Taught Vs. Predestined

As I began reading Richard Dawkins’, The Selfish Gene, I found it interesting how he is gradually able to state his conclusions with scientific support in a formal-informal register that lets the readers open to his ideas. In the first chapter he invites us to “try to teach generosity because we are born selfish” (3). Even though the reader may believe that human nature is sacred and perfect, even altruistic, it is hard to not notice the authority in his writing. I was immediately transformed into an open-minded reader, trying not to judge his ideas, it is an interesting strategy for the purpose of persuading his readers. This predetermined selfish beings, as we are classified, should become aware, as Dawkins states, that teaching is needed in order to try to become generous. It is an interesting approach to our human deficiencies, our needy self-centered egos that can only be shut down through teachings of generosity.

Due to the higher survival rate of a selfish individual or gene compared to an altruistic one there is a higher chance that through mutations the selfish one will survive we are left to confront the idea that we are natural selfish genes. Even though what Dawkins is concluding might sound a little extremist he immediately limits his thoughts to the concept that it might “just be more difficult to learn altruism than it would be if we were genetically programmed to be altruistic” (3). This kind of writing is absolutely appropriate to the final goal his writing is trying to achieve by limiting his thoughts in order for the reader to not be carried away into extracting the wrong conclusions. As a reader, I’m still waiting for Dawkins to uncover his main plot but from the first two chapters I was able to observe a different kind of writing which is gradually making the reader more engaged with it’s teachings.

Even though it is a different approach to what we have witnessed in other pieces such as Candide, Epictetus’ Handbook, and Slaughterhouse-Five there is some overlapping, as the difference between the idealistic and the confronting human being. Dawkins states that “we may frequently behave selfishly as individuals, but in our more idealistic moments we honor and admire those who put the welfare of others first” (9). This reminds me of Candide who lived supporting Pangloss’ thinking that “all is for the better”. The disappointment he confronts as he realizes how unfair our world is, is completely against what he believes in when not having to suffer life’s complex situations. The mediocre idealist in my opinion should no be heard, only the one that can stand up and act accordingly to what he believes in should be looked up to. It is then the obligation of the idealist to accept certain crude realities of our nature, as Dawkins is doing a the beginning of his book, to create a theory that can be supported and lived up to.