Summary

Dawkins argues that the fundamental unit of natural selection is at a gene level. He then continues to build the world from single genes into what we see today, explaining why many different behaviors that are confusing at first, when examined from the “gene’s eye view” they start to make sense. If you have heard of Darwin, then odds are you’ve heard the phrase “survival of the fittest”, but the question that this statement raises is, survival of what? The fittest claw? The fittest lion? The fittest pride? The fittest species? Dawkins makes the case that what is surviving is the gene and for this to work he defines gene slightly different than a geneticist would. He says a gene is the smallest single or collection of chromosomal material that lasts enough generations to act as a unit of natural selection. An easily understandable example would be the gene for blue eyes. On the face of it this definition seems circular, by definition he can’t be wrong. Genes — segments of chromosomal material — are the smallest trait-carrying units we know of, so if natural selection exists, it must start there. One might be tempted to ask why he didn’t define genes as a group or single quark that exists together long enough to be a unit of natural selection, but he spends a fair bit of time expanding this definition into less of a tautology and more of a theory. One interesting question the comes up is if natural selection is at the gene level and logically therefore all genes are acting selfishly (anthropomorphizing to help us think about the situation), then why would they band together with competing genes to form flesh suits, or elm trees? To answer this he brings in the concepts of replicators and vehicles. Another term he uses throughout the book was survival machines, this was a clever choice as it applies to anything that is alive, plants, animals, etc. Dawkins says that genes are the replicators and survival machines are their vehicles. So since we are already anthropomorphizing, I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch to picture a chromosome behind the wheel of a car on a speeding highway trying not to die, the car in this case would anything from single celled amoeba, to a giraffe. When we come back to reality of course this does not work in this way, as a single gene has next to no control over where a bat is going, or over the next word I type. But Dawkins chooses to zoom in on the “next to nothing” influence, because if you put enough next to nothings together, you just might have something!

Individuals are not stable things, they are fleeting. Chromosomes too are shuffled into oblivion, like hands of cards soon after they are dealt. But the cards themselves survive the shuffling. The cards are the genes. The genes are not destroyed by crossing-over, they merely change partners and march on. Of course they march on. That is their business. They are the replicators and we are their survival machines. When we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever.

There is much, much more in this book, but at risk of making a map the size of the continent, I will end this summary with some fascinating points this book makes.

  • With sexual reproduction, there is a perfect 50/50 split of the father and mother’s genes. I learned this in grade school but getting down to a chromosomal level this hit me in a new way.
  • Your genes are reliant on you to keep them safe, stop texting and driving!
  • There are two types of equilibriums in groups. One is the optimal equilibrium where every individual gets the best possible outcome to decisions. The other is a stable equilibrium which is signified by the fact that it can’t be exploited.
  • The act of sex is initially an equal investment. The egg and the sperm, the inequality comes from incubation. In a rare exception for certain fish, the eggs have to be fertilized after they are ejected, therefore the males end up carrying the lion’s share of parental responsibility. This of course cascades into larger mating strategies.
  • The altruism in social insects like bees and ants could be explained by the large majority of participants being sterile, in combination with their interesting haplodiploid system of sex determination which makes the average hive member closer genetically to each other than is normal.

Thoughts

The first chapter “Why are People” has a quote from a zoologist who’s answer to the question “What is man?” responded with: “The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely”. Which Dawkins in a note extends to the questions “What are we for?”. This is of course a very strong way to start off a book, and his tone seldom lightens. Due to this fact there are times when it is difficult to not get angry at the pomposity, of course the flip side of the coin is that he makes so many good points and is very exacting with his logic. You might get angry but will surely have trouble coming up with coherent responses. Even though I’ve read books from pessimists like Schopenhauer and Ligotti, I think this book might be more cynical. It is hard not to be slightly depressed when altruism is broken down into a mathematical equation. On the other hand, the ancient edict to know thyself shouldn’t be given up on just because the answers are less romantic than we like. In the end, if I had to make my uneducated guess, I would say we don’t quite know enough about traits. I am unsure (again probably due to lack of understanding) if DNA can bear the weight that Dawkins puts on its back. Even though the book was full of interesting insights it was dry at points and took effort to stay focused. I am glad I read this book.

People/Arthur Schopenhauer People/Thomas Ligotti People/Richard Dawkins