1) The document provides a summary and analysis of Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene". It discusses several of Dawkins' key arguments, including that genes are the true replicators that drive evolution through natural selection, not individual organisms or groups.
2) The reviewer found chapters 7-9 on family planning and sexual selection the most appealing as they applied evolutionary theory to human behaviors and social policies in an interesting way. However, chapters 12-13 were less favored as being repetitive and promotional of Dawkins' other work.
3) Overall, the reviewer found Dawkins successful in using analogies to explain genetics concepts to non-scientists and convincing in undermining theories of group selection in favor of gene
1. Kellie Watkins
Evolution 390
“To Be or Not to Be”
Hamlet thought the central question about life was “to be or not to be.” Richard
Dawkins would consider Hamlet to be an intellectually inferior mind. The main question
to ask is “to replicate or not to replicate,” and the answer is to always replicate by
whatever means necessary. Although it seems that Dawkins likes to argue with himself
as much as he likes to argue with others, he never strays from his most important point
stressed throughout The Selfish Gene. The replicator is immortal, and it is the entity of
life.
The most entertaining part of this book is to imagine how many scientists it
angered because Dawkins did not fear singling out specific researchers to publicly
destroy their well-reasoned ideas. I am not surprised that the one scientist listed as
praising the book on its back cover is W.D. Hamilton since W.D. Hamilton is one of the
few individuals admirably praised by Dawkins. At least it cannot be said that Dawkins
does not give credit where he feels credit is due. Sadly, I am unconvinced that it is
readable by everyone because at times his points were repetitive, long-winded, and
tiresome. It takes perseverance, or forcefulness by a third party, for an individual to push
through The Selfish Gene. If he had not thrown in a “willy nilly” or “wishy washy”
phrase every once in awhile, his words would have lost their drive and turned into a
lullaby for sleep.
Although he is an arrogant fellow, and I am almost certain he would consider
himself to be a god if he believed gods existed, there is no denying that this book is truly
a profound read that has become one of my favorite nonfiction books. One of Dawkins’
amazing techniques, or tricks, is that he writes how he thinks. Since his thoughts become
2. Kellie Watkins
Evolution 390
the reader’s thoughts, his reasoning penetrates deeply. I wish I could argue that his more
abstract tangents were unnecessary, but one of the appealing aspects of his work is his
ability to stretch his opinions to deeply moral questions closer linked to anthropology or
psychology than biology. After all, one of my favorite quotes from my favorite book,
East of Eden, states that if the story is not about the hearer, he will not listen. What
makes biology such an attractive study that infiltrates every individual’s curiosity is the
fact that it applies to all of life. We are biology. Richard Dawkins may be as immortal as
his replicators. He has certainly parasitized my mind with his memes, and I cannot wait
to parasitize the next mind that comes along.
It is always best to introduce the bad news first depending upon the environment
and current gene pool within a population. In this report, my brain, as an executor of the
policies dictated by my own personal congress of genes, has decided that the bad news
must be dealt with now. For the sake of simplicity, likes and dislikes are divided into
which chapters I liked the best or the worst based on my personal opinion. Chapters
twelve and thirteen were my least favorite parts, but in respect for Dawkins I will not pay
them as much attention as my most well-liked chapters.
Chapter thirteen was simply Dawkins’ attempt to promote another book of his to
gain more monetary profit. Since Dawkins’ would view it as a consequence of individual
selfishness to gain more resources in order for him to support a larger proportion of
offspring containing his genes, he has no shame in it. While I am sure The Extended
Phenotype makes a wonderful read, I lost interest in his single-cell bottleneck theory.
This chapter was simply an overcomplicated extension of his past ideas of natural
selection, gene selection verses individual or group selection, and reproduction. The best
3. Kellie Watkins
Evolution 390
part was the diverse multitude of examples he uses to enforce his discussion. While I
was not that interested in bottle-wrack and splurge weed, I found it fascinating that
natural selection’s favor could result in a caterpillar exerting an addictive chemical that
manipulates ants into aggression for the caterpillar’s own perpetuation. Indeed, this
chapter was thought-provoking with the ideas like an individual’s own genes could be
viewed as mutually parasitic and viruses may have resulted from break away rebel pieces
of DNA. I would have to read The Extended Phenotype to be convinced of such a
hypothesis, and, although I did not like its condensed form in this chapter, it may be
interesting enough for me to pursue.
The most I can say about chapter twelve was that it was long and tedious. Sadly,
the sections I found the least interesting were the most scientifically technical. Given my
current college major, I’m not sure this revelation speaks well towards my future
happiness. Apart from twelve, I did not enjoy chapters five or six very much either.
Evolutionary Stable Strategies (ESS) and indexes of relatedness read too much like a
textbook. Only his unusual and entertaining examples buoyed his remarks enough for
him to remain afloat. For twelve, although I enjoyed ‘the prisoner’s dilemma’ from a
psychological point of view, I grew bored with all his descriptions of Axelrod’s computer
simulations. His charts were helpful in explaining the relationships between cooperating
and defecting, but it was hard to keep his wordy examples straight in my head. However,
I enjoyed his results, and it was intriguing that ‘tit for tat’ did the best compared with the
other particular strategies submitted even though it was considered a ‘nice’ (albeit
retaliatory) strategy. It was helpful to link the chapter back to ESS’s even though ‘tit for
tat’ is not an ESS since it is invadable by other ‘nice’ strategies. What drove this chapter
4. Kellie Watkins
Evolution 390
home was the analogy of divorce lawyers. It alone made this chapter worth reading,
especially considering the fact that Dawkins has been married three times according to
Wikipedia. Clearly he is experienced in many fields.
By far I found chapters seven, eight, and nine the most appealing. In “Family
Planning,” the Lack theory was the most convincing in explaining the idea that the clutch
size is adjusted in order to maximize the resources available to the mother. Group
selection theory fails. Family planning is used to optimize birth rates rather than restrict
them for the good of the species. It is more natural that a female would restrict her birth
rates during times of famine simply because she does not have the resources to waste on
offspring that would be less likely to survive than if she waited until better times in the
future. What I found most unique was how Dawkins applied these ideas of family size to
the welfare state and birth control. Sometimes humans forget how much behavior we
share with our fellow organisms, and we forget to take all of these aspects into account
when we make social policies. It does not mean that we are unable to rise above, but it is
interesting to see humans from a biological viewpoint rather than a cultural one.
I admit that I enjoyed chapter six because of its extensive incorporation of the
cuckoo bird. It was nice to read something familiar. Since I have an older brother, I
particularly enjoyed page 128. I cannot deny that I feel my brother behaves more
altruistically towards me than I do towards him. Although everyone in my immediate
family shares the same relatedness of one half, I take pleasure in the theory that, as the
youngest, I have the potential to benefit more from resources such as food and increased
attention due to my lag in maturity as the younger sibling. Perhaps it is why my brother
was always more willing to share his candy with me than I was with him. I was still
5. Kellie Watkins
Evolution 390
growing when he had stopped, and he had the ability to buy food when I could not.
However, since my brother received all of that extra care when I was not around, my guilt
is short-lived. Lastly, what I liked about this chapter was that it introduced the idea that
children and parents can be against each other. It seemed counterintuitive that a parent
would not have their children’s best interests in mind since they carry their parents’
genes, but on a lower level of conflict such as weaning time, it made sense. A child
wants all their parents care, but a parent wants to divert their care to more offspring to
continue their genetic line. Once sibling rivalry is introduced, family conflict explodes.
There are many reasons why I find “The Battle of the Sexes” as my favorite
chapter. Perhaps it is because I have often wondered about how stereotypes over the
behavior of men and women have evolved. For instance, I would say that men are more
likely to cheat than women. Is it biological or cultural? If sperm are cheap, and there is
no reproductive limit for males, then perhaps their genes are indirectly controlling their
behavior by “telling” them to mate with many females (an excuse I would advise against
in actuality). The female strategies of forcing long engagement periods and refusing to
copulate since they are in the seller’s market are interesting when viewed on a human
scale. I enjoyed Dawkins’ game of coy/loose females and faithful/philanderer males. It
is a daunting thought that the males of many species have more to gain from dishonesty
than females do, and they usually do less work or are more likely to desert in offspring
care. However, from the viewpoint of the selfish gene, it is an expected behavior. What
of the three generalizations made by Dawkins about the battles of the sexes? Males are
physically more sexually attractive, females are picky selectors of mates, and males are
more promiscuous. In human society, I think that Dawkins raised the most interesting
