Dawkins´s Dilemma

In class, we read part of Chapter 12 and attempted to recreate the Prisoner´s Dilemma game. I thought it was very easy, both persons would choose cooperate and would earn .3 on their grade. After sneakily planning it, Barbara surprised us all by backstabbing Pedro and earning .5, Dawkins showing us selfishness at its best (or should I say worst?). But this is also an example of morale. If both persons care for the other they will probably cooperate for the two of them to be benefitted, it´s the right thing to do isn´t it?

Well what´s right for a survival machine may not be right for a person who isn´t abusing of other´s weaknesses and strengths for personal gain. To me, it all depends on the path the replicators have walked down, a path full of feelings and selflessness and a path of selfishness and abuse of others.

A "Selfish" Gene?

"No matter how much knowledge of wisdom you acquire during your life, not one jot will be passed to your children by genetic means." (Pg 23)

I had thought this was a clear explanation of why the book was titled The Selfish Gene. A gene is learns and learns, studies and studies, but just does it for him/herself. It makes perfect sense; you work your butt off for yourself, not for other huh? You don´t have friends, you have a "pack" in case you have an issue that can be solved on their expense. 

For us its "morale," a useless idea that has sadly managed to successfully pass down through generations. The decision if the following: Worst case scenario, me walking down a street when suddenly, le wild armed guy appears. He orders me and the woman who was walking beside me to give him our things. 

Option 1: Tackle the old lady and run. She is weaker and has lived her life, I still have to live mine! 


Option 2: Use telepathy and communicate with the old lady. She knows Tae-Kwon-Do and so do I. We can use symbiosis and fight the guy off with our Hoo sin Sool.

Dawkins would probably urge me to tackle this lady, yet the morale I have learned from society tells me I must fend this guy off. We humans probably don´t have the selfish gene. I´m sorry Mr. Dawkins but most people probably have issues when deciding between letting their selfish gene rule or being rebels and letting society and it´s good ways lead the way.

Why is life so meaningless?

As I read Chapter 11 I found an idea which I believed Dawkins contradicted himself. I read that intelligence couldn't be passed genetically from a survival machine to another.

"No matter how much knowledge of wisdom you acquire during your life, not one jot will be passed to your children by genetic means." (Pg 23)

Later, I read the following (and had to Google the meaning of analogous).

"Cultural transmission is analogous to genetic transmission in that, although basically conservative, it can give rise to a form of evolution." (Pg. 189)

I now had to contradict myself. Dawkins wasn't saying culture could be transmitted, he was implying it could also cause changes! I do have doubts though, so if culture and intelligence can't be passed down, they can only from others right? After so many years of evolution, it seems logical that replicators would have learned how to pass intelligence and culture. Doesn´t it seem useless to spend so much time dedicated into learning just to unexpectedly die and lose all the your world and knowledge? Not even be able to pass it down to your successor survival machine? What a shame that life and knowledge is so meaningless.

Dawkins´s Definitions

Survival machines: "The ones [Replicators] that survived were the ones that built survival machines for them to live in." (pg. 19)

"They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are ttheir survival machines." (pg. 20)

"We are survival machines, but "we" does not mean just people. It embraces all animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses." (pg. 21)

"Now, natural selection favours replicators that are good at building survival machines, genes that are skilled in the art of controlling embryonic development." (pg 24)

Basically, survival machines (humans, animals, viruses, and bacteria) were built by genes so they could live in. The genes which are most succesful controlling embryonic development have survival machines which will live more in terms of natural selection.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Replicators: "At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest, or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary propety of being able to create copies of itself. (pg. 15)

"Actually a molecule that makes copies of itself is not as difficult to imagine as it seems at first, and it only has to arise once." (pg. 15)

"For simplicity I have given the impression that modern genes, made of DNA, are much the same as the first replicators in the primeval soup."(pg 21)

Well, these excerpts explain what a replicator is, no need of repeating what is already known.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Evolution: “Evolution is something that happens, willy-nilly, in spite of all the efforts of the replicators (and nowadays of the genes) to prevent it happening.” 

"Anyway, as we shall see, erratic copying in biological replicators can in a real sense give rise to improvement, and it was essential for the progressive evolution of lif ethat some errors were made." (pg. 16)

"Their [Replicator] modern descendants, the DNA molecules, are astonishingly faithful compared with the most high-fidelity human copying process, but they ocassionally make mistakes, and it is ultimately these mistakes that make evolution possible." (pg. 17)

Evolution happens when DNA copiers make a mistake and these mutations have positive effects on the gene, making natural selection benefit it´s survival. The more mutations in a gene pool, the higher variety in evolution and different types of replicators in it.

 

Scientific Literature?

Right after this book was assigned all I thought was "Bummer, another book only Dr. Gregory and Alberto Andrade will understand." Am I not surprised to find myself enjoying what I would define as "scientific literature!" Of course I applied this term without knowing the actual meaning of it (I later realized what I mean can be referred to as "academic publishing," or the process of placing the results of one's research into the literature), but it seemed appropriate. 

This book is unlike other scientific reports, it seems as if the author, Richard Dawkins, was narrating evolution without using many scientific terms. Instead, the document has many detailed descriptions of topics like DNA and replication that are explained in simple way. Dawkins supposes we are familiar with genetics thus he can share experiments and expect us to understand. Part of the charm of the book is the way Dawkins writes in first person, his familiar register makes the reader feel close to him, influencing how the reader understands the book.