Well, I'm not too sure precisely whose arse is in the sack. After all, what can one make of a man who writes the following with my emphasis added:
"... we, and *all* other animals, are *machines* created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. [...] I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a ruthless gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness wil usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour."
Then, perhaps sensing that the image he has sketched of our genes sitting around in double-breasted suits wearing fedoras in some sort of microbiological saloon discussing the next 'hit', is likely to cause hilarity rather than awe at the writer's intellectual abilities. So, quickly, he adds an escape route:
"However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals".
So, one supposes, choking back the giggles, genes aren't really selfish then, they're a bit selfish and a bit altruistic - or does he mean that, no, genes *are* totally selfish but they sometimes diguise their selfishness by being altruistic - at which point any sensible man would give up and go down the pub!
If that's what you did, then you would have missed the next piece of brilliance from this self-described 'Bright', when he writes on the very next page; his emphasis:
"Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."
But I thought he told us that we were merely "machines" totally controlled by blobs of DNA and stuff. Given that they are totally selfish, where did even the *idea* of altruism arise? Who taught them? Who taught us?
Sorry, Will, but Dawkins is the TV studio equivalent of those blokes you see walking round shopping centre with placards handing out leaflets. He is a sort of David Icke of biology.
Comments (1)
Well, I'm not too sure precisely whose arse is in the sack. After all, what can one make of a man who writes the following with my emphasis added:
"... we, and *all* other animals, are *machines* created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. [...] I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a ruthless gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness wil usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour."
Then, perhaps sensing that the image he has sketched of our genes sitting around in double-breasted suits wearing fedoras in some sort of microbiological saloon discussing the next 'hit', is likely to cause hilarity rather than awe at the writer's intellectual abilities. So, quickly, he adds an escape route:
"However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals".
So, one supposes, choking back the giggles, genes aren't really selfish then, they're a bit selfish and a bit altruistic - or does he mean that, no, genes *are* totally selfish but they sometimes diguise their selfishness by being altruistic - at which point any sensible man would give up and go down the pub!
If that's what you did, then you would have missed the next piece of brilliance from this self-described 'Bright', when he writes on the very next page; his emphasis:
"Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."
But I thought he told us that we were merely "machines" totally controlled by blobs of DNA and stuff. Given that they are totally selfish, where did even the *idea* of altruism arise? Who taught them? Who taught us?
Sorry, Will, but Dawkins is the TV studio equivalent of those blokes you see walking round shopping centre with placards handing out leaflets. He is a sort of David Icke of biology.
Posted by David Duff | July 5, 2008 2:30 PM