40th Anniversary edition (Oxford Landmark Science)

The starting is very interesting. But after a few chapters, the book becomes too complicated and it looks like a maze of things explained in too much detail that only a Scientist might find interesting. Gave up after reading a few chapters. I think this should be edited by someone because the facts are really innovative and contribute to the understanding of "life."

The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author
This book is a hard "read" The author is not concise. He belabors some points.

After reading two of Dawkins' other works (Blind Watchmaker and God Delusion), I really expected to love this book. It is, afterall, his ground breaking work, and it is held in such high praise.

I could not put either of the other two Dawkin's books down. This one, though, I could barely pick up. I found the writing style choppy and hard to follow. I found the concepts interesting but jumbled by the writing. Unlike the other works, I found this one unaccessible to the everyday reader.

If you want a more straightforward book on evolution, go with the Blind Watchmaker.

I thoroughly enjoy Science, more accurately "Popular Science" and I read a good bit of it. But I don't like it when an author gets off of "Science" and starts giving me a "message"....., a "message", about about anything, food, habits, anything.
I've enjoyed several of Dawkins' books but finally got tired of his extreme intolerance and constant harangues about religion.

Now, I'm not a very religious person, and I don't care for "evangelists" who insist on bending my ear in trying to "Save my soul". But I try to tolerant of the beliefs of others, and I really don't give a damn what you believe as long as you don't interfere with my life.
Dawkins is one of the worst offenders in this regard, as he insists that his way is the ONLY way, and he does it over and over, he beats me over the head with it. After I bought this book I became "fed up" with Dawkins and have not read it.
Enough!

Concept is well worth reading. Representing the stage of Dawkins in earlier stage of career. The book is too long for the non-biologists; lack of today's pictures and explanation of individual species cited make it hard for the general audience to fully visualize the examples given.

It is a shame that this is required reading. I had some reservations about writing this review as I am a fan of Dawkins and the circle of academics he is grouped with. But I must have standards and not break from them because of a bias. It should be noted that this review might not be understood by some who are not familiar with the theory, my apologies for this. I will also apologies for my own wordiness, though to my credit I'm not a world renown author who has been writing for over 40 years...

There are three main knocks I have against this book. The first being it's wordiness, the second being lack of references, and the third being lack of evidence when there might actually be some.

Dawkins addressed the comments of previous editions being too simple in explaining genetics. I am not referring to this type of explanation. I am referring to a different kind of wordiness- For example in the chapter Genesmanship, Dawkins went to great lengths explaining why individuals do not favor others who are not related to them when it is obvious they share some genes. He could have simply stated that one or two genes aren't likely to overpower millions voting to favor someone who is related. As a related note, I wonder why Dawkins never listed examples of exactly how much favoritism kin generally give each other and how much this changes when families are put together that are not blood related, adoptions, marriage with kids from previous partners, etc... Every chapter seemed to be begging for both more real world examples and simpler wording.

The second knock is lack of referencing. I know this is a book explaining a theory, which I give leeway for. But I wanted everything that could be referenced to be referenced. One small example is on page 130 where the author says “one well-authenticated story” but never references this story, shall I Google every bit of this? Lower down on the page Dawkins refers to a “respected authority” that “According to her” disagrees with Dawkins- WHO? It's as if Dawkins believes everyone keeps up on the latest in zoology. In the back of the book there is a bibliography, it does not list page number and I am stuck guessing if the reference listed is the one I am looking for.

The third knock, which in my opinion is the hardest it lack of real world examples. There is much research on how adopted children are treated, and it would have been nice to see a discussion of what happens in cases where a child is switched at birth, but the parents were unaware.

I will end with a recommendation to read the book anyway. This book is readable, and many books on evolution and psychology refer to this one, so for that this book is worth reading. At the end of this book I felt I had a deeper understanding of not just evolution as Dawkins sees it, but evolution as other authors see it. I would recommend this book before reading The Red Queen by Matt Ridley for example. Buy it, read it, but don't expect too much out of it.

Edit: for my terrible grammar, which admittedly is still terrible...

MUST READ FOR ANY COLLEGE BASKETBALL FAN. THE ACTUAL PLAYERS AT NCAA UNIVERSITIES ARE EXPOSED FOR THEIR PART IN THE FIXING OF COLLEGE GAMES IN THE 50'S. MAKES ONE AWARE HOW EASY IT IS FOR A PLAYER, PLAYER'S, OR OFFICIALS TO BE INVOLVED IN ILLEGAL SPORTS BETTING.

Selfish Genes ≠ Selfish Phenotypes
Many people who have never read 'The Selfish Gene' (and strangely a few who apparently have) misunderstand the phrase 'Selfish Gene' to mean a gene that causes people to be selfish. Actually, the 'selfishness' refers, not to a trait a gene encodes in its bearer, but rather to a (metaphoric) quality of genes themselves. In other words, individual genes are themselves conceived of as 'selfish', in that they have evolved by natural selection to selfishly promote their own survival and replication.

Ironically, as Dawkins is at pains to emphasise, the selfishness of genes can actually result in altruism at the level of the organism or phenotype. This is because, where altruism is directed towards biological kin, such altruism can facilitate the replication of genes shared among relatives through common descent. This is referred to as 'kin selection' or 'inclusive fitness theory'.

Nevertheless, Dawkins still seems to see organisms, humans included, as fundamentally selfish – albeit a selfishness tempered by a large dose of nepotism.

Thus, in his opening paragraphs he cautions, “if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from our biological nature” and instead proposes, “let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish” (p3).

The Various 'Extended' Editions
To some extent Dawkins mitigates this view in more recent editions of the book (i.e. those published since 1989 ten years after the publication of the original) by the addition of a further chapter on reciprocal altruism (Chapter 12: 'Nice Guys Finish First') a subject he had already dealt with less extensively in Chapter 10 ('You Scratch My Back, I'll Ride on Yours'). In this additional chapter, he essentially summarises the work of Axelrod in the latter's book The Evolution of Co-Operation.

Post-1989 editions also include a further chapter, Chapter 13 (entitled 'The Long Reach of the Gene') which summarises Dawkins' own The Extended Phenotype as well as extensive endnotes.

In these endnotes, Dawkins clarifies various misunderstandings which arose from how he explained himself in the original version, defends himself against certain criticisms levelled at certain passages and, most importantly, explains how the science progressed in the years since the first publication of the book, including sometimes identifying things he and other biologists got wrong.

With more recent editions, the content of 'The Selfish Gene' has burgeoned even further, at an apparently exponential rate. The “30th Anniversary Edition”, published in 2006, boasts only a new introduction; the recent “40th Anniversary Edition", published just last year, boasts a new Epilogue; meanwhile, the latest so-called “Extended Selfish Gene” boasts, in addition to this, two whole new chapters.

In fact, these two new chapters are not all that new after all, being lifted wholesale from Dawkins next work, 'The Extended Phenotype', a work whose contents he has already summarised in Chapter 13 ('The Long Reach of the Gene'), itself an earlier addition to the book’s ever expanding contents list.

The decision not to entirely rewrite 'The Selfish Gene' was apparently that of Dawkins’ publisher, Oxford University Press. This was probably the right decision.

After all, 'The Selfish Gene' is not a mere undergraduate textbook, in need of revision every few years. It was a landmark work of popular science, that introduced a new approach to understanding the evolution of the behaviour and physiology of species (that of the 'gene’s eye view' of evolution) to a wider readership, composed of both biologist and non-biologist alike, and deserves to stand in its original form as a landmark in the scientific history.

Moreover, this additional material is often very interesting in its own right. However, while the new introductions and the new epilogue is standard fare when republishing a classic work several years after first publication, the addition of four (or two, depending on the edition) new whole chapters seems more problematic.

For one thing, they distort the overall structure of the book, and always read rather as if they have been tagged on at the end as something of an afterthought (as indeed they have). The book probably works best, in a purely literary sense at least, in its original form as it appeared in earlier pre-1989 editions.

Moreover, they reek of a shameless marketing gimmick, designed to deceive new readers into paying the full asking price for the latest edition, rather than buying a much cheaper second-hand copy.

This is especially blatant in respect of the book’s latest incarnation, 'The Extended Selfish Gene', which according to the information of OUP’s website, seems to have been released just a little over three months after the previous “40th Anniversary Edition” (in June and September of 2016, respectively) yet includes two additional chapters (see above).

This sort of marketing gimmick is, in my view, beneath both a celebrated biologist such as Dawkins, and a prestigious academic publisher like OUP.

Personally, if I were recommending an edition to buy for someone who has never read the book before in any of its incarnations, I would opt for a second-hand copy of one of the post-1989 editions, rather than the very latest, since these can now be picked up very cheap, and include the additional endnotes which are often very interesting.

The 'Gene’s-Eye-View'
'The Selfish Gene' is indeed a seminal work in the history of biology primarily because Dawkins takes the so-called 'gene’s-eye-view' of evolution to its logical conclusion. To this extent, contrary to popular opinion, Dawkins' exposition is not merely a popularisation, but actually breaks new ground theoretically.

Thus, John Maynard Smith (1964) famously talked of 'kin selection' by analogy with 'group selection'. Meanwhile, William Hamilton (1964), who formulated the theory underlying these concepts, talked of the 'direct', 'indirect' and 'inclusive fitness' of organisms.

However, Dawkins takes this line of thinking to its logical conclusion by looking – not at the fitness or reproductive success of organisms/phenotypes – but rather at the success in self-replication of genes themselves.

Thus, although he stridently rejects group-selectionism, Dawkins replaces this, not with the familiar individual-level selection of classical Darwinism, but rather with a new focus on selection at the level of the gene itself.

'Abstract Animals'
Much of the interest (and no little of the controversy) arising from the publication of 'The Selfish Gene' concerned its potential application in explaining the behaviour of humans. However, in the book itself, humans (a "rather aberrant species" in which Dawkins professes to be "not really very directly interested in": Dawkins 1981 at p556) are actually mentioned only rarely.

Indeed, most of the discussion is purely theoretical. Even animal behaviour is described only for illustrative purposes, and even these illustrative examples often involve simplified hypothetical creatures rather than descriptions of the behaviour of real organisms.

Thus, he illustrates his discussion of the relative pros and cons of either fighting or submitting in conflicts over access to resources by reference to 'hawks' and 'doves' – but is quick to acknowledge that these are hypothetical and metaphoric creatures "and have no connection with the habits of the birds from whom the names are derived: doves are in fact rather aggressive birds" (p70).

Even Dawkins' titular "selfish genes" are rather abstract and theoretical entities.

Certainly the actual chemical composition and structure of DNA is of peripheral interest to him. Often he talks of "replicators" rather than "genes" and is at pains to point out that selection can occur in respect of any entity capable of replication and mutation, not just DNA or RNA (hence his introduction of the concept of 'memes': see below).

Moreover, Dawkins uses the word 'gene' in a somewhat different sense to most other biologists, defining a "gene" as "any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection" (p28). This, of course, makes his claim that genes are the principle unit of selection something approaching a tautology or an example of a 'circular argument'.

Sexual Selection in Humans?
Where Dawkins does mention humans, it is often to point out the extent to which this "rather aberrant species" apparently conspicuously fails to conform to the predictions of selfish-gene theory.

For example, at the end of his chapter on sexual selection (Chapter 9: "Battle of the Sexes") he observes that, in contrast to most other species (e.g. peacocks), among humans it seems to be females who are most engaged in using physical appearance as a means of attracting mates (i.e. what Dawkins terms 'sexual advertising': p164-5).

Thus, women seem take greater concern over their physical appearance (e.g. clothes and makeup). Of course, unlike the peacock's tail, clothes and makeup are an aspect of behaviour rather than morphology, and thus more directly analogous to the bowers of male bowerbirds than the tail of the peacock. However, behaviour is no less subject to natural (and sexual) selection than morphology, and therefore the paradox remains.

Certainly, men possess no obvious equivalent of the peacock's tail – though Geoffrey Miller makes a fascinating (but ultimately unconvincing) case that the human brain may represent a product of sexual selection).

Meanwhile, in an endnote to post-1989 editions of 'The Selfish Gene', Dawkins himself speculates tentatively that the penis itself may represent a sexually selected 'fitness indicator' like the peacock’s tail, since the human penis is large compared to that of other primates, yet lacks a baculum (penis bone) that facilitates erections, which means that the capacity to maintain an erection may represent an honest signal of health (307-8).

However, perhaps the strongest cases for a 'peacock's tail' in humans (i.e. a morphological trait designed to attract mates) can be made in respect of a female trait, namely breasts, since, unlike among most other mammals, women's breasts are permanent, from puberty on, not present merely during lactation, and composed primarily of fatty tissues, not milk (Møller 1995; Manning et al 1997; Havlíček et al 2016).

How then can we make sense of this apparent paradox, whereby sexual selection seems, at first glance, to have operated more strongly on women than on men?

Dawkins himself offers no explanation, merely lamenting "What has happened in modern western man? Has the male really become the sought-after sex, the one that is in demand, the sex that can afford to be choosy? If so, why?" (p165).

However, in respect of what evolutionary psychologist David Buss calls 'short-term sexual strategies' (i.e. casual sex), it is certainly not the case that, as Dawkins puts it, "the male [has] become the sought-after sex, the one that is in demand, the sex that can afford to be choosy".

On the contrary, patterns of everything from prostitution and rape to erotica and pornography confirm that, for short-term 'commitment'-free casual sex, it remains women who are in demand and men who are the ardent pursuers (see The Evolution of Human Sexuality).

Thus, in a study conducted on a University campus, 72% of male subjects agreed to go to bed with a female stranger who approached them with a request to this effect. In contrast, not a single one of the 96 females approached agreed to the same request from a male questioner (Clark and Hatfield 1989). (What percentage of the women sued the university for sexual harassment was not revealed.)

However, humans also form long-term pair-bonds to raise children, and, in contrast to males of most other mammalian species, male parents often invest heavily in their offspring borne of such unions. Men are therefore expected to be relatively choosier in respect of long-term romantic partners (i.e. prospective wives) than they are in respect of casual sex partners. This may explain the relatively high levels of reproductive competition engaged in by human females, including high levels of what Dawkins calls 'sexual advertising'.

In particular, in Western societies practising what is sometimes referred to as 'socially-imposed monogamy' (i.e. where there exist large differentials in male resource holdings, but a ban on openly polygynous marriage) competition among women may be particularly intense, as multiple females battle to capture exclusive rights over the paternal investment of resource-abundant alpha males (Gaulin and Boser 1990).

This then explains why females use what Dawkins terms 'sexual advertising' to attract (long-term) mates (i.e. husbands). However, it still fails to explain why males don't – or, at least, don't seem to do so to anything like the same degree.

The answer here may be that, in contrast to mating patterns in modern western societies, 'female choice' may actually have played a surprisingly limited role in human evolutionary history, given that, in most pre-modern societies, arranged marriages were the norm.

Male mating competition may then have taken the form of 'male-male contest competition' rather than displaying to females – in other words, what Darwin called 'intra-sexual selection' rather than inter-sexual selection'.

Thus, while men indeed possess no obvious equivalent of the peacock's tail, they do seem to possess traits designed for intra-sexual selection (i.e. fighting) – namely considerably greater levels of upper-body musculature and of violent aggression as compared to women (see Puts 2010).

In other words, human males may not have any obvious 'peacock’s tail', but we perhaps we do have, if you like, 'stag's antlers'.

From Genes to 'Memes'
Chapter 11 ('Memes: The New Replicators') – what was, in the original version of the book (i.e. pre-1989 extended editions), the final chapter – is the only chapter to focus exclusively on humans. To a large extent this focuses again on the extent to which humans are an "aberrant species", being subject to cultural as well as biological evolution to a unique degree.

Interestingly, however, Dawkins claims that the principles of natural selection discussed in the remainder of the book can be applied to just as usefully to cultural evolution as to biological evolution. In doing so, he coins the concept of the 'Meme' as the cultural equivalent of a gene, passing between minds analogously to a virus.

The analogy of 'memes' to genes is certainly interesting, but, like any analogy, can surely be taken too far.

Certainly ideas can be viewed as spreading between people, and as having various levels of 'fitness' depending on the extent to which they 'catch on'.

Thus, a religious doctrine commanding that believers 'spread the word of god', proselyte and convert non-believers as well as to 'be fruitful and multiply’ and indoctrinate their offspring with their beliefs is, for obvious reasons, likely to spread faster and have greater longevity than a religious doctrine that insists adherents become celibate hermits and that converting non-believers is a sin.

Memes can also be said to mutate, though this occurs not only through random (and not so random) copying errors, but also by deliberate innovation by the human minds they 'infect'.

However, whether this way of looking at cultural innovation is a useful and theoretically or empirically productive way of conceptualizing cultural change remains to be seen. Certainly, I doubt whether 'memetics' will ever be a serious science comparable to genetics, as some of the concept's more enthusiastic champions have sometimes envisaged. Neither, I suspect, did Dawkins ever intend or envisage it as such, having seemingly coined the idea as something of an afterthought.

At any rate, one of the main factors governing the 'infectiousness' or 'fitness' of a given meme, is the extent to which the human mind is receptive to it and the human mind is itself a product of biological evolution. The key to understanding human behaviour, even cultural behaviour, is therefore how natural selection has shaped the human mind – in other words evolutionary psychology not memetics.

For more recent discussion of the status of the concept see The Meme Machine;Virus of the Mind: The Revolutionary New Science of the Meme and How It Affects You;The Selfish Meme: A Critical Reassessment; and Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Philosopher Daniel Dennett has also drawn on the concept of the meme in his theory of consciousness.

'Escaping the Tyranny of Selfish Replicators'
Finally, Dawkins concludes (in the original non-'extended' editions of the book, that is) with an optimistic literary flourish, emphasising once again the alleged uniqueness of the “rather aberrant” human species, claiming that "we, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators [i.e. genes and memes]" (p201).

Unfortunately, however, this ignores the fact that the "we" who are supposed to be rebelling (including our "conscious foresight" in which Dawkins places such faith) are ourselves a product of the same process of natural selection and, indeed, of the same selfish replicators. Even the (alleged) desire to revolt must be a product of the same process.

Likewise, when, in the book’s opening paragraphs, he proposes, “let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish”, he ignores, not only that the “us” who are to do the teaching and who ostensibly wish to instil altruism in others are ourselves the product of this same evolutionary process and these same selfish replicators, but also that the subjects whom we are supposed to indoctrinate with altruism are themselves surely programmed by natural selection to be resistant to any indoctrination or manipulation by third-parties to behave in ways that conflict with their own genetic interests.

The problem with Dawkins' cop-out 'Hollywood-ending' is therefore, as anthropologist Vincent Sarich is said to have observed, that Dawkins himself has "spent 214 pages telling us why that cannot be true" (Quoted in The Race Gallery: at p176; see also Straw Dogs).

The preceding 214 pages, however, remain an exciting, eye-opening and stimulating intellectual journey, even thirty years after their original publication.
____________

References
Clark & Hatfield (1989) 'Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers' Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2:39-53
Dawkins (1981) 'In defence of selfish genes' Philosophy 56(218):556-573.
Gaulin & Boser (1990) 'Dowry as Female Competition' American Anthropologist 92(4):994-1005
Hamilton (1964). 'The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II'. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:1-16,17-52
Havlíček et al (2016) 'Men's preferences for women's breast size and shape in four cultures' Evolution and Human Behavior 38(2): 217–226
Manning et al (1997) 'Breast asymmetry and phenotypic quality in women' Ethology and Sociobiology 18(4): 223–236
Møller et al (1995) 'Breast asymmetry, sexual selection, and human reproductive success' Ethology and Sociobiology 16(3): 207-219
Puts (2010) 'Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans' Evolution and Human Behavior 31:157-175
Smith (1964). 'Group Selection and Kin Selection' Nature 201(4924):1145-1147.

I am one searching for answers. Having grown up with a belief system based on science and reason and recently beginning to question that science has all the answers, I am very much a person searching for answers. I chose to read this book due to Dawkins reputation as the most respected defender of atheism and breeder of atheists. I expected in this book a cogent and thorough presentation of data and arguments as to the non-existence of a creator, one that would eliminate any need to further doubt the path of science. This book did nothing of the sort, and in fact, if this is the best that science and atheism have to offer then I suspect their days are numbered. Perhaps I just read the wrong book?

While Dawkins does present an interesting argument for genes being the basic unit of natural selection, it does nothing to weaken, let alone disprove, the theory of intelligent design. Like the theory of natural selection, his is nothing more than an explanation of what may have been designed and set in motion by a creator.

I expected evidence to support how life formed on this planet/universe which did not necessitate a creator. But all that Dawkins is able to say on that topic took about 2 pages and is something to the effect of "Over a billion million million years, after a whole bunch of molecules has stewed in the primordial soup being exposed to all types of energy, molecules formed and suddenly began replicating. These replicators began taking over and somehow, which has never been replicated in a lab and which may take scientists forever to understand, started to cooperate with one another and developed very specialized functions and ultimately, through a process of natural selection over millions or millions of years, became organisms, developed consciousness and life as we know." Thats it????? Really?????

Any grade school student could come up with this. It is no more supportable than saying that life on earth came about because aliens planted the seeds of life here. Or saying that reality is nothing more than a sort of grand matrix that we live in created and maintained by beings from another dimension (see Chico Xavier).

So perhaps I was expecting too much from Dawkins and this book. Perhaps there is another book by Dawkins (or someone else) that will do a better job of refuting intelligent design. Can anyone point me to this book?

The "Selfish Gene" is truly the Masterpiece of Dawkins. I've read many other books from him and none compares to this one. The concept of the selfish gene is explained in great detail and the book abounds with curious examples of gene selfishness. He really has a flair for explaining complicated concepts in an informal to read fun way. After a brief and fascinating review of the basics of genetics, he goes on to show how the theory that genes are the unit of replication (not humans, we're just vehicles), can be applied to explain competition, altruism, and the balance of power between generations, and sexes. If you like this book, you might also enjoy The Private Life of Plants, by David Attenborough, in particular the episode called The Social Struggle. The conclusion demonstrates a real thought provoking illustration of the extended phenotype at work. I serendipitously watched this show (on PBS) shortly after I finished the book a couple of weeks ago.

Before reading the book, I had a shaky understanding of evolution. I understood the basic concept of change over time, but none of the how. The book will leave you with much more knowledge than before reading. If you want to read one book on science, read this one.

One of the most extraordinary works of science written for the average non-scientific reader, full of thrilling insight, a mirror to ourselves, an answer to many questions about Who we are, what are we and what may drive us. If nothing else you may find out makes us tick. If you hit the fear of delving in too much mumbo jumbo, it keeps getting clearer, just persevere.

I just got finished reading this book, and I must say that it is absolutely amazing! It took me a while to get through all the details, but it was well worth the effort! Dawkins's use of stories and examples throughout The Selfish Gene really drove his theory home for me. It also made the book an enjoyable read.

The insight and research that went into The Selfish Gene is really astounding. I think the quote on the cover from the New York Times says it best: "the sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius." Dawkins is an amazing author and scientist who has been able to condense a lifetime of work into a relatively short book that any layperson can understand.

If you are undecided about evolution, there are plenty of books out there, like Dawkins's latest work, that address this issue. The Selfish Gene was written for readers who have already decided that evolution is a well founded and scientifically supported theory. If you don't fit that description, then you probably won't get much out of this book.

The Selfish Gene is about evolution, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. This book shows how we, as humans, interact with one another and what drives us in our day-to-day lives. The scope of The Selfish Gene really is incredible. Dawkins has been able to take a basic idea and apply it to every aspect of our existence and the existence of every living thing on earth.

I can't remember how but when I was 16 I came across this book and it changed my life. The title of Dawkins biography is "An appetite for wonder", and this appetite is no where more apparent than in this book (I have read most of his books). It is a wonderful introduction to the theory of evolution by natural (and sexual) selection, behavioral ecology, and the wonders of nature. At the same time it serves as a terrific example of first rate scientific reasoning. The writing is clear and fluid and extremely elegant. In his autobiography Dawkins admits that every sentence has been rewritten multiple times. Those that have survived this selection process really deliver. Every sentence seem to fill a purpose and yet, rarely does one feel that information is in some way lacking. This book, when it came out in the late seventies, influenced the general public and academics alike. It changed how academics thought about genes and evolution, and it introduced the meme, which has subsequently entered our dictionaries.

As I have said elsewhere, this book really is a literary masterpiece. The fact that it also teaches science to the reader is an added benefit that makes this book one of the best and most important ever written.

The book has a very good structure. At no point does it feel as if new concepts are introduced inappropriately. Dawkins begins by slowly and carefully introducing the replicator concept. In the widest sense a replicator is, as the name implies, something that replicates itself. This can be a mineral shape, a computer virus or a molecule such as RNA or DNA. It is inevitable that a replicator that produce more copies or copies that are more durable will become more prominent in the population. And so it is with our genes. The genes that exist in humans that are alive today are descendents of a very long series of genes that outperformed other genes. To achieve this success the genes have used many different tricks. Primary among these is cooperation with other genes to construct vehicles such as a plant or an animal that can both protect the genes and pass them on. Humans are thus "merely" vehicles created by genes for the benefit of genes (though in another sense we are of course much more than that).

Dawkins carefully builds from this starting point and reaches startling conclusions about many different aspects of nature and evolution. Why did sex evolve and why do the different sexes differ to a greater or a lesser extent in different species? Why are males in general more aggressive? Why do we cooperate? Does altruism exist? How did sterile ants evolve? Whatever he is discussing, Dawkins always provides illustrative examples from nature and when he use metaphors he is (unlike many others) always careful to translate those metaphors back into the language of replicators. The Selfish Gene also derives some of its fame from the fact that it introduced the meme concept. A meme, Dawkins suggested is like a gene in that it can replicate itself, typically via language or imitation. Successful memes (think viral youtube clips) will spread throughout population of less successful memes in the same way that successful genes spread, however, for memes the sexual reproduction of its host matters little. Rather, the success of a meme is determined by its ability to make its host share the idea with others. The meme concept is now in most dictionaries.

Throughout the book Dawkins is careful to point out that even though we are products of evolution and as a result have many instincts that are not always very noble, that does not mean that it is in anyway good or moral to follow ones evolutionary inclinations. Indeed if we understand human instincts we may be better able to construct societies that combat our caveman instincts.

No book has ever influenced my thinking the way this one has. I first thought that it's reconstructing my thought process by turning it inside out. Later I realized that it's actually fixing the process that was already turned inside out.

The book is primarily about the relation of genes with the process of natural selection. The selection pressure on the gene pool determines which genes are going to survive and reproduce. The genes that pass thru sieve of natural selection are the ones, and this is the crux of the argument of the book, are the ones that selfishly guard the survival and reproduction of the body they are in. The controversial aspect of this theory is obviously that Dawkins is presenting gene as an evolutionary unit. Some evolutionary biologists object to that. Regardless of what leaning you have, the book is rich with information that is not available anywhere else in a single volume.

The cheapest criticism that I have seen on this book is by people who probably haven't even read it or couldn't understand it and that criticism is "why should I believe that genes want this and gene wants that when I know that gene's aren't a conscious entity". These people have missed the point by miles. Dawkins has provided cautions on many places in this book that this is only a way of presenting the arguments. Its like saying "my car wants to go faster on a slope unless I control its speed".

You will have to make a little effort to align your thinking to Dawkins in the beginning but once you have done that, you are in for the ride of your life.

"The Selfish Gene" was originally written in 1970s so obviously it's a bit dated. But later editions have author's notes that fix that problem to some extent. Later edition also has two additional chapters but somewhere in the book, Dawkins writes that he'd rather his readers not read these chapters and instead pick up his book "The Extended Phenotype". I took his advice and read the final two chapters after reading "The Extended Phenotype" and found out that Dawkins was right on money. I suggest that you do the same too because "The Extended Phenotype" is the natural continuation of "The Selfish Gene" and those two small chapters do not do justice to the ideas presented in "The Extended Phenotype".

In eleven short, tightly written, lively, and easy to understand chapters, Professor Dawkins answers all the questions about Darwin's theory of evolution that we might have always wanted to know the answers to but were afraid to ask. He does this even though strictly speaking, the book is not at all intended to be a book on evolution. It was intended to be about the gene-centered view of evolution: that is to say, about how the gene sits at the center of the control module of all living organisms.

Dawkins belief in evolution is solid, because to him, Darwin's theory is settled science that has not only stood the test of time but also is a "thoroughly-tested" and falsifiable theory. And as existential theories of living matter go, Darwin's theory of Evolution -- with its primary instrumentalities of time and natural selection -- provides the simplest explanation (in the sense of Occam's razor), of all living things: of how we got from inorganic to organic matter; from unordered atoms to complex patterns, from simplicity to complexity more generally, and from a single "live" cell, to the cell's ascendance into more complex living organisms, to higher forms and orders. This of course means that a supernatural being of any kind whatsoever would be superfluous.

At the beginning of the book, the author poses the question "Why Do People Exist?" and proceeds to answer it by saying that: We exist in large part because of the "biology of selfishness," that is, due to the selfishness of the genes. In the process of answering this question, he develops the biology of DNA and along the way demolishes some long-held hypotheses of the "pre-Darwinian" social psychologists and theorists who have long believed falsely that evolution is concerned more with the "survival of the species" rather than with the "survival of the individual." Dawkins claim is a radical and controversial one: that this long-held hypothesis about altruism makes no evolutionary sense; and that if we are concerned about the evolution of altruism, then biology is probably not the right place to look.

The crux of Dawkin's thesis is that "bodies are mere transport vehicles for genes." "We are machines created by and under the control of our genes," the predominant quality of which is "their ruthless selfishness." And although altruism may indeed have survival extending value, we are genetically programmed to be ruthlessly selfish rather than altruistic.

This is a seminal work that set off the fireworks in the sociobiology debates, and 30 years on, a great deal of its substance is still valid and has endured. Five stars.

The book is stellar. I wish I had read it before I went to college, when it first came out. Dawkins's thoughts here illuminate the way we think. In the same way that Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo showed us that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, Dawkins and the various biologists and ethologists he quotes show that organisms revolve around their genes rather than vice versa. The implications are widespread and profound. If you ever wonder what Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) is smoking when he says humans are just moist robots, it's pure Dawkins.

You need to read this.

However, the Kindle e-book is an embarrassment. Serious misspellings and notational weirdness are all over the place. They are ever so totally distracting. Plus the footnotes, which are so important for updating the earlier text to this century, don't work on Kindle hardware or on Kindle for iPad (or apparently on any Kindle version). This needs to be fixed. It took me so long to manipulate back and forth, even with the help of bookmarks.

A quarter of a century old it may be, but "The Selfish Gene" is still the best book to read if you want to learn about what genetics and evolution are really about. Dawkins' style is accessible for those (such as myself) with practically no experience in biology, and the subject matter is applicable to all.
What is the selfish gene? Traditionally, people tend to look at evolution at the level of the organism. They think of different alleles aiding or harming the "fitness" of an organism. Or, worse, they could take the group-selectionist view and talk about how a gene or an organism helps the "survival of the species." But Dawkins makes a convincing case that it is best to look at natural selection at the level of the gene. Each gene "wants" to secure its survival and maximize its proliferation in the future. (A suggested title for the book was "Immortal Coils," referring to the lifespan of the gene and the double-helical structure of the DNA in which it is embedded. This ended up as the title for chapter 3.) By this, it is meant that genes that are more successful at proliferation and self-replication are more likely to survive. Thus, the genes are not instruments of the organism, but rather the reverse. The organism is a robot "designed" by genes to maximize their survival and proliferation. Dawkins' name for these robots - including us - is "survival machines." This is not a disparaging term, of course, and some of the most enjoyable portions of the book are brought about by Dawkins' instillation of hope in the reader - hope that humans, alone among Earth's survival machines, have the ability to transcend the limitations that genetics and culture would impose on them and strive for something higher.
My purpose here has been to give you a taste of the content of the book. This book will change the way you think of evolution - and the way you think of our species - for the better.

While engaged in some rather heated discussion over Dawkin's latest work - THE GOD DELUSION - I realized I had never reviewed his first book. Even though 30 years old, it is still fresh. Since that time we've completed the Human Genome Project, computers now defeat chess champions on a regular basis and our knowledge of genes is far more extensive than what Dawkins could have ever realized in 1976. These do not however invalidate his theme - the gene as the basic unit of evolution and its selfish actions.

Dawkins's view of life is completely mechanistic - we are only the sum of our composite matter. He has extended this argument over the years, arguing that emotions and even ideas are simply the result of chemical interactions, reaction to stimuli and environmental causes. However, he does acknowledge the role of human consciousness in permitting altruistic behavior despite being composed of selfish genes. In other words, the whole is greater than the individual parts. The exact thing could be said about the brain - a single neuron has no idea what your favorite color is but a collection of neurons, working together, has that knowledge.

One might ask, why should the gene be the basis unit for evolution? Why not the molecule, the atom or even sub-atomic particle? He gives an explanation involving the definition of life. Dawkins has created a world of genes, their interaction, behavior and how they affect the "survival machines" where they reside (the individual). Several of his ideas (group theory, sexual competition, kin relationships, competition, etc) are variations of ideas from other scientists that have been given a new twist. Some readers are bothered by his dispassionate treatment of all survival units as equal - fish, plants, bacteria, humans, birds. He does, though, admit that consciousness changes the landscape and allows other choices.

As a textbook on the inner workings of Darwinian evolution - and by this I mean more than just physical changes over time - it is excellent. In fact it is superb. The conflict between the actions of the gene and its "survival machine" is a constant strain and is the subject of the last chapter, one of the best. The chapter notes at the end are revealing. He cannot help but insert his personal likes (socialism), dislikes (religion) and continues the infuriating habit of calling to task any scientist who disagrees with him, many times offering a prim reprimand. He has become defensive over the charge that he is a "genetic determinist" yet his teachings come tantalizingly close to this concept. My Grade - A-

The Selfish Gene consistently applies anthropomorphic language and the language of game-playing in contexts other than those in which they are conventionally used. As metaphors there is no question that this language, so characteristic of the way in which humans behave, actually helps quite a bit in understanding very impersonal aspects of biology and evolution. This shows us, I think, that despite the fact that, for example, much of game-playing can be expressed in neutral mathematical language, colorful metaphors from our natural languages can really liven up a subject and awaken us to the weirdness of science, its counterintuitive aspects and even the beauty of nature from a scientific point of view. Of course, the cost of using metaphors is a certain ambiguity, and opens one's viewpoint to being rather easily misunderstood, especially when one uses such "loaded" words as "selfish" to describe an inanimate object. This must be counterbalanced by a fresh perspective that can lead to such nice creative insights as the "meme" concept, and the possibility that inanimate processes can "appear" to be associated, for example, with "strategies". In a way, one can almost see this as a subtly sarcastic attack on the anthropomorphic character of many religions. We are accustomed to the vocabulary, methods, and theories of the physical sciences impinging on what one took to be curiously personal space. It is enchanting and startling to see that the language of personal descriptions can be used to enlighten us about impersonal aspects of science. Of course, Dawkins' book in its third edition was not modified over the second, but even so, this wonderful viewpoint he propounds is still new for many of us, and can really open one's eyes to possibilities. This is a demonstration that, strictly speaking, one can progress by merely looking at what has already been discussed elsewhere but from a new perspective.

I borrowed this book from the library. The book is not an easy read. It is one of those books that you need to give your full attention to if you wish to actually understand it. If you are looking for light reading, leave this one on the shelf until you have time to kill.

It took me a little while to get into the book. The book goes beyond what I expected it to be about, and delves into evolution. I was expecting light reading about human nature. This surpassed that. When I got over my initial surprise, the book was very interesting.

It is very technical in spots and I needed to read and re-read several paragraphs before I grasped what was being said. I didn't take a biology classes and only know the basics of genetics so I was behind from the start. I enjoyed the book despite my lack of fore-knowledge beyond color genetics. (Breed this color animal with that color and you get these colors. Or breed this color with that color and get issues such as deafness.)

If you are a Darwin disbeliever, you will not like this book, walk away and find something else to read. This book discusses evolution, those who feel this theory is incorrect should seek entertainment elsewhere.

I really like Richard Dawkins. I like his thinking, his looking at different parameters of an issue. But, in this book, even though in the preface he states he wrote it simply so that many folks could understand, I couldn't get it as fully as I would have liked. And I have a PhD. Because too much information was covered in his effort to make it simple, I caught myself skimming for what I sought. But even the detail was not at a 5th or 8th grade level as most mass-marketed books should be. Due to the complexity of genes study, it would take genius -- utter genius -- to make it simple enough to be understood. It's easy to write for scholars. It's very difficult and time-consuming to write a book that is easily understood and still compelling. Dawkins, nor his editors and reviewers, didn't do it. I don't question his genius. He just didn't spend enough time or energy in writing this simply. And then, more importantly, have someone read it who knows nothing -- or very little -- about genes. That's the ultimate test. As in writing instructions for running a machine, the test of success is you give the instructions to someone who knows nothing about the machine. If he can run it following your instructions, you have a winner. If not, then you need to rewrite the instructions. Now I will search for a Dummy book. Hopefully that will be written truly for dummies, like me with a PhD.

The original book was written in 1976, my copy is a second edition from 1989. But even today, after more than 25 years, the book is still innovative and will be relevant for years to come.
The 13 years that separate the first and second editions allowed Dawkins to reflect on the book assisted by the numerous critiques it received. Instead of rewriting or expanding the obscure or plain wrong sections Dawkins added crucial endnotes that must be read as you read the book. Many times a statement on the main text is immediately contradicted in the corresponding endnote in a sometimes disturbing but very honest way.
The second edition also adds two brand new chapters, "Nice Guys Finish First", my favorite one on game theory and "The Long Reach of The Gene", a plug for Dawkins "The Extended Phenotype" book.
The book was written, as Dawkins brilliantly explains it in the preface for the first edition, having in mind three kinds of readers: the layman (no gender-neutral language in the book); the expert; and the student. The result in my humble layman/student view is a very interesting, readable, but still rigorous gem of a book.
The main idea is to put the gene (read the book for the controversial definition of gene) as the main unit of natural selection instead of the whole individual or even the group. Single genes struggling to perpetuate themselves in the gene pool gave rise to the witty anthropomorphic metaphor "selfish gene". Most of the book is devoted to build that metaphor with the exception of chapter 11, "Memes, the New Replicators", a little far-fetched in my opinion.
The book is a joy. There are lots of incredible examples of animal behavior, once believed to prove group selection, that are now much better explained under the "selfish gene" mind-frame.
I certainly recommend "The Selfish Gene"; an original contribution by Richard Dawkins

Leonardo Alves - Houghton, MI - October 2002

This book contains one of the most innovative and interesting theories of the 20th century. In addition its author gives a marvelously entertaining elucidation of it. For those reasons alone this book is worth reading. Dawkins argues for a gene-centric evolutionary perspective: The fundamental unit which matters is the gene, not the individual or species.
Even if one strenuously disagrees with Dawkins's decision to reorient evolutionary focus, one cannot help but appreciate the way in which he approaches the problem. Often with evolutionary accounts, one is left to wonder just what the account explains, or why it does so in a "better" way than do competing theories. For instance, Popper famously insisted for quite some time that Darwinian evolution was not a theory at all. Popper, however, would have had no doubts about the merits of Dawkins's theory if he had read this book. Dawkins clearly contrasts his theory with others - such as the species centered evolutionary perspective, and he deftly illustrates several apparent paradoxes - why do new heads of prides kill the cubs of other males? - and how his theory resolves them.
If this books has a shortcoming, it's that Dawkins fails to consider potential problems with his position. Most, if not all, of the argumentation points one way - to the truth of what he's saying.
Still, the other outstanding features of the work more than compensate for this fault, and every intellectual worth his salt should read this.

The Selfish Gene is an interesting book that was revolutionary for it's time and now has updated content in support of the theory. He draws on many different ideas from evolutionary biology, genetics, as well as game theory in support of his theory.

This book outlines the selfish gene theory describing how genes in nature are just trying to replicate themselves, for simple single called organism, to the more complex multicellular organisms. The need for the gene or genes to replicate the most important part.

He also puts forward a strong case that genes use altruistic behavior as a way to replicate themselves. He extends this idea to culture by beginning to discuss how ideas replicate themselves in the same way. He calls them memes.

This book is very well written and well researched as is all Dawkins books. He communicates the ideas of biological science very well. The communication of scientific ideas is very important because the public understanding of science is being drown out by junk science. There is an on going misunderstanding about strong academic scholarship concerning biology, astronomy, history and psychology.

As junk science is running rampant and is becoming incredibly popular figures like Dawkins are being demonized because of his atheistic views and criticisms of religion. Despite religious views hard science needs to be supported no matter their views on life religious or otherwise.

I recommend this book to anyone who wants to have a relatively easy read about the selfish gene theory and biology in general.

This book concerns the evolution of life from simple beginnings and provides a fascinating and profound discussion of the role of genes as being fundamental units of stability subject to simple principles from which one can explain a great deal of the enormous complexity of life. I came at this book with a good knowledge of evolution, but I had always wondered what was the first leap from non-living to living systems. I think the evolutionary steps are not understood in full detail at the molecular level, but the author gives a very plausible and compelling general idea of how things probably evolved and how this is consistent with observations in biology. For example the author offers an explanation of altruism in nature, and several other behaviours.
I believe this book is very important for anyone who is intellectually curious about the meaning and origins of life. Admittedly the implications may clash with a religous point of view, which can be disturbing for some, but that can't be helped. This is real science ! (Hopefully I should be qualified to recognize it as such, since I'm trained as a physicist.) Yet the book is written in a clear, logical, and entertaining style accessible to the layman.

Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is a wonderful non-fiction book. It was a joy to read from cover to cover, and leaves the reader with revolutionary new insights into the evolution of nature and man.
The simple premise of the book is that self-replicating genes are what matter - bodies, and even minds, are tools they have constructed to further aid in their reproduction. "Altruistic" acts - acts that aid other replicating genes at the expense of the gene committing the deed, would gradually be removed from the pool. Some people object to this line of reasoning - and this book for having proposed such - fearing that it reduces man to selfish automatons. It does not, for two reasons that Dawkins discusses in detail.
The first is an analysis of game theory, drawn from Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation". Dawkins soundly demonstrates that many apparently "altruistic" acts are actually a form of mutual cooperation, benefitting both parties. Dawkins shows that many of these cooperative behavior strategies would be expected to arise spontaneously in nature, and remain stable in the population after doing so.
Dawkin's second line of reasoning, dealing almost exclusively with humans, is perhaps the most revolutionary part of the book. According to Dawkins, humans have another type of replicator besides our genes - our ideas. Dawkins names such replicators "memes" ("memory + gene"). Dawkins dicusses the (dis)similarity of the replication of genes and memes, and how memes might well explain a great deal of altruism.
Overall, this was one of the most insightful and exciting works I have read in some time. I looked forward to the moments when I could set down and read another chapter, and was sorely disappointed when I reached the final pages. Highly recommended.

This is a GOOD book. The author presents an argument that through evolution, the real replicators and survivors of life (both animal and plant) are the genes. We humans (and all other species) simply provide a "survival mechanism" for these genes to operate and promulgate. He presents an analogy early in the book about how human programmers write software programs for a computer to play chess. After completion, the computer plays an opponent. The programmers can not intervene in the game. Their work is done. Also, when the programmers wrote the program, they could not anticipate every possible chess move in all possible contexts by an opponent and provide a singular move in answer. The combinations are much too large to analyze in such a way. So, the programmers set up guidelines and general "strategies". Newer programs even provide the ability for the program to "learn" by earlier moves in similar situations. This is how the author feels genes program us survival mechanisms to allow them (the genes) to spread (procreate) as often and as successfully as possible. Dawkins gives space to competing theories (mostly philosophic, sociologic, or anthropologic). Some reviewers have expressed pessimistic views; kind of like that old Peggy Lee song "Is that all there is". One reviewer even blames the book for his bouts of depression. I do not see the message as so negative although some "animal rights" proponents might be upset about what wild animals do to each other (both inter and intra species).Selfish Gene theory is one explanation (of course Dawkins would say the ONLY explanation) of how we organisms on the planet behave (why we feed and protect our offspring, how we choose when to fight and when to retreat, even why females have menopause and males fertility declines slowly. It may even give the genetic origin of why a courting man takes his date to dinner (and possibly why some men expect a reward for same). I know that Dawkins is a confirmed atheist but I do not find any objectionably strident atheism in this work. I WOULD say that he cavalierly says something like billions of years ago, in the primordial soup, along came some type of composite of atoms that could copy itself (my, what a lucky happenstance - the origin of life just kind of happened). If I were in Professor Dawkin's class, I would ask him "well, if the programmers programmed the computers to play chess, then who programmed the programmer? He would probably happily say "well, of course, their GENES programmed them". And I would say "well, Professor, who programmed the genes?"

+++++

This book, by Richard Dawkins (who is an ethologist, a person who studies animal behavior), "should be read almost as if it were science fiction...But it is not science fiction: it is science."

The book itself is about replicators. About four thousand million years ago these molecules had the power to make copies of themselves. Did these ancient replicators die out? NO! Why? Because they are masters of the art of survival.

Where are these replicators now? Answer: they are in all plants and animals including humans. These replicators now go by the name of genes, and we are their "survival machines" or gene machines. That is, "robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."

As you read through this easy-to-understand book, you will discover that the world of the gene machine is one of competition, exploitation, and even deceit. This is not only seen in aggression between rivals (which has its own chapter) but also in the more subtle battles between the generations and between the sexes (both of which have their own chapters).

But what about the numerous examples of apparent altruism found throughout nature? Dawkins shows that they all result from the selfishness of genes. In fact, Dawkins states that the purpose of his book "is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism."

The last three chapters are especially interesting. Chapter eleven on "the new replicators" that Dawkins calls "memes" gives a startling way of looking at ourselves, and our unique culture. Chapter twelve summarizes the results of computer simulations of different survival strategies. Chapter thirteen is a summary of the book "The Extended Phenotype" (that Dawkins considers his best book).

Are we slaves to the whims of our genes? NO! Dawkins explains early on:

"My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live...Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something which no other species has ever aspired to do."

This book reads like a thriller and is definitely not a dry academic exercise. It is packed with fascinating true stories from the animal (including human) and the insect world to illuminate the various themes that run throughout the book. Technical jargon is avoided and where specialized words are used, they are defined. The author states that this book will appeal to the following people: general reader, student, and expert.

This book is dated in a few areas with regard to analogies because it was written long ago. Even so, this book remains a bestseller because it has withstood the test of time.

I have a few suggestions to make this book easier to read:

First, its true that Dawkins defines technical terms when he first presents them. However, if these same terms appear later in the book he does not define them expecting the reader either to remember their accurate definitions or else to go back to the chapter where they were first defined. I feel a glossary would have been handy in case the reader forgets to remember an important definition.

Next, this book is very wordy because there are no illustrations. I feel simple diagrams would have helped convey key ideas effectively and reduced this book's wordiness.

Lastly, each chapter is written as one long narrative. It would have helped to divide each chapter into sections with titles thus allowing the reader to more easily follow the discussion.

Finally, if you enjoy this book, then I recommend reading Dawkins other book mentioned above called "The Extended Phenotype," a continuation of this book. As well, be sure to read his controversial (to some) book "The Blind Watchmaker," a book on evolution.

In conclusion, this book introduces the reader to the ultimate survival specialists. Be sure to read this book to discover for yourself why this book is a million copy bestseller and why it has been translated into more than twenty languages!!

(published 1990; forward; preface; 13 chapters; first eleven chapters first published 1976; last two chapters first published 1989; main narrative of 265 pages; bibliography; index)

+++++

I can't remember how but when I was 16 I came across this book and it changed my life. The title of Dawkins biography is "An appetite for wonder", and this appetite is no where more apparent than in this book (I have read most of his books). It is a wonderful introduction to the theory of evolution by natural (and sexual) selection, behavioral ecology, and the wonders of nature. At the same time it serves as a terrific example of first rate scientific reasoning. The writing is clear and fluid and extremely elegant. In his autobiography Dawkins admits that every sentence has been rewritten multiple times. Those that have survived this selection process really deliver. Every sentence seem to fill a purpose and yet, rarely does one feel that information is in some way lacking. This book, when it came out in the late seventies, influenced the general public and academics alike. It changed how academics thought about genes and evolution, and it introduced the meme, which has subsequently entered our dictionaries.

As I have said elsewhere, this book really is a literary masterpiece. The fact that it also teaches science to the reader is an added benefit that makes this book one of the best and most important ever written.

The book has a very good structure. At no point does it feel as if new concepts are introduced inappropriately. Dawkins begins by slowly and carefully introducing the replicator concept. In the widest sense a replicator is, as the name implies, something that replicates itself. This can be a mineral shape, a computer virus or a molecule such as RNA or DNA. It is inevitable that a replicator that produce more copies or copies that are more durable will become more prominent in the population. And so it is with our genes. The genes that exist in humans that are alive today are descendents of a very long series of genes that outperformed other genes. To achieve this success the genes have used many different tricks. Primary among these is cooperation with other genes to construct vehicles such as a plant or an animal that can both protect the genes and pass them on. Humans are thus "merely" vehicles created by genes for the benefit of genes (though in another sense we are of course much more than that).

Dawkins carefully builds from this starting point and reaches startling conclusions about many different aspects of nature and evolution. Why did sex evolve and why do the different sexes differ to a greater or a lesser extent in different species? Why are males in general more aggressive? Why do we cooperate? Does altruism exist? How did sterile ants evolve? Whatever he is discussing, Dawkins always provides illustrative examples from nature and when he use metaphors he is (unlike many others) always careful to translate those metaphors back into the language of replicators. The Selfish Gene also derives some of its fame from the fact that it introduced the meme concept. A meme, Dawkins suggested is like a gene in that it can replicate itself, typically via language or imitation. Successful memes (think viral youtube clips) will spread throughout population of less successful memes in the same way that successful genes spread, however, for memes the sexual reproduction of its host matters little. Rather, the success of a meme is determined by its ability to make its host share the idea with others. The meme concept is now in most dictionaries.

Throughout the book Dawkins is careful to point out that even though we are products of evolution and as a result have many instincts that are not always very noble, that does not mean that it is in anyway good or moral to follow ones evolutionary inclinations. Indeed if we understand human instincts we may be better able to construct societies that combat our caveman instincts.

No book has ever influenced my thinking the way this one has. I first thought that it's reconstructing my thought process by turning it inside out. Later I realized that it's actually fixing the process that was already turned inside out.

The book is primarily about the relation of genes with the process of natural selection. The selection pressure on the gene pool determines which genes are going to survive and reproduce. The genes that pass thru sieve of natural selection are the ones, and this is the crux of the argument of the book, are the ones that selfishly guard the survival and reproduction of the body they are in. The controversial aspect of this theory is obviously that Dawkins is presenting gene as an evolutionary unit. Some evolutionary biologists object to that. Regardless of what leaning you have, the book is rich with information that is not available anywhere else in a single volume.

The cheapest criticism that I have seen on this book is by people who probably haven't even read it or couldn't understand it and that criticism is "why should I believe that genes want this and gene wants that when I know that gene's aren't a conscious entity". These people have missed the point by miles. Dawkins has provided cautions on many places in this book that this is only a way of presenting the arguments. Its like saying "my car wants to go faster on a slope unless I control its speed".

You will have to make a little effort to align your thinking to Dawkins in the beginning but once you have done that, you are in for the ride of your life.

"The Selfish Gene" was originally written in 1970s so obviously it's a bit dated. But later editions have author's notes that fix that problem to some extent. Later edition also has two additional chapters but somewhere in the book, Dawkins writes that he'd rather his readers not read these chapters and instead pick up his book "The Extended Phenotype". I took his advice and read the final two chapters after reading "The Extended Phenotype" and found out that Dawkins was right on money. I suggest that you do the same too because "The Extended Phenotype" is the natural continuation of "The Selfish Gene" and those two small chapters do not do justice to the ideas presented in "The Extended Phenotype".

In eleven short, tightly written, lively, and easy to understand chapters, Professor Dawkins answers all the questions about Darwin's theory of evolution that we might have always wanted to know the answers to but were afraid to ask. He does this even though strictly speaking, the book is not at all intended to be a book on evolution. It was intended to be about the gene-centered view of evolution: that is to say, about how the gene sits at the center of the control module of all living organisms.

Dawkins belief in evolution is solid, because to him, Darwin's theory is settled science that has not only stood the test of time but also is a "thoroughly-tested" and falsifiable theory. And as existential theories of living matter go, Darwin's theory of Evolution -- with its primary instrumentalities of time and natural selection -- provides the simplest explanation (in the sense of Occam's razor), of all living things: of how we got from inorganic to organic matter; from unordered atoms to complex patterns, from simplicity to complexity more generally, and from a single "live" cell, to the cell's ascendance into more complex living organisms, to higher forms and orders. This of course means that a supernatural being of any kind whatsoever would be superfluous.

At the beginning of the book, the author poses the question "Why Do People Exist?" and proceeds to answer it by saying that: We exist in large part because of the "biology of selfishness," that is, due to the selfishness of the genes. In the process of answering this question, he develops the biology of DNA and along the way demolishes some long-held hypotheses of the "pre-Darwinian" social psychologists and theorists who have long believed falsely that evolution is concerned more with the "survival of the species" rather than with the "survival of the individual." Dawkins claim is a radical and controversial one: that this long-held hypothesis about altruism makes no evolutionary sense; and that if we are concerned about the evolution of altruism, then biology is probably not the right place to look.

The crux of Dawkin's thesis is that "bodies are mere transport vehicles for genes." "We are machines created by and under the control of our genes," the predominant quality of which is "their ruthless selfishness." And although altruism may indeed have survival extending value, we are genetically programmed to be ruthlessly selfish rather than altruistic.

This is a seminal work that set off the fireworks in the sociobiology debates, and 30 years on, a great deal of its substance is still valid and has endured. Five stars.

The book is stellar. I wish I had read it before I went to college, when it first came out. Dawkins's thoughts here illuminate the way we think. In the same way that Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo showed us that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, Dawkins and the various biologists and ethologists he quotes show that organisms revolve around their genes rather than vice versa. The implications are widespread and profound. If you ever wonder what Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) is smoking when he says humans are just moist robots, it's pure Dawkins.

You need to read this.

However, the Kindle e-book is an embarrassment. Serious misspellings and notational weirdness are all over the place. They are ever so totally distracting. Plus the footnotes, which are so important for updating the earlier text to this century, don't work on Kindle hardware or on Kindle for iPad (or apparently on any Kindle version). This needs to be fixed. It took me so long to manipulate back and forth, even with the help of bookmarks.

A quarter of a century old it may be, but "The Selfish Gene" is still the best book to read if you want to learn about what genetics and evolution are really about. Dawkins' style is accessible for those (such as myself) with practically no experience in biology, and the subject matter is applicable to all.
What is the selfish gene? Traditionally, people tend to look at evolution at the level of the organism. They think of different alleles aiding or harming the "fitness" of an organism. Or, worse, they could take the group-selectionist view and talk about how a gene or an organism helps the "survival of the species." But Dawkins makes a convincing case that it is best to look at natural selection at the level of the gene. Each gene "wants" to secure its survival and maximize its proliferation in the future. (A suggested title for the book was "Immortal Coils," referring to the lifespan of the gene and the double-helical structure of the DNA in which it is embedded. This ended up as the title for chapter 3.) By this, it is meant that genes that are more successful at proliferation and self-replication are more likely to survive. Thus, the genes are not instruments of the organism, but rather the reverse. The organism is a robot "designed" by genes to maximize their survival and proliferation. Dawkins' name for these robots - including us - is "survival machines." This is not a disparaging term, of course, and some of the most enjoyable portions of the book are brought about by Dawkins' instillation of hope in the reader - hope that humans, alone among Earth's survival machines, have the ability to transcend the limitations that genetics and culture would impose on them and strive for something higher.
My purpose here has been to give you a taste of the content of the book. This book will change the way you think of evolution - and the way you think of our species - for the better.

While engaged in some rather heated discussion over Dawkin's latest work - THE GOD DELUSION - I realized I had never reviewed his first book. Even though 30 years old, it is still fresh. Since that time we've completed the Human Genome Project, computers now defeat chess champions on a regular basis and our knowledge of genes is far more extensive than what Dawkins could have ever realized in 1976. These do not however invalidate his theme - the gene as the basic unit of evolution and its selfish actions.

Dawkins's view of life is completely mechanistic - we are only the sum of our composite matter. He has extended this argument over the years, arguing that emotions and even ideas are simply the result of chemical interactions, reaction to stimuli and environmental causes. However, he does acknowledge the role of human consciousness in permitting altruistic behavior despite being composed of selfish genes. In other words, the whole is greater than the individual parts. The exact thing could be said about the brain - a single neuron has no idea what your favorite color is but a collection of neurons, working together, has that knowledge.

One might ask, why should the gene be the basis unit for evolution? Why not the molecule, the atom or even sub-atomic particle? He gives an explanation involving the definition of life. Dawkins has created a world of genes, their interaction, behavior and how they affect the "survival machines" where they reside (the individual). Several of his ideas (group theory, sexual competition, kin relationships, competition, etc) are variations of ideas from other scientists that have been given a new twist. Some readers are bothered by his dispassionate treatment of all survival units as equal - fish, plants, bacteria, humans, birds. He does, though, admit that consciousness changes the landscape and allows other choices.

As a textbook on the inner workings of Darwinian evolution - and by this I mean more than just physical changes over time - it is excellent. In fact it is superb. The conflict between the actions of the gene and its "survival machine" is a constant strain and is the subject of the last chapter, one of the best. The chapter notes at the end are revealing. He cannot help but insert his personal likes (socialism), dislikes (religion) and continues the infuriating habit of calling to task any scientist who disagrees with him, many times offering a prim reprimand. He has become defensive over the charge that he is a "genetic determinist" yet his teachings come tantalizingly close to this concept. My Grade - A-

The Selfish Gene consistently applies anthropomorphic language and the language of game-playing in contexts other than those in which they are conventionally used. As metaphors there is no question that this language, so characteristic of the way in which humans behave, actually helps quite a bit in understanding very impersonal aspects of biology and evolution. This shows us, I think, that despite the fact that, for example, much of game-playing can be expressed in neutral mathematical language, colorful metaphors from our natural languages can really liven up a subject and awaken us to the weirdness of science, its counterintuitive aspects and even the beauty of nature from a scientific point of view. Of course, the cost of using metaphors is a certain ambiguity, and opens one's viewpoint to being rather easily misunderstood, especially when one uses such "loaded" words as "selfish" to describe an inanimate object. This must be counterbalanced by a fresh perspective that can lead to such nice creative insights as the "meme" concept, and the possibility that inanimate processes can "appear" to be associated, for example, with "strategies". In a way, one can almost see this as a subtly sarcastic attack on the anthropomorphic character of many religions. We are accustomed to the vocabulary, methods, and theories of the physical sciences impinging on what one took to be curiously personal space. It is enchanting and startling to see that the language of personal descriptions can be used to enlighten us about impersonal aspects of science. Of course, Dawkins' book in its third edition was not modified over the second, but even so, this wonderful viewpoint he propounds is still new for many of us, and can really open one's eyes to possibilities. This is a demonstration that, strictly speaking, one can progress by merely looking at what has already been discussed elsewhere but from a new perspective.

I borrowed this book from the library. The book is not an easy read. It is one of those books that you need to give your full attention to if you wish to actually understand it. If you are looking for light reading, leave this one on the shelf until you have time to kill.

It took me a little while to get into the book. The book goes beyond what I expected it to be about, and delves into evolution. I was expecting light reading about human nature. This surpassed that. When I got over my initial surprise, the book was very interesting.

It is very technical in spots and I needed to read and re-read several paragraphs before I grasped what was being said. I didn't take a biology classes and only know the basics of genetics so I was behind from the start. I enjoyed the book despite my lack of fore-knowledge beyond color genetics. (Breed this color animal with that color and you get these colors. Or breed this color with that color and get issues such as deafness.)

If you are a Darwin disbeliever, you will not like this book, walk away and find something else to read. This book discusses evolution, those who feel this theory is incorrect should seek entertainment elsewhere.

I really like Richard Dawkins. I like his thinking, his looking at different parameters of an issue. But, in this book, even though in the preface he states he wrote it simply so that many folks could understand, I couldn't get it as fully as I would have liked. And I have a PhD. Because too much information was covered in his effort to make it simple, I caught myself skimming for what I sought. But even the detail was not at a 5th or 8th grade level as most mass-marketed books should be. Due to the complexity of genes study, it would take genius -- utter genius -- to make it simple enough to be understood. It's easy to write for scholars. It's very difficult and time-consuming to write a book that is easily understood and still compelling. Dawkins, nor his editors and reviewers, didn't do it. I don't question his genius. He just didn't spend enough time or energy in writing this simply. And then, more importantly, have someone read it who knows nothing -- or very little -- about genes. That's the ultimate test. As in writing instructions for running a machine, the test of success is you give the instructions to someone who knows nothing about the machine. If he can run it following your instructions, you have a winner. If not, then you need to rewrite the instructions. Now I will search for a Dummy book. Hopefully that will be written truly for dummies, like me with a PhD.

The original book was written in 1976, my copy is a second edition from 1989. But even today, after more than 25 years, the book is still innovative and will be relevant for years to come.
The 13 years that separate the first and second editions allowed Dawkins to reflect on the book assisted by the numerous critiques it received. Instead of rewriting or expanding the obscure or plain wrong sections Dawkins added crucial endnotes that must be read as you read the book. Many times a statement on the main text is immediately contradicted in the corresponding endnote in a sometimes disturbing but very honest way.
The second edition also adds two brand new chapters, "Nice Guys Finish First", my favorite one on game theory and "The Long Reach of The Gene", a plug for Dawkins "The Extended Phenotype" book.
The book was written, as Dawkins brilliantly explains it in the preface for the first edition, having in mind three kinds of readers: the layman (no gender-neutral language in the book); the expert; and the student. The result in my humble layman/student view is a very interesting, readable, but still rigorous gem of a book.
The main idea is to put the gene (read the book for the controversial definition of gene) as the main unit of natural selection instead of the whole individual or even the group. Single genes struggling to perpetuate themselves in the gene pool gave rise to the witty anthropomorphic metaphor "selfish gene". Most of the book is devoted to build that metaphor with the exception of chapter 11, "Memes, the New Replicators", a little far-fetched in my opinion.
The book is a joy. There are lots of incredible examples of animal behavior, once believed to prove group selection, that are now much better explained under the "selfish gene" mind-frame.
I certainly recommend "The Selfish Gene"; an original contribution by Richard Dawkins

Leonardo Alves - Houghton, MI - October 2002

This book contains one of the most innovative and interesting theories of the 20th century. In addition its author gives a marvelously entertaining elucidation of it. For those reasons alone this book is worth reading. Dawkins argues for a gene-centric evolutionary perspective: The fundamental unit which matters is the gene, not the individual or species.
Even if one strenuously disagrees with Dawkins's decision to reorient evolutionary focus, one cannot help but appreciate the way in which he approaches the problem. Often with evolutionary accounts, one is left to wonder just what the account explains, or why it does so in a "better" way than do competing theories. For instance, Popper famously insisted for quite some time that Darwinian evolution was not a theory at all. Popper, however, would have had no doubts about the merits of Dawkins's theory if he had read this book. Dawkins clearly contrasts his theory with others - such as the species centered evolutionary perspective, and he deftly illustrates several apparent paradoxes - why do new heads of prides kill the cubs of other males? - and how his theory resolves them.
If this books has a shortcoming, it's that Dawkins fails to consider potential problems with his position. Most, if not all, of the argumentation points one way - to the truth of what he's saying.
Still, the other outstanding features of the work more than compensate for this fault, and every intellectual worth his salt should read this.

The Selfish Gene is an interesting book that was revolutionary for it's time and now has updated content in support of the theory. He draws on many different ideas from evolutionary biology, genetics, as well as game theory in support of his theory.

This book outlines the selfish gene theory describing how genes in nature are just trying to replicate themselves, for simple single called organism, to the more complex multicellular organisms. The need for the gene or genes to replicate the most important part.

He also puts forward a strong case that genes use altruistic behavior as a way to replicate themselves. He extends this idea to culture by beginning to discuss how ideas replicate themselves in the same way. He calls them memes.

This book is very well written and well researched as is all Dawkins books. He communicates the ideas of biological science very well. The communication of scientific ideas is very important because the public understanding of science is being drown out by junk science. There is an on going misunderstanding about strong academic scholarship concerning biology, astronomy, history and psychology.

As junk science is running rampant and is becoming incredibly popular figures like Dawkins are being demonized because of his atheistic views and criticisms of religion. Despite religious views hard science needs to be supported no matter their views on life religious or otherwise.

I recommend this book to anyone who wants to have a relatively easy read about the selfish gene theory and biology in general.

This book concerns the evolution of life from simple beginnings and provides a fascinating and profound discussion of the role of genes as being fundamental units of stability subject to simple principles from which one can explain a great deal of the enormous complexity of life. I came at this book with a good knowledge of evolution, but I had always wondered what was the first leap from non-living to living systems. I think the evolutionary steps are not understood in full detail at the molecular level, but the author gives a very plausible and compelling general idea of how things probably evolved and how this is consistent with observations in biology. For example the author offers an explanation of altruism in nature, and several other behaviours.
I believe this book is very important for anyone who is intellectually curious about the meaning and origins of life. Admittedly the implications may clash with a religous point of view, which can be disturbing for some, but that can't be helped. This is real science ! (Hopefully I should be qualified to recognize it as such, since I'm trained as a physicist.) Yet the book is written in a clear, logical, and entertaining style accessible to the layman.

Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is a wonderful non-fiction book. It was a joy to read from cover to cover, and leaves the reader with revolutionary new insights into the evolution of nature and man.
The simple premise of the book is that self-replicating genes are what matter - bodies, and even minds, are tools they have constructed to further aid in their reproduction. "Altruistic" acts - acts that aid other replicating genes at the expense of the gene committing the deed, would gradually be removed from the pool. Some people object to this line of reasoning - and this book for having proposed such - fearing that it reduces man to selfish automatons. It does not, for two reasons that Dawkins discusses in detail.
The first is an analysis of game theory, drawn from Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation". Dawkins soundly demonstrates that many apparently "altruistic" acts are actually a form of mutual cooperation, benefitting both parties. Dawkins shows that many of these cooperative behavior strategies would be expected to arise spontaneously in nature, and remain stable in the population after doing so.
Dawkin's second line of reasoning, dealing almost exclusively with humans, is perhaps the most revolutionary part of the book. According to Dawkins, humans have another type of replicator besides our genes - our ideas. Dawkins names such replicators "memes" ("memory + gene"). Dawkins dicusses the (dis)similarity of the replication of genes and memes, and how memes might well explain a great deal of altruism.
Overall, this was one of the most insightful and exciting works I have read in some time. I looked forward to the moments when I could set down and read another chapter, and was sorely disappointed when I reached the final pages. Highly recommended.

This is a GOOD book. The author presents an argument that through evolution, the real replicators and survivors of life (both animal and plant) are the genes. We humans (and all other species) simply provide a "survival mechanism" for these genes to operate and promulgate. He presents an analogy early in the book about how human programmers write software programs for a computer to play chess. After completion, the computer plays an opponent. The programmers can not intervene in the game. Their work is done. Also, when the programmers wrote the program, they could not anticipate every possible chess move in all possible contexts by an opponent and provide a singular move in answer. The combinations are much too large to analyze in such a way. So, the programmers set up guidelines and general "strategies". Newer programs even provide the ability for the program to "learn" by earlier moves in similar situations. This is how the author feels genes program us survival mechanisms to allow them (the genes) to spread (procreate) as often and as successfully as possible. Dawkins gives space to competing theories (mostly philosophic, sociologic, or anthropologic). Some reviewers have expressed pessimistic views; kind of like that old Peggy Lee song "Is that all there is". One reviewer even blames the book for his bouts of depression. I do not see the message as so negative although some "animal rights" proponents might be upset about what wild animals do to each other (both inter and intra species).Selfish Gene theory is one explanation (of course Dawkins would say the ONLY explanation) of how we organisms on the planet behave (why we feed and protect our offspring, how we choose when to fight and when to retreat, even why females have menopause and males fertility declines slowly. It may even give the genetic origin of why a courting man takes his date to dinner (and possibly why some men expect a reward for same). I know that Dawkins is a confirmed atheist but I do not find any objectionably strident atheism in this work. I WOULD say that he cavalierly says something like billions of years ago, in the primordial soup, along came some type of composite of atoms that could copy itself (my, what a lucky happenstance - the origin of life just kind of happened). If I were in Professor Dawkin's class, I would ask him "well, if the programmers programmed the computers to play chess, then who programmed the programmer? He would probably happily say "well, of course, their GENES programmed them". And I would say "well, Professor, who programmed the genes?"

+++++

This book, by Richard Dawkins (who is an ethologist, a person who studies animal behavior), "should be read almost as if it were science fiction...But it is not science fiction: it is science."

The book itself is about replicators. About four thousand million years ago these molecules had the power to make copies of themselves. Did these ancient replicators die out? NO! Why? Because they are masters of the art of survival.

Where are these replicators now? Answer: they are in all plants and animals including humans. These replicators now go by the name of genes, and we are their "survival machines" or gene machines. That is, "robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."

As you read through this easy-to-understand book, you will discover that the world of the gene machine is one of competition, exploitation, and even deceit. This is not only seen in aggression between rivals (which has its own chapter) but also in the more subtle battles between the generations and between the sexes (both of which have their own chapters).

But what about the numerous examples of apparent altruism found throughout nature? Dawkins shows that they all result from the selfishness of genes. In fact, Dawkins states that the purpose of his book "is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism."

The last three chapters are especially interesting. Chapter eleven on "the new replicators" that Dawkins calls "memes" gives a startling way of looking at ourselves, and our unique culture. Chapter twelve summarizes the results of computer simulations of different survival strategies. Chapter thirteen is a summary of the book "The Extended Phenotype" (that Dawkins considers his best book).

Are we slaves to the whims of our genes? NO! Dawkins explains early on:

"My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live...Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something which no other species has ever aspired to do."

This book reads like a thriller and is definitely not a dry academic exercise. It is packed with fascinating true stories from the animal (including human) and the insect world to illuminate the various themes that run throughout the book. Technical jargon is avoided and where specialized words are used, they are defined. The author states that this book will appeal to the following people: general reader, student, and expert.

This book is dated in a few areas with regard to analogies because it was written long ago. Even so, this book remains a bestseller because it has withstood the test of time.

I have a few suggestions to make this book easier to read:

First, its true that Dawkins defines technical terms when he first presents them. However, if these same terms appear later in the book he does not define them expecting the reader either to remember their accurate definitions or else to go back to the chapter where they were first defined. I feel a glossary would have been handy in case the reader forgets to remember an important definition.

Next, this book is very wordy because there are no illustrations. I feel simple diagrams would have helped convey key ideas effectively and reduced this book's wordiness.

Lastly, each chapter is written as one long narrative. It would have helped to divide each chapter into sections with titles thus allowing the reader to more easily follow the discussion.

Finally, if you enjoy this book, then I recommend reading Dawkins other book mentioned above called "The Extended Phenotype," a continuation of this book. As well, be sure to read his controversial (to some) book "The Blind Watchmaker," a book on evolution.

In conclusion, this book introduces the reader to the ultimate survival specialists. Be sure to read this book to discover for yourself why this book is a million copy bestseller and why it has been translated into more than twenty languages!!

(published 1990; forward; preface; 13 chapters; first eleven chapters first published 1976; last two chapters first published 1989; main narrative of 265 pages; bibliography; index)

+++++

I'm an avid math/science pleasure reader, so I picked this book up one day when I was at my local bookstore. I'm glad I did.

Dawkins' main thesis here is that the gene is the fundamental unit of biological reproduction and that all biological phenomenon can be better understood if we look at what benefits genes as opposed to individuals. While arguing his thesis, Dawkins discusses biological relatedness and how it ultimately guides the behavior of individuals; why 'kin altruism' is so prevalent, for example. He also discusses the conflict of interest between certain genes and how that dynamic ultimately plays out from an evolutionary standpoint. He also introduces the concept of 'memes', which is interesting, if largely speculative.
The writing style is also pretty good and usually interesting, though it lags occasionally.

This is a good Dawkins book and certainly recommended to anyone who has an interest in biology/evolution. While I won't say this is the absolute best book I've ever read, it's probably one that I'll end up re-reading at some point.

4.5/5

This book is amazing and deserves it's place as a popular science classic. Dawkins argues clearly and with integrity and you get so many mini epiphany moments as you read that you can't help but be profoundly affected by what you read. You will have such an understanding of how our genes may well influence things that you will look at life around you in a completely new light. I'd say that where as Steve Jones' 'Language of the Gene's' (which is also superb and highly recommended) looks more at human genetics, 'The Selfish Gene' looks at genes in general and applies the theory to plants, animals and human life. This is a very clear and readable book, which makes it all the more enjoyable. Don't get bogged down in the moral and political debates around the issues in this book, as Dawkins repeatedly says, this is about genes and how they function, not about if they are morally right to do so. That is where our own behaviour comes in to make us act more altruistically. This really should be required reading and you will not regret giving it a go.

Feel free to check out my blog which can be found on my profile page.

This book is Richard Dawkins' seminal work presenting genes as selfish lifeless entities whose prime concern is to propagate copies of themselves through time. He asserts that through the billions of years that genes have been replicating, they have developed ingenious ways to do so more efficiently. In particular, genes have collaborated to evolve bodies that may be used to more effectively distribute their genetic information. The concept that Dawkins proposes is very original, and it is possible to understand life from a different perspective, whereby the gene is the driving force of life's journey through time.
The book is extremely well written and as one glides through the chapters, Dawkins siphons his knowledge directly to the reader with ease. If you love reading about nature and its complexities as well as the mysteries of life and its development through the ages, Dawkins' masterpiece is the book for you.

Dawkins started writing "The Selfish Gene" in 1972. With the ever accelerating advances in science, one would think such a book would be horribly outdated by now, but I found this to not be the case at all.

I'm halfway through my undergrad studying Biology and Chemistry, so I'm not an expert in the field (yet), but I'm not the "layman" reader that Dawkins had in mind when writing this either. I found it to be quite interesting and educational. I wasn't exactly burning through every page, but Dawkins captivated my attention more than not. Chapter 12 alone makes the book worth reading.

Regardless of your background in science, "The Selfish Gene" is worth the read.

Dawkins begins this book by introducing and reviewing some basic fundamentals of biology with an emphasis on DNA and the origin of life. He continues by focusing on animal behavior to prepare readers for considering the topics embraced in the book's title. Most of the book's remainder focuses on moving beyond the traditional view that the social behavior of animals represents what natural selection has forced on them "for the good of the species." Moving beyond includes looking into evolution as a cellular process in which the social behavior of animals can be explained in terms of what Dawkins calls "the selfish gene." Dawkins uses metaphor and other writing tools to make the book entertaining and easy to understand.

The book provides good introduction to one theory of evolution to any non-specialist. Yet, in its attempts to "characterize" the replicators, it is bound to be creating many misconceptions, misunderstandings and wrong theories.

The author loves to create his own meanings for words. The way almost everything in the known world is described through words and highly subjective game theory equivalents, the book tends to claim that almost everything we see in real life is what was nearly inevitable and from the self-surviving instinct of basic replicator gene. The logic used to describe the existence of various animal habits/characteristics is often so flimsy that one could easily describe any real life events as offshoots of selfishness of gene.

In other words, the theories are such that if the author tries to begin with a selfish atom or selfish neutrino or selfish string theory, ascribe its purpose of existence to motion (rather than replication for gene), and use the kind of arguments used in the book, the author might even be able to explain the philosophical basis for all scientific and mathematical equations!!!

I read the 30th anniversary edition of the book, from what I can tell the anniversary edition only contains a new short introduction and some review extracts. I kind of wish that Dawkins would have added some new additional footnotes, because the notes from the second edition were great, Dawkins better explained some things and even admitted in a few places where he was wrong. With this being 20 years after the second edition, surely even more has changed.

This book so far is my favorite from Dawkins. His tone is far less assertive and arrogant than his later books, he'll often times admit when something is just his idea and that it very well could be wrong. In this one he's trying to bring more attention to the selfish gene theory, he takes a more cautious approach and tries to convince the reader this is correct and not so much that anyone who disagrees with him needs to be conquered. Also until the end his usual religious rants are completely absent and even then its only a few brief pages.

This book helped to popularize the gene theory and introduced the concept of the meme and regardless of anyone's views of the two ideas, Dawkins influence from this book is enough to at least be a little respected. For me personally, I do think the selfish gene theory is plausable and Dawkins does present a good case, although I don't know near enough to actually have a valid opinion. In the end I really wish Dawkins would have stayed more like this, he seems to ramble more in later books and is more concerned with eradicating the world of creationists and theists than writing books for people who accept evolution and want to learn more about it. I have high hopes that The Extended Phenotype is more of the same (even if the reviews I've read seem to indicate that it will be over my head).

The Selfish gene is one of the pioneering books in modern evolutionary thought, which will not be surprising to anyone who reads it. Dawkins writes comprehensively and thoroughly without letting his complex and mainly innovative ideas become dry or boring.
Although The Selfish Gene discusses many advanced concepts, it is by no means aimed only at professional readers. I do think, though, that it would be an advantage to be familiar with the main tenets of evolutionary theory before starting this book, for you will be taken to a realm beyond basic organic evolution. Dawkins goes further to explain formerly troublesome problems in evolutionary thought with a convincing argument for gene selection. Like any thorough essayist, he discusses the other prevailing notions of selective units in an evolving population and then goes on to argue why it is the gene, not the individual or the population as a whole, that is under selective pressure.
Dawkins provides dozens of stunningly interesting examples in nature to provide evidence for his arguments, maintaining all the while a humorous and clear writing style. You need not worry about trudging through complicated mathematical proofs or obscure evolutionary jargon.
I would recommend The Selfish Gene to all who are interested in evolutionary thought. Be you familiar or unfamiliar with this topic, you will derive pleasure and inspiration from this book.

Packed with information. Not one vague sentence. Not one logical fallacy.
I was doubtful but open minded about evolution, and this was the perfect introduction. It talks only to those with open minds. It is not trying to convert anyone.

Although the subject has political and philosophical implications. The book itself is not at all political or philosophical.
As a well educated person who also pursues independent study, I was surprised to learn that I did not yet understand the basics of evolution and genetics.
Sometimes it is accurate enough to think of evolution from the perspective of the species, or the individual, but these perspectives can lead to mistakes which Dawkins avoids because he explains evolution from the perspective of individual genes.

I only noticed one mistake in the entire book, and it was corrected in the notes. Be sure to read all of the notes as you go. The notes are in the back and will slow your pace, but they are definitely worth it.
The second edition also includes two chapters from The Extended Phenotype. One of them is where Dawkins coins the word "meme".

On the book it said that the NY Times called it "The sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius." After finishing the book I agree with that blurb wholeheartedly!
The book is definately a brain workout! While the average reader can definately understand pretty much everything, Dawkins' logic and reasoning abilities are breathtaking and you're almost shocked you can go along for the ride!
Everything is thoroughly reachable and Dawkins has a fabulous knack at explaining things! I DEFINATELY think they should teach this book in Highschool Biology! I didn't understand ANYTHING about evolution and natural selection from text books but this book was an AMAZING tool at understanding those concepts!
He gives so many examples and simple but profoundly real explanations that toward the end of the book you really feel like a genius and like you know it all!
I definately, definately recommend this book for the reader with no prior scientific interest or experience and definately to ANYBODY with an interest in natural selection and evolution.

Just remarkably fluffy. A little over halfway in, it becomes clear that this is passed off as scientific but is really just an attempt to use logic to explain present circumstances. Seems to happen quite a bit with the Darwin writers - if he captured these ideas already, then why do we need a bunch of spinoffs to give the idea colloquially, unless some tangible data is being brought to the table?

The Selfish Gene presents a new (to me anyways) view of evolution - from the perspective of the gene rather than the individual. I found this approach to be thoroughly enjoyable and thought-provoking, so much so that I immediately ordered two more Dawkins books. I originally found the book through a recommendation by one of my favorite authors, the late Douglas Adams. He didn't steer me wrong.
Although I'm a technical person, I'm not a biologist (my training is limited to 8th grade biology class). The book did a good job of refreshing my limited knowledge of genetics and evolution while simultaneously presenting a wholly new view of the subject.
The original was published in 1976, while this version is a 1989 update. Most of the text is identical, but with extensive endnotes and two new chapters. The endnotes elaborate on, clarify, or update the original text with new examples, updates to the theories, and corrections of errors. They required constant flipping back and forth, but I found them to be very entertaining and a good supplement to the original material.

The Selfish Gene is a seminal work in the field of evolutionary studies. This book is not a simple read, but it can definitely be read by the layman interested in the subject. But be warned, you'll have to concentrate. The primary purpose of this book, in my view, is not to explain or defend evolution, per se, but to explain and defend a particular aspect (or flavor) of evolutionary theory: that is, that the Gene is the primary "unit" of selection. This is not universally accepted among scientists, but Dawkins does an excellent job making the case. I, for one, am convinced. Other views include multiple levels of selection, such as the one championed by Stephen Gould. Gould argues that selection occurs at almost every level: gene, organism, species, genus, clade, etc. Gould likens DNA to "bookkeeping". The debate is interesting and worth pursuing; even Darwin allowed for special cases of "group selection" to account for social insects (ants, bees, etc.).

However, I believe Dawkins view wins the day and this book is a great journey through his argument as to why the Gene is the primary unit of selection. He covers many diverse, but relevant topics, such as sexual selection, altruism, extended phenotypes, and more. The book is also a good read for evolutionary theory and biology generally, but I think you would enjoy this book more if you already have a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. The writing is clear, entertaining, and eminently readable. I've read many of Dawkin's works, and this is one of the best.

By the way, if you are fairly negative on the idea of evolution, I don't recommend this book. Dawkins is impatient and intolerant of religious views, particularly creationism and "intelligent design" (what an ironic term!). This book will probably just make you mad. If you are on the fence on the issue, then this IS a good book to read because the science behind it is very, very solid. Other than Dawkin's interpretation of the science that the gene is the unit of selection (which is compelling, but ultimately un-provable), there is nothing speculative or cutting edge here.

If you already like Dawkins, or just want a great, intellectual read, I highly recommend this book!

Dawkins book was popular with scientists and lay people alike when it was first released. It remains a classic which should be read as much for historical context as for content. There are assuredly better treatments on evolutionary science these days, particularly as regards the genomic revolution.

Oh, and for those who are turned off by Dawkins' athiestic pronouncements in later writings (including, one can safely conclude, the upcoming "The God Delusion"), The Selfish Gene is freer of that perspective and certainly its insights into evolutionary process do not require that you accept his stance on God.

Many scientists wish that Dawkins would tone down the athiestic rhetoric. Not only does it probably reduce the number of lay readers who invest time to read the factual content in his books, but it tends to convey the impression that most scientists have the same or similar perspective. I know of no survey on the subject, but I suspect that relatively few scientists are ardent athiests. For a refreshingly thoughtful alternative perspective, cruise the web for E.O. Wilson's position on athiesm (= a copout) and his advocacy of deism.

Richard Dawkins certainly has a genius for witty explanations of complex phenomena. "The Selfish Gene" is among the best and most fascinating books on evolution ever written (and remains so today!). Dawkins may not be the first or the only proponent of the selfish gene theory, but he's certainly the most eloquent and captivating.
If the intellectual aha! experience of seeing that selection works at the genetic level isn't enough, read the last few chapters, where Dawkins hides a brilliant idea everyone else would die for. It is here that Dawkins proposes the revolutionary idea of the meme, or the "unit of imitation" (p192 in my copy) - in other words, the replicator responsible for cultural evolution. Since he first proposed the idea, the meme meme has really spread far and wide, which is a testament to its excellence...this is a great example of reformulating an old idea in a new way and ending up with something radically different.
This is the book that first introduced me to evolutionary theory as a study in its own right, and I hope it will stimulate your mind as much as it did mine. I've been a big supporter of Dawkins ever since!

"The Selfish Gene" created a huge splash when it was published 35 years ago. It explained how species succeed under Darwinian evolution. But it doesn't apply to modern man! We are dying out. You can attribute it to "The Unselfish Gene" or more aptly "The Selfish Phenotype."

Richard Dawkins theorizes that evolution is a matter of genes passing themselves on. The phenotypes - the animals and plants that we see, like us, are irrelevant except to the extent that they are successful in propagating their genes. There is ample evidence in the animal world that the individual doesn't matter. The black widow spider eats her mate after mating. Salmon swim upstream and die after leaving and fertilizing their eggs.

Among human beings, however, the phenotype is all that matters any more. We are vastly more concerned with living people than with future generations. Educated, intelligent people are especially indifferent to passing on their own genes.

Humankind long ago overcame predators and disease. Other tribes are our most significant competition. Human societies excel at outbreeding and killing off rival societies. Over history those Homo sapiens cultures that did not go extinct had to evolve continually to maintain their competitiveness. Since the Renaissance, European cultures have dominated in the realm of ideas, and not done too badly in population, while the Asian cultures have dominated in sheer numbers of people.

Altruism was essential in building large societies. Orientals and northern Europeans especially evolved to look out for others in the tribe. To empathize with them. These tribes coalesced into nations with a high level of trust, and low levels of crime. Intelligence was a necessary ingredient. People had to understand that helping others was in their own long term interest - or rather, that of their genes.

Culture spread like peacock feathers once people started living in large groups. Individuals could prosper exploiting talents like management, bookkeeping, singing and acting... anything to set oneself apart from ordinary farmers and yeomen. Of course the pretty girls liked this kind of talent, and women developed their own flirtatious wiles to catch the most attractive guys. Anybody who could do so formed himself into a distinctive individual, if possible an intellectual. A philosopher.

Europeans incorporated various degrees of altruism into their philosophy. Rousseau was a wild optimist, Locke and Burke less so. They had a sense that Europe had a better model for living than the rest of the world, and by persuasion or conquest they were going to share it. Western culture reached most of the rest of the world through Christianity, the military and business. We called it the "mission civilitrice" or "white man's burden." We might've been wrong but we were never in doubt. We promiscuously spread our culture, believing that everybody else would benefit from it whether or not they asked for or wanted it.

We convinced ourselves that the whole world was one people; that mankind had transcended tribalism. We were kidding ourselves, of course. The rest of the world didn't comprehend why we would believe that, and didn't trust our motives. Did we fight in Vietnam or Iraq for the benefit of those people? C'mon, get serious. Even our supposed allies thought it was all about oil - even though Vietnam didn't have any.

Western societies have been swept up in altruistic movements for the last century. Workers of the world, unite! Civil rights! Ban the bomb! End overpopulation! Save the whales! Save the environment! End global warming! Ban genetically modified organisms! Ethical treatment for animals! Adherents support these causes with the evangelical zeal with which their ancestors embraced Christianity. Also, a cynic would add, the same unexamined faith.

Like the Christian crusaders of 1000 years ago, we are generous in sharing our convictions with the rest of the world. They in turn look at us much the way they looked at Christians. Weirdoes, but rich weirdoes, good for a handout if you pretend to agree with them. African strongmen, for instance, take a European stand on GMOs because they benefit from European aid. Whether or not GMOs would benefit the people is hardly considered.

Westerners are smug about having exchanged a belief in cloudy religious myths which emerged 4000 years ago from the Levantine desert for the grab bag of above-named modern cloudy myths. Our new myths offer a balm for the soul as we pursue our sensual and material delights: Jacuzzis, gourmet foods, huge homes and cars, and so on. Just as we moderns delight in pointing out the obvious contradictions inherent in Christianity, we are marvelously blind to the contradictions in our own belief systems, such as between saving the whales and taking cruise vacations.

In this seminal "Selfish Gene" Dawkins introduced the idea of a meme, an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture. Religion is clearly a meme. Dawkins, a stout athiest, rails against it constantly. However, all the other above-named cultural detritus is nothing more than memes. We are in the thrall of the half-baked products of our own fantasies and hubris.

Our brains and altruism have gotten us ahead of evolution. We believe that having children imposes an almost immoral burden on the Earth's resources, and self-indulgence memes seduce us into spending whatever energy we might have invested in children in satisfying an ephemeral, artificially induced drive for consumption. Nobody needs a Toyota Tundra or an Apple iPad, but some eerie compulsion drives us into their showrooms. We indulge our lhasa apsos instead of our children.

For us, the selfish gene is a thing of the past. It has been replaced by the selfish meme. Memes, however, can only infect other minds, and with fewer births there are fewer hosts. The genius of religious memes is that they reproduce both bodies and minds. Evolution would predict that selfish memes eventually die out. The nature of the religious memes which will survive, those which drive people to procreate, is an interesting speculation. I'm sure it would drive Dawkins crazy.

This is a classic text of science writing for the layman. It is about biology and more particulary about the role of the gene in evolution, reproduction, and human and natural affairs generally. Richard Dawkin's main thesis is that the principal, in fact the only reason for the existance of the gene is to insure its own survival. This a little like the role Copenicus played when he debunked Ptolemy's view of the universe. Rather than a man-centered biological universe, the biological universe is gene centered, according to Dawkins.
"The Selfish Gene" is extremely readible and is very helpful in providing the layman with some background material in the genetic revolution. Written in 1976, it is, rather than outdated, as I said before, a classic, and worth reading. My copy was given to me by my brother, a PhD in Microbiology, in 1980, I was a young patent attorney, without even a basic college course in biology to my credit, and writing a scholarly paper on the famous Harvard mouse case. Since then I have become an expert in the ethics of biotechnology, and I recommend this book as background reading, with one caveat to be explained later.
Also, if you have ever wondered about the term "meme" this is where it was coined, Dawkins devoting a whole chapter to introducing this concept of socibiology.
(...)

I added this book to my reading list because of the impact the author has had on society...including the word `meme'!! The concepts that Dawkin's lays out are so simple that anyone can follow but that is why he is blasted by many on the political right. He takes out all of the conscious decisions out of what `the body' does and breaks it down to the base action/reaction.
It takes all of what we, animal and plant, are and determines that we are nothing but `vehicles' for genes. Let's be honest if we take out all consciousness out of the situation...he is right!
Amazing insight and creative way of making his points by looking to nature, game strategy, and the pure logic to demonstrate how and why altruistic and selfishness can, at times, be one in the same.
I'll be reading more of Dawkin's soon.

This was probably my first real taste at reading non fiction for no other reason than leisure. (oh wait.. i read nonfiction before too.. nm...im a book worm >_<) But ok, this is the first non fiction book I read that wasn't designed for a classroom or for children. That's probably more accurate. And all I can say is that I loved it :) It's been a while since I've read it so most of what I write is recalled from memory.
This book presents the theory that the existence of all life is for a single purpose- the survival of our genes. The book proceeds to describe how this has led to the development of life as we know it from the single cell.
The book is absolutely chocked full of information. I was disappointed since much of it did focus upon animals but it does touch upon humans as well. Some parts of the book were a bit difficult to digest since they talked in very mathematical terms but overall, the book gave a very clear breakdown of the survival of the fittest, the fittest of genes.
However, my most favourite part and perhaps the section most worth noting of the book would have to be the last chapter. The Memes. But I don't want to give it away. Read the book yourself :)

Science can explain exactly how rainbows form, does this rob the rainbow of its beauty? Would love feel any less real if we could identify the neurological circuitry associated with the feelings? I would like to think that those are two different areas and we need not confuse the difference.

"The Selfish Gene" gives us a stunning insight into what drives us as human beings to procreate (obvious) and even to be altruistic (not obvious). At the heart of the matter is the "Selfish Gene" which *seems* to seek to multiply itself in the smartest ways to survive the longest. Sometimes one needs to take a "game theory" view, which leads to counter-intuitive conclusions.

Continually Richard Dawkins repeats the mantra that just because something *is* in nature, does not mean that we *ought* to follow this way. The history of humanity is about rising above nature, subduing nature, thanks to our intellect. This may be a story about how we got here, but now we have the intellect to guide where we want to go.

Richard Dawkins scientific acumen cannot be denied, nor can his ability to communicate science to the masses. Richard has successfully introduced a new word into the English language through this book, the word "meme", which is analogous to a gene but is transferred in the mind.

The first thing I will say about The Selfish Gene (TSG) is that it is not the first book on evolution you should read although as a Dawkins book it is not a bad choice but for those unfamiliar with both, then I would suggest Climbing Mount Improbable or The Blind Watchmaker first. Both of those books by Dawkins have a much broader, more generalized, look at natural selection and evolution.

TSG is an entirely different type of book because it is particularly academic and a very complex read on specific lines of reasoning that are even aimed at correcting the misconceptions of big name professional biologists. It assumes that the reader will be somewhat acquainted with Darwinism and evolution. If you are not then I would strongly urge that you pass on TSG until you do. In fact, you will bring much more to TSG and get much more out of it if you spend time on his above mentioned works first. I would also suggest Darwin's own "The Origin of Species" if you can.

The reason for doing this is that during the 1970s TSG entered midway into a battle within evolutionary theory to settle some disputes and to make this version of Darwinism accessible to the general reader. If you don't know much about why TSG was needed in the first place then I don't think it will make that much sense to read it now. If, however, you understand what is going on previous to it and how it is presently used, then TSG becomes mandatory reading but it is not like Dawkins other works except for maybe the sequel to TSG, The Extended Phenotype, that should be treated the same way as TSG and certainly not read before this very progressive book on evolution.

The Selfish Gene is a massive assault on evolutionary biologists who explained behaviour by using phrases like "for the good of the species". Dawkins and most of his English contemporaries from the time of R.A Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" (1930) and the modern synthesis had difficulties in trying to explain altruism in terms of Darwinism, like why some organisms in the struggle for survival appear not to struggle for themselves but for other organisms. Many biologists aligned with the work of V. C. Wynne-Edwards on a mathematical model for group selection to explain this problem. This was a bold step away from Darwin's view, and the established scientific evolution model of the individual as the unit of selection, not the group. Darwin had speculated on group selection very briefly in The Descent of Man but to actually incorporate it into Darwinian evolution almost seemed contrary to natural selection. Yet the Wynne-Edwards math that groups could be selected was good on paper and so many believed that altruism could be solved this way.

What they didn't know was that an alternative explanation for altruism was emerging around the same time as the Wynne-Edwards model. This alternative explanation for altruism did not require group selection. This alternative was called Kin Selection and was developed by W.D Hamilton in a paper called The genetical evolution of social behaviour (1964). TSG can be best described as a book popularizing an explanation of Hamilton's discoveries. While Hamilton had found a very elegant solution to altruism it came with a price that Dawkins and many of his colleagues are asking us to take and in a way it's not entirely different from the leap that Wynne-Edwards wanted but this jump in evolutionary thought is certainly nowhere near as startling as group selection. The jump is this. We need to develop the concept of the individual as the unit of selection to include the gene.

There is much to favour the view that we should take a gene-centred view of evolution but Dawkins stresses that we are not really moving from the individual as the unit of selection at all, just seeing it in a new way. G. C. Williams in Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966) had already challenged group selection. So had the very influential Maynard Smith who was developing the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) through game theory and applying it to evolution. E. O Wilson had just finished writing "Sociobiology" and was battling fellow scientists in his own university over whether we should really be subjecting human social behavior to the science of evolution. Dawkins TSG thus emerges in the middle of this poignant moment as a vehicle to see the matter of Hamilton's work firmly through to finish. For anyone interested in evolution, it is not only worth every bit of the effort, but mandatory reading.

It makes it all the more interesting that for such an important read there is very little Dawkins in TSG at all. In fact Dawkins writes significantly about everyone else in evolutionary thought except himself. He is like the Francis Bacon of the 20th century, extolling on so much and unselfishly on the work of others that he has little time to say much about his own thoughts on evolution except for the shortest chapter on the concept of the meme as a cultural example of natural selection at work outside of the gene.

There are two editions of TSG and the 30th anniversary edition with a new forward. It is important to at least get the second edition as there are two fresh new chapters spanning some extra 60 pages plus a fist of new notations at the back to explain his position more clearly, update us on current findings, correct some errors and validates some hypothesis as now theories. It is actually probably due another update. The first edition doesn't have this and the meme chapter was the chapter that closed the first edition of this book. Anyhow the 30th anniversary edition does it all.

Chapter 1 - Why are people?
Dawkins brings up morality in relation to Darwinism and defines altruism along with explaining the Darwinian version of behaviour. There is some basic outlines of natural selection and this books sets up the question of why altruism? Wynne-Edwards/Robert Ardrey/ Konrad Lorenz (although Lorenz gets lots of better press for other discoveries later in TSG) group selection is introduced as the alternative to individual selection (albeit wrongly as Dawkins notes). G. C. Williams's work is used to start countering group selection.

Chapter 2 - The Replicators
Dawkins describes how molecules build up in evolution, DNA replication and ideas of competition between replicators.

Chapter 3 - Immortal Coils
Dawkins looks at the origins of replication, A. G. Cairns-Smith's crystal hypothesis are given as possible candidates, DNA sequences in terms of genes are explained by analogy of books and pages, mutations are brought into the scene along with the unit of selection and the evolution of biological complexity. Peter Medawar's views on gene selection, death and cancer are intriguing.

Chapter 4 - The Gene Machine
Survival, multicellular life, genes and behaviour, communication between genes and behaviour, the emergence of consciousness, the brain as a supercomputer, evolving strategies launches TSG into the heart of its subject matter. Here Dawkins as ethologist gives specific examples of these in action. Insects and colonies are his speciality. Mimicry as a strategy is explained along with predator prey interactions.

Chapter 5: Aggression: Stability and the Selfish Machine
Developing more on predator prey interactions the terminology of `cost-benefit' brings us to Maynard Smith and his Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) that governs behaviour. The ESS is a mind blowing package of evolutionary development that expands the field considerably. Organisms are pre-programmed biological units that are also pre-programmed to behave and respond to situations. This is all about the chance of pay-offs against losses. Various strategies are explained and given examples in nature. Applied game theory transforms Darwinism into a whole new dynamic. Dawkins talks about his mentor ethologist Niko Tinbergen.

Chapter 6: Genesmanship
Dawkins now moves onto Kin selection. At this stage in the book the reader will have to have their thinking cap on to follow through the strategies that become somewhat mathematical. It also looks at how genes compete or cooperate among themselves. The coefficient of relatedness is explained.

Chapter 7: Family Planning
This is about the evolution of parental care, population sizes, birth-rates and the ecology of David Lack. This is also aimed at dispensing with group selection.

Chapter 8: Battle of the Generations
Dawkins expands on parental care and stratagems related to it. R. L. Trivers gene concepts are brought into the picture and parental investment (P.I) is discussed along with parent-offspring conflicts. Zahavi is made known but plays a more important role later. Deception and deceptive traits are brought up so we can see the evolution of cheating.

Chapter 9: Battle of the Sexes
Now it is time for the evolution of sex and how to define sex, most it based on R.A Fisher's work. The role of the sexes becomes evident in that battle. Trivers is used to enlarge on it and again the gene plays a central role in understanding it. Zahavi's handicap principle will stimulate thoughts on sexual selection.

Chapter 10: You Scratch My Back I'll Ride On Yours
Hamilton's work is able to produce geometries that look like group selection based on selfish gene principles. Altruistic signals may even be selfish without invoking kin selection such as in cave theory and `never break rank'. Next comes what is maybe the hardest part of the book, the evolution of slave-making species with respect to sex ratios. Heads will be left spinning and even Dawkins says his is. The evolution of symbiosis is developed upon this and then the classic puzzle of the Prisoner's Dilemma is played out.

Chapter 11: Memes: The New Replicators
This is about the possibility that natural selection is not just limited to the gene and suggests that culture goes through a very similar selection process that becomes embedded in people's minds and is transmitted from brain to brain. These cultural memes can serve their own purpose and may not be to our benefit. Dawkins looks at religion and invokes memes as a possible explanation. The author is clear though that this is a hypothesis and is using it mostly to show how natural selection is not just limited to the gene. Effectively this chapter ended the first edition and Dawkins maintains that humans can fight against any selfish problems that we have to live a better life.

Chapter 12: Nice Guys Finish First
This is an addition and is part of the second edition. This is mostly about Robert Axelrod's experiments with the Prisoner's Dilemma and how it applies to biology and focuses on the tit-for-tat strategy and how it competes with others. Do you cooperate or do you defect? Great game theory.

Chapter 13: The Long Reach of the Gene
This is a synopsis of his second book The Extended Phenotype (EP). You could really drop this chapter and just pick up EP except that he does recap TSG for the last few pages so at least try to read that if you can. It will also give you a taste of. In a way this is not saying anything scientifically new about what phenotypes are and do except to add how the selfish gene extends outwards to interact with the environment and other organisms. Dawkins might be offering an innovative approach to dealing with biological evolution.

So, to sum it up, group selection is declared dead, Darwin's principles are still alive, the gene is perfectly compatible with evolution and this view brings much more.

TSG is a radically sweeping revolutionary evolutionary thought to see the gene as the unit of selection. Whatever you might think of this, one thing is for certain, the group selectionists didn't see the group rejectionists coming with TSG and even 30 years later haven't manage to displace the selfish gene view. What arguments they have had are as weak as the group selectionist model that they depended on. TSG makes a solid case that the alternative view from the gene strongly infers answers to altruism and may quicken the pursuit for the origins of evolution itself from the view of chemical replicators. For those who can accept it, this is probably the new face of evolution.

At the same time we should mention weaknesses as the argument does challenge the traditional concept of the unit of selection as the individual because in some cases the genes need not be in the individual. Apparently duplicate genes in another individual qualify and the concept even goes further to say genes helping other genes symbiotically as per EP are to be considered as part of individual. That's a very big thing to say. Yet Darwin didn't get the concept of genes when he described natural selection. Any scientist who takes the selfish gene very carefully by conserving the unit of selection as the individual would, quite frankly, be on the right side of Darwinian evolution and even the Neo-Darwinian movement of the modern synthesis... but is probably missing out on much. If someone says that the unit of selection is the individual, you cannot say they are wide of the mark, but it looks like they have to turn to the gene to explain certain instances of altruism. In TSG Dawkins is trying to say that they are the same thing However in his next book, EP, Dawkins clearly works to overthrow overemphasising the unit of selection as the individual. He even goes as far to say that it is wrong and gives reasons (such as meioses). The only true unit of selection is the replicator and in Dawkins view that can only mean the gene. What we really need to ask for now though is what is the evidence for the selfish gene?

In reality the evidence for models outside of the individual as the unit of selection are quite scant, but the gene as unit of selection does have direct evidence to support it. The evidence for group selection is controversial and after 30 years they haven't made much ground. Simply put, there doesn't appear to be much of a debate anymore even if some group selectionists make some noise (it looks like they just don't understand the concept of kin selection). There is evidence for the selfish gene but does this mean we should accept the revaluation of the unit of selection to include the gene? It appears we should. As a note, group selectionists need to do a lot better to try and match this kind of quality science and do not do themselves one bit of justice by trying to discredit it with scare-tactics and ambiguity. Saying things like every other possible unit of selection except for the gene can be the unit of selection doesn't help anything.

We have one other question to ask. Does the selfish gene model include all genetic information and does all behaviour need to invoke the selfish gene? I can't help but remember that even Dawkins shows how Hamilton didn't have to invoke gene selection to explain altruism in terms of the individual as the unit selection. Imagine if all altruism was explained this way. The selfish gene might be relegated to a very small minor role in evolution. You are best to reserve judgement on how far reaching the selfish gene model actually is until you look more at EP. EP really is where the argument is at, but TSG helps set up the basic premise that the gene view of evolution is the answer to many outstanding questions in evolution.

Another thing to note is that creationists have never been able to produce an alternative science to this model. No matter how they may critic it, complain wrongly that it is genetic determinism or dislike his use of metaphors, they cannot refute the math in his cited peer-review nor can they offer a substitute science.

Not to end with a critic I would like to add that TSG is quite possibly the most important book on evolution next to Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" which is only trumped by Darwin's publications. I don't think I am wrong with that praise.

While I was attending college (more than a few years ago) I took a class on evolution. There was no Google at that time so I was searching for books the old fashioned way: the library's card catalog. When I saw the title "The Selfish Gene" I knew I had to read the book.

The book itself was unassuming and plain -- a ragged first addition. The University possessed only a single copy. I figured that this would probably be the beginning and end for Dawkins's literary legacy. The university's copy was 20 years old by the time I checked it out but it was unknown to me or anyone I knew.

The Selfish Gene was a revelation of evolutionary extrapolation. Like no other work, it crystallized the theory I knew into a deep understanding of the chain of evolutionary cause and effect. My view of the world was changed forever. As a matter of fact, the world itself was demonstrably changed by the book. "The Selfish Gene" was the origin of the word and concept of 'meme'. The meme of the concept of 'meme' is de facto proof of the validity of Dawkins' ideas.

This book is one of the top 5 books I've ever read (and I've read hundreds). It's an accessible read but it still maintains complexity.

This book is about biology and genetics, in which I am only slightly interested, but what is REALLY IMPORTANT to me it that it answers some of the oldest and most important questions we (as humans) have asked ourselves:
- Who (or what) are we?
- Why are we here?
- What are we here for?
READ THE BOOK! The answers suprised me, intrigued me and changed the way I look at the world ... and made me read a bunch of other books.
You might think I exaggerate, but it is the best money I've ever spent.
Jose Fernandez-Calvo
[email protected]
PS: In this book Dawkins introduced the concept of "memes" an idea that is fascinating and has caught on like wildfire!

I ordered a copy for me and one for my friend. She just called to thank me and said it was really sweet. She really liked the wrapping because it was her favorite color and it had a ribbon. When i told her I got a copy for myself too she said we should be book buddies. So yeah when we're done reading it I'll put a real review up but I just had to say that I'm impressed with the gift wrap.

And btw she was also curious why I picked this book for her. Not because it's about evolution but because she's never heard of it so she thought "is he telling me I'm selfish" LOL!!

Packed with information. Not one vague sentence. Not one logical fallacy.
I was doubtful but open minded about evolution, and this was the perfect introduction. It talks only to those with open minds. It is not trying to convert anyone.

Although the subject has political and philosophical implications. The book itself is not at all political or philosophical.
As a well educated person who also pursues independent study, I was surprised to learn that I did not yet understand the basics of evolution and genetics.
Sometimes it is accurate enough to think of evolution from the perspective of the species, or the individual, but these perspectives can lead to mistakes which Dawkins avoids because he explains evolution from the perspective of individual genes.

I only noticed one mistake in the entire book, and it was corrected in the notes. Be sure to read all of the notes as you go. The notes are in the back and will slow your pace, but they are definitely worth it.
The second edition also includes two chapters from The Extended Phenotype. One of them is where Dawkins coins the word "meme".

On the book it said that the NY Times called it "The sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius." After finishing the book I agree with that blurb wholeheartedly!
The book is definately a brain workout! While the average reader can definately understand pretty much everything, Dawkins' logic and reasoning abilities are breathtaking and you're almost shocked you can go along for the ride!
Everything is thoroughly reachable and Dawkins has a fabulous knack at explaining things! I DEFINATELY think they should teach this book in Highschool Biology! I didn't understand ANYTHING about evolution and natural selection from text books but this book was an AMAZING tool at understanding those concepts!
He gives so many examples and simple but profoundly real explanations that toward the end of the book you really feel like a genius and like you know it all!
I definately, definately recommend this book for the reader with no prior scientific interest or experience and definately to ANYBODY with an interest in natural selection and evolution.

Just remarkably fluffy. A little over halfway in, it becomes clear that this is passed off as scientific but is really just an attempt to use logic to explain present circumstances. Seems to happen quite a bit with the Darwin writers - if he captured these ideas already, then why do we need a bunch of spinoffs to give the idea colloquially, unless some tangible data is being brought to the table?

The Selfish Gene presents a new (to me anyways) view of evolution - from the perspective of the gene rather than the individual. I found this approach to be thoroughly enjoyable and thought-provoking, so much so that I immediately ordered two more Dawkins books. I originally found the book through a recommendation by one of my favorite authors, the late Douglas Adams. He didn't steer me wrong.
Although I'm a technical person, I'm not a biologist (my training is limited to 8th grade biology class). The book did a good job of refreshing my limited knowledge of genetics and evolution while simultaneously presenting a wholly new view of the subject.
The original was published in 1976, while this version is a 1989 update. Most of the text is identical, but with extensive endnotes and two new chapters. The endnotes elaborate on, clarify, or update the original text with new examples, updates to the theories, and corrections of errors. They required constant flipping back and forth, but I found them to be very entertaining and a good supplement to the original material.

The Selfish Gene is a seminal work in the field of evolutionary studies. This book is not a simple read, but it can definitely be read by the layman interested in the subject. But be warned, you'll have to concentrate. The primary purpose of this book, in my view, is not to explain or defend evolution, per se, but to explain and defend a particular aspect (or flavor) of evolutionary theory: that is, that the Gene is the primary "unit" of selection. This is not universally accepted among scientists, but Dawkins does an excellent job making the case. I, for one, am convinced. Other views include multiple levels of selection, such as the one championed by Stephen Gould. Gould argues that selection occurs at almost every level: gene, organism, species, genus, clade, etc. Gould likens DNA to "bookkeeping". The debate is interesting and worth pursuing; even Darwin allowed for special cases of "group selection" to account for social insects (ants, bees, etc.).

However, I believe Dawkins view wins the day and this book is a great journey through his argument as to why the Gene is the primary unit of selection. He covers many diverse, but relevant topics, such as sexual selection, altruism, extended phenotypes, and more. The book is also a good read for evolutionary theory and biology generally, but I think you would enjoy this book more if you already have a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. The writing is clear, entertaining, and eminently readable. I've read many of Dawkin's works, and this is one of the best.

By the way, if you are fairly negative on the idea of evolution, I don't recommend this book. Dawkins is impatient and intolerant of religious views, particularly creationism and "intelligent design" (what an ironic term!). This book will probably just make you mad. If you are on the fence on the issue, then this IS a good book to read because the science behind it is very, very solid. Other than Dawkin's interpretation of the science that the gene is the unit of selection (which is compelling, but ultimately un-provable), there is nothing speculative or cutting edge here.

If you already like Dawkins, or just want a great, intellectual read, I highly recommend this book!

Dawkins book was popular with scientists and lay people alike when it was first released. It remains a classic which should be read as much for historical context as for content. There are assuredly better treatments on evolutionary science these days, particularly as regards the genomic revolution.

Oh, and for those who are turned off by Dawkins' athiestic pronouncements in later writings (including, one can safely conclude, the upcoming "The God Delusion"), The Selfish Gene is freer of that perspective and certainly its insights into evolutionary process do not require that you accept his stance on God.

Many scientists wish that Dawkins would tone down the athiestic rhetoric. Not only does it probably reduce the number of lay readers who invest time to read the factual content in his books, but it tends to convey the impression that most scientists have the same or similar perspective. I know of no survey on the subject, but I suspect that relatively few scientists are ardent athiests. For a refreshingly thoughtful alternative perspective, cruise the web for E.O. Wilson's position on athiesm (= a copout) and his advocacy of deism.

Richard Dawkins certainly has a genius for witty explanations of complex phenomena. "The Selfish Gene" is among the best and most fascinating books on evolution ever written (and remains so today!). Dawkins may not be the first or the only proponent of the selfish gene theory, but he's certainly the most eloquent and captivating.
If the intellectual aha! experience of seeing that selection works at the genetic level isn't enough, read the last few chapters, where Dawkins hides a brilliant idea everyone else would die for. It is here that Dawkins proposes the revolutionary idea of the meme, or the "unit of imitation" (p192 in my copy) - in other words, the replicator responsible for cultural evolution. Since he first proposed the idea, the meme meme has really spread far and wide, which is a testament to its excellence...this is a great example of reformulating an old idea in a new way and ending up with something radically different.
This is the book that first introduced me to evolutionary theory as a study in its own right, and I hope it will stimulate your mind as much as it did mine. I've been a big supporter of Dawkins ever since!

"The Selfish Gene" created a huge splash when it was published 35 years ago. It explained how species succeed under Darwinian evolution. But it doesn't apply to modern man! We are dying out. You can attribute it to "The Unselfish Gene" or more aptly "The Selfish Phenotype."

Richard Dawkins theorizes that evolution is a matter of genes passing themselves on. The phenotypes - the animals and plants that we see, like us, are irrelevant except to the extent that they are successful in propagating their genes. There is ample evidence in the animal world that the individual doesn't matter. The black widow spider eats her mate after mating. Salmon swim upstream and die after leaving and fertilizing their eggs.

Among human beings, however, the phenotype is all that matters any more. We are vastly more concerned with living people than with future generations. Educated, intelligent people are especially indifferent to passing on their own genes.

Humankind long ago overcame predators and disease. Other tribes are our most significant competition. Human societies excel at outbreeding and killing off rival societies. Over history those Homo sapiens cultures that did not go extinct had to evolve continually to maintain their competitiveness. Since the Renaissance, European cultures have dominated in the realm of ideas, and not done too badly in population, while the Asian cultures have dominated in sheer numbers of people.

Altruism was essential in building large societies. Orientals and northern Europeans especially evolved to look out for others in the tribe. To empathize with them. These tribes coalesced into nations with a high level of trust, and low levels of crime. Intelligence was a necessary ingredient. People had to understand that helping others was in their own long term interest - or rather, that of their genes.

Culture spread like peacock feathers once people started living in large groups. Individuals could prosper exploiting talents like management, bookkeeping, singing and acting... anything to set oneself apart from ordinary farmers and yeomen. Of course the pretty girls liked this kind of talent, and women developed their own flirtatious wiles to catch the most attractive guys. Anybody who could do so formed himself into a distinctive individual, if possible an intellectual. A philosopher.

Europeans incorporated various degrees of altruism into their philosophy. Rousseau was a wild optimist, Locke and Burke less so. They had a sense that Europe had a better model for living than the rest of the world, and by persuasion or conquest they were going to share it. Western culture reached most of the rest of the world through Christianity, the military and business. We called it the "mission civilitrice" or "white man's burden." We might've been wrong but we were never in doubt. We promiscuously spread our culture, believing that everybody else would benefit from it whether or not they asked for or wanted it.

We convinced ourselves that the whole world was one people; that mankind had transcended tribalism. We were kidding ourselves, of course. The rest of the world didn't comprehend why we would believe that, and didn't trust our motives. Did we fight in Vietnam or Iraq for the benefit of those people? C'mon, get serious. Even our supposed allies thought it was all about oil - even though Vietnam didn't have any.

Western societies have been swept up in altruistic movements for the last century. Workers of the world, unite! Civil rights! Ban the bomb! End overpopulation! Save the whales! Save the environment! End global warming! Ban genetically modified organisms! Ethical treatment for animals! Adherents support these causes with the evangelical zeal with which their ancestors embraced Christianity. Also, a cynic would add, the same unexamined faith.

Like the Christian crusaders of 1000 years ago, we are generous in sharing our convictions with the rest of the world. They in turn look at us much the way they looked at Christians. Weirdoes, but rich weirdoes, good for a handout if you pretend to agree with them. African strongmen, for instance, take a European stand on GMOs because they benefit from European aid. Whether or not GMOs would benefit the people is hardly considered.

Westerners are smug about having exchanged a belief in cloudy religious myths which emerged 4000 years ago from the Levantine desert for the grab bag of above-named modern cloudy myths. Our new myths offer a balm for the soul as we pursue our sensual and material delights: Jacuzzis, gourmet foods, huge homes and cars, and so on. Just as we moderns delight in pointing out the obvious contradictions inherent in Christianity, we are marvelously blind to the contradictions in our own belief systems, such as between saving the whales and taking cruise vacations.

In this seminal "Selfish Gene" Dawkins introduced the idea of a meme, an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture. Religion is clearly a meme. Dawkins, a stout athiest, rails against it constantly. However, all the other above-named cultural detritus is nothing more than memes. We are in the thrall of the half-baked products of our own fantasies and hubris.

Our brains and altruism have gotten us ahead of evolution. We believe that having children imposes an almost immoral burden on the Earth's resources, and self-indulgence memes seduce us into spending whatever energy we might have invested in children in satisfying an ephemeral, artificially induced drive for consumption. Nobody needs a Toyota Tundra or an Apple iPad, but some eerie compulsion drives us into their showrooms. We indulge our lhasa apsos instead of our children.

For us, the selfish gene is a thing of the past. It has been replaced by the selfish meme. Memes, however, can only infect other minds, and with fewer births there are fewer hosts. The genius of religious memes is that they reproduce both bodies and minds. Evolution would predict that selfish memes eventually die out. The nature of the religious memes which will survive, those which drive people to procreate, is an interesting speculation. I'm sure it would drive Dawkins crazy.

This is a classic text of science writing for the layman. It is about biology and more particulary about the role of the gene in evolution, reproduction, and human and natural affairs generally. Richard Dawkin's main thesis is that the principal, in fact the only reason for the existance of the gene is to insure its own survival. This a little like the role Copenicus played when he debunked Ptolemy's view of the universe. Rather than a man-centered biological universe, the biological universe is gene centered, according to Dawkins.
"The Selfish Gene" is extremely readible and is very helpful in providing the layman with some background material in the genetic revolution. Written in 1976, it is, rather than outdated, as I said before, a classic, and worth reading. My copy was given to me by my brother, a PhD in Microbiology, in 1980, I was a young patent attorney, without even a basic college course in biology to my credit, and writing a scholarly paper on the famous Harvard mouse case. Since then I have become an expert in the ethics of biotechnology, and I recommend this book as background reading, with one caveat to be explained later.
Also, if you have ever wondered about the term "meme" this is where it was coined, Dawkins devoting a whole chapter to introducing this concept of socibiology.
(...)

I added this book to my reading list because of the impact the author has had on society...including the word `meme'!! The concepts that Dawkin's lays out are so simple that anyone can follow but that is why he is blasted by many on the political right. He takes out all of the conscious decisions out of what `the body' does and breaks it down to the base action/reaction.
It takes all of what we, animal and plant, are and determines that we are nothing but `vehicles' for genes. Let's be honest if we take out all consciousness out of the situation...he is right!
Amazing insight and creative way of making his points by looking to nature, game strategy, and the pure logic to demonstrate how and why altruistic and selfishness can, at times, be one in the same.
I'll be reading more of Dawkin's soon.

This was probably my first real taste at reading non fiction for no other reason than leisure. (oh wait.. i read nonfiction before too.. nm...im a book worm >_<) But ok, this is the first non fiction book I read that wasn't designed for a classroom or for children. That's probably more accurate. And all I can say is that I loved it :) It's been a while since I've read it so most of what I write is recalled from memory.
This book presents the theory that the existence of all life is for a single purpose- the survival of our genes. The book proceeds to describe how this has led to the development of life as we know it from the single cell.
The book is absolutely chocked full of information. I was disappointed since much of it did focus upon animals but it does touch upon humans as well. Some parts of the book were a bit difficult to digest since they talked in very mathematical terms but overall, the book gave a very clear breakdown of the survival of the fittest, the fittest of genes.
However, my most favourite part and perhaps the section most worth noting of the book would have to be the last chapter. The Memes. But I don't want to give it away. Read the book yourself :)

Science can explain exactly how rainbows form, does this rob the rainbow of its beauty? Would love feel any less real if we could identify the neurological circuitry associated with the feelings? I would like to think that those are two different areas and we need not confuse the difference.

"The Selfish Gene" gives us a stunning insight into what drives us as human beings to procreate (obvious) and even to be altruistic (not obvious). At the heart of the matter is the "Selfish Gene" which *seems* to seek to multiply itself in the smartest ways to survive the longest. Sometimes one needs to take a "game theory" view, which leads to counter-intuitive conclusions.

Continually Richard Dawkins repeats the mantra that just because something *is* in nature, does not mean that we *ought* to follow this way. The history of humanity is about rising above nature, subduing nature, thanks to our intellect. This may be a story about how we got here, but now we have the intellect to guide where we want to go.

Richard Dawkins scientific acumen cannot be denied, nor can his ability to communicate science to the masses. Richard has successfully introduced a new word into the English language through this book, the word "meme", which is analogous to a gene but is transferred in the mind.

The first thing I will say about The Selfish Gene (TSG) is that it is not the first book on evolution you should read although as a Dawkins book it is not a bad choice but for those unfamiliar with both, then I would suggest Climbing Mount Improbable or The Blind Watchmaker first. Both of those books by Dawkins have a much broader, more generalized, look at natural selection and evolution.

TSG is an entirely different type of book because it is particularly academic and a very complex read on specific lines of reasoning that are even aimed at correcting the misconceptions of big name professional biologists. It assumes that the reader will be somewhat acquainted with Darwinism and evolution. If you are not then I would strongly urge that you pass on TSG until you do. In fact, you will bring much more to TSG and get much more out of it if you spend time on his above mentioned works first. I would also suggest Darwin's own "The Origin of Species" if you can.

The reason for doing this is that during the 1970s TSG entered midway into a battle within evolutionary theory to settle some disputes and to make this version of Darwinism accessible to the general reader. If you don't know much about why TSG was needed in the first place then I don't think it will make that much sense to read it now. If, however, you understand what is going on previous to it and how it is presently used, then TSG becomes mandatory reading but it is not like Dawkins other works except for maybe the sequel to TSG, The Extended Phenotype, that should be treated the same way as TSG and certainly not read before this very progressive book on evolution.

The Selfish Gene is a massive assault on evolutionary biologists who explained behaviour by using phrases like "for the good of the species". Dawkins and most of his English contemporaries from the time of R.A Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" (1930) and the modern synthesis had difficulties in trying to explain altruism in terms of Darwinism, like why some organisms in the struggle for survival appear not to struggle for themselves but for other organisms. Many biologists aligned with the work of V. C. Wynne-Edwards on a mathematical model for group selection to explain this problem. This was a bold step away from Darwin's view, and the established scientific evolution model of the individual as the unit of selection, not the group. Darwin had speculated on group selection very briefly in The Descent of Man but to actually incorporate it into Darwinian evolution almost seemed contrary to natural selection. Yet the Wynne-Edwards math that groups could be selected was good on paper and so many believed that altruism could be solved this way.

What they didn't know was that an alternative explanation for altruism was emerging around the same time as the Wynne-Edwards model. This alternative explanation for altruism did not require group selection. This alternative was called Kin Selection and was developed by W.D Hamilton in a paper called The genetical evolution of social behaviour (1964). TSG can be best described as a book popularizing an explanation of Hamilton's discoveries. While Hamilton had found a very elegant solution to altruism it came with a price that Dawkins and many of his colleagues are asking us to take and in a way it's not entirely different from the leap that Wynne-Edwards wanted but this jump in evolutionary thought is certainly nowhere near as startling as group selection. The jump is this. We need to develop the concept of the individual as the unit of selection to include the gene.

There is much to favour the view that we should take a gene-centred view of evolution but Dawkins stresses that we are not really moving from the individual as the unit of selection at all, just seeing it in a new way. G. C. Williams in Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966) had already challenged group selection. So had the very influential Maynard Smith who was developing the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) through game theory and applying it to evolution. E. O Wilson had just finished writing "Sociobiology" and was battling fellow scientists in his own university over whether we should really be subjecting human social behavior to the science of evolution. Dawkins TSG thus emerges in the middle of this poignant moment as a vehicle to see the matter of Hamilton's work firmly through to finish. For anyone interested in evolution, it is not only worth every bit of the effort, but mandatory reading.

It makes it all the more interesting that for such an important read there is very little Dawkins in TSG at all. In fact Dawkins writes significantly about everyone else in evolutionary thought except himself. He is like the Francis Bacon of the 20th century, extolling on so much and unselfishly on the work of others that he has little time to say much about his own thoughts on evolution except for the shortest chapter on the concept of the meme as a cultural example of natural selection at work outside of the gene.

There are two editions of TSG and the 30th anniversary edition with a new forward. It is important to at least get the second edition as there are two fresh new chapters spanning some extra 60 pages plus a fist of new notations at the back to explain his position more clearly, update us on current findings, correct some errors and validates some hypothesis as now theories. It is actually probably due another update. The first edition doesn't have this and the meme chapter was the chapter that closed the first edition of this book. Anyhow the 30th anniversary edition does it all.

Chapter 1 - Why are people?
Dawkins brings up morality in relation to Darwinism and defines altruism along with explaining the Darwinian version of behaviour. There is some basic outlines of natural selection and this books sets up the question of why altruism? Wynne-Edwards/Robert Ardrey/ Konrad Lorenz (although Lorenz gets lots of better press for other discoveries later in TSG) group selection is introduced as the alternative to individual selection (albeit wrongly as Dawkins notes). G. C. Williams's work is used to start countering group selection.

Chapter 2 - The Replicators
Dawkins describes how molecules build up in evolution, DNA replication and ideas of competition between replicators.

Chapter 3 - Immortal Coils
Dawkins looks at the origins of replication, A. G. Cairns-Smith's crystal hypothesis are given as possible candidates, DNA sequences in terms of genes are explained by analogy of books and pages, mutations are brought into the scene along with the unit of selection and the evolution of biological complexity. Peter Medawar's views on gene selection, death and cancer are intriguing.

Chapter 4 - The Gene Machine
Survival, multicellular life, genes and behaviour, communication between genes and behaviour, the emergence of consciousness, the brain as a supercomputer, evolving strategies launches TSG into the heart of its subject matter. Here Dawkins as ethologist gives specific examples of these in action. Insects and colonies are his speciality. Mimicry as a strategy is explained along with predator prey interactions.

Chapter 5: Aggression: Stability and the Selfish Machine
Developing more on predator prey interactions the terminology of `cost-benefit' brings us to Maynard Smith and his Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) that governs behaviour. The ESS is a mind blowing package of evolutionary development that expands the field considerably. Organisms are pre-programmed biological units that are also pre-programmed to behave and respond to situations. This is all about the chance of pay-offs against losses. Various strategies are explained and given examples in nature. Applied game theory transforms Darwinism into a whole new dynamic. Dawkins talks about his mentor ethologist Niko Tinbergen.

Chapter 6: Genesmanship
Dawkins now moves onto Kin selection. At this stage in the book the reader will have to have their thinking cap on to follow through the strategies that become somewhat mathematical. It also looks at how genes compete or cooperate among themselves. The coefficient of relatedness is explained.

Chapter 7: Family Planning
This is about the evolution of parental care, population sizes, birth-rates and the ecology of David Lack. This is also aimed at dispensing with group selection.

Chapter 8: Battle of the Generations
Dawkins expands on parental care and stratagems related to it. R. L. Trivers gene concepts are brought into the picture and parental investment (P.I) is discussed along with parent-offspring conflicts. Zahavi is made known but plays a more important role later. Deception and deceptive traits are brought up so we can see the evolution of cheating.

Chapter 9: Battle of the Sexes
Now it is time for the evolution of sex and how to define sex, most it based on R.A Fisher's work. The role of the sexes becomes evident in that battle. Trivers is used to enlarge on it and again the gene plays a central role in understanding it. Zahavi's handicap principle will stimulate thoughts on sexual selection.

Chapter 10: You Scratch My Back I'll Ride On Yours
Hamilton's work is able to produce geometries that look like group selection based on selfish gene principles. Altruistic signals may even be selfish without invoking kin selection such as in cave theory and `never break rank'. Next comes what is maybe the hardest part of the book, the evolution of slave-making species with respect to sex ratios. Heads will be left spinning and even Dawkins says his is. The evolution of symbiosis is developed upon this and then the classic puzzle of the Prisoner's Dilemma is played out.

Chapter 11: Memes: The New Replicators
This is about the possibility that natural selection is not just limited to the gene and suggests that culture goes through a very similar selection process that becomes embedded in people's minds and is transmitted from brain to brain. These cultural memes can serve their own purpose and may not be to our benefit. Dawkins looks at religion and invokes memes as a possible explanation. The author is clear though that this is a hypothesis and is using it mostly to show how natural selection is not just limited to the gene. Effectively this chapter ended the first edition and Dawkins maintains that humans can fight against any selfish problems that we have to live a better life.

Chapter 12: Nice Guys Finish First
This is an addition and is part of the second edition. This is mostly about Robert Axelrod's experiments with the Prisoner's Dilemma and how it applies to biology and focuses on the tit-for-tat strategy and how it competes with others. Do you cooperate or do you defect? Great game theory.

Chapter 13: The Long Reach of the Gene
This is a synopsis of his second book The Extended Phenotype (EP). You could really drop this chapter and just pick up EP except that he does recap TSG for the last few pages so at least try to read that if you can. It will also give you a taste of. In a way this is not saying anything scientifically new about what phenotypes are and do except to add how the selfish gene extends outwards to interact with the environment and other organisms. Dawkins might be offering an innovative approach to dealing with biological evolution.

So, to sum it up, group selection is declared dead, Darwin's principles are still alive, the gene is perfectly compatible with evolution and this view brings much more.

TSG is a radically sweeping revolutionary evolutionary thought to see the gene as the unit of selection. Whatever you might think of this, one thing is for certain, the group selectionists didn't see the group rejectionists coming with TSG and even 30 years later haven't manage to displace the selfish gene view. What arguments they have had are as weak as the group selectionist model that they depended on. TSG makes a solid case that the alternative view from the gene strongly infers answers to altruism and may quicken the pursuit for the origins of evolution itself from the view of chemical replicators. For those who can accept it, this is probably the new face of evolution.

At the same time we should mention weaknesses as the argument does challenge the traditional concept of the unit of selection as the individual because in some cases the genes need not be in the individual. Apparently duplicate genes in another individual qualify and the concept even goes further to say genes helping other genes symbiotically as per EP are to be considered as part of individual. That's a very big thing to say. Yet Darwin didn't get the concept of genes when he described natural selection. Any scientist who takes the selfish gene very carefully by conserving the unit of selection as the individual would, quite frankly, be on the right side of Darwinian evolution and even the Neo-Darwinian movement of the modern synthesis... but is probably missing out on much. If someone says that the unit of selection is the individual, you cannot say they are wide of the mark, but it looks like they have to turn to the gene to explain certain instances of altruism. In TSG Dawkins is trying to say that they are the same thing However in his next book, EP, Dawkins clearly works to overthrow overemphasising the unit of selection as the individual. He even goes as far to say that it is wrong and gives reasons (such as meioses). The only true unit of selection is the replicator and in Dawkins view that can only mean the gene. What we really need to ask for now though is what is the evidence for the selfish gene?

In reality the evidence for models outside of the individual as the unit of selection are quite scant, but the gene as unit of selection does have direct evidence to support it. The evidence for group selection is controversial and after 30 years they haven't made much ground. Simply put, there doesn't appear to be much of a debate anymore even if some group selectionists make some noise (it looks like they just don't understand the concept of kin selection). There is evidence for the selfish gene but does this mean we should accept the revaluation of the unit of selection to include the gene? It appears we should. As a note, group selectionists need to do a lot better to try and match this kind of quality science and do not do themselves one bit of justice by trying to discredit it with scare-tactics and ambiguity. Saying things like every other possible unit of selection except for the gene can be the unit of selection doesn't help anything.

We have one other question to ask. Does the selfish gene model include all genetic information and does all behaviour need to invoke the selfish gene? I can't help but remember that even Dawkins shows how Hamilton didn't have to invoke gene selection to explain altruism in terms of the individual as the unit selection. Imagine if all altruism was explained this way. The selfish gene might be relegated to a very small minor role in evolution. You are best to reserve judgement on how far reaching the selfish gene model actually is until you look more at EP. EP really is where the argument is at, but TSG helps set up the basic premise that the gene view of evolution is the answer to many outstanding questions in evolution.

Another thing to note is that creationists have never been able to produce an alternative science to this model. No matter how they may critic it, complain wrongly that it is genetic determinism or dislike his use of metaphors, they cannot refute the math in his cited peer-review nor can they offer a substitute science.

Not to end with a critic I would like to add that TSG is quite possibly the most important book on evolution next to Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" which is only trumped by Darwin's publications. I don't think I am wrong with that praise.

While I was attending college (more than a few years ago) I took a class on evolution. There was no Google at that time so I was searching for books the old fashioned way: the library's card catalog. When I saw the title "The Selfish Gene" I knew I had to read the book.

The book itself was unassuming and plain -- a ragged first addition. The University possessed only a single copy. I figured that this would probably be the beginning and end for Dawkins's literary legacy. The university's copy was 20 years old by the time I checked it out but it was unknown to me or anyone I knew.

The Selfish Gene was a revelation of evolutionary extrapolation. Like no other work, it crystallized the theory I knew into a deep understanding of the chain of evolutionary cause and effect. My view of the world was changed forever. As a matter of fact, the world itself was demonstrably changed by the book. "The Selfish Gene" was the origin of the word and concept of 'meme'. The meme of the concept of 'meme' is de facto proof of the validity of Dawkins' ideas.

This book is one of the top 5 books I've ever read (and I've read hundreds). It's an accessible read but it still maintains complexity.

This book is about biology and genetics, in which I am only slightly interested, but what is REALLY IMPORTANT to me it that it answers some of the oldest and most important questions we (as humans) have asked ourselves:
- Who (or what) are we?
- Why are we here?
- What are we here for?
READ THE BOOK! The answers suprised me, intrigued me and changed the way I look at the world ... and made me read a bunch of other books.
You might think I exaggerate, but it is the best money I've ever spent.
Jose Fernandez-Calvo
[email protected]
PS: In this book Dawkins introduced the concept of "memes" an idea that is fascinating and has caught on like wildfire!

I ordered a copy for me and one for my friend. She just called to thank me and said it was really sweet. She really liked the wrapping because it was her favorite color and it had a ribbon. When i told her I got a copy for myself too she said we should be book buddies. So yeah when we're done reading it I'll put a real review up but I just had to say that I'm impressed with the gift wrap.

And btw she was also curious why I picked this book for her. Not because it's about evolution but because she's never heard of it so she thought "is he telling me I'm selfish" LOL!!

As I read this gem of a book, I wonder why not enough books on sciences are as elegantly written and clearly elaborated for the general reader as Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. This book ranks highly both as a popular science literature and as a key to a whole new paradigm in evolutionary biology. As conceded by the author, the book is entirely about animal behaviour (plans included) from a gene-centric point of view. At the end of the book, my whole perspective of evolution theory has been entirely enlarged.
Dawkins brilliantly explains in the first few chapters, the origins, workings and behaviour of the DNA-the replicators responsible for all of life on Earth. Genes (as used in his title), made up of DNA, are explained as unit small enough to last for a many generations. Thus, selfish gene as used in the title is simply the genetic unit that is concerned with only its own welfare and promotes its propagation at the expense of its rivals (the alleles). Dawkins uses metaphors and analogies in explaining the intricate workings of the genes.
In the next few chapters, there are elaborate yet clear discussions on the roles of genes in parenthood, families, mutualism, relationships between sexes, altruism, selfishness and others. The one concept that Dawkins regularly emphasises is that genes use our bodies (he calls them survival machines) to reproduce and not the other way round. This itself is a revolutionary thinking. One of the most interesting discussions is on the concept of evolutionary stable state (ESS, formulated by Maynard Smith). The author uses simple game theory to predict the behaviours that give rise to a stable state (equilibrium) and thus is favoured by the natural selection.
The author also proposes a new kind of replicator-Memes. It too is revolutionary and has since sparked off new research on such a replicator. Memes is the replicator which imitates ideas, tunes, fashion, philosophies etc. It is the smallest unit of human culture.
Equally refreshing is the last chapter, which deals with the concept of the extended phenotype. The central theory is that a behaviour aims to propagate the genes for that behaviour, whether or not the genes reside in the body that effects the behaviour. It means that genes in certain kinds of parasites or insects can affect the behaviour of other animals. Dawkins gives examples to illustrate his concept (but given that it is only a chapter, only a few examples are given). It has perplexed biologists as the concept means that chemical reactions (triggered by genes) in a body can affect the chemical reactions (leading to the desired behaviour) in other bodies.
The Selfish Gene is a beautiful book, thoroughly thoughtful and insightful. The author is a trained ethologist and many of his examples are about behaviours of animals. This book is a refreshingly new look at evolution from the genetic point of view. Although there are many other factors like ecology, geology, chance and even plenty other theories like kin selection, symbiogenesis, to explain evolution, I am very persuaded by Dawkins' selfish gene theory. . This book is a definite text book for anyone even aiming to study evolution.

Yeah, so many years ago I read The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design and it wasn't in and of itself enough for me to say, okay, evolution's true, but instead "...that's one man's opinion..."

Fast forward many years later, I was pushed to explore atheism via an ugly excommunication and divorce from my Sunday school teacher "perfect" wife and her self righteous church buddies. So I picked up The God Delusion, which had been sent to me by my humanist atheist father, but had been sitting gathering dust on the shelf.

I was ready, however, and between Dawkins, Hitchens and a few other sources, I made the leap of non-faith to reason and logic and became an atheist, free at last.

So the next step is to understand humanity, what drives us, what makes us behave in many of the ways we do, how is it that we came into being and so forth.

I enjoyed The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution and also became a follower of the paleo lifestyle, which was greatly inspired by Primal Body, Primal Mind: Beyond the Paleo Diet for Total Health and a Longer Life a book I highly recommend, it's about life style design and eating, exercise based upon many evolutionary principles.

So, anyway, this is a review, or is supposed to be about The Selfish Gene, yes, I recommend it, and here is why:

It explains so much about the nature of the natural universe, why creatures, including humans, behave as they do, it's not so much "survival of the fittest" from the "tooth and claw" standpoint, which is were most of us understood evolution from a high school biology level, it's much deeper than that.

The genes in our DNA compete and have "an agenda", although it's not a conscious one, of course, the way gene expression plays itself out in the animal kingdom really drives what shape and behavior the animals (and plants) that become the "vehicles" for the genes. The genes themselves are "replicators" and "seek" ways to replicate themselves over and over.

A few interesting take away's: the mitochondria in our cells may well have been a bacteria that evolved from a separate species/animal into such an symbiotic relationship with our cells they became one, and the prisoner's dilemma problem applies to ways in which plants, animals and even genes behave (oh and people getting divorced and hiring divorce attorney's that suck the blood out of both victims--yeah, that's in the book and I know it's true from experience).

Anyway, if you're interested in evolution at all, this is one of those books to read, I found it very interesting.

This is an excellent book, thought provoking, lucidly written and full of ideas that seem fresh and new even three decades after first publication. Richard Dawkins is a preeminent writer on science and this was the first of his impressive, award-winning books on various scientific and philosophical subjects. Here and there, the book, which covers evolution, heredity, man's place among living creatures and many other subjects as well, shows its age. For example, Dawkins refers to transistors in his discussion of computers, wonders whether a computer will ever be able to win a chess match against a grand master and seems to think that understanding the gene sequence is an almost impossibly distant dream. But the book's underlying logic and its big ideas have nothing antiquated or obsolete about them. We highly recommend it to the intellectually curious.

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