13 ms·

Fascinating. Reminded me of the The Selfish Gene, especially the part discussing the opposing objectives of the mother and offspring.

spectrum1234 9y ago
Yes. Amazing book. The Red Queen as well.
Ygg2 9y ago
The Selfish Gene isn't wrong, but its not true either. It's true your genes exist in you, and they generally evolve to survive. However, "Selfish" genes can do some rather unequivocally selfless things. E.g. symbiosis.
- lukas099 9y ago
  Symbiosis isn't exactly selfless; it benefits both organisms involved. Even if you mean altruism though, a gene for altruistic behavior can still be selfish. For example, if Gene X causes an organism to sacrifice something for another organism that carries also carries Gene X, the gene will be promoting its own survival.
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    It's not exactly selfish either. You realize there is a benefit to cooperation. Most cell organelles are product of symbiosis.
    - mtgex 9y ago
      lukas099 is arguing one of the central points of the book, that altruistic behavior is inherently selfish on a genetic level. You seem to be arguing completely based on the title of the book, which itself makes clear that the title is provocative but not entirely accurate, which makes me think you have not read it.
      - Ygg2 9y ago
        I am aware of that, and I'm arguing, that is a very reductive model of how humans behave. E.g. when given choice, humans tend to help each other much more than a selfish gene model would behave, i.e. help people and strangers you have no connection with.
        mtgex 9y ago
        But all of that is discussed at length in the book we're talking about. To pick out the word "selfish" and say that that's the gene model displays to me that you haven't read the book. It's difficult to defend a book's premise from someone who hasn't read it and just wants to debate the meaning of the title.
        Ygg2 9y ago
        Look, I'll be honest. I didn't read a book. But I don't want to debate its title, instead its reductionist view of people nothing more as vehicles for the immortal DNA. Anyway here is the part that I was referencing: The self-selecting process predicted by the selfish-gene model becomes quickly skewed when correlations in reproduction exist which give rise to less than complete mixing of alleles in the gene pool. This may occur through several mechanisms, including mate selection and partial geographic isolation. The gene-centered view, Dr. Bar-Yam points out, can be applied directly only to populations in which sexual reproduction causes complete allelic mixing. (Such populations are called "panmictic" in biology.) Many organisms are part of populations that do not satisfy this condition. Thus, the gene-centered view and the concept of the "selfish gene" does not describe the dynamics of evolution, Dr. Bar-Yam concludes. Source: http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolecol/selfishgene.html http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolecol/selfishgene.html
        lukas099 9y ago
        >Look, I'll be honest. I didn't read a book. >But I don't want to debate its title, instead its reductionist view of people nothing more as vehicles for the immortal DNA. The problem is that the book does not expound this reductionist view; it is only your conception of the book (likely based on the title) that does.

spectrum1234 9y ago

Yes. Amazing book. The Red Queen as well.

Ygg2 9y ago

The Selfish Gene isn't wrong, but its not true either. It's true your genes exist in you, and they generally evolve to survive. However, "Selfish" genes can do some rather unequivocally selfless things. E.g. symbiosis.

lukas099 9y ago
Symbiosis isn't exactly selfless; it benefits both organisms involved. Even if you mean altruism though, a gene for altruistic behavior can still be selfish. For example, if Gene X causes an organism to sacrifice something for another organism that carries also carries Gene X, the gene will be promoting its own survival.
- Ygg2 9y ago
  It's not exactly selfish either. You realize there is a benefit to cooperation. Most cell organelles are product of symbiosis.
  - mtgex 9y ago
    lukas099 is arguing one of the central points of the book, that altruistic behavior is inherently selfish on a genetic level. You seem to be arguing completely based on the title of the book, which itself makes clear that the title is provocative but not entirely accurate, which makes me think you have not read it.
    - Ygg2 9y ago
      I am aware of that, and I'm arguing, that is a very reductive model of how humans behave. E.g. when given choice, humans tend to help each other much more than a selfish gene model would behave, i.e. help people and strangers you have no connection with.
      - mtgex 9y ago
        But all of that is discussed at length in the book we're talking about. To pick out the word "selfish" and say that that's the gene model displays to me that you haven't read the book. It's difficult to defend a book's premise from someone who hasn't read it and just wants to debate the meaning of the title.
        Ygg2 9y ago
        Look, I'll be honest. I didn't read a book. But I don't want to debate its title, instead its reductionist view of people nothing more as vehicles for the immortal DNA. Anyway here is the part that I was referencing: The self-selecting process predicted by the selfish-gene model becomes quickly skewed when correlations in reproduction exist which give rise to less than complete mixing of alleles in the gene pool. This may occur through several mechanisms, including mate selection and partial geographic isolation. The gene-centered view, Dr. Bar-Yam points out, can be applied directly only to populations in which sexual reproduction causes complete allelic mixing. (Such populations are called "panmictic" in biology.) Many organisms are part of populations that do not satisfy this condition. Thus, the gene-centered view and the concept of the "selfish gene" does not describe the dynamics of evolution, Dr. Bar-Yam concludes. Source: http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolecol/selfishgene.html http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolecol/selfishgene.html
        lukas099 9y ago
        >Look, I'll be honest. I didn't read a book. >But I don't want to debate its title, instead its reductionist view of people nothing more as vehicles for the immortal DNA. The problem is that the book does not expound this reductionist view; it is only your conception of the book (likely based on the title) that does.