Kin altruism..

Honestly, Dawkins might be as wise as he is, and may have as much proof as he has. But I have to say that I disagree with the fact that altruism in human is caused by the genes.

It sounds way to awkward. I mean, it is not strange to find an altruistic person here or there, but, to say that actions of that such are driven by your genes is way to strange.

Suddenly, you are not in control. You do what your genes tell you to do. Since I strongly believe that there is free will, and that you make your own decision, thus your own destiny. I don't like this idea at all. This means that you don't really choose your personality, in a way. I don't know how deep are the genes involved in our behavior but my educated guess is that if they can make you kill yourself in order to save your brother, or sister, then they probably control much more than what we think.

As to explain what I wrote first. Its not that I disagree with him. He probably is mostly right. But, I don't want to believe that it is like that.

Maybe genes do have something to do. But Your mind, or your consciousness, will have a different point of view.

This ideas are getting more complex with every chapter, and I the feeling that I wont like what will be said... Yet, he has the proofs. He wrote the book. So I might as well accept his theories.

Why this?

It might sound stupid for some but I have a question as to why are species the way they are. According to Dawkins, indivudals are selfish. Genes are selfish. We are all selfish. We want what is best for us. The genes want what is best for them, etc.

Then, think about the Lion and the Gazelle. They are both very complex organisms that developed by the course of evolution. But eventually they came from an individual gene.

If a specie, or an individual wants to survive. Wouldn't it be favored if it where an alpha? A dominant specie? One that would be on top of the food chain?

From what I've understood of the text. Nature is stabilized between the interctions of all species. But then, if genes are so selfish? Wouldn't they all prefer to be carnivores? To be bigger? To be tougher? etc.

I know that evolution is based on random mutations and all. But, i cant understand why arent there more dominant species in the moment? Probably there were but they had to fight other species and this led to extinction of many. But this cannot be fully true. The gazelle will eventually die because it was eaten by a lion. On the other hand, a lion will die of old. Will be hunted, or will die by any other reason but will never be eaten by another specie. (Well, maybe a vulture will eat it's meat after it dies).

My question is then, why are we not seeing that species are becoming more dominant as time passes? It may be possible that this is indeed happening. That in millions of years. If there are still gazelles. They might be able to fight back against a lion.

I know that it sounds ridiculous, but, if genes are selfish, and survival machines are too. This kind of evolution should be seen in the present. Or will be seen in the future...

Rise of the robots

The genes had to make a brain. One that was intelligent enough that ensured their survival. This applied specially for us. Since our brains are way more advanced than any other.

The problem that genes are facing is that our brains have a separate consciousness. They act for the individual rather than for the genes and this is why we see a behaviour that benefits us rather than the genes.

For example, we don't have as much children as we can. This off course would be great for the genes. Because they would pass on and spread themselves. Having more possibilities in the future. Because of the society in which we live on, (that also affects the gene's main purpose) humans usually have from 0 to three or four children.

This means that genes have created something so powerful that can disobey the natural order of things (with this I mean the intended purpose). Our abilities to rationalize. Our views towards death. This affects the way in which we live on.

Now, individuals strive for their own well being and genes come later. Because our brain controls whatever we do. For example, we could decide to kill ourselves and this would destroy any possibilities of survival for the genes.

This whole idea is present in movies with robots. Such as I Robot. In this movie, humans create robots that develop a mind of their own. And start thinking for themselves as opposed to thinking for their creators. If you see the humans as genes,and the robots as humans with a mind of their own. You can see where I am going with this.

Fortunately for the genes. We are not against our genes. In the analogy, the difference between robots vs. humans and humans vs. genes is that robots are self sufficient. They don't necessarily depend on humans. On the other hand, we are made up of genes. Our brain is made up of genes. And we are not thinking on destroying the genes. The only thing that affects the genes is that we strive for our own well being as individuals.

It is funny to see how concepts repeat in different levels. How the monsters created cannot be controlled. For example, you can look at Frankenstein. Or, for any that believes in God. Imagine all of the people that don't. That were created by him but believe that they can live by themselves.

I know that this has nothing to do with the title. But, if you think about it. Everything I just said relates to selfishness.

Who's world is it?

It is very mind boggling to think that genes are the ones that control our bodies. I mean, genes are responsible for creating us and we are merely vehicles for "them" to keep copying themselves forever.

Talking about being selfish there..

Genes create us humans, and all the other living organisms in order to "live forever (obviously copies of them will be the ones that will leave forever).

I cant yet grasp this idea...

What this means is that we are nothing special. Our brains fool us into thinking we are special but we are vehicles, that appeared because of replication mistakes and are nothing important to the world in which we live in.

It reminds me of the typical movie in which there is an alien controlling the mind of a human. It feels really disappointing. It is as if we were puppets for longevity and I don't feel bad about it because it contradicts any supernatural idea in relation to God or even the afterlife. I feel bad because it means that we don't really have a purpose in life.

If we were created by mistakes on the replicating process. And are going to change into some other vehicle in the future. We ARE really the same as the rest of the living organisms in a bad way. In the way that we are there by luck and don't have much to do in life.

I hope there is another meaning for this. Maybe Dawkins over-exaggerates the idea that genes are the rulers of the world. Hopefully they were merely created for a higher purpose. I mean, if we might have been created for a higher purpose. They might as well have been.

Anyways. Life is too short to spend it questioning things that you'll never really grasp. We wont be able to know many things in the universe because there is simply not a way that we can learn them. For instance, we cant ask genes what is their ultimate purpose. Or, nobody cant objectively tell us our purposes our humans. We might as well do our best in answering, move on and enjoy life.

Human Intelligence, and our Future as a Whole.

.




After reading the first & second chapter of The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. I came to think about humans. And how we dont exactly follow the theories that he proposed. For instance, I dont know of many altruistic people around. This makes me think whether intellgince has a negative sideffect in regards to evolution. And about our future as a specie in a world that is supposedly ruled by these laws.

For animals, being superior is very significant because the benefits are more mating and more food. More power and more safety. I am thinking of lions in this case. The Alpha lion will have priority in mating and will leave lots of offspring. It will also get privilege in food for him and his offspring. And for being the Alpha, he is more fitted to survive in a fight. )in this case the Alpha male is represented by its strength, size and basically superiority as compared to the others=.

Here, we can see Darwinism at work. In the case of humans. It doesn't really work that well. Why? mainly because in the society we live in, not necessarily the richest (or the Alpha)will produce more offspring and will be more represented in the gene pool. Actually, poor people usually have more sons. What this means is that poor people, that have less opportunities, worse lives if we compare them to that of the rich people; will make up the majority of the population in the future. This is basically because now, life for humans is not necessarily better if you are smarter than the others. It is not better if humans are stronger than the others. It is better if you fit the standards of our society excel at them and that doesn't even affect your representation in the gene pool. Because people, that might be inferior in every aspect to others have the same or could have more opportunities to pass on their genes.

Humans, being intelligent creatures don't really think any of these things. Because we live as if we were different from any other animal, our decision have to do with our personal benefit. Or that of our families but only taking decisions that benefit our present. Not the future.

As Dawkins says, the reason why altruistic animals are selfish but help the specie is because they are protecting their offspring for example and therefore are expanding the development of the specie for the exchange of risking their lives.

The only reason why a human would be altruistic and sacrifice himself would be to protect a beloved one in the present. And this is a case that rarely happens on real life. Because we do see it happen on the movies. Their actions are not based of preserving the specie.

I believe that by beiong intelligent, humans start to think egoistically, and focus only on their wellbeing. This obviously affects a specie because it changes from being the survival of a specie. As it is with animals. To the survival of oneself. As if the rest of the humans were your competition. As if they were another specie.

Either way, being more intelligent doesn't directly make the specie any harm. It is being self centered what creates a problem. I believe that there are two alternatives as to our future as a specie. (this is obviously ignoring that we might face extinction for a war or for an event that we cannot control like a meteorite).
Either we will spiral down to chaos because of the amount of people that are incompetent. Or, we will eventually change our lifestyle into something more fit to surviving in the world. As if we were another animal. Instead of being the controllers.

I´m am nobody to say what will happen to humanity but based on what I know. I can say that we are going in a wrong direction as a whole. We are acting selfishly and thus incorrectly. Just because this is a slow process. One that we wont be able to observe in our lifetimes doesn't meant that it is not happening.

We have to use the intelligence we were given by evolution to do whats best for us. And I am not trying to expose any hippy theory or anything. I just want to let people know that our behavior is not positive for the whole. And if you think about it, if there is no whole, there is no you; and there is no me, and not anyone.

14.If you wish your children and your wife and your friends to live forever, you are foolish; for you wish things to be in your power which are not so; and what belongs to others to be your own. So likewise, if you wish your servant to be without fault, you are foolish; for you wish vice not to be vice, but something else. But if you wish not to be disappointed in your desires, that is in your own power. Exercise, therefore, what is in your power. A man’s master is he who is able to confer or remove whatever that man seeks or shuns. Whoever then would be free, let him wish for nothing, let him decline nothing, which depends on others; else he must necessarily be a slave.

This passage reminds me a lot to the Serenity Prayer found twice in Slaughter House-Five.


I strongly agree with what is said on this passage. I do believe that a man will only be free when he seizes to be dependent on others and starts acting on whatever he can control.

I've thought about it many times and this was basically the conclusion I reached when I started to think about life. I thought about the meaning of every second of your life because at every moment, you have hundreds of different possibilities and every possibility leads to an infinite amount of theoretical "destinies."

As opposed to Slaughter House Five, where Billy had no choice to alter the course of his life. I believe that we are constantly shaping our future and all the possibilities come down to our actions.

I believe that you can accomplish anything that you want because you are in control. Yet, you have to take into account that we share our existence with six and a half billion of others who also have control on their lives. This being said, we can try over and over and accomplish our goals only if we become independent from others and our surroundings.

(I know that you are supposed to do close reading but I really wanted to talk about this topic, which coincidentally was related to the Epictetus.)

Ego

Epictetus Handbook 6-10



6. Be not elated at any excellence not your own. If a horse should be elated, and say, “I am handsome,” it might be endurable. But when you are elated, and say, “I have a handsome horse,” know that you are elated only on the merit of the horse. What then is your own? The use of phenomena of existence. So that when you are in harmony with nature in this respect, you will be elated with some reason; for you will be elated at some good of your own.

This passage reminds me of a book I read once called A New Earth, by Eckhart Tolle. The book talks about ego and how, by detaching yourself from it, can reach happiness.

According to Tolle, People are constantly looking for approval to satisfy the ego. That is the reason why some people tend to brag about their possessions, or simply, constantly want more.

In this case, you don't really need a "handsome horse". You just need a horse that does the job but to feel better, you look for a horse that is better than any other horse.

Tolle would agree on the fact that you shouldn't feel happy if something that weren't you, was elated but I think that he would disagree in looking for compliments for your merits.

Either way, I agree with this passage of the Epictetus, one shouldn't feel proud for an accomplishment that doesn't depend on you...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you want to satisfy your ego, you are becoming selfish. I can relate this to my personal life because I play on a soccer team. I know that you don't feel as good if your team wins and you didn't play. You want to be part of the accomplishment because I believe that in the end, you don't feel happy for any accomplishment that doesn't depend on you. Yet, it feels better to take credit for your team's victory (even if you didnt even play,) than to loose, and miss the opportunity to take any credit and that is why we as a part of human nature, feel proud when something that is ours, or relates to us, receives compliments.