Richard Dawkins never had a good idea except one that made him money. Why? Read, and I shall tell you why…
‘The Selfish Gene’… So now we are expected to believe that a chemical can be selfish. Alright, lets grant that ridiculous proposition. Lets all say ‘a chemical can be selfish’, because that is really what we have to repeat to ourselves and everyone else if we are to suppose that life is selfish.
But now ask yourself - what has a gene got to be selfish about? does it have a laugh, does it have a shower, does it eat, does it have a weekend off fishing?
No. What a gene does is duplicate. When was the last time you duplicated? Did you enjoy it? Autocatalysis is also duplication. That means that, for example, the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more carbon dioxide is released from carbonates in the rocks as the temperature rises. Is that also selfish? I do not think so.
The second part of my proof is provided by Dawkins bank balance. Dawkins is well off. This is because of a silly idea he dragged around the houses to people who believed and bought it.
well this selfish gene idea of Dawkins’ was really a very good metaphor. See, Dawkins is using a form of apostrophe when he speaks about a gene. He means “selfish” only in the sense that their only goal is to replicate (not duplicate, but replicate), that is propogate themselves. It is a bit of anthropomorphization, yes, but a very interesting bit
As far as autocatalysis is concerned, well, it’s a bit more complicated than what you’re put down here.
As for Dawkins’ monetary wealth, well that seems to me to be more luck than anything else…
Have you read Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene? If you haven’t then I recommend you do before trying to understand what Dawkins’ meant by ‘selfish gene’. If you have, I suggest you read it again and also the sequel ‘The Extended Phenotype’. In both books he is very clear what he means by a “selfish gene”.
From the Selfish Gene:
“Genes are competing directly with their alleles for survival, since their alleles in the gene pool are rivals for their slot on the chromosomes of future generations. Any gene that behaves in such a way as to increase its own survival chances in the gene pool at the expense of its alleles will, by definition, tautologously, tend to survive. The gene is the basic unit of selfishness.”
You assume that saying a ‘chemical can be selfish’ is ridiculous firstly because you incorrectly define a gene as just a chemical and think of selfish in terms of a human being selfish. Once again from The Selfish Gene,
"The definition that I want comes from G. C. Williams. A gene is defined as any portion of chromosomal material that potentially last for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection. "
A gene is not an arbitrary collection of cells. It only becomes a gene when it can be identified as a unit of natural selection. It is this property which makes it a gene. As a result, the gene has a natural propensity for survival. The gene does not have feelings or desires which make it selfish, like a human does. It is selfish because its only goal is for its survival in the gene pool through replication. That is its program. It is its selfishness which has allowed it to survive and become a unit of natural selection; a gene.
Once again, Dawkins makes this extremely clear in his book and dedicates whole chapters to the understanding of what a gene is. I’m interested to know what parts of the book prompted you to formulate your ideas.
The idea that a gene, and by extension, life, is ‘selfish’, is a moral conclusion that stands or falls, not on biochemistry, but on metaphysics. I will give an excellent example of this and clear up a lot of confusion initiated by Dawkins-
We are asked to suppose that the gene wishes to promote, not itself, but a chemical pattern in which is deposited its need for survival. However, this chemical pattern is not a substantial material thing, but a concept that Dawkins must claim carries the morality, and hence the spirit, of the gene. For a gene cannot hope to benefit itself individually by replicating. Indeed, it could be construed as altruism that a gene wishes to struggle to create new genes according to the excellence of its own ability; rather than, as Dawkins must claim, struggle to support an ideal image, a god-concept, I would dare say.
How can Dawkins possibly meet this criticism?