Greetings Economists, On May 30, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Walt Byars wrote:
"Selfish Gene" is simply used to mean that adaptations which promote a gene's fitness don't necessarily do so for the individual organism or group (i.e. the gene only "cares" about itself and not the individual or group).
Doyle; I see you want to clarify what they mean so that one doesn't leap to conclusions. I'll say this, the word selfish, is related to some sort of evaluation of values in emotions. Why does it make sense to appropriate a term for a system of 'knowing' that is not like what a gene does in terms of information propagation? I have a similar quibble about programming 'language'. Programming is not language like. It makes it seem that 'caring' is part of the equation in a discussion of 'selfish' genes. If one though tries to say what is caring, then the metaphor lands us in confusion about the process. Fundamentally, Dawkins, is trying to assert a priori rules to how things develop in the face of that evolution proceeds as if no rules can suffice. An animal may survive a very long time but can't anticipate humans breaking it's environment down and killing it's species. Or any other DNA system can anticipate human intervetion. A description of survival of a species must in my view see causation contra to caring. I.e. the universe doesn't care. Doyle
