getting pregnant, and are not as attached to their own children as a result. Due to this, the courtship rituals of some species (including Homo Sapiens and gibbons) generally demands that when reproduction does occur, it is a result of a long-term union, or what Homo Sapiens would call “marriage.” It is also an interesting tenet in nature that some males develop through evolution physical traits which handicap them, but make them more attractive: “There are therefore two conflicting selection pressures: predators tending to remove bright-colour genes from the gene pool, and sexual partners tending to remove genes for drabness … Because a male produces many millions of sperms to every egg produced by a female, sperms heavily outnumber eggs in the population. Any given egg is therefore much more likely to enter into sexual fusion than any given sperm is. Eggs are a relatively valuable resource, and therefore a female does not need to be so sexually attractive as a male does in order to ensure that her eggs are fertilized … Even if a male has a short life because his gaudy tale attracts predators, or gets tangled in the bushes, he may have fathered a very large number of children before he dies. An unattractive or drab male may live even as long as a female, but he has few children, and his genes are not passed on. What shall it profit a male if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his immortal genes?” (211).
Dawkins eventually discusses eusocial animals, discussing that some insect species have two categories - the carers and the breeders. Their descriptions are as follows, and are quite obvious by their names alone: “The bearers are the reproductive males and females. The carers are the workers-infertile males and females in the termites, infertile females and all other social insects” (225). Dawkins discusses mutual altruism, portrayed famously as how a monkey would be willing to groom each other’s backs. Dawkins states that while mutual grooming is very common in birds and mammals, it should be remembered that genes are still primarily selfish in nature, and it is a wonder that things like mutualism have evolved. Dawkins, to further clarify his point, gives the following experiment: suppose that in a population of birds, there are “cheaters” and “suckers.” Suckers were birds who helped cheaters get rid of parasites, and cheats were birds who refused to return the favor. While it is true that cheats will benefit in the short-run from an evolutionary standpoint, in the long run, when the majority of the population is composed of cheaters who refuse to help each other, their numbers will suffer due to the large presence of parasites, causing suckers to rise again. Furthermore, it is quite possible that suckers will learn to identify cheaters and to remember their identities so as to not help them in the future, which will hurt the cheaters in the long run. Humans are a prime example in this, for our cognition and memory helps many people make wise investments and produent decisions. Dawkins concedes that “There is no end to the fascinating speculation that the idea of reciprocal altruism engenders when we apply it to our own species. Tempting as it is, I am no better at such speculation than the next man, and I leave the reader to entertain himself” (244).
Dawkins then introduces the new replicators which humankind has invented - memes. Memes do not signify internet jokes or parodies in this case, but thoughts or concepts that spread from individual to individual through discourse. Certain memes, such as religion, politics, and nationalism, spread extremely quickly due to humanity’s capability of imagination (there is no empirical evidence to back up the afterlife - all our sensory data is collected by our body from the environment, political parties don’t actually exist, and nations don’t exist either). Dawkins gives some historical examples of memes, such as cultures which have been successfully transmitted from parent to child for hundreds or even thousands of years, independent of the gene itself.
Dawkins then talks about the great lengths the gene can manifest itself, and this includes phenotypes, or physical traits and behaviors manifested by living organisms. Richard Dawkins mentioned that he wrote a book about that, The Extended Phenotype, which discusses this topic in depth. He states that while phenotypes primarily manifest themselves in physical traits (skin color, eye color, height), they can also extend to structures. That is, organisms like beavers are capable of building their own homes, which is an amazing feat. Ants, for instance, can build anthills with very little to work with, and humans have built pyramids, planes, railway stations, houses, hotels, palaces, statues, roads, walls, and other structures. Dawkins then states that evolution and biology are wonders, for life had become so complex by the time human beings came about that biologists concerned themselves with the vehicles for genes, not the smaller components of the body. Dawkins then states that “The long reach of the gene knows no obvious boundaries. The whole world is criss-crossed with causal arrows joining genes to phenotypic effects, far and near … these causal arrows have become bundled up. Replicators are no longer peppered freely through the sea; they are packaged in huge colonies-individual bodies. And phenotypic consequences, instead of being evenly distributed throughout the world, have in many cases congealed into those same bodies. But the individual body, so familiar to us on our planet, did not have to exist. The only kind of entity that has to exist in order for life to arise, anywhere in the universe, is the immortal replicator” (343-4).
Dawkins then writes in the epilogue to the 40th anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene that scientists have a major difference with politicians - they are perfectly fine admitting to a mistake. While “A politician who changes his mind is accused of ‘flip-flopping’,” “Scientists on the whole prefer to see their ideas vindicated, but an occasional reversal gains respect, especially when graciously acknowledged. I have never heard of a scientist being maligned as a flip-flopper” (345). Of course, there are many other differences when it comes to scientists and politicians. For instance, the incidence of scoundrels and jerks in the population of politicians has a much higher incidence rate than in scientists, for science, as a whole, means willing to be skeptical, willing to listen to what others have to say, while politicians mainly focus on getting elected and then reelected. Dawkins then states that his book could have been called The Immortal Gene, as the gene is a very widespread phenomenon on planet Earth.
Personal thoughts:
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is a clever, entertaining, informative read of the phenomenon of the gene. It is clear to understand due to the fact that there is no jargon, and Dawkins’ multiple examples to support his claims and hypotheses help the reader to visualize what he is trying to say. The Selfish Gene is a book of great magnitude, for it includes all the life that existed on earth, from the earliest molecules to cyanobacteria to dinosaurs to the present day. It also offers key insights into the behavior of organisms, not just humans, by offering a look from the viewpoint of a gene (though the gene, once again, has no sapience that we know of). I appreciated that Dawkins took time to validate science and to point out that something which may shatter your previous illusions may be true. And since evolution is supported by a vast amount of scientific research, it can be safely accepted as a tenet of the world we live in. Or as Nietzsche would put it, “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” I highly recommend The Selfish Gene to people interested in biology, science, evolution, and accessible scientific works.
Get the book: