Nice Guy vs Self-Centered Guy

"Nice guys finish last." page 202

This is the perfect phrase to begin chapter 12.  We read half of the chapter in class and during that time period we came across the game Prisoner's Dilemma.  The game is basically used to describe how animals would act in a situation.  There are two options in this game, cooperate or defect.

Cooperate: (v.) to work together willingly

Defect: (v.) to disagree with the other person and not work together

In the game there is a banker and two players that will either defect or cooperate with the other.  In this game there are four possible outcomes:

1. Both players play the card cooperate so the banker pays them each $300.  This reward is referred to as the reward for mutual cooperation.

2. Both players play the card defect so the banker fines each player $10.  This reaction is called the punishment for mutual defection.

3. One player plays defect and the other plays cooperate.  The banker pays the person who defected $500 for causing the temptation to defect and fines the person who cooperated $100 for being the "sucker".

4. The same as the third outcome, but the other way around with the players.

I honestly find this game to be ridiculous. It is the perfect guessing game for Dawkins to use to support his statement that all humans and animals are selfish.  The players can either be selfish or kind with the each other but the prize makes them think through what their official choice should be.  Since being selfish has the biggest reward, why not be selfish?  That is how the animal and human world works.  This game not only explains life, but how society came to be.  The low and middle class were the suckers while the high class were the people who tempted.

On page 207, Dawkins uses the birds from chapter 10 to support the fact that Prisoner's Dilemma is constantly played between species.  If both birds cooperate with each other, they will take each other's ticks off and therefore end up clean.  If they both defect, they will not achieve anything and will continue to have ticks on them.  If one bird cooperates and the other bird defects, then the bird who cooperated will have the dirty work of taking the ticks off of the other bird.  The bird who defected would achieve being clean and would not have to do any of the dirty work.  Therefore, the bird who cooperated will suffer because it would not have achieved anything and remain with ticks.

Meme: Process or Gene?

"We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation." (page 192)
Imitation: (n.) something copied from something original

The name of the new gene, Meme, first came from the Greek root 'mimeme'.  The shortened it to Meme because Dawkins wanted a monosyllable that sounded more like 'gene'.

"Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes, fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches."(page 192)

With the example Dawkins gives of the scientist passing his ideas to his colleagues, it sounds like meme is more of a process and not an actual gene.  It is an idea that spreads from one person to the other.  Yes, it spreads from brain to brain, but how does that make it an actual gene? It replicates itself and imitates other ideas in order to come into play.  Wouldn't a perfect example be of my opinion of what meme actually is? It spreads from my blog to maybe somebody else's blog.  When someone reads this entry it enters their brain and replicates the idea and passes it on.  Is Dawkins trying to say that genes go through the process of meme? I feel like he hasn't left very clear what meme actually is and how it affects us interms of our genes.  Just by the way he refers to meme, it's so confusing on what it actually is.

"If it is a popular tune, its spread through the meme pool may be gauged by the number of people heard whistling it in the streets. If it is a style of women's shoe, the population memeticist may use sales statistics from shoe shops." (page 194)

From this quote in the book to his definition of what a meme is, here is my personal definition:
 Meme: It is a process in which something popular, like an idea, is passed from one organism to another.  This may also occur in one organism interms of their genes.  Genes may use this process inorder to pass an idea from one gene to the other.  By doing this, the various genes in the body can pass and agree on one idea.

Collection: (n.) a group of objects that are kept together

I guess memes work because of the different collections.  In his example, there was always a population.  There were women, men, people, and even genes.  So meme clearly cannot work without there being a group or collection of something.  Realizing this helped me support my previous blog even more.  Only by not being 100% selfish can a group coexist.  If everything in the group was constantly selfish, then the group could not work together and would eventually fall apart.  Additionally, isn't sharing things not being selfish?  I don't believe in what Dawkins is trying to make us see.  Does he dislike everything in the universe so much that he feels the need to say that everyone and everything is selfish? Is he so obsessed with science, that he has come to the wrong conclusion? I firmly believe he needs to rethink what he is writing and what he believes we are.  In the last two chapters I have just read, there have been various facts and examples that have led me to believe that we are not selfish.  Someone's conclusion on scientific facts is wrong. Science is not saying we are selfish. It is simply saying that we put ourselves first sometimes, but we also care for others.

Selfish vs Caring

Chapter 10 "You Scratch My Back, I'll Ride On Yours"
I believe that the title of this chapter summarizes it perfectly. In a way, it describes the partnership the different species have with each other and between themselves.  All the animals need each other in order to survive.  They will use each other, benefit from each other, and maybe even destroy each other in the process of survival.  An individual specie cannot survive alone.

The following terms helped me understand the chapter better:


Effect: (n.)  something brought out by a cause; a result
This word is found on page 168 and it is used to describe the result of what may happen to an animal due to their actions.  For example: "Nevertheless the act of calling seems, at least at first, sight to be altruistic because it has the effect of calling the predator's attention to the caller."


Social: (adj.) living together in communities or organized groups
Social is used to describe a particular group of animals.  Social animals are the type of animals that stick together and help each other out in difficult situations.  On page 171 he uses the word social to describe a couple of insects.  "The honey bee is just one example of a highly social insect. Others are wasps, ants, and termites or 'white ants'." "The exploits of the social insects are legendary, in particular their astonishing feats of cooperation and apparent altruism."


Cave Theory: (n.) "It is from the latin word 'beware' and it used to be used by school boys to warn for approaching authority."(page 169) Dawkins uses it to describe the reactions of camouflaged birds.  Here is the explanation he gives: "A hawk flies past in the distance.  He has not yet  seen the flock and he is not flying directly towards them, but there is a dancer that his keen eyes will spot them at any moment and he will race into the attack.  Suppose one member of the flocks sees the hawk, but the rest have not yet done so.  This one sharp-eyed individual could immediately freeze and crouch in the grass.  But this would do him little good, because his companions are still walking around conspicuously and noisily. Any one of them could attract the hawk's attention and then the whole flock is in peril.  From a purely selfish point of view, the best policy for the individual who spots the hawk first is to hiss a quick warning to his companions, and so shut them up and reduce the chance that they will inadvertently summon the hawk into his own vicinity."


Never Break Ranks Theory: (n.)  This theory is pretty much self-explanatory.  Dawkins uses this theory to explain animal behavior when being attacked.  In terms of pigeons, hawks usually go for the odd spotted one.  If the odd pigeon separates itself from the group, then it is an easy target for the predator.


Mutualism/Symbiosis: (n.) a relationship of mutual benefit between members of different species

On page 181 Dawkins states that it is commonly used different species have many "skills" they can offer in the partnership.  He uses the cooperation between Aphids and Ants as an example.  "Aphids have the right sort of mouthparts for pumping up plant sap, but such sucking mouthparts are no good for self-defense.  Ants are no good at sucking sap from plants, but they are good at fighting.  Ant genes for cultivating and protecting aphids have been favored in aphid gene-pools." (page 181)

These key words explain how the animals coexist together to form the universe.  I have started to disagree with Richard Dawkins on the subject of how selfish we actually are.  Yes, according to science, our genes have made us this way, but then how can he explain the Cave Theory or the Never Break Ranks Theory? The information he gives the reader does not really make sense.  If we are so selfish then why would a bird hiss to his companions in order to protect them? Yes, the bird benefits from doing so, but I am sure that there are other possibilities.  Our actions do not really make us selfish.  Yes, we put ourselves first, but we also care for others around us.  I would like to change what I have said in my previous two blogs.  According to science we are selfish monsters, but it does not have to be this way all the time. If we always take time to care and protect others, we are not always what Dawkins wants us to believe we are.  We can eventually change our "selfish survival machine" status to "caring organisms that sometimes put themselves first".

The Gene God

"We are survival machines, but 'we' does not mean just people.  It embraces all animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses." (page 23)

Reality just became a little more comforting.  Humans are not the only bitter tyrants around in the universe.  What happened with the preferred stable things of the universe? I guess the universe doesn't really control how stable we are.  According to science, our genes do that for us.  They are the things that make us survival machines, not our "monkey see, monkey do" past.  At least, this is what the next quote made me  understand.  

"The evolutionary importance of the fact that genes control embryonic development is this: it means that genes are at least partly responsible for their own survival in the future, because their survival depends on the efficiency of the bodies in which they live and which they helped to build." (pages 23-24)

If this is true, can we ever stop being survival machines? Can our genes change or evolve and turn us into something completely different? In the end, can we stop being selfish? According to Dawkins, no. We will never stop being selfish.  It is to be expected in any basic unit of natural selection.

Natural Selection: (n) According the Darwin's theory of evolution, it is the process in which organisms best adapt to their surroundings or environment.  This process is done so that the organism can achieve in surviving.  Once the organism has adapted, it can pass the genes to their offspring.  Therefore, that organism will survive in the future while others who have not adapted will die.  

Immortality.  The one thing that shows the difference between Gods, super heroes, and humans.  Imagine what life would be like if everyone and everything was immortal.  It would be pretty cool, not mentioning the fact that the world would be overpopulated.  The Earth would look like the home of bunnies and rats. New organisms by the month! So, I guess everyone and everything being immortal isn't such a good idea today.  I always though it would be awesome to figure out that something is actually immortal.  Something factual like an actual person or animal.  I was definitely not thinking about genes when the idea popped into my head. Think about it, genes are passed on generation by generation.  They almost always have the exact same info unless adaption is 100% necessary.  They are not destroyed by the obstacles they must constantly pass through in their survival machine or body.  Like Dawkins says in page 35, "... genes are forever." So face it guys, we will never ever stop being selfish.  It is in our genes and genes never die.  They go on for millions and millions of years, and if something does go wrong their offspring takes over.  Then once again that gene lives for millions and millions of years.  

"The gene is the basic unit of selfishness." (page 36)

"It is differences that matter in the competitive struggle to survive; and it is genetically-controlled differences that matter in evolution."

My opinion has definitely not changed from my previous blog about chapter 2.  Sorry guys! Unless we find a way to change our genes or to "fix them", we will always be selfish organisms roaming around the earth.  The only comforting news about this is that we are not alone.  We have each other and even animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses are frowned upon in the eyes of Richard Dawkins.     

YOLO

"... Which simplicity could change into complexity,.." (page 12)

This quote speaks the truth in every form possible.  Life is complicated but it starts off simple.  Take one person's life for example.  When you're a child your only worries are what color crayons you're going to use for coloring a fish.  Then the person grows up and life gets complicated! Everyone feels the need to judge you, relationships come into play, you need to focus on your future, etc. Other than that touching truthful quote, I feel like I'm reading a biology book! The only difference is that Richard Dawkins puts his opinion into the already known fact.

"Their modern descendants, the DNA molecules, are astonishingly faithful compared with the most high-fidelity human copying process, but even they occasionally make mistakes, and it is ultimately these mistakes that make evolution possible." (page 17)

When I read this quote, I think of Ms. Gregory and how she always says, "Biology textbooks are a waste of time! You guys need to know what is actually happening in the world of science!" Although I find the quote completely useless, a couple of questions did come to me like:

• What does this have to do with humans being selfish? I mean the book is called The Selfish Gene correct? 
• Did human's history, interms of evolution, make us all selfish?

A quote I found on page 18 gives a little explanation to these two questions. It states: "Evolution is something that happens, willy-nilly, in spite of all the efforts of the replicators (and nowadays of the genes) to prevent it from happening." You know that awkward moment when your parents or siblings tell you that you're an accident? Well that's exactly how I am feeling right now. The only difference is that I am definitely not alone. Hey guess what guys! No hard feelings for anyone! We are all accidents! Did our ancestors discover this long before us? Does this explain why we are so selfish? I mean it's understandable that they would all be in a crappy mood about this. I guess we are closer to monkeys then what we thought. "Monkey see, monkey do." That's exactly how we act.  Our ancestors were selfish and apparently so are we. Another thing Dawkins says that somewhat answers my questions is:

"The next important link in the argument, one that Darwin himself laid stress on (although he was talking about animals and plants, not molecules) is competition." (page 18)

This is when contradiction takes place in this book.  A couple pages before Dawkins clearly stated:

"Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' is really a special case of a more general law of survival of the stable. The universe is populated by stable things." (page 12)

After this he says that stable atoms come together to form something worthy of a name.  He also implies that the universe prefers stable things like rocks, grass, and even water.  I guess he never saw Disney's Pocahontas.  In her famous song, Just Around the River Bend, Pocahontas says, "My father wants me to be steady, like the river. But it's not steady at all!" Water isn't stable or steady.  It is constantly moving or flowing.  In my opinion, the universe enjoys a variety.  Any who, after saying that the universe prefers stable things, BAM! He decides to change opinion and say that we must all compete against each other.  He says that we are "survival machines" (page 19).  I guess this is where Survival of the Fittest comes back into play.  He says:

"Survival machines got bigger and more elaborate, and the process was cumulative and progressive."

Does this mean that human evolution is a good thing? Is being a survival machine ok? I don't really understand what side the author is on.  He is either saying that we are selfish organisms or progressive ones.  He also refers to us as "robots" on page 19. I feel like he is trying to say that we compete against one another inorder to survive the one life we all get. So basically we live on the terms of YOLO (you only live once).  We are all just selfish competitors that want to live the longest.  As soon as I realized this, I immediately though of my favorite TV show Make It or Break It.  All the girls compete and put down one another to win, even though they are best friends. This crucial reality is also very similar to the plot of The Hunger Games.  I think it's just sad that he says that all human beings are like that.  According to science, being selfish and cruel is just the reality of life.