Auto boutiques-francophones Simple and secure cloud storage giftguide Countdown to Black Friday in Home & Kitchen Kindle Music Deals Store SGG Countdown to Black Friday in Lawn & Garden

Customer Reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars169
4.5 out of 5 stars
Format: HardcoverChange
Price:$19.90+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

9 of 9 people found the following review helpful
on June 11, 2011
Maybe it's a quirk in my personality, but I'm always looking for some great truth, some unifying theory. After all, if the beautiful world around us was not created by a deity (which, as an explanation, explains nothing), but by something as 'seemingly random' as evolution, then surely there must be some great code, some great pattern (essentially a natural order, a natural 'Ten Commandments, if you will) running through everything. We've always heard that 'code' is 'fit', but again, 'fit' in terms of genes doesn't explain much either. I needed a little more, so I cracked open this book thinking it would open my eyes to some genetic truth. I soon found lots of amazing things, but was met with the crude ugly truth about genetics: they are anything but a guide for morality. The 'beautiful pattern' I was seeking was nowhere to be found. We are met with a contradiction, as men and women: the very thing that gives us enjoyment, indulgence' satisfaction of a few evolutionary 'carrots'' is the opposite of what we consider 'good' and 'moral'. Originally I believed our Morality actually stems from resisting our impulses, our genetics, to separate us from lower animals. Dawkins believes that what we consider 'sophisticated society' actually comes from whatever can be sustained in equilibrium; in other words, the reason we can eat meat, but are repulsed by Cannibalism, is mostly due to the fact that, if we were Cannibals, the species would shrink and eventually go extinct. The equilibrium is for us to eat other animals.

It's also frowned upon, in modern society, to kill people. From a Genetic perspective, there's no advantage to killing people, even your rivals.. it wastes energy, and may make other rivals even stronger in rank. Reverse rationalization. Pretty much everyone one of today's social taboos comes from Genetic no-nos.

How do Genes affect our bodies, and ultimately societies? These human bodies of ours, to hear Dawkins describe it, are like sports teams that our genes 'join' in order to win a championship. You see, genes don't actually have a goal, but they are known for duplication. That's what they do. And sometimes, they do it better by 'getting along with others'. Likewise, Dawkins goes on to suggest that diseases, that ultimately need their host to survive to spread more, may 'dial back' the sickness for a while, so the 'host' (the sick patient) can live a little longer, so they can infect others. This is why effects of AIDS or Cancer don't show up until later in life. This is not a willful brilliant chess move on the part of your last 'runny nose', its just that that 'runny nose' that took a while to show up propagated more than the one that put its host in the hospital instantly.

The funny thing is, human personality, something we identify, describe and name (eg. Human Psychology and Personality Development) is backwards, its Monday Morning Quarterbacking. To hear Dawkins Describe Human Personalities, is like the IBM's Deep Blue Supercomputer walking you through its chess moves in the dismantling of the Kasparov. There is order there, we just didn't know it. An aggressive man and a passive woman, those are just two different strategies. The inclination to see the good in people is really just another strategy. It turns out that we too, represent multiple genetic options. He with the better strategy wins' he'll get the money, he'll get multiple sexual partners, spread his genes, and be very strong and confident. And the personalities/strategies, like viruses, that are more effective, spread.

Speaking of personality and morality, what about lying? Do animals ever tell lies? It turns out that when baby chicks chirp louder, they get more food. The mum assumes the hungriest chicks will chirp the loudest. That's right, we didn't (sorry Ricky) invent lying. Animals have been doing it for ages. And when an Animal discovers that its colors protect it (because it looks like a vicious competitor), it's lying too. And exploits the lie.

Besides spreading genetic code, we like to spread ideas. Perhaps you've heard this term floating around the Internet: Memes. Memes are good, bad, stupid ideas, that either catch on, or they vanish, evaporate. And Memes have a pretty cool feature, that, like Genes, they can replicate (very quickly, like this 'Boy Slams Bully' Video which caught fire a couple months ago) by replicating in other people's minds. I can even speak an idea, and 50,000 people can hear it, or write something on the web (or in the sand, on a beach) and people can come back later and read it. The Meme, thought, duplicates, and that's why it's powerful.
Interestingly, that makes two things that can replicate, Genes and Memes. Memes are the takeoff of evolution, dovetailing into technology, that got us driving 100 miles an hour, and flying up in the sky, not with strong legs, or broad wings, but, technology. Bad ideas are trashed and good ideas are copied and improved upon (patent system be damned).

When we die, Dawkins says, we leave these two things behind, Genes and Memes. Is this all we can achieve in this mortal coil? To raise a family, pass on our code, and leave some imprint on the world, make some mark, be a world famous athlete, scientist, discoverer, pop star or military hero? Shall we be judged not by memories of our loved ones, but by our 'meme'-richness (or Cosmic Google ranking)? In the search for eternal life, it would seem so. All that matters is great ideas. In terms of unifying theories, it's a little weak but there is some justice to it.

More reviews like this on 21tiger
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
HALL OF FAMEon February 8, 2003
Given the amount of dreck published about this book over the past two decades, it seemed a worthwhile exercise to reread and comment on it for a new generation of readers. As with Darwin's Origin of Species, more people have commented on this work than have read or understood it. Dawkins is a superb writer, able to convey his ideas with clarity and wit. As he has stated elsewhere, however, those very ideas still challenge those whose minds are locked by preconceptions. Dawkins must be, and is, a staunch advocate in presenting to us what genes are all about. He does so in order that we better understand ourselves.
He begins by anticipating the outcry of those who must see humans set apart from the rest of life. "Why Are People" examines several behavioral aspects of animals and people. Altruism receives particular attention because the term "selfish" applied to life returns us to the concept of nature "red in tooth and claw" which he wishes to avoid. Genes are not conscious entities who make decisions about their existence or future. Genes are simply replicators, using whatever resources are available to make more of themselves. With luck, the environment in which they do this allows them to survive and continue replicating. If not, the gene, and whatever characteristic it represents, goes extinct. Enough bad matches and a whole species follows the gene into extinction.
In the beginning our very earliest ancestors weren't likely to even have been organisms, but simply chemicals. From this, Dawkins traces the development of the DNA molecule and the organisms that came to carry it in their cells. These organisms, "survival machines" in Dawkins' expression, carry the genes, supplying them with the raw material to continue replicating. It's a discomfiting idea to many to be brought face to face with the idea that they are but "gene machines", but Dawkins shows us in crisp prose that this is simply how life works. Because animals, particularly human animals, seem to exhibit "purpose", there is ongoing objection to the idea that actions can be gene driven. Dawkins explains that genes have had more than three billion years to develop survival techniques that give the
appearance of "purposiveness."
The apparent display of purpose is covered through much of the book in his discussion of "game theory". Game theory applied to life has moved well beyond simple win or lose situations. Game situations now involve highly complex interactions in which the players don't win or lose, but survive where possible. Players don't reach a terminal finish through their activities, but reach a modus vivendi. Parents, particularly mothers, sacrifice to bear and raise offspring. Plants, deprived of an optimum niche, adapt to occupy another, less desirable one.
Finally, in what might prove to be the most telling innovation in this book, Dawkins introduces a new descriptor of social behaviour: the meme. The revolution in thinking about why humanity performs some wholly illogical actions has only begun. Ideas, habits, faiths, characteristics that humans like to think separate us from the other animals, arise and replicate just like their biological counterparts. They form, replicate, find a suitable environment and continue replicating. Susan Blackmore's THE MEME MACHINE, is a must companion to this volume with its full and penetrating examination of this aspect of life.
Dawkins' critics are loud and vociferous. It would be pointless to assess motivation in their continued diatribes against this book. Darwin was forced to weather the same type of criticisms for just the same reason: their ideas jerk the pedestal of divine origins from humanity. Even trained scientists find it difficult to shed the concept that because humans have achieved so much, their origins must transcend pure biology. Dawkins' critics nearly all descend to the pejorative, labelling him and his adherents, "Ultra-Darwinists". Few phrases are as meaningless as this one. How one can be "beyond Darwin" eludes definition.
This book is a fine starting point in understanding how life, particularly our form of life, operates. It should be standard classroom fare, both in biology and philosophy classes. If you didn't encounter it there, buy it here. Read it carefully and closely. You will be rewarded with excellent writing, stimulating ideas and you may gain deep insight into what you are.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
on May 10, 2004
The Selfish Gene is the best popular science book I have ever read, PERIOD. In it, Dawkins provides clear explanations of the mechanism of evolution, to the point that the reader can teach someone about evolution right after reading. It does not in any way patronize the reader, but instead delves deep into complex subjects, ranging from game theory to psychology, to explain evolution.
The main idea in the book is to change the perspective of evolution: it is genes that use bodies and organisms to reach their goals of reproduction. In my opinion, however, the most brilliant part of the book is the very beginning, in which Dawkins explains how it could come about that some chemicals (genes) actually would grow a "wish" to reproduce. The answer makes the reader feel really smart, and that is what pop science is all about.
Much of the book is devoted to showing how evolution can in fact explain altruism, agression, aging, cooperation, sexual relations, etc. He spends a lot of time debunking the theory that animals act a certain way "for the good of the species". His argument is that animals have no want, it is the genes that want more of themselves available.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with a wide open mind, a logical train of thought, and deep curiosity about life. Dawkins will change the way you see life, and he will hold your hand through the entire process, quenching your thrist for knowledge. It is written in such a simple way that it is hard to understand why this book is not recommended at high schools. Anyways, I hope you choose this book, it is one of those that make you sad to have finished.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
on January 28, 2010
Richard Dawkins is a scientist of the highest caliber and an excellent writer. While not as interesting as The Ancestor's Tale or Greatest Show on Earth (Selfish Gene is more academic and most of it is over my head), it is a fascinating look into fundamental concepts of Biology. What's more is that this particular edition is worth the additional cost compared to the paperback - the paper is high quality and the binding is anything but cheap (as all books I own which were published by Oxford are). This isn't so much a book as it is an investment for future generations.
review image review image review image review image
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful
TOP 500 REVIEWERon December 16, 2006
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary theorist and holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is also a best seller author of science books, and quite easy to read. His most recent book is The God Delusion, but previously he wrote mainly about evolution. For example, his prior book is The Ancestors' Tale, a brief history of life on earth.

The Selfish Gene is explains the basics of evolution in simple and readable language. There is a good reason why this book has a 30th Anniversary edition: it is truly a classic, and will be read for many, many years to come.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
on September 5, 2002
Personification, or (more awkwardly) anthropomorphization, is a slightly silly convention practiced daily by all of us. It consists of attributing sentient human characteristics to non-human entities, as in "the computer thinks you want to shut it down," or "my car is out to get me." Such expressions are usually harmless because everyone knows the metaphors aren't meant literally. There are certain contexts, though, where personification becomes troublesome. Two of them are biology and evolution. I once criticized Michael Behe for writing that viruses mutate "in order to evade the immune system." Viruses cannot strategize or harbor motives, and to imply that they do carelessly misstates the fundamentals of evolution, a theory Behe was attempting to refute! Tacky.
The title itself should put any "Selfish Gene" reader on notice that a megadose of personification is coming, but even thus forewarned I was taken aback by the extent of it. The author seems to be in the peculiar position of understanding perfectly well the drawbacks of anthropomorphization, but pressing on with it anyway. An unfortunate result is that Dawkins incessantly uses the language of conscious motives while issuing caveats about it. In both main text and chapter notes (1989 edition), he alternates between backpedaling from personification (e.g. top, page 89) and irritably dismissing any reader or critic obtuse enough to suppose he means what he says (e.g. page 278). Perhaps I am unreasonably sensitive, but personification issues in "Selfish Gene" significantly reduced my ability to enjoy it.
So if that's how I felt about the book, why did I finish it? Because it was more than worthwhile to do so. Like Dawkins' other works, this one is a cornucopia of useful information, novel interpretations and clever insights. It introduces such diverse topics as the ironic and unwisely-ignored concept of speciesism, the meme as a reproducing unit of imitative behavior, the significance of evolutionarily stable strategies (ESSs), and the game-theoretical aspects of ad hoc live-and-let-live behavior among WW1 combatants. One would have to be anesthetized not to learn and profit from reading "Selfish Gene."
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
It's literally true- Dawkins spells out the meaning of life in this book. At least, the biological meaning of life. It's hard to say enough good things about this book. It is the best modern book on evolution, by far. It is required reading for anyone interested in biology or evolution. It should be required reading for anyone. What makes the book so great? It explains all of the major concepts in evolution, provides easy-to-understand examples, and makes very powerful conclusions. The message of rebelling against our genes and the biological meaning of life dispels any notion that this book is deterministic. Dawkins understands and argues that if we want to be ourselves, we should at least know ourselves.

My only minor complaint, and one that's impossible to avoid really, is that some great information gets tucked into the footnotes at the end of this book. Which is awkward, but there's really no other way around it. Still rates 5 stars though. This is one of the few rare books that I wish there was a 6th star!
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on January 14, 2002
> Why does he make the "gene" the fundamental unit of survival rather than the carbon atom, and why the "meme" instead of the "phoneme"? (-A reader)
"What, after all, is special about genes? The answer is that they are replicators." -Dawkins (p 191 in my edition)
A carbon atom is created in the heart of a star and has very little influence over the creation or destruction of any other carbon atom. Phonemes are a fundamental unit of speech, and likewise have very little control over their own production.
Genes (and memes) are by definition things that can be copied, and that have some influence on the copying process (number of copies, accuracy, or longevity).
> It would have sufficed had he asserted simply that it tends to be in the enlightened self-interest of individuals to form adaptive, synergistic groups. (-A reader)
What would the characteristics of an "adaptive, synergistic group" be? On what evidence would you base your answer?
Sometimes it is instead in the best interests of individuals to cheat or freeload (Taxes? Speeding?). Dawkins extends the Prisoner's Dilemma (in game theory, a framework for predicting behavior from the costs and benefits of different possible actions by two or more people) to predict which behaviors or mix of behaviors will be adopted in a given environment. This simple model allows populations of interactors using various strategies to be simulated, with at least some realistic-looking results. (Overfishing?)
For example, should you take treats for your office mates, or simply freeload from others? If everyone freeloads, there is nothing to share; if most share, the office is nicer. Any person that is regularly spending (in time or effort or money) more [or less] than they feel they receive (in similar items, or compliments, or social interaction) will tend to adjust their offerings to match their perceived benefits.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 13, 2009
An incredibly well written book, filled with interesting asides and kept firmly in the realm of 'non-expert' language. Perhaps the greatest downfall of the book is how perfectly its ideas have been accepted in the thirty years since the first edition was originally published. That is, what seemed revolutionary to some at the time of its original publication don't seem revolutionary, they seem self-evident to anyone with a strong interest in evolutionary biology. As someone born after the original publication, who became interested in the field more than a decade after it created controversy, reading the thirtieth anniversary edition seemed like a rehashing of what I already knew. It went into greater depths than my broad-but-shallow knowledge, but there wasn't anything in here that seemed revolutionary to me. Which just goes to prove how widely accepted Dawkins' once-controversial ideas are now.
For people who, like myself, have a greater than average understanding of the field, it's worth reading, if only as a look back at a point in time when these ideas weren't seen as "common" knowledge.
For someone first dipping their toes into the fascinating field of evolutionary biology, Dawkins' more recent book "The Greatest Show On Earth" will probably be a much better place to start, with this being a book to come back to.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 31, 2004
One reviewer compared Dawkins to Galileo, since Dawkins is doing for Darwin what Galileo did for Copernicus. I do not think that this is an exaggeration at all.
Dawkins writes with such stunning clarity, such exhilirating precision, that the reader is left breathless at the book's finish, full of galactic knowledge. His enthusiasm is infectious, so much so that you cannot help but want to bonk everyone you know over the head with his books. For the first time since the planet's birth, there are beings who understand the power of Natural Selection, who can perceive their own origins, and this fact is downright astonishing to Dawkins (as it should be to everyone).
In The Selfish Gene (and in his other books) he explains the complexities of the process of Natural Selection with a language that is accesible to undergraduates of any major. Words like "gene" and "junk DNA" are well on their way to becomming buzz words, even topics of debate at the dinner table. For people who think that the human soul has thus been destroyed by such reductionism, think again--Dawkins' work shows us that we are all much closer to each other than we ever thought, that our very bodies are related to one another and depend on the interaction with one another to survive. Maybe this kind of understanding will finally quelch our strange desire to destroy each other.
The next few decades will undoubtedly be host to the Darwinian Revolution, and it will be to books like The Selfish Gene that make it possible. Everyone, even the most ardent creationists, should read this book--if nothing else, to know exactly what they are up against. As Dan Dennet has said, "arithematic is right." 2 plus 2 equals 4. Move over Obsolete Mythology, real intelligence has arrived.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
The Lessons of History
The Lessons of History by Will Durant (Paperback - Feb. 16 2010)
CDN$ 15.47

The God Delusion
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (Paperback - Jan. 16 2008)
CDN$ 17.57

Managing Oneself
Managing Oneself by Peter Ferdinand Drucker (Paperback - Jan. 7 2008)
CDN$ 10.45