PART 2 SELFISH GENES: Richard Dawkins' "selfish genes" metaphor has been almost universally misunderstood. "Selfish genes" does not mean a selfish person. It's simply a way of looking at evolution as though animals act on behalf of their genes:
"It rapidly became clear to me that the most imaginative way of looking at evolution, and the most inspiring way of teaching it, was to say that itâs all about the genes. Itâs the genes that, for their own good, are manipulating the bodies they ride about in. The individual organism is a survival machine for its genes." â Richard Dawkins ^^^^^^^ CB: Well, the species that acted in ways that perpetuated themselves , that biologically reproduced a new generation that reproduced a new generation that produced a new generation...over many generations such that the species still survives at the point at which Dawkins is discussing them "manipulated" their bodies in a way that, yeah, they passed on their genes. That's what happpens in reproduction; genes are passed on. The genes, too, "survived" because by definition a species' genes "survive" when it survives. And the genes of a species go extinct when a species goes extinct. But , as is mildly implied by using the word "selfish" to modify "genes", this doesn't mean that the genes have something like consciouness or subjectivity or "agency" (in post-modern terminology) or "selves", such that they direct the bodies (bodies that grow out of their codes through base pairs making proteins, etc.) to act in ways that improve chances of survival of both the genes and the bodies and their future generations. Genes don't have selves, I guess is the best direct criticism of Dawkins' theory. It's a truism or trivially true from the premises of Darwinism that , _for species that do survive and don't go extinct_, "the individual organism is a survival machine for its genes, ".However, for species that go extinct their organisms are not survival machines. Both these sort of opposite, complementary statements are trivially derived from Darwin's and Mendel's basic ideas. Dawkins formulation about selfish-genes, doesn't add anything that is not already trivially true in Darwin's _The Origin of Species_, and Mendel's genes. ^^^^^^^ So-called "selfish genes" create people who both cooperate and compete at the same time (e.g., the best team player). With respect to "selfishness," it's actually our innate drive for "status" that has been transmogrified into a drive for money (political power). The drive for "status" is one of our most-powerful innate drives. Jay _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
