The Selfish Gene

This is Dawkins' famed seminal work on his view of evolution written in the 70s. It has been recognised as a classic of modern scientific writing. It is also where he presented his view of natural selection via individual gene. In the first chapter, he already clearly stated his unique view in contrast to selection based on group or the larger category of species which is a more conventional view at the time. Chapter two on replicators and chapter three on the immortal gene are the key chapters by which Dawkins explains the nature of a gene as a replicator exhibiting selfish behaviour in evolution. The primeval soup environment had molecules that are replicatators, molecules that are with longevity and/or capacity to replicate themselves with high longevity/fecundity/copying-fidelity. The gene made of replicating DNA molecules are the basic unit of evolution responding to natural selection pressure. A gene's replicating feature makes it possibly "immortal", for it can survive for a million years though many don't make it past the first generation. Dawkins characterises the gene as a survival machine with the capacity to learn from the environment in order to respond to and make predictions to its various changing parameters of the environment. Its learning capacity helps it to replicate and hence survive in the environment. Learning, adapt and replicate are ways a gene respond to selection pressure.The rest of the books reveals how the gene exhibits certain behaviours in the evolutionary process. In the area of aggression, Dawkins offers the surprising analysis that aggression is not necessarily the best way to survive in the evolutionary process. He invokes Maynard Smith notion of "evolutionary stable strategy" (ESS) throughout the book. It is a survival strategy adopted by most members of a population that cannot be bettered by an alternative strategy. The genes select a unique mixture of hawks and doves that is the best ESS for the population to survive, and not necessarily hawkish blind aggression survives better.On the process between generations, the genes enable the parents to choose a balance between reproduction and rearing in a way that best utilizes parental resources. Best replicating strategy ESS is not a blind maximal reproduction. Another interesting observation by Dawkins is parent/child relationship being as crucial as siblings relationship in terms of gene replication. Children would not blindly hoard food that risks the balance of his own survival and siblings survival. The gene enables the right balance.On the battle of the sexes, each sex selects the best way to replicate its own genes as reflected in even the mate selection criteria. Dawkins highlighted two selection criteria, the domestic bliss criterion according to which the female selects a male based on domesticity and fidelity to invest in her offsprings, and the he-man criterion which is based on males with best quality genes to sire their offspring. For males, promiscuity with multiple partners seems to be the best way of replicating.With regard to the dynamics between species, it is seen in nature that different species help each other for mutual reproductive benefits forming symbiotic relationships. An example is that aphids suck nutrients out of plants for ants while ants offer sanctuary to protect them from natural enemy. Dawkins mentioned also mitochondria which provides energy for human gene is bacteria in origin which cooperates with our cells making human beings a symbiotic colony of genes.Throughout this whole work, the selfishness of a gene is actually metaphorically used because selfishness only depicts the natural behaviour of gene replication by responding to selection pressure. Any apparent calculation of strategy actually takes place at a genetic level, not consciously decided at an agent level of the organism. Despite this notion, Dawkins suggests humans are different than other species in that it uses "memes" to transmit culture. Memes are means of cultural transmission. Examples are ideas, tunes, fashions, and artefacts. They replicate like genes jumping from body to body by humans imitating them from human to human for transmission. Dawkins also suggests that genes and memes can work against each other. Another thing that makes humans different from other organisms is the capacity for conscious foresight to work against selfish genes that have no foresight. It is conceivable that humans can work against their own genes interest. But that would imply humans possessing a free agent capacity over and above his own genetic makeup. I don't know if Dawkins would allow such a paradox but it is conceivable not all of human features are made for genetic replication.This work provides an impressive wealth of insights of how the gene function as a unit of survival machine in evolution. Just like any good books in biology, anecdotal examples from nature are indispensable and Dawkins does not disappoint. Some of my favourite examples are cuckoos that lay eggs in other species nests to spread their species and lessen its own parental investment, and the ruthlessness of hatched honey guides that would smash the eggs of their foster family eggs making it the only offspring of their parents. Baby swallows push other eggs out of the nest after hatching.In the 40th anniversary edition, the last chapter is just a summary of his next work The Extended Phenotype which he suggest the reader to skip and go on to that book and a 40th anniversary epilogue which is a good and updated summary of his book

The rule of Occam's Razor is that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the correct one. Although no one can yet know whether Dawkins is right in his neo-Darwinian view of the gene, his argument certainly seems simpler and more consistent than those he argues against. Basically, his point is that evolution must be analyzed from the perspective of what is likely to have facilitated or discouraged the continued reproduction of a given bit of DNA. Most alternative theorists favor looking from the perspective of the individual carrying the DNA or the group the individual belongs to.On the eve of the deciphering of the human genome, this is a terrific time to read this thought-provoking book. Basically, the book repeatedly looks at observed plant and animal behavior in terms of whether it furthers reproduction of a particular gene or set of genes. In most cases, Dawkins can construct a mathematical argument that is reasonably plausible to support his thesis. The only places where you may be uncomfortable is that the conclusions often depend on the assumptions that go into the models used. Those cited by Dawkins work. Others would not in many cases. That's where the room for doubt arises.I was especially impressed when he took the same arguments into the realm of conscious behavior, looking at classic problems like the Prisoner's Dilemma and explaining it from a genetic reproduction perspective. He also built some very nice arguments for why altruism can turn out to be an appropriate form of positive genetic selection.The main thing that bothered me as I read the book is that I was under the impression that in humans the female's genes account for 2/3rds of the offspring's total genes, while the male's genes account for 1/3. If that is true, then I am left at sea by the fact that all of the examples assume equal amounts of genes from the male and the female. I was left wondering if other species are typically 50-50, so that humans are the exception.I don't know how to account for this because I lack that knowledge. The introduction says that the publisher would not let there be a wholesale rewrite of the book in the new edition. Perhaps this is something that Dawkins wanted to revise and could not. There are two new chapters, and they are both quite interesting.If most mammalian species are 2/3 to 1/3, then many of the examples involving mammals are miscalculated. It would be worth redoing them if that is the case. I suspect that the conclusions would still be robust, however, directionally.Any work of speculation will always be subject to refinement and revision. I hope Dawkins keeps working on this one. His thinking has great potential for outlining new questions for research.One of the delights of this book is finding about plant and animal behaviors that I had never known about before. My favorite was the irresistible cuckoo gape. Apparently, a baby cuckoo in a next with its beak open begging for food is somehow so compelling that other birds carrying food back to another nest will stop by and give the food instead to the baby cuckoo. The book is full of thought-provoking examples like this that will keep me thinking for years.Dawkins is a very fine writer, and employs a number of simple, but compelling stories and analogies to carry forth complicated mathematical arguments. Even if you hate math, you will follow and enjoy his writing. Unlike many popular science books, he writes to his reader rather than down to his reader.Another benefit you will get from this book is a methodology for thinking through why behavior may make sense that otherwise looks foolish from the perspective of the individual (like bees dying to defend the hive). You will never look at behavior in quite the same way again.Enjoy!

While this book is highly celebrated, it comes off as pretentious a lot. Hard to read if you’re not an atheist. The man is brilliant though.