The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. It describes what science believes life to be, and it can be very upsetting. Understanding it, however, made me a more confident and happier person than I was before.
Science can be repressive. Dawkins is a classic example of the iron fist in a velvet glove, imho. He justifies monstrosity with a technical crutch, and whether it is 'true' or not, at the end of this book I just felt like dirt.
/just_like_my_opinion_man
> “If there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature. ”
Let me quote another favourite author of mine on the same topic:
> "There’s Nature, and she’s going to come out the way She is.", Feynman.
“You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard P. Feynman
It's not about genes for selfishness.
1) Not orthodox science in any sense of the word, nor really philosophy of science (though it is a popularization of the work of people like William Hamilton)
2) Philosophically bonkers; it's essentially medieval demonology repackaged where the demons are called "genes."
3) Not written by an actual scientist.
It's also a hilarious takedown, as are most of David Stove's essays and books. I liked Dawkin's fairytale when I first read it, for the same reason I liked death metal music and fedora tier atheism arguments on usenet. But it's horse shit. FWIIW another nail in its coffin; Dawkin's ideology originates in part from a guy named George Price: have a look at part 3 of the Adam Curtis documentary "all watched over by machines of loving grace" for more on what became of him.
Maybe you could articulate your objection based on science rather than feelings?
An authoritarian hell bent on altering culture to suit his own will is never going to convince me otherwise.
And that is why I find his crusade against religions he despises so dangerous. Culture devolves unless it is replenished with enlightenment - Dawkins takes no responsibility for that, since the typical means of its occurring (religious faith) is abhorrent to him.
People too easily forget that organised atheism is responsible for the massacre of millions of people, too.
Dawkins isn't a social darwinist (and nor was Darwin for that matter). He doesn't believe that nature red in tooth and claw is the right way for people to behave. He's argued in many places that, as self-aware thinkers, we have the capacity and moral duty to rise above it.
If you want a target for your arguments, you should pick on an actual social darwinist like Nietzsche.
Science is observational. It doesn't give us rules we must follow, it describes the behaviour of things in the universe.
So if someone* says, "People do selfish things, that's science," true!
But if they also say, "Therefore, it's ok to kill your neighbour and take their house, see all of recorded history, colonialism, &c." I stop them. Science teaches us that people kill each other and take their land.
But science also teaches us that people coöperate and build rockets to Mars. Science is not prescriptive, and with respect to morality and ethics, science teaches us that there are many different strategies that people use to accomplish their goals, some of which may result in the replication of the information encoded in their genes.
Selfishness "Just is?" Yes.
Therefore "______ is ok and we must accept it?" No.
---
* I am not putting these words in your mouth or arguing with you, just picking up where your statement left off.
"Humans are the greatest species of Life on Earth, according to all of the metrics that humans have chosen to measure greatness."
Science also tells me that insects are better than people, if I pick a different metric. I suspect we agree on this.
No but the fact that we have morality (and the possibility that other animals do not) can be explained via evolution. In reality probably many genes contribute in a complicated way to making us social animals.
What makes it true?
The more the human mind finds answers, the more questions it reveals - such is the nature of an infinite universe and our struggle to perceive it. If "God" doesn't exist we humans sure do spend a lot of time attempting to become one. "God" may not be a "he" sitting "on a cloud", but may indeed just be the New Question beyond every Old Answer. This fact seems to be rabidly overlooked by the Dawkins cult, which prefers to define God in its own, limited terms, in order to find fault in their chosen pariah cultures.
The jury is still out. On a scale of 1 to 7, 0.1 is just enough uncertainty to allow for yet more unanswered questions .. Dawkins, himself, has at least a little of the humility required to admit that.
Excuse my frankness. That's not a fact. That's unfalsifiable woo-woo.
Without the woo and whimsy and make-believe, what have we got left in our cultures? If we kill religion we may as well kill theatre and literature and all the other things which require this unmeasurable substance in order to be viable ..
Let me use a specific example. I often say that capitalism is terrible for workers. Yet I work for a capitalist company that is--in my opinion--quite good to its workers.
Being a "realist" has told me that when looking for a job, I should be careful to avoid toxic cultures, exploitative management, and being underpaid relative to whatever I consider the fair market value of my labour.
But being a realist has also told me that toxicity, exploitation, and stinginess are unevenly distributed, and therefore it is a wise thing to shop around and negotiate for what I want.
I would NEVER say, "Toxicity is just how all businesses work. Demeaning and bullying people is just how company cultures are. Exploiting workers is what businesses do. If you can manipulate someone into working such long hours their health suffers, good for you. And negotiating is impossible, all companies push their workers around."
Being a realist means acknowledging what is in the universe, but it also means acknowledging that the universe contains variety and that almost everything is unevenly distributed.
Susan Blackmore. “Dangerous Memes; or, What the Pandorans Let Loose” (Cosmos & Culture, p.297) [2]
Blackmore is writing about 'memes' and reacts to some of Dawkins' critics. I can't say to what degree Blackmore faithfully discusses the contents of 'Selfish Gene' (1976), because I've not read it.
This can be found in the March release of NASA's e-book collection [1]. And specifically in this book: Cosmos & Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context Edited by Steven J. Dick and Mark L. Lupisella (2009?) [2]
Enjoy! Let the debate continue...
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22718489
[2]: https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/hist_culture_cosmos_deta....
www.nasa.gov /connect /ebooks /hist_culture_cosmos_detail.html