Richard Dawkins' debut book, The Selfish Gene, was one of those books that I'd been meaning to read and never really wanting to. But I finally made myself, and it turned out I was glad that I picked it up! It examines a fundamental question about human nature: are people naturally generous, or are we naturally selfish? And to what extent is altruism (or the lack thereof) transmitted through our genes? To answer these questions, Dawkins examines how complex organisms, up to and including humans, evolved, to what extent behavior patterns are genetically transmitted, how deeply we might be motivated to help others depending on closely we're related to/share genes with them, and even gets into game theory.

The fundamental premise of the book is that genes "want" (to the extent that inanimate bodily particles want anything) to be passed on. Which one might think would automatically mean that genes that encode for behavior patterns that are selfish/centered on one's own survival at the expense of others would win out, but it's not as easy as that. One's genes also have an investment in being helpful (to a certain extent) to those who have a high likelihood of sharing them: parents, children, siblings, and to a lesser extent aunts/uncles, grandparents/grandkids, etc. And then there's the reality that we'll all need help, of some form or another, at some point, so there's a benefit to providing it to others in the hopes that it'll be returned when needed. So while it's not true altruism, there is some level of unselfishness that's been built in to most of our genetic codes as well.

I read one of Dawkins' later works a few years ago (The God Delusion), and did not like it at all. I found his authorial voice pedantic and grating. But The Selfish Gene is a science classic, so I made myself read it even though I thought I might not like it...and I didn't notice the same kind of condescending attitude. In fact, I thought it struck a good middle ground between dumbing down the concepts to the point where it's so basic there's no room for nuance, and be so technical it ends up talking over the heads of a non-science audience. Instead, it boiled concepts down to a level I felt comfortable with (I have an advanced degree, but I never took science beyond basic high school biology and chemistry because it just never much appealed to me) and honestly provided the first explanation of game theory (or at least The Prisoner's Dilemma) that actually took in my brain.

It's still a little bit pedantic, but as someone with a tendency to be a pedant myself I didn't really mind it. Some scientists convey a sense of wonder about the world that a lot of readers really enjoy, though, and if you're looking for something along those lines, this will probably not be for you. If your spiritual beliefs are such that you're going to want some room left for divine intervention as a factor in evolution, this again is unlikely to be a book you'll enjoy. Although he doesn't really touch on religion in this book, Dawkins is a militant atheist and this is strictly scientific. Otherwise, though, there's a lot to get out of this and I'd recommend it to readers interested in genetics and/or altruism! ( )

Overview:
Genes are selfish. And in their selfishness, they cooperate. Genes do not necessarily have to be obeyed. Natural selection favors selfish genes to cooperate. But even for an altruistic group, difficult to prevent an individual dissenter from being introduced, or developing. An individual dissenter who is unwilling to sacrifice for the other individuals. The selfish individual would them have higher chances of reproduction. Producing more selfish individuals. Over time, the altruistic group will gain more selfish members, and become indistinguishable from the selfish group.

The ratio of cooperators to defectors depends on group stability. A group of only dissenters has less chance to survive than a group of cooperators, but a group of cooperators have limited ability to prevent dissenters. A stable group, even a collection of atoms, are permanent enough or common enough. Groups of atoms that obtain a stable pattern, tend to stay in the stable pattern. This is the general law of survival of the stable. In which survival of the fittest is a subset. That species evolve by natural selection. An idea that explains how complexity can arise from simplicity. Earliest form of natural selection was the rejection of unstable groups of atoms, while maintaining stable groups.

Evolution, Natural Selection, and the Gene:
Molecules that survived a primordial chemical pool, had the property of being able to produce copies of itself. A property that was highly improbable. Not all copies are perfect replicas, as mistakes happen. As copies are made from copies with errors, the errors cumulated. Errors within copies is usually seen as substandard, but within genes, they can create improvements. It is the mistakes and errors that make evolution possible.

Every species evolved through a process of natural selection. Inheritable traits from genes come from the surviving offspring of the species. Individuals which have more surviving offspring, have more influence over the traits of next generations. Natural selection is the non-random differential reproduction of genes.

Genes do not die or go senile. They utilize a succession of mortal bodies. Manipulating the body for self-interested purposes. Genes replicator using the body as a survival machine. DNA molecules are transient, but they do live on in copies.

Genes have a complicated way of controlling the body, and impossible to separate contributions to specific genes. Sometimes a single gene controls a variety of biological aspects, sometimes an aspect is controlled by many genes. There are genes that work against the rest of the genome. The environment impacts the effect of the gene. Gene success depends on a more predictable environment. The development of a capacity to learn came about as a means to compensate for lack of predictive power within unpredictable environments.

Group Formation, And Application:
Altruism is when an individual aids the welfare of another, at its own expense. Selfish behavior is when the individual benefits in welfare, at the expense of others. Even a trivial survival probability can change the course of evolution. Even within a group of altruists, there will be who dissent to make a sacrifice.

Groups composed of individuals willing to sacrifice themselves for other members of the group, have a higher chance of survival than a group containing individuals who place their own selfish interest first.

A strategy becomes an evolutionary stable strategy when there are no better alternative strategies. Which means that the individual’s best strategy, is the what most of the population is doing. An evolutionary stable strategy penalizes those trying to deviate from it. An evolutionary stable strategy is immune from treachery from within. Conspiracies, such as human pacts, have individuals that are constantly tempted to break the pact.

There are many examples of animals fighting in a restrained manner, as they do not provide a killing blow. There is more to the restraint shown than just reduction in costs for time and energy. Animal societies are complex systems in which it does not help the individual to kill all rivals. Removing a rival, can even be more beneficial to other rivals than the individual.

Caveats?
The writing can be difficult. Concepts about evolution, natural selection, and genes have advanced. There are a variety of examples showcasing how evolution influenced various species. Some of the examples are too theoretic and abstract, as they explain a potentially evolutionary stable concept. There are practice examples as well.
The focus is on genetics, which can miss alternative factors that influence how a species behaves. A factor that influences behavior is culture. Culture is social learning, that can override many self-interested behaviors. There is a reference of learning compensating for uncertainty in the environment, but the alternative factors are limited. ( )

This is a one way journey to the truth. Reader beware ( )

M.3.3

Only two complaints with this book. First, the author had a habit of introducing an idea and then saying that it wasn't really relevant to the book, and would drop it. It was weird to hit these dead ends, and made for disjointed reading. Second, the author used "man" in the supposedly universal sense, which doesn't actually exist (All men are mortal; Sarah is a man; therefore Sarah is mortal). Since this book was first written in the 1970s, when apparently logic did not exist (bellbottoms!), I'll let this slide. We are all a product of our times, and back in the author's day this was a reasonable way to write. Aside from these two issues, I loved the book. ( )