Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.พ. 2014
- In this short clip Professor Richard Dawkins discusses how he arrived at the idea of the "selfish gene" -- the basis of his seminal 1976 publication.
You can buy Richard's book "The Selfish Gene" on Amazon - geni.us/lzCwnc
Dawkins explains how the genes that are around today -- in us and every other living organism -- come from an unbroken line of successful ancestors. Describing the body as a "survival machine" for the self-replicating information it contains, he explains how the genes that are good at making these bodies can therefore persist through countless generations, meaning successful genes are potentially immortal. It was this inspiring vision, along with the work of W. D. Hamilton, which motivated his research in this field.
To hear more about Dawkins' life and the events and experiences which shaped his thinking, watch the full event 'An Appetite for Wonder', complete with audience Q&A.
• An Appetite for Wonder...
The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.
![[4K] TREASURE(트레저) “KING KONG” Band LIVE Concert 킹콩은 라이브를 찢어🦍 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p8bLLOxPDD8/mqdefault.jpg)
He's so wonderfully articulate.
The universe was a quadridimensional star that came from another universe that imploded-exploded through the void of it's black hole. God is our conscious universe that created us in it's image. I am God's Messenger, Any questions ?
If you read and could think you would see it is true
@@garystevenson5560I have been using Whatsapp Messenger for a while now. Can I update and use God's Messenger with my existing phone number or do I have to get a new one?
The pudding is in the tasting.
@@garystevenson5560 I have no idea what that is supposed to mean
I purchased the Selfish Gene on audio last year and it’s one of the best I’ve heard
Dawkins is a good educator
Is it in his voice?
@@qasimmir7117Wow! A muslim athiest. That's a very rare thing.
Lol sorry late reply
Yes Dawkins is the narrator 👍
@@nakulsharda6771 There is actually a lot. Especially in a moderate or more secular country. Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia. But yeah, they are undocumented... so we are never sure how many atheists are here.
Greeting from Indonesian Ex Muslim, peace ✌
Monsoon insipired me to read the selfish gene
I think "selfish gene" is one of the greatest misnomers in science. Not because it's inherently a wrong name but because it makes most people _think_ "selfishness gene", even though it can mean the exact opposite. Many people just know the keyword and throw it together with social darwinism and whatnot. The results are often very unfortunate.
I've never considered that. If people think that, they mustn't be very clear thinkers. I would think most people, like me, know what is meant by the term.
Graham Griffiths Ok, since I don't have any statistic that I can quote I will weaken "most people" to "far too many people" :)
I agree. Modern science seems to have made a habit of latching on to completely misleading phrases. Other ones include The Big Bang, expanding universe, black holes. All from space stuff I know but that is my main interest.
chrisofnottingham What's bad about "black hole"? Would you prefer "singularity"? That can't be misleading because it's completely cryptic to the average Joe.
The term "Big Bang" was coined by a critic of the theory but it was so catchy that it stuck. And along with the expansion of the universe, I think I see why you don't like it but it's a detail really and one that might not even have been known at the time. I mean it's not anybody's job to force scientists into changing their nomenclature in a way that makes the concept most likely to be intuitively understood by a layperson.
The Selfish Gene, however, was a book whose title was deliberately chosen to summarize its contents and apparently Dawkins now admits that it was maybe a bad choice.
Black hole is misleading because it isn't a hole. Or at least not in any normal sense of the word hole. From answering many astronomy questions on Yahoo Answers I can tell you that lots people asking questions about black holes start from the assumption that they are black and they are holes.
I'm aware of the history of coining Big Bang but that is no excuse to carry it on IMHO. It implies an explosion, which is about the most misleading way to mentally model it. The cosmological principle and indeed Einstein's Relativity were well established before Hubble's discovery, so all concerned knew the inappropriateness of likening it to a bomb going off, which is what 99% of people take away from the phrase Big Bang.
As for expansion, everyone but everyone who hasn't studied a bit, assumes it means a finite object whose edges are getting further apart or moving out from its centre, because that's what expansion usually is. Given the opportunity, I would have invented the word "inpansion", then at least people would know that they didn't know what it means - objects receding from each other uniformly on the inside (ie generation new empty space between all large scale objects).
shellfish jeans
Jeans are immortal .... :D
is not my lover...
she's just a girl who claims that I am the one
@@atteindresiempredad BUT, THE GENE IS NOT MY SON (hee hee)
Ha ha! That’s the sort of thing that comes up when I use voice text
THE STUDY OF THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE IS BEAUTIFUL AND ITS EXPERIENCE IS ABSOLUTELY BLISSFUL.
I read Selfish Gene,and your several books,including The extended phenotype ,Greatest show on earth etc.The gene is the unit in the sense of replicator and the organism is the unit in the sense of vehicle.This has changed my world-view and I am a lot happier thereafter. 🙏🙏👍👍
Our viewers are so generous with their time and we love you for it. This video is now available with Chinese subtitles! 謝謝
The Royal Institution I spotted there are quite a few mistranslation
Ni hao
Selfish gene changed my life. My view of life actually.
Richard Dawkins, a treasure to the world.
Omg, “The Immortal Gene” sounds much cooler than selfish gene.
Of course all of us understand the concept intellectually..but if we take a moment and really let it hit our emotions and feelings it will make a huge difference in our thinking rather than considering it as another interesting scientific fact...
True.
*Memes, Jack!*
The DNA of the soul!
Now we are talking the same language. MGS Rising got me into this book. What an amazing game.
I am very happy to see that there are so many free thinkers in the comment section.
I like Richard Dawkins ! He is great !
So I am playing Parasite Eve for the first time and streaming it and we were talking about this sort of stuff, and it pretty much brought me to know who Richard Dawkins was they quoted his book, and name in the game. Not only did I enjoy a Fiction riding reality, but learned of someone new!
I read the God delusion in 2017 and the rest is history.
Thanks Richard
So basically, humans are CDs, and have to be replaced every so often as they wear out. However, each time you replace them you lose a bit of sound quality. Until 5,000,000 years down the line you end up with a Nickelback CD.
Wait, does that explain stupid people? Since they're bad copies
Dawkins is a BS con man....an ex. scientist...turned fiction writer/charade debater, etc. ....for profit...
...none of his ideas/theories ever made it to a science textbook....
Same with Harris...Krauss...his disciples....just BS...snake oil....zero scientific value.....
Lane...Deepak...Souza...the same on the religious side...making millions...by lying to zombies....
David Jones best comment I have ever read!!!!! Really.
🤔😮🤯
@@atheist1855 Thats wrong, the selfish gen is discussed in evolution university courses. but nice try :)
The Man is perhaps the most valuable communicator since Carl Sagan..
His ties are very interesting..
So basically humans are John Malkovich, the selfish gene is John Cusack, unsuccessful traits are the New Jersey turnpike, and successful traits are a famous puppeteer.
I honestly appreciate this so much
I just read, it was awesome
Read the book...
amazing richard dawkins
I want to hear Dawkins talk about the concept of the Ego.
above all thought Inspire me and definitely whole world
Amazing 👌
nice tie
Just one small correction to what Dawkins says here. at 1.50 "If the body in which it sits dies, before reproducing then that coded information is not going to go on..."
What he means to say is if the body fails to contribute to fertile offspring then the coded information is not going to go on.
The distinction is that organisms may well reproduce, but if their offspring are infertile, or die before themselves reproducing, due to some metabolic or anatomical problem, for example, or indeed if the offspring does anything that renders it unavailable to successfully breed, the genes will not be sent into the future.
There is at least one exception to this and this is social insects like bees. Here the individual which does all the reproducing is the queen, but the workers which support this individual do contribute to sending genes they carry into the future because copies of these genes also reside in the queen. So they themselves don't reproduce but their actions lead to their genes being propagated. Altruism.
exactly, an organism itself doesn't really have to reproduce. it just has to see that the gene will be passed on in future generations. it also comes in the social nature of humans i.e we are keen to help other humans live even if we die. because the gene is safe, even if the machine dies.
the idea of gene has been found many years ago before dawkins, what contribution does this book have to the topic of gene? Did he find something new?
selfish gene is perhaps the greatest book ever written
it really answers so many questions about life
why do we do things we do in our life in a simple terms
so true
In your opinion of course.
Start: 0:23 Stop: 2:02 (Please ignore this comment, great video by the way!!!)
Wonderful
The ego is the reflection in the mirror. Example: if one believes that self is an evil sinner, one will be certain to see that reflection in the mirror. And if one believes that one has a soul that is saved and certain to feel eternal bliss in a hereafter ... one will see that reflection in the mirror. The ego is always hallucinating. “We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.
Believe it or not, I came to know about this book from Parasite Eve video game. Crazy stuff.
You know what's crazy? To this day video games are not consider an art form and are even considered harmful...
@@lucasmoreirasantos8377 When you meet a scientist in the game he will mention it. This game is a true gem in the Playstation One era that no gamer should miss even if you are from the younger generation.
Here from Metal Gear Solid 2!
Came and read the book because of metal gear solid haha
In Metal Gear Solid, Liquid Snake literally name drops the selfish gene theory. Hideo Kojima is obviously a fan of Dawkins' work.
Thanks for your biology lessons. My career is dogs and cats now. ❤❤🎉🎉
tight arguments 👏
The father of the meme. I bet not many people know this guy.
Mr Dawkins, without disagreeing with you, i would like to add that genes of various species are filtered out through the food chain in various processes. One example is that of camoflaged species. The gene pool may begin with all sorts or patterns and colors but those that best match their environment have a higher chance of being overlooked and survive where the others get picked off. This in turn allows that set of genes to progress and the others to be blocked. The same with plants and the environment. Sometimes a set of plants might even create the right set of conditions to allow another species to thrive and in turn destroys the original and then the invasive species. An example of this would be a shady canopy allowing a vine to grow which then kills the canopy and then the vine. A lot like humans are doing now.
Where can I buy that tie?
I passed up this book yesterday.I’m going back for it.
If your organism has genes, that organism has been designed. We should expect to see in organisms that have been designed by Intelligence these features: Intelligence (brain) with the exception of plants and bacteria, Regulated rate of growth in cells, Proportionality and Symmetry, and DNA. We should not expect to see these features in organisms that are products of Random Chance.
I like Dawkins when he sticks to his own expertise.
Go On!Keep on believing in your impotent sky fairy daddy bro!
@@injusticeanywherethreatens4810 Don't assume you know what I believe.
@@seamus9305 bleh blehblegh blhe ble ble reeeeee. I spoke your language there.
@@injusticeanywherethreatens4810 Does your mother know you are playing with the computer?
Excellent command of the English language !
im here cause of the AI talking her favorite book
When i was a kid i had a very selfish brother who kept robben my jeans, very annoying.
Never said it was.
My gene is happy to have survived millions of years.
My DNA is amazed! Some 30 million years?
and it's done.
@@user-ht4zv9es2h
Yep. Rest in peace
where's the explanation?
Intro is too loud, compared to content
I still don't get purpose of passing the genes. I would die anyway. Some people say we pass our genes because we fear death and our child would be the only living achievement that would pass genes again and that could live forever. But maybe our "selfish" genes force us to replicate them without our awareness? What is the value of replicating genes from perspective of gene?
There isn’t a purpose. It’s all just chemistry.
U have no purpose the atoms arranged themselves by the forces of nature in such a way that they will last longest in such form just because they r so good at it. n they continue to improve their lifetime.
Suggest reading the book. It's a very good read.
He sounds like stewie griffin lol
oh....my....god!
lmao
Mihir P totally 😂
😂😂😂💀
More like an old lady
This is why moral nihilism is the logical stance if you take a scientific stance on morality. You can speak in terms of the advantages or disadvantages of a behavior insofar as it concerns the organism’s ability to reproduce, but not “right” or “wrong.” And even successful replication isn’t “right” as it’s an arguably fruitless aim in the final analysis given the eventual heat death of the universe. 🙃
Someone offer an alternative viewpoint that stands against this, I’m curious.
Also, if you wish to suggest some sort of free will giving rise to morality, I’ll need some evidence for free will.
Morality is baked into evolution. Humans have developed what we term moral behaviours because they aid survival.
@ 1:25 did he just reveal the meaning of life?
Yeah when a guy goes up on stage and makes an absolute statement to immediately revoke his absolute statement you can tell not even he knows what he's talking about
Learn gene from mgs series, epik
Memes, the DNA of the soul
Makes me wonder about all the supposed junk DNA piggybacking on the successful genes.
Like a hoarder would say, It may come in handy some day.
Why are we different from each other.,?
In reality no gene from millions of years ago has been found to be identical to an analogous gene today because of the selection pressure of molecular natural selection working much faster at the molecular level than the macroscopic level.
on page 135 and 136 Proffessor Dawkins suggests that I might be wasting my time reading this paragraph in his book< I have to agree, and will go one step futher> I might be wasting my time reading this book! His obsecion with subjective metaphors, and his round about thinking, doesn't really take me anywhere! I'd like to ask prof. Dawkins, Are you really as smart as you think you are or >>>> is it posible that you are as susptible to the Duning Krugere effect as the rest of us???????
wow
A massive amount of detailed information for the design of every minute detail of living creatures just organized itself? Is that what he’s saying?
Actually I think he overlooked that part.
Ah, the fine tuning argument. very creative
Original Selfishness
His tie has leaf insects on it
Picked Simplified TRIZ. Supporting woman first like the Mitochondrial Eve. ❤🎉
I think it's important to note that some of Dawkin's book titles can seem edgy or almost offensive to people. While they are attention grabbers, one must distinguish between the concepts of psychological egoism versus people who can debilitate you with their malicious ego-centrism. This is an important note to make. I admit it, I have watched a honey boo-boo episode. I don't blame anyone but myself for partaking in watching that show a couple years ago. What is framed and focused on in society is pretty important too. You can choose, like gum.
Dawkins is a BS con man....an ex. scientist turned fiction writer/charade debater...none of his ideas/theories ever made it to a science textbook...the gene is not selfish...he said he made a mistake..then he said it is immortal...could not prove it...altruism? Dawkins has zero clue..the brain is very complex..we know very little about the why..even though in 35 years in the lab...I observed the what...known to science...
Same with his disciples Harris...Krauss...just snake oil salesmen....for money...zero scientific value....
Just like Lane...Deepak..Souza...on the other side...
***** Yes...they are worthless to science.
Dawkins is a VERY FAMOUS CLOWN...lots of awards...that mean nothing...just fame...
An empty suit...a VERY GOOD CON MAN...
Found a SCHEME attacking religion, etc. that made him RICH and FAMOUS...
Nothing new...Hitchens did it BRILLIANTLY..
But Dawkins DOES IT CLAIMING HE IS A SCIENTIST...he has not been one for 40 years!!!
Charlie Chaplin was a BETTER CLOWN...
He got more awards...than Dawkins..due to his enormous fame...and TV...media was small then..Chaplin deserved it more...his job was to entertain us...honestly...HE DID!!!
***** I could not care less about religion ....
He cares more about it...than I ever did...he was raised religious...his 3 ex. wives are religious..his daughter was raised catholic....
His 3 ex. wives...in court..called him a pathological liar...and a con man...
His books...have zero to do with science....they are BS...science fiction...snake oil to fool people...who don t know science...
To say religion is BS...is easy...because it is..Hitchens....did it much better...
He was a fiction novelist...never lied...
I knew him well...my wife is best friends with his widow, Carol..
But Dawkins...wants to be known ....as a scientist...he is not...
He is a fiction novelist..just like Hitchens...but with inferior writing skills...
He is a charade...staged debater vs other charlatans like himself..lying ...to make millions...ignoring ..true science..
You are lying to yourself...you like him..because you think...he advances atheism....he does not...at all....
Carl Sagan did...science channels..discovery, etc. do...most scientists I know...feel this way about Dawkins..Harris..etc.
I don t even think Dawkins is an atheist...he lies so much...
***** Are you familiar with area 51?
I don t agree with main stream science?
Really?
Natural selection is now science law...
Dawkins...is a charlatan...for profit...
His agenda...does not include main stream science...or science....at all....it is about ...science fiction...his novels...BS...staged...charade debates...vs christian charlatans...to con money...out of ...well meaning atheists...who don t know science...like you...and well meaning christians...who live in a fantasy world..
Main stream science...is in textbooks...in every science classroom in the world.
Not a single idea from Dawkins novels...even the one that made him famous....the selfish gene...ever made it into a textbook..
He talks about Darwin..who was mostly wrong...that fits his agenda..
Falsify...the current component of evolution..natural selection....
What? Stop reading Dawkins BS..
Darwin is current?
His theory was questioned for 130 years...badly flawed...based mostly on guess work...he hated math...huge mistake...
Natural selection is science law...since the 1980 s...it does not work as Darwin said...the math...does not work...his estimations were flat wrong...
I can show....natural selection..evolution...as it happens to anyone...in my lab...speed it up..in a super computer...as clear as 2+ 2 = 4...
What is there to debate? Dawkins knows that...he is a con man...wants to continue debating...using wrong data..from the dark ages...
...for $150000/per debate...
His 3 ex. wives called him a pathological liar and a con..2 of them in court...the 3rd has not been to court yet..by the way I do not believe he is an atheist...
His daughter was raised catholic...his 3 wives were religious...etc.
***** You don t even have a basic understanding of science...
There is no science law...really?
Pathetic...look up science laws named after people....what is the only one related to evolution/natural selection...? ...in the history of science...
There are very few science laws...there are thousand of science theories...like Darwin s...
No science law...has ever...been proven wrong...
I repeat...I can show evolution/natural selection..as it happens...to anyone in my lab...it is real...it does not work ...as Darwin said...
Dawkins personal life...is very important...because what is in question is his honesty...my wife of 38 years thinks I am a sincere and honest person...I am..
Dawkins 3 ex. wives all think he is a pathological liar..a con man...
...he is..
of course...he is very popular...his novels are...so is the national enquirer...tabloids sell...lies sell.....
...but....no...nothing he writes...results ...in critical thinking about science...at all....or about critical thinking about anything...he writes fiction..fantasy...for people like you who don t even understand...the basics of science evolution/natural selection...and why Darwin was mostly proven wrong...
Area 51...of course you don t know anything about it...so you insult and call my question BS...
Dr. Sagan never SHARED with the world...no one ever does...there is email...phones..meetings..etc..
You know zero about it...and about science...I am sorry...
I always tell the truth...very straight..etc...learned that from my mom...
who was a brilliant scientist...if you don t like it and don t want to learn...as I do everyday...with humility...then I am sorry...
eyebrow goals
Sofia Dorrell plus they stay put when it rains xd
My wife Kavi is in, in addition to Dawkins. I listen to her.
Do chemical engineers have more biological knowledge than other traditional engineering backgrounds like civil, mechanical and electrical and also software engineering considering that they study microbiology and biochemical engineering in their course? Say yes or no and nothing else
Yes
Who is Richard Dawkins the biologist wife
As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, Richard Dawkins was married to Lalla Ward, an actress known for her role as Romana in the television series "Doctor Who." However, please note that this information might be outdated, and I recommend verifying the current status of their relationship through more recent sources.
ChatGPT
Accepting my undergrad in chemical engineering here.
Thanks Dr Dawkins on all your biology lessons.
💗
Genes and memes are very useful and pretty ways of understanding the world, but I wonder if Dawkins and many of his followers believe they actually exist.
Thinking about reoccurring biological and cultural elements as subject to their own kinds of Darwinian pressures is a functional model of how things tend to play out, but to claim that it is more than just a model is a substantial metaphysical assertion.
The organisms and strands of DNA exist physically, and social interactions are observable, but saying that pieces of information can be successful or have a properties of any kind strongly implies that they exist in the world in a way that is different from a grouping of physical instances.
The meme stuff is a bit fishy.
SapereAude1490 His ideas on genes are iffy in about the same way.
He doesn't seem to be saying that these common traits can be better understood if we pretend that they are entities that behave in such a way.
It seems to me that he is saying that there ARE these informational entities that DO behave in a particular way.
Only the individual organisms and their traits as individuals exist physically and heritability is explained by observable processes. Gene theory as anything more than a conceptual tool is a metaphysical claim.
A piece of computer code is nothing more than a bunch of letters, or on the basic level zeros and ones. It still has properties and can be successful. It's still a piece of code. Isn't that a fair analogy?
If I remember correctly - in the book The Selfish Gene he explains that a gene or meme it's not actually a thing, but a way to understand it better. It's better to have a name for it even though each gene has a very fuzzy line and are embedded and overlapping one another.
Måns Grebäck If he acknowledges that they're a tool for understanding rather than a part of the world then everything is perfectly fine.
On the other hand, he doesn't say that here and he talks in a way that seems like it might be a bit misleading to people without a background in philosophy.
The thing with code. It is a fair analogy, but code is subject to the same criticisms.It certainly Functions as code, but it's just an arrangement of letters, which are arrangements of zeros and ones, which are arrangements of electrons. You can go farther than this, but it gets difficult to write about.
***** They can't. Saying that a parent "passes on" some of their genes to their children is certainly a convenient way of understanding things, but the DNA isn't physically persistent. Genes aren't even very persistent within an individual. It's just a useful metaphor to say that an individual has a set of genes when the cells are all handling their own DNA.
The guy who invented memes.
Memes were invented by Jacques Monod. Dawkins coined the term, however.
could a gene go dormant for a period of time, then reappear?
Yes recessive versions are not expressed if a dominant version is available.
Its like having a board with black paint and white paint on it. The baby would obviously come out grey (a mixture of both paints) but the building blocks would be half a black gene and half a white gene.
If the grey baby grows up, and reproduces with a white paint. The offspring would obviously return back to white (grey paint plus white paint).
But the last offsprings genetics would be 1/4 black 1/4 grey 2 /4 white.
See how the last offspring has genetics 1/4 black 1/4 grey 2 /4 white. Yet the original organisms only had 1 black and 1 white gene.
You could call that another species, or even evolution itself. Simplest way i can explain.
Who made our first common ancestor...?
Their parents.
Its ancestor.
I'm far from an expert on this but the closest thing I can think of is "organic chemical reactions that ultimately led to the formation of nucleotides and their ability to base-pair with each other."
Can someone please explain to me (no powerpoints please) what Dawkins thought of negative human emotions in relation to the selfish gene? If the gene's primary motive is to survive (caring for our young is an expression of gene survival through legacy) than how does destructive anger or depression play into this? Also, why does the selfish gene procure addictive behavioral traits, like alcoholism or drug addiction? Looking for quick answers so I can get on with my day. My husband has the book so if its in the book I will have to separate a holiday aside to fish for the answers. But if you already know, please summarize it for me. Thank you kindly.
+Alyss Flynn Oh my great response. Thank you. I am new to the evolutionary study of the genetics of consciousness so more reading is in order.
+Frances Newman something to understand that might put our "modern problems" into perspective is the idea of how natural selection works and what it really means today. In the past (like millions of years ago), organisms really were just about living or dying. A bird had better wings or better eyesight so it lived when others did not do so well. Well what happens when our brains developed to be intelligent? We end up evolving in a different way now. It's not simply that rudimentary do or die way of natural selection. Now we "evolve" as a society like a giant organism in a way. We pass on memes. And certainly this has benefited us greatly. BUT, the society we have built around ourselves was never truly part of the "natural" experience of life. We may have great logic faculties in our brains, but sometimes it seems that we try to push only that upon ourselves and in doing so forget that we are animals that still reside with the deep rooted emotions of fear and survival instincts. So generally when species evolve in someway and the change sticks around, it's because it had some purpose within the context of the environment when the change occurred. But our environment(cities, personal homes, internet, our knowledge of science, etc.) has changed a lot in the past thousands of years.
So a lot of things we label mental illnesses or irregularities are just things that would have been perhaps beneficial some hundreds of thousands of years ago. they just don't mesh with our current existence exactly and you get bizarre results that aren't even the way they would have been used when it was helpful.
Nurture. Or the lack thereof. You might be interested in John Bowlby's theories of attachment and ethology. Humans have innate biological needs which have evolved for our survival - attachment to caregivers etc. If these are not met, mental illness is the result. This of course does not account for some forms of mental illness such as schizophrenia etc, which are postulated to be genetic in origin. But I think it applies to the traits you reference.
You're looking for a quick summary to a serious issue. The most honest answer is that there isn't one. If it were that easy people wouldn't still be struggling with those challenges. The best I can do is humbly submit that your answer is an individual one and will be found not as much in Biology as it would in Psychology which (at least to me) seems to suggest that emotions are something that we create ourselves. A great Psychologist won't be interested in sitting you on a couch and asking about your life, they will be interested in teaching you how the human mind works. I think you're answer is most likely to be found there. I sincerely hope this helps, my family has had similar challenges and so have i.
Frances Newman Think about it. Anger can definitely help you survive.
9 years later, looking at declining morality of society of riot, crime, tiktok stupidity, narcissist personality, self-gratification, all that. I wonder if it's the selfish gene that cause it.
Did you hear about the greedy Crustacea he was shelfish
I just posted a review of the Extended Phenotype if anyone wants to check it out.
I ‘m looking forward to the pompous gene.
so we are here to survive???????
Is that why I have the underlying feeling that I want to have children? Because my genes (all of my ancestors) did so too and it lead to their survival?
Humans vary a lot in what they want. The ones who want to have kids are more likely to have kids. If the desire to have kids is an heritable trait, then sure.
The Selfish Gene (book) is the bible for atheist. It explains the world as we know, without resorting to complex Gods.
A must read for any critical thinking person.
Your comment makes no sense. Atheism doesn't need science or any knowledge whatsoever. Atheism is a position of not accepting that which fails to meet the burden of proof. It's a position on ONE CLAIM. It is not anything else.
At close to 50 yrs old, it doesn't appear this body's genes will make it further. 10000 BC - 20?? AD
Unsuccessful genes? We cannot control our genetics so injustice 😭
Liquid agree with you
What don’t you get?
i still dont get it
so roughly speaking, "immortal gene" = "immortal information". I am not aware of any "information" that is "mortal". information, once existed/discovered, would always be there in a form or another. I like the "artistic" use of the language, apparently it is generating quite a bit of likes. one from me :)
It's called Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine. These have been around since the beginning.
If our genes are the same as they were millions of years ago, then why do we look so different to earlier forms of people?
Conditions are one of the main variants to physical developments. For instance, plants vary in color to attract different species of insects, while only some insects have the proper length of tongues to feed on orchids with longer nectar tuculars. Conditions of the environment strongly affect how we look and adapt.
What is still wrong though, that genes are immortal? Can you expatiate on that a little bit?
He's mainly referring to the genes that dictate metabolism and cellular structure.
It's called Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine. These have been around since the begining. Google it.
@@Zaramoku Genes are potentially immortal if the physical trait they code for confers survival benefit and is therefore selected by an organisms natural environment for generations, and possibly through geologic time.
Why are genes selfish
The interviewers body language is interesting!!
Yes! I noticed it too. Seems to me that he was kind of crestfallen.
Why intros?
220 000 views stole over a million of seconds from people living one already short life
Immortal or selfish genes? death and selfishness are anthropocentric terms. If we talk of "nature" as something outside of us, and we even do so by talking of parts of us like genes and organs, I think we should not use the terms "death" or "selfish" in the same sense as we use it denoting the end of a human life or the selfishness of a human being. But anthropocentric thinking is very abundant (which is not bad for evolution) also in scientific language. One often hears e.g. of "the "death" or the "birth" of a star" or "the system "tries" to minimize it's energy" etc. etc. But I think some insights (perhaps useless for the purpose of procreation) come by trying to avoid anthropocentrism as much as possible. The problems in artificial intelligence seem to be of a similar nature, where it is hard to define a common sense what intelligence should be. I see a less ambiguous but may be very general definition of "intelligence" in a tight connection with evolution as the "art" of survival.
Now the unsurpassed flexibility of the human brain may in the long run turn out as a mistake with respect to survival because it creates problems by creating solutions of problems. (The beheaded dragon, which grows multiple new heads.) Let's hope it will be good enough to turn the corner of each problem it is creating.
Dawkins is a BS con man....an ex. scientist turned fiction writer/charade debater, etc.....none of his ideas/theories ever made it to a science textbook....
Same with his disciples Harris...Krauss...just snake oil salesmen....for profit...
just like Lane..Deepak..Souza....on the other side....zero scientific value...
+Tony Sienceismylife Your comment and the Name you are using lets me wonder what your perception of science is. But I would not say that Harris and Krauss etc. are "his disciples" rather than independent thinkers. Do you think they write just for money? I don't think so. I have my own thoughts but I think these men give very valuable inputs.
What causes you to say that they are con men?
Wassily Kandinsky I am a scientist....all I care about is science...
True science...the absolute truth....
They are his disciples...Dawkins started the charade debate tour with Lane...etc. it is all staged...showbiz..for money...science has nothing to do with it...
Later Dawkins recruited others as the tour became more popular...including Harris and Krauss...
Writing fiction novels...BS...does not contribute at all to science....
What contributes...is what Dawkins did until 40 tears ago...work in the lab...research...if you fail..keep trying...hard work..long hours..low pay..Dawkins used the fame he achieved with the...selfish gene...to become a self promoter...a fiction novelist, etc. to make millions...zero scientific value....
Sagan was offered millions to do the same...he refused...he had dignity...he made science more popular the right way...
He wrote...contact..with his wife Ann..who was a screen writer...Sagan believed in aliens...so do I... both he and I know more about them..than we can reveal...
+Tony Scienceismylife Of course Dawkins doesn't yield many really scientific contributions anymore. But I think you underestimate the value and the necessity of public relations for science. And that's the contributions of these people to science. If I'd live in the USA I would be worried about the creationist movement and it's influence on the schools. Popular science literature is important in this respect.
Wassily Kandinsky Your premise may have a point but you are wrong about Dawkins...
He does nothing for popular science...or science public relations, etc.
Sagan did....several scientists do today....the right way...on science channels...discovery...etc.
Writing...talking....true science...in lay terms...
What Dawkins and his disciples do...is promote the atheist agenda...for money...with fiction...BS...not science...
that does nothing to influence anyone except atheists...in fact...christianity is stronger than ever in the US...
....christian scientists use the Dawkins, etc. BS fiction books...to mock atheism...
they don t do that with true science on discovery, etc..
The truth has to be told in a respectful manner....in a sincere manner...not with lies...fiction...that is not science..at all...
I believe his theory to be true and I hate it.
Why? The book explains how selfish genes create altruistic individuals. I think it is an uplifting message.
@@FranFerioli
Selfish genes create atheistic individuals.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 Considering how immoral is religion, the spreading of atheism cannot happen soon enough.
Once I realized that this is the ‘meaning of life’, it has been impossible for me to justify bringing a person into existence. All one has to do is look at the millions of people who are in great states of suffering to come to the conclusion that it isn’t worth the risk
@foxxy grandpa
Most people would agree with you, but can you elaborate on why you feel that way?
you did not get it...
i will explain to you.
YOU ARE JUST A A CONTAINER FOR GENES/LIFE....YOU HAVE TO HAVE KIDS.
THATS THE MEANING OF LIFE.
IF YOU DONT HAVE KIDS...YOUR GENES DIE...USELESS LIFE... NO MEANING.
WHEN YOU 80 AND DYING IN BED... I HOPE YOU GOT A FAMILY TO HOLD YOUR HAND.
@foxxy grandpa How does your reply correlate to his/ her comment above??
He/ she says reproduction is ultimately a waste of time and a senseless act , he/ she doesn't argue about it being the point of life or not. He / she actually acknowledged that fact.
He's beautifully articulate. Makes me think its all the more shame that so many on this earth are uneducated to the point they must believe in magic to process reality.
I have a problem which I don't know if it is ethical. I have 3 wife kind of creatures. My first was not married to me but has a kid saying I don't care and took away most genetic material. I don't remember how she got it. The second one I got married has a kid and she also stole genetic material and I don't know for what and divorced me straight without any problems whatsoever. I was frustrated and got married the second time and I have a kid. But she took revenge on me saying I cheated her because of my first marriage. Now I don't think anything anymore but life is difficult and insane and ripple my mind of how complex the act of marriage is. Most people spend there life looking for stable family but things have changed so different nowadays. The complexities of life is gene sustenance and it always takes that path. Jews are similar and some family have the traits.
When women become independent life story is different.
My other problem is my sister got married to a twinning family and so her daughter has two identical twins who look exactly like me.
I can never understand the world or its creations.
Is there a gene for mercy too? Or do we have to use our heart for that?
well hearts pump blood... soooo... no.
I'm here because of metal gear raising revengins
🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
Be honest...who is here from 'Parasyte -The maxim-'?..Only me,Ok😭😭
🖐🖐🖐🖐🖐
Yo
✋
I've been researching this for a while and understand it mainly but my question is what is the point?
i understand the survival part but what is the end goal.
i thought it would be firstly just the gene and one had the "idea" to ask why
so it built stronger biological process and gave them treats when they did things right (dopamine)
and then they built computers etc and we are continuing in the look for this answer
"why we are here"
you hear echo through all humanities thoughts
and that is the genes "quest"
it might be the main reason people fall for religion aside from the few who choose it for community the others that actually believe it is because the selfish gene is asking the brain if it fits in the brain's model of reality and if it does it is happy and done. because the brain wasn't smart enough to say "no, this doesn't make any sense".So proving them wrong will need to teach the brain that it had it all wrong but this would make the lowest dopamine levels because we get dopamine when our brain predicts something right and this would prove everything it knew as wrong which would cause a long depression and many people won't face this
while those other people choose science and we are slowly finding the answers which the brain and selfish gene will agree on
the selfish gene made the brain so it could see if the answer to it's question would make sense to the model of reality proving it correct.
you can explain all human behavior with dopamine
so you are just getting treats to follow the selfish genes objective
if anyone has anything to disprove this or other ideas please comment
There is no end goal, life is simply just a random process. We are organisms which evolved and live.
What are you on about? Whats dopimine got to do with this? We have millions of chemicals with in us and you bring up dopimine...
??
Theres no reason to be here. Why is that hard to understand. Just like 1 + 1 = 2 theres no reason. It just is what it is.
Okay I give up with the rest of your comment you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Vegan Cabbage it’s because the human brain has been programmed to believe there is reason in all. If you have the ability to lock your brains format you’ll be able to realize there can be no meaning because meaning has no effect in the result of life. Why does there need to be meaning in order to create? I can hum a song right now with no meaning other than to just do it. That’s life, something that arose because it can, not because there’s meaning to it.
I suggest actually reading 'The Selfish Gene.' Lots of answers in there.
Isn't this in other words survival of the fittest?
An AI robot recommended me this book.
unfortunately not all the fittest breed. Isaac Newton for whatever reason opted for celibacy thus depriving future generations of his genes. its an unfortunate reality that the smartest of people or the highest earners have less or no kids. Those few who do, bravo on delaying idiocracy, but most dont and it seems famines and plagues are the unfortunate events that force bad genes to die off and at high costs replenish the vitality if the average human gene pool. species seem to improve over small bursts and then ocilate for decades, centuries or millenia. (sharks seem to have found no need for change in over several million years. humans might be either stagnant or going down a slope right now judging by the increased predominance of genetic diseases, lower iq's and high incest rates in several populous nations.
Hello meme lords that have came because of the research of memes
The memes
Dawkins actually coined the term 'meme'.