Rating: 
Summary: Bartalk
Review: When reading this book you should hold on to that first impression you get from the title, that this book is spuriously hateful. The book makes the most sense reading it that way. In the opening Dawkins writes that if "superior" beings from outerspace come to visit earth they will first ask wether we know evolution or not, to "assess the level of our civilization". That is, in Dawkins egomaniac dreams, "superior" beings from outer space come to visit him, as arguably the most civilized man on earth, since he knows evolution theory so well. Is it really a coincedence that Dawkins comes out on top of the world by his own words? Not entirely. His hatered for religion slants his wordusage towards value-laden terminology like "civilization" and "superior" in an effort to push religion into the background. The would-be science in this book has mostly been proven wrong already in the years since it was published. There are some factual errors like the fable of the female mantis eating the male mantis after mating. This is found to occur most only under stressful conditions, like captivity. Does the mantis have a "when in stress then eat the male after reproduction gene" ? Is this gene selfish? Does the male Mantis have an altruist "eat me after reproduction gene"? Can the selfish female genes support the male altruist gene? This is the sort of convoluted logic that keeps Dawkinites wondering and wondering about Nature. It has absolutely zero scientific value. Nevertheless, this is an important book in the science of Darwinism. Unlike other disciplines such as chemistry or physics, pop-science books like this are the mainstay of Darwinist science. Unlike in other sciences which are standardized, systemized and formalized, every Darwinist has their personal pet-definition of Natural Selection. Some definitions focus on survival, others focus on reproduction, some require variation for Natural Selection to apply, some definitions don't, some make reference to reproductive success, others to a reproductive rate, some include struggle or competition, other definitions don't etc. It can't be any other way for the organization of knowledge to be meaningful, that most of these definitions should be held to be false. Sometimes Dawkins talks about individual organisms as "survival machines" of genes, and sometimes he talks about individuals as "machines for propagation". Ever stood behind a xerox copymachine and when you push the buttons all it does is "survive"? It's very annoying. Survival and reproduction are two different things, but you wouldn't know it reading Dawkins. Dawkins' personal definition of Natural Selection reads "non-random survival of randomly varying organisms". It falls in the very large category of faulty definitions. Natural Selection isn't about survival it is about reproduction. Natural Selection doesn't require any variation at all to apply. Reproduction is often random, and this is still covered by Natural Selection. You might wonder if it's not my definition that is false, and Dawkins definition that is correct. That sort of critical thinking is what science is all about. You won't find much of that within Darwinism in trying to find a correct definition. The definition of Natural Selection Dawkins employs is biased towards evolution, and within that bias for evolution it is biased towards scenario's of shared resources. By his biased definition he comes to typify Natural Selection as "Nature red in tooth and claw". But Natural Selection basicly defined is no more then reproduction any which way, even random ways. ... Dawkins explicitely states that he wants his theory to be used in the field of psychology, for a new morality where people try to overcome their inborn selfishness from their genes in becoming adults. Obviously a theory that is intended to encroach on the most personal aspects of our lives, our psychology, should be utterly scrutinized in every possible way. We should not be afraid to demand the highest standards of the writings of people who have such pretenses. But in a converse relationship to the pretenses, this book has about the lowest scientific standards imaginable. It is not unlike the talk of the eccentric at the local bar who has this theory about life and everything, where Dawkins distinguishes himself for being that much more hateful then the average eccentric at the bar.
Rating: 
Summary: a Master's Work
Review: Reading Mister Dawkins' work assures one he has mastered his subject matter to the point of complete, comfortable, authoritative confidence. He refers to others' works as an authority in his agreements and disagreements with their conclusions, and offers a complete sense of understanding of why their viewpoints agree or disagree with his in such a way the reader can also grasp it. Even when there is no way two viewpoints can resolve their differences, his disappointment with the situation rather than the other party presents in itself an abundant lesson from which we all could learn, and maybe should.
His presentation of the prisoners' dilemma relative to genetics makes clear the role of gaming theories in genetics, an apt application to demonstrate important life and death rules followed by the selection process. Very similar rules apply to memetics, the last chapter introduction for which this book is mostly known. A completely scholarly work, yet in a clear language only a master of a subject could wield. No library will be considered complete without a copy of this book.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic of Popular Science
Review: More than a quarter-century after its first publication, Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" remains a classic of popular science writing. This edition includes two new chapters as well as extensive endnotes that do much to perfect the original text and correct the few mistakes that were found in it. "The Selfish Gene" is explicitly directed at the layman, and absolutely no knowledge of biology is assumed. While this presents a danger of boring readers (such as myself) who are already familiar with DNA and meiosis, the colorful metaphors Dawkins uses throughout the book do much to keep the reading engrossing and entertaining. After a lengthy exploration of basic biology, covering topics such as DNA and the origin of life, Dawkins introduces the gene-centered view of evolution that has long been textbook orthodoxy. Dawkins uses the remainder of the book to look at various types of animal behavior in an effort to convey some general conclusions and tools to help the reader understand evolution and natural selection. Much of his effort is devoted to explaining behavior in terms of the 'selfish gene' - especially social behavior that has long been held to have evolved 'for the good of the species.' Dawkins shows that how fundamental axiom of natural selection (that the genes best at surviving and reproducing will eventually spread through the gene pool) leads directly to the selfish gene and the behavior exhibited by nearly all animals (humans being the prime exception). Many of Dawkins's metaphors have caused raised eyebrows - one outstanding example is his characterization of living things as "lumbering robots" built to protect the genes that hide in them - but the metaphors are always (eventually) brought under control. The title is one such metaphor that has often been misunderstood by superficial analysis. The 'selfish gene' is simply a gene that does not aid others at its own expense. Such genes would be better able to reproduce and spread through the gene pool than those that did sacrifice themselves for others, and therefore completely dominate the gene pools of all species as a result of billions of years of evolutionary pressure. I cannot hope to adequately summarize Dawkins's arguments in a mere review, so I sincerely urge you to read "The Selfish Gene" for yourself. I should warn that conservatives would probably not enjoy the book nearly as much as I did. Dawkins is an open secular humanist with socialist leanings, and is not worried about offending the delicate sensibilities of creationists and fundamentalists. This book should only be read by those willing to 'accept' the validity of natural selection and evolution; others would only waste their time. I would direct readers seeking a more scientific discussion of these issues to G. C. Williams's "Adaptation and Natural Selection." All others will most likely enjoy "The Selfish Gene" a great deal and finish the book with a new appreciation for and understanding of evolution and biology.
Rating:
Summary: Provocative Classic on the Evolution of Social Behavior
Review: Anyone interested in the evolution of social behavior in animals (including humans) must read this 1976 classic work by Richard Dawkins. Even today, more than 25 years later, it continues to provoke muddle-headed mystics -- both religious and political --with its clear-headed application of darwinian natural selection to questions such as how and why one might deceive, cheat, and manipulate others (and what limits such behavior). In the book's forward, Robert Trivers laments the fact that the application of natural selection to social hehavior "has been widely neglected." That was 1976. Today, in 2003, however, the application of darwinian analysis in the social sciences is ubiquitous. So, the "Selfish Gene" indeed was on the cutting edge of intellectual history. The term "selfish gene" is of course metaphor as Dawkins reminds the reader many times. Many people are put off by it, but I think it makes the book more readable (probably because human brains are programmed to think in terms of actors with motives). Sometimes the "selfish gene" produces selfish behavior, and sometimes it produces extremely unselfish behavior. Don't be deterred by the term. Its memorable, and certainly better than calling the book "Gene-level Selection and the Evolution of Social Behavior". On the technical side, I found Dawkins' definition of the gene very intuitive, as I also found his explanation of why the gene was the unit of selection rather than the individual or the group. Finally, the book is NOT as some have claimed on treatise on biological determinism. Dawkins gives wide scope in his last chapter to cultural transmission mechanisms. And it is here where he coins the term "meme", a replicating cultural unit analogous to the biological "gene". And, yes, memes are also "selfish".
Rating:
Summary: A Classic.
Review: If you haven't read this book, then you don't know anything about how life works. Seriously recommended reading.
Rating:
Summary: An alternation in the definition of the self
Review: The real question that Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene poses is Who are we? The greatest threat to conventional thinking - of which must change has already taken place - has to do with the redefinition of who we are. Are we really just robots of our genes? Is this a misunderstanding of what Dawkins is talking about when he discusses genes and memes? In an effort to get a better sense of Dawkins and what the impact of this form of inquiry has on our definition of self, it is best to revisit his terms and writing. To the best of my understanding, the term selfish gene was invented to assist us in out understanding organisms and their evolution to life on earth. The notion of the selfish gene shifts the focus from the organism level to the gene level. A selfish gene is, according to Dawkins, one whose phenotypical expression advances its own replication in the form of continued existence in future generations. According to Dawkins, the continued existence into future generations is the sole measure for a successful gene. Genes then have evolved to seem to want to survive into future generations in the maximum number of replications possible. This modus operandi, according to Dawkins, is the force that shapes organisms. Dawkins described the basic principle of Darwinian evolution in terms of three general processes--when information is copied again and again, with variations and with selection of some variants over others, this is effectively evolution. Over many iterations of this cycle, the surviving replications will gradually acquire new properties that tend to make them better suited to succeeding in the ongoing competition to produce progeny. Does this not bring into question that the new set of combined genes is now new set of genes? If you take a Hegelian approach a new organism or gene set should evolve. If a set of genes from organism A (thesis) and they are combined with a set of genes from organism B (antithesis), then by definition won't you get organism C (new synthesis)? Although the cycle is mindless (and this if problematic - how can genes contain the will to live ascribed to them/it), it generates design out of chaos. Dawkins called the information that gets copied the replicator and pointed out that the most familiar replicator is -- the gene. Yet another problematic that a jump out at me instantly is neither Dawkins nor someone like Daniel Dennett has still been able to explain the elusive Why? I have to admit the book is thought provoking but it has fallen short of explaining away the big picture. Maybe they should stop to ask or frame the question in that way. Perhaps a discussion on the concept of the meme may shed some light on this examination. What is a meme? Apparently, memes are to culture what genes are to life. Just as biological evolution is run by the survival of the fittest in the gene pool, for Dawkins, cultural evolution may be driven by the most successful memes. It seems, at least in its inception, that the concept of the meme was a negative one. In The Selfish Gene Dawkins points out that genes aren't the only pebbles on the Darwinian beach. Memes don't only leap from mind to mind by imitation, in culture. They also live, replicate and do battle in our heads. When we announce to the world a good idea, who really knows what goes on behind the scenes inside our heads? Our heads (or in this case minds), according to Dawkins, are invaded by memes, as ancient bacteria invaded our ancestors' cells and became mitochondria. Obviously the notion of the meme is a very difficult but also promising concept to be floating around. It does almost scientifically verify the very fractured nature of the self in the sense that we are constantly changing. How does that fit in with our physiological genetic makeup? Is such a thing then as genetic integrity in the sense that the genes we possess are static or stable? What about the interaction between the two (memes and genes)? The idea that memes is apparently not new. Meme concepts have been floating around for almost a quarter of a century. It seems that only lately has meme/gene studies attracted the attention as a compelling force in human evolution discourse. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins wanted to highlight that evolution can be based on just about any replicator, thus coining the idea of the meme. The copying of memes from one person to another is imperfect, just as the copying of genes from parent to child is sometimes inaccurate. We may change/alter a story, forget a word of the song, adapt an old technology or concoct a new theory out of old ideas. To me, this means that they new item is no longer the old one. If you move an object from space A and place it in space B what is to say it is no longer authentic? Does not the object defy the fetish of authenticity and become authentic in the new space? Do genes and memes not function along these same lines? Of all these variations, some go on to be copied many times, whereas others die out. Memes are thus true replicators, possessing all three properties--replication, variation, and selection--needed to spawn a new Darwinian evolutionary process. To summarize, I feel the book is obviously thought provoking. If we take a step back and understand that all these forces are subject to the epistemological assumptions or a priori floating around - then this dominant reasoning might just be memed out. Do I buy in on the almost cosmological assumptions that Dawkins and his ilk subscribe to? Certainly not totally. But I am compelled to read on. Miguel Llora
Rating:
Summary: Still groundbreaking after 25 years
Review: The original book was written in 1976, my copy is a second edition from 1989. But even today, after more than 25 years, the book is still innovative and will be relevant for years to come. The 13 years that separate the first and second editions allowed Dawkins to reflect on the book assisted by the numerous critiques it received. Instead of rewriting or expanding the obscure or plain wrong sections Dawkins added crucial endnotes that must be read as you read the book. Many times a statement on the main text is immediately contradicted in the corresponding endnote in a sometimes disturbing but very honest way. The second edition also adds two brand new chapters, "Nice Guys Finish First", my favorite one on game theory and "The Long Reach of The Gene", a plug for Dawkins "The Extended Phenotype" book. The book was written, as Dawkins brilliantly explains it in the preface for the first edition, having in mind three kinds of readers: the layman (no gender-neutral language in the book); the expert; and the student. The result in my humble layman/student view is a very interesting, readable, but still rigorous gem of a book. The main idea is to put the gene (read the book for the controversial definition of gene) as the main unit of natural selection instead of the whole individual or even the group. Single genes struggling to perpetuate themselves in the gene pool gave rise to the witty anthropomorphic metaphor "selfish gene". Most of the book is devoted to build that metaphor with the exception of chapter 11, "Memes, the New Replicators", a little far-fetched in my opinion. The book is a joy. There are lots of incredible examples of animal behavior, once believed to prove group selection, that are now much better explained under the "selfish gene" mind-frame. I certainly recommend "The Selfish Gene"; an original contribution by Richard Dawkins
Leonardo Alves - Houghton, MI - October 2002
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read Book
Review: Excellent book. Well written, well documented.
Rating:
Summary: Scientific Reductionism At It's Extreme
Review: To put it somewhat dramatically, Dawkins takes all things sacred in the human experience and shatters them against the wall of evolutionary biology. Religion, Altruism, Love, etc. are each meticulously deconstructed and persuasively reduced to mere survival mechanisms for our genes. Scientific reductionism at its extreme. This book continues to get people, mostly Christians, hot under the collar. Thought-provoking and damn fun stuff.
Rating: 
Summary: Sneaky genes caught in the act
Review: Personification, or (more awkwardly) anthropomorphization, is a slightly silly convention practiced daily by all of us. It consists of attributing sentient human characteristics to non-human entities, as in "the computer thinks you want to shut it down," or "my car is out to get me." Such expressions are usually harmless because everyone knows the metaphors aren't meant literally. There are certain contexts, though, where personification becomes troublesome. Two of them are biology and evolution. I once criticized Michael Behe for writing that viruses mutate "in order to evade the immune system." Viruses cannot strategize or harbor motives, and to imply that they do carelessly misstates the fundamentals of evolution, a theory Behe was attempting to refute! Tacky. The title itself should put any "Selfish Gene" reader on notice that a megadose of personification is coming, but even thus forewarned I was taken aback by the extent of it. The author seems to be in the peculiar position of understanding perfectly well the drawbacks of anthropomorphization, but pressing on with it anyway. An unfortunate result is that Dawkins incessantly uses the language of conscious motives while issuing caveats about it. In both main text and chapter notes (1989 edition), he alternates between backpedaling from personification (e.g. top, page 89) and irritably dismissing any reader or critic obtuse enough to suppose he means what he says (e.g. page 278). Perhaps I am unreasonably sensitive, but personification issues in "Selfish Gene" significantly reduced my ability to enjoy it. So if that's how I felt about the book, why did I finish it? Because it was more than worthwhile to do so. Like Dawkins' other works, this one is a cornucopia of useful information, novel interpretations and clever insights. It introduces such diverse topics as the ironic and unwisely-ignored concept of speciesism, the meme as a reproducing unit of imitative behavior, the significance of evolutionarily stable strategies (ESSs), and the game-theoretical aspects of ad hoc live-and-let-live behavior among WW1 combatants. One would have to be anesthetized not to learn and profit from reading "Selfish Gene."
| 
