Dawkins + Darwin = The Selfish Gene

“Finally, in this rather miscellaneous chapter, I shall mention the important idea of reciprocal altruism, the principle of ‘You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’.  (pg.166)  

Dawkins defines reciprocal altruism as the process of analysis that genes go through in order to analyze that they must get more from “an association” than they put in.  He discards the idea of their being teamwork for altruistic reasons in microbiology, and therefore in human behavior.  It feels as though when writing about the pessimistic output of biology, Dawkins puts the exclamation point on the spirit of the book.  He has portrayed evolution and genetics as something that contradicts the optimistic values that most people are raised to believe.  Some might argue that the book has nothing to do with emotions or values, that since Dawkins claims to be simplifying biology, one can’t analyze the book from a social viewpoint.  One of the final sentences in this chapter disproves that theory.  What may be taken as an analogy is in truth an explanation of the theory of reciprocal altruism that he supports.  “Money is a formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism”  (pg. 188) Dawkins theory may be correct in terms of genetics— one gene may result in the formation of blue eyes instead of brown— but the extended analogy that he employs throughout the book suggests a satirical rather than academic tone.  In saying that when a fish swims behind another fish there is a “hydrodynamic advantage from the turbulence by the fish in front.” (pg. 167)  the reader can do nothing but laugh.  What’s next, saying that the reason the world is run by humans is because mocking birds decided to leave it to us?  Promoting the idea that horses don’t kill whoever kicks their side because they want to be respectful? 

The way I see it, Dawkins has taken the idea of simplifying genetics, which by the way he can do*, and turned it into the laughing stock of a tenth grader who hates science.  Moreover, Dawkins has turned Darwin’s theory of evolution, which in the past has been applied to politics and the explanation of the formation of a social structure, into a far-fetched moral explanation for genetic behavior.  Apart from trying to explain genetics and achieving something entirely different in the process, Dawkins has explored the possibility that there is no way that genetic behavior shapes every decision made by the subject.  I would say that the gene has no brain, but that would sound very unsophisticated, so, for the punchline, in the words of the world renowned author:

“The gene has no foresight” (pg.183)

*  “A relationship of mutual benefit between members of different species is called mutualism or symbiosis.” (pg. 181), 

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. 

Mistake... Evolution.

It is easy to see how science is considered by some the most intriguing field of study after reading The Selfish Gene.  At the same time, one would expect that all scientists – if one can call writers like Dawkins scientists – be rendered failures, for not being able to provide tangible results.  Richard Dawkins is not a scientist. He is a philosopher with a tendency to analyze the works of previous experts on scientific fields.  One would expect that he would actually deliver a product that can be used in science for years to come.  But the mistake doesn’t befall on Dawkins.  The reader of literature must have an open mind towards the work they are about to analyze; this obligation is tenfold when it comes to intellectually rigorous scientific writing.  With this in mind, the second chapter, titled: The Replicator, is an excellent way to engender debates in the reader’s brain.

Whilst reading the chapter, the question: is evolution progress, was on my mind.  I find this strange, given that the author mentioned everything from the translation of ‘young women’ to ‘virgin’ to the idea that humans are survival machines.  In order for one to have a basic understanding of the chapter, Dawkins assumes that the reader thinks that evolution is a synonym of progress and that Darwinism in all its aspects is correct.

"Then the replicator would act as a template, not for an identical copy, but for a kind of 'negative'..." (pg 16) Dawkins presents the idea of evolution and the idea of trying to make copies as a factor that has driven humans and all creatures to be what they are today.  But when he does this, he never mentions whether the entire process of evolution, the necessary mistake in the replicating process, is good or bad for the subject of the change.  He says the very basis of evolution is making a mistake in the process of replication.  But how can a recurring mistake result in something positive? Looking ahead in the book, I hope the author can clarify what he means when he says that making mistakes is what causes evolution. 

Passive Voice

Level 1: Directions: Change the sentences below to the passive voice. Children cannot open these bottles easily. These bottles cannot be easily opened by children. The government built a road right outside her front door. A road was built by the government right outside her door. Mr. Ross broke the antique vase as he walked through the store. The antique vase was broken by Mr. Ross. When she arrived, the changes amazed her. The changes amazed her when she arrived. The construction workers are making street repairs all month long. Street repairs are being made by conduction workers all month long. The party will celebrate his retirement. His retirement will be celebrated by the party. His professors were discussing his oral exam right in front of him. His oral exam was being discussed by his professors in front if him. My son ate all the homemade cookies. All the homemade cookies were eaten by my son. Corrosion had damaged the hull of the ship. The hull of the ship had been damaged by corrosion. Some children were visiting the old homestead while I was there. The old homestead was being visited by children while I was there.

Thesis for Analytic Essay

The use of blood in Psycho and the use of blood in Macbeth 1971 differ in the fact that Psycho uses blood as a tool for caring the audience, but it dosent represent a theme in the movie. With Macbeth, blood is a recurring tool that the director used to explore the message of the novel.

Writers Workshop for April 12, 2012

Topic: Writers Workshop
Aim: How is a analytic film essay similar to an analytic literary essay?
WatchNow: In this short film how do words relate to images? Explain with one example.

 In this short film, words are complementary to the images and the sequences being shown in the film. For example, when the child says, "We're going to run away," the next images and video excerpts include a plane taking off, a feather slowly floating in the air, and a flock of birds. Based on this example, one can conclude that the words in this film foreshadow the approaching events. Although they might not relate directly, as in to say that after the child says that, the video dosen't show a grop of children running away from the original spot where he said it. It rather shows a pattern of images that can be transferred back to what the child says.

The Casa de Las Muñecas Experience

As I entered the establishment the first thing that hit me was the luxuriousness of the place.  The columns seemed like they were cut out from the coliseum in Rome, the wooden tiles on the walls seemed too perfectly fit, in general, the atmosphere felt way too fancy.  Add to this Friday night equation the fact that my friend and I were by far the youngest people in the entire establishment.  In line, two women about six feet tall were in front of us talking in German, and a piece of carrot cake cost ten thousand pesos. There's more: there was an elevator man for a place with three floors.  Odd, to say the least.

As the play started I noticed that we had some of the best seats in the house, because the subtitles for the play (the dialogue was in German) were right in front of us whereas the rest of the people had to choose between the neck ache that came from constantly reading something three levels above you and observing the actors perform.

Oh and the play in itself was a spectacle.  In class we are taught to use a certain part of the stage with the people that we are performing with and then leave when our scene is done to stand in the corner and allow the spotlight to be left on the current actors.  In this huge stage there was an actual spotlight where the small cast performed throughout the play.  An actor that wasn’t in the square-lit portion of the stage wasn’t part of the plot, at the time.  Nevertheless, in the spirit of analyzing the play one can notice that even when they aren’t in the spotlight, their actions complement the dialogue and plot that the ones inside are portraying. 

Throughout the entire play we noticed that given the loud phonetic nature of the German language, the actors had the luxury of exaggerating tone repeated times without the audience noticing the change in acoustics I the room.  Why is this a luxury?  One could hear and perfectly interpret what they were saying with there change in tone, if it were silent, and one could only read the dialogue, the entire spirit of the play would be lost.  Overall, the play was a perfect mix between an original screenplay and a classic plot.  The Casa de Las Muñecas experience was unforgettable.