4 ms·

I can't recommend The Selfish Gene enough. I wish it was mandatory reading in school or something. Contrary to GEB it is very accessible and a phenomenal introd

I can't recommend The Selfish Gene enough. I wish it was mandatory reading in school or something. Contrary to GEB it is very accessible and a phenomenal introduction to the theory of evolution. It gets a point across, school books don't. However, Richard Dawkins has become a very detestable person, cringeworthy culture warrior, rage beneficiary. So, make what you want with that info. Maybe consider a library or pirate the audio book.

jabl 3y ago
> However, Richard Dawkins has become a very detestable person, cringeworthy culture warrior, rage beneficiary. Yeah.. My personal introduction to Dawkins was actually some TV documentary he made that covered about the same topics as the God Delusion, then I read the book itself. Only after that I read the Selfish Gene, which IMHO philosophically was a much more interesting book. I did sort-of follow the "new atheism" movement for a time, the "four horsemen" and all that [1]. But it seemed to pretty quickly spiral into the cringy culture war thing you mention, so I stopped. [1] I don't agree with many of the things Christopher Hitchens said, but damn he was a good orator and public debater.
- jijijijij 3y ago
  It's sad really. I mean it. I adored him, his thorough, a bit arrogant style of argumentation. If he had stayed with biology and science education, he could have had a legacy of greatness. Now, he will die as just another edgelord, who thought they've become experts on everything; a content creator for the suck. Dawkins is an old, old man, his days are counted. I hope with time The Selfish Gene will get a life of its own, with the person Dawkins becoming nothing more than a short side note, on a great educator falling victim to his ego. This book will endure, his Tweets won't.
tim333 3y ago
I found the book a little depressing eg. the quote on the cover of some editions “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” He got a bit more upbeat in later books. I'm not sure Dawkins is detestable but he's a bit humorless at times. The Telegraph has quite a good article on his culture war stuff https://archive.ph/kNJXN https://archive.ph/kNJXN
- jijijijij 3y ago
  > robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes I think, his proposed theoretical framework about genes as the sole target of selective pressure, seems to be widely rejected by evolutionary scientists, these days. Anyway, the way he argues and illustrates evolution on the "atomic" level, that's what I consider extremely valuable. He inspires an intuition for evolutionary processes transcending "living matter". At least in me. > The Telegraph has quite a good article on his culture war stuff In what way do you think this is a good article? Do you think it's a very sincere and thorough representation of the extent of his activism? This is a culture war piece itself, white-washing Dawkins as someone who is "just concerned" about debate and free speech, when in fact he seeks the legal abolition of transgender people, all the way up to the UN's declaration of human rights [1]. Not quite the neutral portrait, full of journalistic integrity, you linked there. Now, I don't want to get into that argument. However, should be no matter your political opinion on the issue, if someone in a position of power uses his influence to kick down massively at basic legal protections of a tiny, tiny, tiny and weak minority, without need, just to stay relevant ... that should classify as detestable in my books. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Declaration_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Declaration_Internat...
  - tim333 3y ago
    Well, it seems reasonable to me and there's no mention of Dawkins in the link you give.
    - jijijijij 3y ago
      Sorry, I wasn't clear: Dawkins signed and promoted it [1]. Side note: A move, by an outspoken and activist atheist, celebrated by various christian think tank outlets. Can't make this up. Then again, WDI founders themselves collaborated with United Families International, The Heritage Foundation and similar before [2]. All natural allies... lol. But hey, guess that 0.5% of the population, disproportionately affected by precarious living situations and suicide risk, certainly poses the greatest threat to civilization right now, so women's bodily autonomy has to take the L. Totally organic outrage Dawkins is participating in... [1] https://womensdeclaration.com/en/resources/wdi-newsletter/1-december-2021/ https://womensdeclaration.com/en/resources/wdi-newsletter/1-... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210315233629/https:/static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/604e7b4a6d35051754210ccb/1615756106628/UN+Gender+Consult+Submission+-+WoLF+-+March+14th+2021.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210315233629/https:/static1.sq...

jabl 3y ago

> However, Richard Dawkins has become a very detestable person, cringeworthy culture warrior, rage beneficiary. Yeah.. My personal introduction to Dawkins was actually some TV documentary he made that covered about the same topics as the God Delusion, then I read the book itself. Only after that I read the Selfish Gene, which IMHO philosophically was a much more interesting book. I did sort-of follow the "new atheism" movement for a time, the "four horsemen" and all that [1]. But it seemed to pretty quickly spiral into the cringy culture war thing you mention, so I stopped. [1] I don't agree with many of the things Christopher Hitchens said, but damn he was a good orator and public debater.

jijijijij 3y ago
It's sad really. I mean it. I adored him, his thorough, a bit arrogant style of argumentation. If he had stayed with biology and science education, he could have had a legacy of greatness. Now, he will die as just another edgelord, who thought they've become experts on everything; a content creator for the suck. Dawkins is an old, old man, his days are counted. I hope with time The Selfish Gene will get a life of its own, with the person Dawkins becoming nothing more than a short side note, on a great educator falling victim to his ego. This book will endure, his Tweets won't.

tim333 3y ago

I found the book a little depressing eg. the quote on the cover of some editions “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” He got a bit more upbeat in later books. I'm not sure Dawkins is detestable but he's a bit humorless at times. The Telegraph has quite a good article on his culture war stuff https://archive.ph/kNJXN https://archive.ph/kNJXN

jijijijij 3y ago
> robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes I think, his proposed theoretical framework about genes as the sole target of selective pressure, seems to be widely rejected by evolutionary scientists, these days. Anyway, the way he argues and illustrates evolution on the "atomic" level, that's what I consider extremely valuable. He inspires an intuition for evolutionary processes transcending "living matter". At least in me. > The Telegraph has quite a good article on his culture war stuff In what way do you think this is a good article? Do you think it's a very sincere and thorough representation of the extent of his activism? This is a culture war piece itself, white-washing Dawkins as someone who is "just concerned" about debate and free speech, when in fact he seeks the legal abolition of transgender people, all the way up to the UN's declaration of human rights [1]. Not quite the neutral portrait, full of journalistic integrity, you linked there. Now, I don't want to get into that argument. However, should be no matter your political opinion on the issue, if someone in a position of power uses his influence to kick down massively at basic legal protections of a tiny, tiny, tiny and weak minority, without need, just to stay relevant ... that should classify as detestable in my books. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Declaration_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Declaration_Internat...
- tim333 3y ago
  Well, it seems reasonable to me and there's no mention of Dawkins in the link you give.
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't clear: Dawkins signed and promoted it [1]. Side note: A move, by an outspoken and activist atheist, celebrated by various christian think tank outlets. Can't make this up. Then again, WDI founders themselves collaborated with United Families International, The Heritage Foundation and similar before [2]. All natural allies... lol. But hey, guess that 0.5% of the population, disproportionately affected by precarious living situations and suicide risk, certainly poses the greatest threat to civilization right now, so women's bodily autonomy has to take the L. Totally organic outrage Dawkins is participating in... [1] https://womensdeclaration.com/en/resources/wdi-newsletter/1-december-2021/ https://womensdeclaration.com/en/resources/wdi-newsletter/1-... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210315233629/https:/static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/604e7b4a6d35051754210ccb/1615756106628/UN+Gender+Consult+Submission+-+WoLF+-+March+14th+2021.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210315233629/https:/static1.sq...