Created By Selfishness

As I continued my ventures through Richard Dawkins’, The Selfish Gene, I acquired new insight into the perception of ancestry and the true, individual units of evolutionary life. An idea that caught my attention exposed the concept that the individually acquired knowledge and characteristics are individually lived up to, they are not genetically transferred. The final idea being that “each new generation starts from scratch” (23). This shows how each individual is independent to what his ancestors and genes have to say about it. The way in which Dawkins is able to limit the boundaries of genes affecting our individual traits is showing the path for his altruist and selfish genes theory to take place. The way he has characterized an individual as a composition of trials which can easily be disposed of, in order to support the “survival of the fittest” is similar to The Handbook of Epictetus, in the idea that in the end everything is crucial to the development of a master play. The Selfish Gene may not be a predestination based book but it surely shows that everything that makes us up, will eventually lead to the evolution of the gene, always applying the “survival of the fittest”.

Another interesting part of the chapter is when Dawkins develops the idea of a selfish and altruist gene. He states that “at the gene level, altruism must be bad and selfishness good” (36). The difference between the altruist and selfish gene comes down to the difference in survival rate it will have. We can see it at the individual level with the example of the bird that sings to tell the others that a predator is close. He will tend to be killed off by the predator due to the lower survival rate. Due to the competition to be the dominant gene in order to survive, you must do everything it takes to have that extra edge, in order to be part of the next generation’s sequence. There is no room for altruism if you want to survive.

We see this recurrent message once again at the DNA level. The author states that the “true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less” (45). We are thus assured that what is best ideologically (help the poor, weak and incapable) will not survive at the genetic level. There is an obligation in evolution, in natural selection, to do what is needed in order to be valuable for the DNA sequence to take you in. This competition that happens in the genetic level can also be seen in the human, social group level. I often see people who are entirely devoted to finding something that will make them more likely to be accepted in social groups or clubs that require certain characteristics. Is the struggle to fit in valuable if it isn’t for survival? Where will Dawkins take us with this new provoking point of view?