Altruism :)

Textbooks are made to inform the reader, not to entertain them or trigger intellectual debate. Immortal Coils is a portion taken out of a tenth grade grade biology textbook.  Boring would be an understatement as a description for the chapter. In my last blog I mentioned that the author never talks about evolution as something positive or negative. "In any one sex cell, a new chromosome number 8 will be created, perhaps 'better' than the old one, perhaps 'worse,' but, barring a rather improbable coincidence, definitely different, definitely unique." (pg.30) Part of the textbook that makes up all but the last page of this chapter addresses my initial question.  Evolution is not good or bad, it just is.  Boring answer, I know.

Once in a while, however, the author gives a glimpse of opinion that makes the chapter worth reading.  "There we saw that selfishness is to be expected in any entity that deserves the title of a basic unit of natural selection." (pg. 33)  As a prelude to my next point, understand that as far as I'm concerned, the only part of Darwin's theory that is worth understanding in the twenty first century refers to business and the capitalist system that makes monopolies a norm.  With that in mind, the excerpt above is only a display of how in business, the best unit is always the one that survives.  Obviously Dawkins was referring to science and the selection of genes when he said this, but coincidences like this one can't be overlooked.  

"...altruism must be bad and selfishness good." (pg. 36)  Altruism is bad because it stunts progress and it promotes growth.  In business, the failure of a direct competitor is the best thing that can happen.  When a unit is given the chance to ensure success by allowing the competition to die off, the opportunity must be taken without a doubt, the fittest unit is therefore always the last one standing.  As you can probably imagine, I don't care for the explanation of meiosis, gene pools or mutation. What’s more, I despise an academic field that runs solely on facts with no room for interpretation or analysis.  All the excerpts that I analyze are taken into account in human behavior not atoms and recessive genes. 

"But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox.  The true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive, no more and no less." (pg. 45)  The moment that every writer yearns to get to is here.  With the inclusion of the sentence above, the link between human behavior and trimmed down biology is ever-present.  A relation like the one that exists between macroeconomics and microeconomics is here as well. The instinct that drives DNA (micro) to survive is exactly the same as the one that drives humans to be the wealthiest and the best in their society (macro.)  The bore of a textbook chapter came to an end with what may have been an involuntary connection from Dawkins, but it revived my interest in the book.  For those of you who still haven't found that clincher, remember: altruism is better than selfishness.