Why are there miles and miles of "unused" DNA within each of our bodies? Why should a bee give up its own chance to reproduce to help raise her sisters and brothers? With a prophet's clarity, Dawkins told us the answers from the perspective of molecules competing for limited space and resources to produce more of their own kind. Drawing fascinating examples from every field of biology, he paved the way for a serious re-evaluation of evolution. He also introduced the concept of self-reproducing ideas, or memes, which (seemingly) use humans exclusively for their propagation. If we are puppets, he says, at least we can try to understand our strings. --Rob Lightner

Product Description
Richard Dawkins' brilliant reformulation of the theory of natural selection has the rare distinction of having provoked as much excitement and interest outside the scientific community as within it. His theories have helped change the whole nature of the study of social biology, and have forced thousands of readers to rethink their beliefs about life.
In his internationally bestselling, now classic volume, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains how the selfish gene can also be a subtle gene. The world of the selfish gene revolves around savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit, and yet, Dawkins argues, acts of apparent altruism do exist in nature. Bees, for example, will commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, and birds will risk their lives to warn the flock of an approaching hawk.
This 30th anniversary edition of Dawkins' fascinating book retains all original material, including the two enlightening chapters added in the second edition. In a new Introduction the author presents his thoughts thirty years after the publication of his first and most famous book, while the inclusion of the two-page original Foreword by brilliant American scientist Robert Trivers shows the enthusiastic reaction of the scientific community at that time. This edition is a celebration of a remarkable exposition of evolutionary thought, a work that has been widely hailed for its stylistic brilliance and deep scientific insights, and that continues to stimulate whole new areas of research today.

I started it many years ago at the suggestion of a friend, thinking I wouldn't find it very interesting, and not much liking the kind of philosophy of life that (on the basis of my friend's description) seemed to lie behind it. But only a chapter or two in, I was completely hooked, and wanted to read more Dawkins.

On one level, I can share in the sense of wonder Dawkins so evidently sees in the workings-out of such complex processes, often made up of quite simple elemental mechanisms, but interacting so complexly to produce the incredibly complex world we live in.

But at the same time, I largely blame "The Selfish Gene" for a series of bouts of depression I suffered from for more than a decade, and part of me wants to rate the book at zero stars for its effect on my life. Never sure of my spiritual outlook on life, but trying to find something deeper - trying to believe, but not quite being able to - I found that this book just about blew away any vague ideas I had along these lines, and prevented them from coalescing any further. This created quite a strong personal crisis for me some years ago.

The book renders a God or supreme power of any sort quite superfluous for the purpose of accounting for the way the world is, and the way life is. It accounts for the nature of life, and for human nature, only too well, whereas most religions or spiritual outlooks raise problems that have to be got around. It presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature, and makes life seem utterly pointless; yet I cannot present any arguments to refute its point of view. I still try to have some kind of spiritual outlook, but it is definitely battered, and I have not yet overcome the effects of this book on me.

Richard Dawkins seems to have the idea that religion and spirituality are not only false, but ultimately unable to give a real sense of meaning and purpose in life. Their satisfaction is hollow, empty, and unreal, in his apparent view, and only a scientific understanding of life can give a real, lasting sense of wonder and purpose.

I would question this. While I am not sure what (if anything) there is spiritually, I know that a scientific view of life cannot offer the slightest hope of life after death, and since we're all going to die and most of us don't want to, this is a crippling drawback to the kind of scientific vision Dawkins wants us all to have. If there is nothing beyond death, no spiritual dimension to anything, and everything is just a blind dance of atoms, I fail to see how this by itself can give one a real sense of purpose, however fascinating the dance that Dawkins describes - and it *is* fascinating; let there be no mistake about that.

Because of this, I have the curious feeling of dichotomy about Dawkins' book that it is certainly fascinating on one level, but that I cannot give even qualified emotional commitment to the outlook on life that seems to lie behind it. I would in the end rather have the hope of something wonderful and purposeful that only some spiritual outlook can offer, even though it may be a deluded fantasy, than the certainty of a scientific vision that eliminates any possibility of long-term hope, that condemns us to an empty, eternal death of nothingness in the end. This scientific view may be completely rational; but rationality is not the only important consideration to shape our outlook on life.

Anyone who has a narrow religious view of life, who is absolutely sure their religion is completely right, would be best off avoiding this book like the plague - it probably won't change their views, but they will quite likely get very upset and outraged. And anyone with an open-minded spiritual view had better at least be prepared to do a lot of thinking, and perhaps be willing to change some of their views, because this book *will* challenge almost any spiritual or religious viewpoint I can think of - whether it is of the open-minded or dogmatic sort.

Some critics of this book have found its reasoning unconvincing, its materialist reductionism too superficial and shallow. But, from my perspective, the problem does not lie here; the problem with the book is that it is *too* convincing, that it is *entirely* convincing. The book makes it very difficult to continue to believe in anything that contradicts its basic premise, but which might be more comforting, and might give a greater sense of hope and inspiration, and provide a real sense of purpose in life.

Such have its effects on my life been that, in my more depressed moments, I have desperately wished I could unread the book, and continue life from where I left off.

It has been said that each of us has a God-shaped hole inside, and that we spend most of our lives trying to fill it with the wrong things. I firmly believe that God-shaped hole is there, that we have inner longings of a wonderful sort almost impossible to describe in words. Whether a God exists to fill it, I do not yet know. But what I am sure of is that, as wonderful as Dawkins' view of nature and of life may be on its own level, it will not fill that God-shaped hole.


A Classic of Popular Science   January 28, 2003
 244 out of 289 found this review helpful

More than a quarter-century after its first publication, Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" remains a classic of popular science writing. This edition includes two new chapters as well as extensive endnotes that do much to perfect the original text and correct the few mistakes that were found in it. "The Selfish Gene" is explicitly directed at the layman, and absolutely no knowledge of biology is assumed. While this presents a danger of boring readers (such as myself) who are already familiar with DNA and meiosis, the colorful metaphors Dawkins uses throughout the book do much to keep the reading engrossing and entertaining.

After a lengthy exploration of basic biology, covering topics such as DNA and the origin of life, Dawkins introduces the gene-centered view of evolution that has long been textbook orthodoxy. Dawkins uses the remainder of the book to look at various types of animal behavior in an effort to convey some general conclusions and tools to help the reader understand evolution and natural selection. Much of his effort is devoted to explaining behavior in terms of the 'selfish gene' - especially social behavior that has long been held to have evolved 'for the good of the species.' Dawkins shows that how fundamental axiom of natural selection (that the genes best at surviving and reproducing will eventually spread through the gene pool) leads directly to the selfish gene and the behavior exhibited by nearly all animals (humans being the prime exception).

Many of Dawkins's metaphors have caused raised eyebrows - one outstanding example is his characterization of living things as "lumbering robots" built to protect the genes that hide in them - but the metaphors are always (eventually) brought under control. The title is one such metaphor that has often been misunderstood by superficial analysis. The 'selfish gene' is simply a gene that does not aid others at its own expense. Such genes would be better able to reproduce and spread through the gene pool than those that did sacrifice themselves for others, and therefore completely dominate the gene pools of all species as a result of billions of years of evolutionary pressure.

I cannot hope to adequately summarize Dawkins's arguments in a mere review, so I sincerely urge you to read "The Selfish Gene" for yourself. I should warn that conservatives would probably not enjoy the book nearly as much as I did. Dawkins is an open secular humanist with socialist leanings, and is not worried about offending the delicate sensibilities of creationists and fundamentalists. This book should only be read by those willing to 'accept' the validity of natural selection and evolution; others would only waste their time. I would direct readers seeking a more scientific discussion of these issues to G. C. Williams's "Adaptation and Natural Selection." All others will most likely enjoy "The Selfish Gene" a great deal and finish the book with a new appreciation for and understanding of evolution and biology.


Excellent, simply excellent. Buy it. Read it. Recommend it.   November 4, 1999
 79 out of 90 found this review helpful

I must say this book is excellent. The concepts are explained in a way that makes them very easy to grasp. The metaphors are truly illuminating. Dawkins may be the best science writer I have ever read.

The people who gave him one star must have serious problems in comprehending simple logic. I read one review where the guy was criticizing Dawkin's for titling the book "The Selfish Gene". His argument was that genes being molecules could not be selfish. WELL NO DUH!!! The genes are not selfish in an anthropomorphic sense they just behave as though they were only interested in their own replication. And this behaviour arises because they descended from succesful ancestors that had the same behaviour. Even the word "behaviour" is not absolutely the best fit here. We could say the genes operate to maximize their replication.

But all that rewording is only necessary for people who cannot bring themselves to accept the stark true logic of Dawkin's book. To the rest of us once Dawkins has illuminated the concept its logical appeal is self evident. Nitpicking the semantics is pretty lame.


Bypassed by science   August 5, 2000
 67 out of 128 found this review helpful

I first read this book when it came out in 1976. It had a certain appeal then. However, since then science has faslsified essentially all the scientific claims in the book. For example, gene sequencing of dozens of species has shown that the Darwinian straight-line descent of species from an original cell is wrong, that instead of a `tree of life' there is a `web of life' (see Scientific American, February 2000). This and other advances in chemistry and biology nullify the arguments about gene inheritance that the author attempts to make. Further the pop psychology underlying the author's treatment of human behavior is no longer in favor in that profession. This leaves the book as a useful guide to Dr. Dawkins's religious beliefs. I would recommend the book to anyone for whom that is an interesting subject.


Puppetry stories, and the high art of "manly self-contradiction"   August 23, 2007
 61 out of 117 found this review helpful

Dawkins warns his readers that his language, where it constantly may appear to hold `subjective' or `moral' or teleological content, does not really--in fact it is argued to hold no real connotations beyond that of figuratively describing `programmed machines.' He says, "it is convenient for me to use the language of purpose as a metaphor in explaining the behaviour of survival machines." All of biology answers finally, and ultimately, to "the `gold-standard' of evolution, gene survival." When he conjures "units of detriment" and "a generalized altruism investment measure," he qualifies his own language as being less than ideal because it over emphasizes non-genetic influences. "In many respects, however, this is just a quibble," he goes on to say, and such descriptions may be "well worth using in practice." It cannot go unnoticed that Dawkins fills pages with this fancy philological footwork--indeed he must if he has any hope of deflecting the otherwise all too obvious inevitability that he is contradicting himself. "Investing" in new generations, "life insurance risks", etc--these terms are just metaphors, all that's really going on is gene selfishness, which, by the way, isn't really gene "selfishness," of course! But, practically speaking, it really is!

Any line of argument that has such a difficult time hiding from itself, and must invoke such all-encompassing effusiveness in an attempt to do so, should invite much more skepticism than this storied storybook has inspired in many supposedly "scientific" sectors! Several well regarded philosophers of science have forcefully rebutted Dawkins, the most enjoyable to read perhaps being the late David Stove, who observed, "If the question were asked, then, whether Dawkins really believes that genes are selfish in the ordinary sense, the answer best supported by the text of [The Selfish Gene] would be: "of course he doesn't; yes he does." Another philosopher (M. Midgley) has noted that Dawkins presents "the useful art of open, manly self-contradiction."

This ubiquitous slipperiness is not the only problem here. We are also given the `problem' of altruism (which, of course, cannot really be altruism). In the first chapter, Dawkins pleads, "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism . . . Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs . . ." He goes on to reiterate this later. In Dawkins hands, there is nothing but nonsense at play here. He has already stated that "the gene's law of universal ruthlessness" may be "very nasty," but this "does not stop it being true." He invokes "generosity and altruism"--which "the `gold standard' of evolution" demands cannot really be "generosity and altruism," he speaks of genes' "selfish" "designs"--which he will tell us aren't really "selfish" or maybe even "designs," but he does two things that are even weirder. He suggests that what he sees as THE ultimate hard and true `law' of biology can be set aside if we sufficiently will to do so (ultra-Darwinian `selfishness' is absolutely true and constant unless we don't want it to be--something that hardly fits with his own arguments!), and, he suggests that organisms ("survival machines"), namely "us", who do not actually possess "generosity and altruism" are to (in our somehow Enlightened position?) "teach" these mythological qualities to others--who cannot, per the "very nasty" gene's "selfishness," actually receive these pedantic gifts! How is any of this reconciled to Dawkins' core doctrine that, "There is really only one entity whose point of view matters in evolution, and that entity is the selfish gene" (Dawkins' inevitable winner is NOT our desire to make pretend "altruism" become genuine altruism!)? He is spitting into the wind. And who can constitute this "us" of Dawkins', that is to ask, who can impart something that he has been precluded from actually possessing, to another (who, incidentally, is also precluded by `law' from actually receiving it!)? And what IS this external standard that presumes to identify our putative `gold standard' as being "nasty"? Explain "nasty" without contradicting yourself, Dr Dawkins! Presumably his answer will be that "nasty" isn't really "nasty"! The real problem for Dawkins and the sociobiologists is a theory that must insist that altruism and generosity are "problems". A theory that defines an Albert Schweitzer or a Mother Teresa or a Florence Nightingale as "problems" to be `explained away' by appeal to a convoluted canon of infallible doctrine, is self-evidently silly--is, in fact, silly in the exact same sense as variously maligned religious nonsense. Whatever capital the `selfish theorist' might believe he gains over the theist by invoking a "problem of evil," he will soon enough find that he will have to more than repay given the awkward burden of his own "problem of goodness." (While one can certainly argue as to whether it is adequate or not, the theist's "problem of evil" is inherently addressed, and perhaps answered in part, by admitting to any significant degree of freedom [of the will and/or of quantum 'openness'], which is obviously why Dawkins, in his assumed role as atheistic "chaplain," has so frequently stated that he is "not interested" in `free will'. One wonders if he (a), believes he freely chooses this disinterest, or whether (b), his genes "selfishly" dictate it! As compared to the possible concomitant implications of freedom, the Dawkins/sociobiology problem of "altruism" has no similarly logical mitigation, all that is available to IT is the dogmatic demand that "altruism" MUST be a manipulative expression of selfishness--by mere `reason' of doctrine alone!)

Dawkins may be the most famous living biologist, a kind of `rock star' we might say, but his fame traces only to a popularizer's pen, he hasn't "discovered" anything biological--except, some of his myriad fans may counter, "memes", which he has named and identified as cultural `units of imitation'. The sociobiologists seem to have been greatly impressed. Less indoctrinated and more disciplined and skeptical minds have not. Some excellent philosophers have had great sport with the meme "theory". Memes are said to be ideas that "propagate themselves." Yes, themSELVES. They "should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically." They "literally parasitize" other brains by means of "infective power". This may be an interestingly artful package of language for describing the spreading of ideas, but does choosing this artful story and package of language constitute biological "science"? Good grief. If it does, almost anything might! Well, if a man is "taught Pythagoras's Theorem at school, his brain has been parasitized by a certain micro-maggot which, 2,600 years earlier, had parasitized the brain of Pythagoras," says Stove mockingly. "And if a man already believes that genes are selfish, why also should he not believe that prime numbers are sex mad, or that geometrical theorems are brain parasites?"

Well, enough of memes, they have gotten more attention than they merit. Although the difficulties for The Selfish Gene are easily recognized by anyone whose brain hasn't been "parasitized" by Dawkins, EO Wilson, and the sociobiologists generally, the books seminal logical flaw of logical flaws is Dawkins' mythic `selfish gene' itself. There is a stunning (and strictly human) vanity to the proposal that there is an "advantage" to an individual organism that is provided by means of replication/ reproduction. Sure, my progeny -might- look after me in my old age, but let's face it, this motivation would hardly fit comfortably into the "selfish theory"! In case anyone has come up with a logically consistent explanation as to how replication can be an "advantage" to the parent organism (or gene), skeptical and analytical minds would like to hear it. I certainly haven't. But there is a conspicuously large space for vanity in the "selfish theory." If I assume the role of a `selfish theorist' I can happily tell you that the genealogical studies of my daughter have revealed a family tree containing some `impressive' personages. For example, Beli Mawr, a Celtic king said to have been a god in pre-Roman Britain, turns out to be one of my ancestors. The obvious question of any clear-headed skeptic is this--what "benefit" or "advantage" does my existence confer upon my `god' father, Beli Mawr (or any other ancestor)? At this point, I may puff out my chest and say something like, "well, just look at me--how can you not see it!" As if my existence does in fact confer something upon him of individual, even "selfish," benefit! How Dawkins and EO Wilson have blessed their ancestors (actually reaching back and providing them a "benefit" or even an "advantage")! Well, selfish theorists, unless you've got something a lot more impressive than that, I'm afraid you just look silly. As Stove has written, "in reading Dr. Dawkins I have often formed the impression that (in Wittgenstein's phrase) a certain picture holds him captive. A picture, namely, of an exceptionally vain author, or parent, or photographer, who delights in surrounding himself with his own writings, or children, or self-portraits. But genes (it can hardly be necessary to say) can no more be vain than they can be selfish. They cannot delight in the number of replicas that they make of themselves. They are not even intelligent enough, after all, to know when they have made a replica of themselves."

At this point, the Dawkins/ultra-Darwinian faithful will be anxious to argue that I've missed the simple elegance of the "selfish theory" by understanding "selfish" to actually mean selfish; and will want to tell me, as has Dawkins, about how genes and organisms are blessed by Natural Selection to the extent that they are `replicating machines.' But this is only a tautology, after all. Organisms more likely to survive and reproduce will probably prove to be more likely to have survived and have reproduced. Obviously yes, this is a true, important and relevant observation, but what has been `explained?' It is argued that a successful replicating machine produces as many "copies," or offspring, as it can. But do you know anyone who has had as many offspring as they CAN? Do you suppose that anyone ever has? If you don't think it's fair to use humans as an example here (Stove tears down this objection), then look at other examples in nature. The very large order Hymenoptera (roughly 18,000 species) includes many groups [of ants or bees] in which exceedingly few individuals reproduce; but Dawkins likes to point to dogs (Canidae) when he thinks they help him make his point (chapter 2 of The Blind Watchmaker, for example), so let's do that here. To a certain rather large extent, wolves (Canis lupus) live (hunt, eat, rear young, grow old, etc) in groups in which only the so-called `alpha' male and `alpha' female will reproduce with any regularity, while many, if not most, of the individuals in these packs will infrequently, rarely, or never reproduce (although they will devotedly help protect and feed the offspring of the "alpha" animals). At this point I suppose it is again necessary to appeal to "altruism" that isn't really altruism, or some other contorted excuse of the sociobiologists. And why not--theirs is a `theory' that, at least when given sufficient hindsight, must "explain" and "predict" EVERYTHING biological, even those `problems' that it obviously neither explains nor predicts! An obvious variation of Dawkins' (ultra-Darwinism's) "prediction" tawdriness is as follows: A baby bird screaming louder may prompt its parents to feed it more, which would obviously bestow a positive `selection value' on loud screaming; on the other hand, loud screaming uses up energy that a hungry chick may already be deficient in, and, it is more likely to attract predators, both of which would bestow a negative `selection value' on loud screaming. So the simple logic that tells us that `survival benefits' are always naturally selected while the opposite are always culled away, manages to easily predict that loud screaming is something that will be genetically rewarded (i.e., selected), AND that loud screaming is something that natural selection will slice away. All we have to do to determine which conflicting "prediction" to hold to, is to determine *at some later time* whether the screamer population is robust or has become extinct, and viola!, we will know which of our contradictory "predictions" we then observe to be `true'! Karl Popper must be `turning over in his grave!' A "theory" that can predict anything and everything actually predicts nothing (in physics, this is also the current dilemma of the "M-theory"/"brane-world" ideas, which, it is becoming increasingly apparent, will have to retreat from the optimistic status of physical `theory' and admit they are only `somewhat interesting ideas' or `non-testable conjectures,' since they inevitably "predict" anything and everything, they actually predict nothing). Asking an ultra-Darwinist/sociobiologist to define a means of falsifying his `theory' has been likened, by one philosopher, to "talking to a log."

How can such a poorly argued book have been such a smash hit? Some philosophers have offered interesting answers that speak more to psychology and perhaps the blinders of "group think" than to scientific method or logical coherence. "The devil made me do it," said Flip Wilson. "God made me do it," says the Calvinist. "It's the aliens from space," says the UFO abductees enthusiast. "It's the evil spirits," says the demonologist. "It's `the stars'," says the astrologist. "It's a shadow," or "it's the bad blood," say the shamanist and the occultist. `Scientific' types presume to look down their noses at such things of course. But do they? It seems that certain popular forms of biological reductionism need puppetry too. Dawkins entered a market yearning for a would-be "scientific" puppet master and supplied the 'fix'. He has artfully tapped the supposedly more sophisticated "puppetry theory" audience. "It's the `selfish gene', yah, that's what it is." And the audience raucously screamed "Hooray!"