Read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. "The Selfish Gene" - Richard Dawkins. Memes are the new replicators

A clear indication of how popular this essentially dead dogma still remains is the frenzied demand enjoyed by the illiterate scientific point of Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins puts forward the theory that genes created us so that we could spread and reproduce them. Using logic to make completely illogical conclusions, he not only wrote an absurd parody of science fiction, but also left far behind the most severe reductionism, reducing organisms to the status of simple biological machines in the service of genes.

After all, Dawkins points out, genes last for many generations, while humans only have one life. Genes are the driver, and man is just a machine that needs to be replaced with a new model after it has run 5 million miles or lived 120 years, whichever comes first. Dawkins' suggestion is akin to the ancient belief that the chicken is simply a tool for eggs to produce new eggs.

But why is the gene called selfish? Therefore, argues Dawkins, genes have the same desire to survive as we do, and they ensure their own survival, not caring about the survival of the organism or even the species in which they live. According to this theory, the goal of evolutionary adaptation from generation to generation is not to ensure the survival of the organism, but to increase the reproductive capacity of the genes themselves. And even if such an adaptation does not ensure the survival of the organism, the selfish gene does not care about this.

And since the central dogma says that everything in life is determined by genes, it is quite reasonable to reason (however unreasonable this reasoning may be) that, in the words of Dawkins, "we are all born selfish." And he also believes that natural selection favors those who cheat, lie, dodge and exploit others - they say that genes that encourage children to behave immorally gain an advantage over other genes. Altruism, according to the author of this book, is inherently unproductive, since it goes against the tendencies of natural selection. The same goes for the practice of taking foster children; Dawkins believes this is "against our instincts and the interests of our selfish genes".

Fortunately, few people embrace Dawkins' extreme materialistic views. Nevertheless, as we have seen with Enron, his ideas serve as the scientific basis (or so it seems to some) for the most ruthless manifestations of social, commercial, industrial, and governmental Darwinism. Dawkins calls himself an atheist and claims to believe in neither a caring Creator nor caring people. Unlike many humanists, who also do not believe in a personal God, he simply brushes aside everything that is not deterministic, materialistic and overtly selfish.

If survival equals success (as Dawkins argues), then metastatic cancer is highly successful. Exactly until then, of course, until he kills the owner. However (assuming the idea that our fate is controlled by DNA) at the time of the death of the host, the selfish genes that caused cancer had already managed to ensure their survival by introducing themselves into the genetic structure of the host's offspring, in which future copies of this gene will repeat this gene again and again. the same process... until the disastrous situation spreads like a cancer.

There is a feeling that from the point of view of the biosphere, human activity is like a cancerous tumor that reproduces and copies itself until it destroys its environment. Now that humanity has gone out into space, we have taken the first step towards leaving our beloved Earth to die and set off to infect new planetary systems ourselves - thereby ensuring our continued survival.

Richard Dawkins is a British biologist who studies animal instincts and genetics, and author of scientific books for the general public. For more than ten years he worked at the University of Oxford in the group of professors engaged in the popularization of scientific knowledge. The most famous works of the scientist are the publications "The Selfish Gene" and "God as an Illusion", the latter was translated into many European languages ​​​​and sold with a circulation of more than one and a half million. In his works, the author shares his views on the concepts of religion and atheism, criticizes creationism, as well as the ideas of a higher mind. Richard Dawkins often performs at the media mass media with Charles Darwin's defense of natural selection.

The Selfish Gene was written by Richard Dawkins in 1976. In his first scientifically popular work, the scientist spoke about the evolution of species from the standpoint of genetics. Here, for the first time, Dawkins introduced the term "meme", from which the word "memetics" was later formed. Memetics is a theory that considers the evolution of culture by analogy with the biological theory of Darwin. From this emerges the conclusion that the entire vital activity of the human individual is subordinated to this very task. What exactly will happen to the “mortal machine” is not so important for genes. The selfish gene lives in a world of great competition, deceit and exploitation, says Dawkins. You can listen to the audiobook in mp3, read Richard Dawkins online or download it for free in fb2, epub and pdf on KnigoPoisk.

The fundamental law of the selfish gene is not contradicted even by acts of altruism that a person can see in nature. The bees sting the enemy and thereby commit suicide, but protect the hive, and the birds, risking own life, warn the flock of the approach of a predator. Dawkins argues in his book that the gene is not only selfish, but cunning. And only man - the only creature on the planet - managed to arrange a rebellion against the intentions of the gene. Culture is the most important level of human development, it is thanks to it that we are not only forms for reproduction and transfer of the gene pool.

The book "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins is a lively dialogue between the author and the reader, as well as with other scientists. The writer does not hide his categoricalness regarding the theory of creationism, therefore his text is written in a somewhat cynical manner. For more than forty years, the book "The Selfish Gene" has been reprinted all over the world, which proves the relevance of the ideas of Richard Dawkins to this day .. Also read summary books (abridged retelling) and best reviews about the book.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  The phrase "selfish gene" in the title of the book was chosen by Dawkins as a provocative way of expressing a gene-centric view of evolution, which means that evolution is seen as the evolution of genes, and that selection at the level of individuals or populations almost never wins out over selection at the gene level. In addition, for an English-speaking reader, this title is consonant with the title of Oscar Wilde's fairy tale The Selfish Giant, which enhances the provocative effect.

  More specifically, it is assumed that an individual evolves in order to maximize its overall fitness, that is, the number of copies of its genes taken in total (as opposed to the genes of an individual). As a result, the development of populations tends towards evolutionarily stable strategies. The book also introduces the term "meme" for an element of cultural evolution, similar to a gene, with the assumption that such "selfish" replication can also be attributed to elements of culture: ideas, technological techniques, religions, fashion styles, etc. Moreover, culture not only human: on the example of New Zealand songbirds, the transmission from generation to generation of song motifs is considered.

  Since the publication of the book, memetics has been the subject of much research.

  To date, the book has been published three times. In 1976, 1989 and 2006. In the second edition, notes were added and two chapters 12 and 13 were added. They are based on the books "The Evolution of Cooperation" (R. Axelrod) and The Extended Phenotype by R. Dawkins himself, respectively:24.

  • Chapter 1
  • Chapter 2 Replicators
  • Chapter 3
  • Chapter 4
  • Chapter 5 Aggression: Stability and the Selfish Machine
  • Chapter 6
  • Chapter 7
  • Chapter 8
  • Chapter 9
  • Chapter 10
  • Chapter 11
  • Chapter 12
  • Chapter 13

  Criticism

  The book received mixed reviews, causing heated controversy among both scholars and the general public. Here are some of those reviews:

  • «… highly scientific, witty and very well written... intoxicatingly great". Sir Peter Meadower. Spectator
  • «… a popular science work of this kind allows the reader to feel almost like a genius". The newspaper "New York Times "

  “In the twelve years that have passed since the publication of The Selfish Gene, the main idea of ​​the book has become generally accepted and entered the textbooks. This is paradoxical, although the paradoxicality is not striking. The book is not one of those that at first endured only reviling, and then gradually gained more and more adherents, until in the end it turned out to be so orthodox that we now only wonder what caused the commotion. Just the opposite happened. At first, the reviews pleased with their benevolence and the book was not considered controversial. The reputation for being absurd has matured over the years, and it is only now that the book has been treated as a highly extremist work. However, precisely in those years when the reputation of extremist was increasingly attached to the book, its actual content seemed less and less extremist, approaching generally accepted views.

  Renowned biologists such as William Hamilton, George Williams, John Maynard Smith, and Robert Trivers praised Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and concluded that he did more than explain their ideas. George Williams stated in an interview that Dawkins took some of the issues much further in his book than he himself did. According to William Hamilton, in The Selfish Gene, Dawkins "succeeded in the seemingly impossible task of presenting plain language hard-to-understand latest thought topics in evolutionary biology" in such a way that "surprised and enlivened even many biologists-researchers". According to philosopher Daniel Dennett, Dawkins's book is not only science, but also philosophy in at its best» . The ideas about "selfish DNA" raised in this book have prompted several scientists, including renowned chemist Leslie Orgel and Nobel laureate Francis Crick, to explore this issue in more detail. Dawkins' ideas found solid support after it was discovered that a significant part of "selfish DNA" consists of transposons. Thus, Dawkins' ideas helped explain what happens inside genomes long before DNA sequencing became commonplace.

  According to zoologist, journalist and popularizer of science Matt Ridley (English) Russian, a gene-centric view of evolution (English) Russian, advocated and crystallized by Dawkins, now plays a central role in theoretical evolutionary biology, and "no other explanation makes sense", although there are alternative views. Also, according to him, the book "The Selfish Gene", "spawned a 'gold rush' among non-fiction writers as publishers began to push hard in hopes of finding a new 'Selfish Gene'" .

  The well-known American geneticist Richard Lewontin characterizes Dawkins's approach as biological reductionism, fraught with ideologization and the spread of prejudice about the predestination of the level of human intelligence, the existing social order, etc.:

  We, according to Richard Dawkins, are clumsy robots, created by DNA in body and soul. But the view that we are entirely at the mercy of internal forces, predetermined from birth, is only part of the ideological platform that can be called reductionism.

  Dawkins responded at length to such criticisms in his next book, The Extended Phenotype (Chapter 2, "Genetic Determinism and Gene Selectionism"). AT this case Dawkins's views were oversimplified and distorted (see Scarecrow (logical trick)). Dawkins explains that the influence of genes is only statistical, not fatal, and the effects of the influence of genes can be easily changed by the influence of environment, upbringing, education, etc. And even in The Selfish Gene itself, Dawkins wrote: "We are the only beings on the planet capable of rebelling against the tyranny of selfish replicators". In Chapter 4, "The Gene Machine," Dawkins explained that genes cannot directly control all the movements of an animal by "pulling the strings," if only because of the time delay. Genes can only control protein synthesis in a cell. Therefore, in the course of the evolution of genes, developed brain, capable of modeling the surrounding reality and independent decision-making, to which genes ask only general instructions behaviors (avoid pain, avoid danger, etc.). Further development in this direction could lead to the fact that some "survival machines" could completely get out of the power of genes. In the same book, in the chapter "Memes are the new replicators", he introduced the concept of a meme, challenging the opinion of some of his fellow biologists that any trait of human behavior is due to genes and must necessarily have some biological advantage, i.e. serve for more successful reproduction of the individual's genes. Dawkins emphasized that certain behavioral traits may exist because they contribute to the success of replicators of some other nature, such as those same memes. Dawkins notes that with the advent of culture, non-genetic ways of transmitting information appeared (primarily in humans, although not only in humans), and does not deny that much in a person is due to culture and upbringing, and not genetics. At the same time, the idea of ​​memes is not mandatory here.

  This is a gene-centric approach to evolution, which has not had time to take root among Russian biologists, although it has become widespread in the West, and most evolutionists work on the basis of this model.<...>This is a very interesting and useful model for understanding many biological phenomena that are difficult to understand in the traditional group-selection-oriented view. And from this position it is easier to understand them. But the ideas of Dawkins and his teachers are met with a sharp rejection, especially by some Russian biologists, due to their seeming reductionism, and many simply cannot understand how everything can be reduced to genes. It seems to them that we split all living things into too small parts and destroy their integral essence. This, in my opinion, is an illusion, because we do not destroy anything: having understood how evolution works at the level of genes, we again move to the level of the whole organism and see that much has now become clearer.

  The Selfish Gene can no doubt be called a reference popular science book. After reading, you realize how great Dawkins is. I am convinced that his ideas will be remembered for a very long time.

  The temptation to formulate the main idea of ​​the book in one line is great, but the most thrill is the gradual approach to the main conclusion. Dawkins approaches him very carefully with his characteristic pedantry.

  The book was first published in 1976. For forty years it has not lost its relevance. There are three editions: 1976, 1989 and 2006. The second differs from the first in the presence of the author's comments and two additional chapters. Dawkins did not rewrite the text, he only provided explanations for certain passages from the original edition.

  The third edition, as I understand it, is supplemented by the author's responses to criticism. Which again is framed as an additional section at the end of the book. I happened to have an electronic version of the second edition, so I checked out the 1989 version. As always, I kept a summary of the book. Its size reflects the quality of the text.

  Meaning of life

  Life on the planet reaches maturity when its bearers comprehend the meaning of their existence. Darwin's theory gives us the answer to this question. But not everyone understands evolution correctly. Many mistakenly assume that the most important thing in evolution is the well-being of the species (or group) and not the well-being of the individual (or, to be more precise, even the gene).

  Dawkins encourages us to become aware of what our genes are striving for. In that case, he says, we have a chance to disrupt their intentions. Only man and no other living being is capable of this. Because man is the only one who is dominated by culture. Some scientists even believe that it is so large that the influence of genes can be neglected.

  In any case, genes determine behavior only in a statistical sense. Analogy - red sunset. They say that such a sunset really portends great weather for tomorrow. But no one will rely on it for weather forecasting. Genes do not literally determine their creations. We easily challenge them whenever we use contraceptives.

  A separate important issue to consider is altruism. An example is given of a female praying mantis, which, as is known, eats an altruistic male during mating. It turns out that by eating his head, she increases his sexual activity. This is not the only unexpected and at the same time important example that is given in the book.

  In general, altruism - that is, actions aimed at increasing the well-being of another being at the expense of one's own well-being - is found in many animals. Small birds, noticing a predator, signal their relatives about a possible danger, exposing themselves to a small risk.

  It is said that the altruism of parents in relation to children is an indicator of the desire of animals to preserve the species. However, the conservation of the species is a euphemism meaning to reproduce. Preservation of the species, of course, is a consequence of reproduction. There is also altruism within the species: some individuals in relation to others. This is called "group selection" theory, which looks plausible but is not true.

  Replicators. Beginning of life

  Let's see how life originated on our planet. To do this, it is worth understanding that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is a special case of the survival of the stable. A stable object is one that deserves its own name. For example, these are all objects that we see in front of us.

  First there was the Big Bang, in which atoms were formed. Sometimes atoms combine as a result chemical reactions and form molecules. But this is not enough to make a man. If you pour the required number of atoms into a jar in the right amount and shake it even for a very long time, you are unlikely to get anything. Darwin's theory comes to the rescue when the slow construction of molecules leaves the stage.

  We do not know what was on Earth at the very beginning, so the reasoning may seem speculative. There is a suspicion that there were water, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia. In general, everything that is found on other planets. Chemists conducted experiments in which all these substances were mixed and subjected to prolonged exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The result was a liquid brownish broth with new, more complex molecules (amino acids and even purines, which make up DNA).

  3-4 billion years ago such molecules were formed. They were quite stable. Today, of course, they would not be able to exist for a long time: they would be eaten by bacteria. Replicators appeared among them at some point. The main feature of replicators was the ability to reproduce themselves. The probability of creating such a molecule is very small. But for starters, one such molecule is enough.

  And so, it means that it reproduces in this way. But sometimes there are errors (mutations). Here Dawkins recalls that he is an atheist, and gives an analogy from the history of the Bible. In some transcription, the Hebrew word for "young woman" was spelled "virgin". And it started: millions of people believe in the virgin birth. Let's get back to replicators. They became several species, and some species were more numerous than others.

  Evolution has already begun. Those who lived longer and reproduced faster became more numerous. There is another important feature that the most popular model had - replication accuracy. If she often made mistakes when copying, she would not be the most numerous. Since we say that evolution is at work here, should these molecules be considered alive? It is argued that this is unimportant: "alive" and "non-living" are just words.

  Now about the competition. All replicators floated in a broth filled with proteins, which they used to build new molecules. But at some point, the resources became noticeably less. Then the replicators began to eat each other. Some replicators developed a protein coat as a defense reaction. Apparently, this is how the cells appeared, which became the first "survival machines".

  It will take a lot of time and "survival machines" evolve. One example of such a machine today is a man. And what came out of replicators, the person himself will call genes.

  Immortal Spirals

  So today, all of us - animals, plants, bacteria and viruses - serve as survival machines for relicators of the same kind - molecules of a substance called DNA. Deoxyribonucleic acid is a chain of nucleotides. DNA is too small to see, but its structure has been deduced by ingenious indirect methods (I think you can read about it in Watson's book The Double Helix).

  Nucleatide building blocks are of four types: A, T, C and G. They are the same in all organisms. But at the same time, their sequence is different for everyone (except for identical twins). DNA is contained in every cell (and there are 10 15 of them) and are the "blueprints" of the human body. Genes regulate the construction of organisms, but this influence is one-sided: acquired traits are not inherited, each generation starts from scratch.

  Genes do not know how to look ahead, to predict. They simply exist. At the same time, genes have made good progress in the technology of creating survival machines: look at the heart, muscles, eyes. To do this, they had to become more sociable. The survival machine contains not one, but thousands of genes. The creation of an organism is a cooperative process in which it is almost impossible to separate the influence of one gene from another.

  But since genes live in large groups, maybe we should abandon this concept? No. The point is sexual reproduction, in which genes are mixed and shuffled. Moreover, each individual body carries a new combination of genes, which exists for a very short time (the lifetime of an individual). But the genes themselves are potentially long-lived.

  Let's talk about gender. "Drawings"-chromosomes consist of 23 pairs of volumes. The child has part of the volumes from the father, and part from the mother. In fact, everything is much more complicated and not volumes are shuffled, but pages. If different instructions are written on the pages from the father and mother, then one of them outweighs the other. The gene that is ignored is called recessive, and the one that opposes it is called dominant. Genes that tend to occupy the same place on a chromosome are called alleles. The totality of all the different genes of all people is called the gene pool.

  Cells can divide in two ways. When new cells are obtained from one with the preservation of 46 chromosomes, this is mitosis, and when the egg and sperm (having 23 chromosomes each) form one cell, this is meiosis. During the formation of spermatozoa from the cells of the testis, individual sections of the paternal chromosome exchange places with the corresponding sections of the maternal chromosome. This process is called crossing over.

  Here it is necessary to clarify the concept of a gene. It is proposed that a gene is a portion of chromosomal material that persists for a sufficient number of generations to serve as a unit of natural selection. The gene is a replicator with high precision copying.

  There are two ways in which a new genetic unit can emerge. The first is random association as a result of crossing over of the previous subunits. The second is point mutation. Another type of mutation is an inversion, which occurs when some part of the chromosome rotates 180 degrees.

  An example about mimicking butterflies. These cute insects are very bright and beautiful. Therefore, it is easy for predators to notice and eat them. To disguise themselves, they mimic less edible brethren. At the same time, role models can be different types. Thus, butterflies of the same species can be of two colors. Intermediates are not born. But one gene in the sense of cistron is not able to determine the color. Therefore, the color defines a whole cluster representing a linked group of genes. Let's take this cluster and count the genome. This is the gene Dawkins considers the unit of selection.

  But at the same time, the gene is a unit, to a large extent approaching the ideal of indivisible corpuscularity. A gene cannot be considered indivisible, but it rarely divides. If genes were constantly merged with each other, then natural selection would be impossible. Another aspect of the gene's corpuscularity is that it never gets old. The immortality of the gene lies in the ability to copy. By the way, in this sense, a person as an individual does not suit us. Children as a way of immortality is not an option, because everything will mix up very quickly.

  Why is the gene potentially immortal? Because not everyone survives. Sometimes a gene lives long because it is lucky. But most often the reason is that he has the qualities necessary for survival. This is how genes constantly compete for survival with their alleles.

  A small digression: why do people age? The gene that causes death is called lethal. It is logical that the fliers are washed out of the gene pool. Simply because their carriers die and leave no offspring. This applies to lethals, the effect of which is manifested at a young age. Those that appear at a later age are more stable.

  So extinction is side effect accumulation of lethal and semi-lethal genes active in old age in the gene pool. A conclusion that suggests itself. To increase life expectancy, it is necessary to force women to give birth later. And - you will not believe - we are now noticing this trend. Funny speculation, isn't it?

  There are alternatives to sexual reproduction. Female aphids, without the participation of fathers, give birth to their daughters containing the mother's genes. Moreover, the fetus in its uterus may contain another smaller fetus. Then the aphids can immediately give birth to their granddaughter. Many plants reproduce vegetatively by sending out side shoots. We call it growth. But what is the difference between growth and asexual reproduction?

  Why is sexual reproduction necessary? To put it briefly and not to give all the examples from the book, it "facilitates the accumulation in one individual of favorable mutations that arose separately in different individuals."

  gene machine

  Initially, survival machines served as passive receptacles for genes, protecting them from competitors. Then, as mentioned earlier, they learned to eat each other and thereby fight for life. Evolution followed the path of complication and multicellular organisms were formed. First, two branches formed: animals and plants. They continued to divide, forming more and more new species.

  Of course, every living thing can be considered as a colony of cells, but usually this colony operates in a fairly coordinated manner. Dawkins talks about behavior characterized by speed. If we record the growth of a tree using time-lapse photography (popularly known as time lapse), then it will look like an active animal. But in animals, of course, it is clearer. And all thanks to the presence of muscles.

  Another achievement of evolution is the brain. The main unit of the "biological computer" is a neuron, somewhat reminiscent of a transistor. Unlike a computer analog, a neuron can have tens of thousands of connections. It acts much more slowly, but at the same time it has achieved success in miniaturization (there are 10 11 neurons in the human head). Often, a neuron has one particularly long "wire" called an axon. A cable of such wires is called a nerve. Dense clusters of nerves are called ganglia, and if they are very large - the brain.

  The wires-nerves going to the muscles are called motor. They can be quite long: in a giraffe, some nerves run along the entire neck. Nerves should only signal when they really need to, so animals with sense organs have gained an evolutionary advantage. The brain connects with them through sensitive (sensory) nerves.

  In general, in any old books there are inadequate comparisons of the brain with a computer. Dawkins (at the time of publication of the book) is confident that sooner or later a computer will be able to beat a person in chess, but there is no talk of more serious predictions. It is noteworthy that Dawkins praises his computer: the friendliest device is the Apple Macintosh.

  Let's get back to evolution. At some point, a memory arose, thanks to which the events of the past could influence the coordination of muscle contractions.

  An amazing property of the behavior of a survival machine is its purposefulness. The principle of negative feedback says that the being somehow compares what he is striving for and the actual state of affairs; if the difference increases, then he changes the tactics of his behavior.

  It seems that since the genes created the brain, which, in general, controls the animal, then they themselves can control this animal. This is an erroneous opinion. Genes are like a programmer who wrote a program and ran it. This is their advantage, this is their disadvantage. They exert their influence by regulating protein synthesis. This is a very powerful, but at the same time slow way to influence the world. It takes months to pull the protein strings to create an embryo.

  With this whole story, the most they can do is write as many instructions as they can for their survival machine. But the world is changing very quickly, so it is very difficult to take everything into account. One way to get around this limitation is to create a learning survival machine. Our genes tell us that taste and orgasm are good, meaning sugar and copulation. But in saccharin and masturbation, on the contrary, there is nothing good. Our genes were not taken into account.

  In the living world, it is especially difficult to predict the reaction of the environment. Survival requires anticipation of how the other individual will act. It is believed that for this purpose the animal is engaged in self-inspection, that is, it looks into its own sensations and emotions in order to understand the sensations and emotions of others.

  A very cool learning tool is modeling. Not surprisingly, it was quickly invented by evolution, and led to subjective awareness. As a result - forecasting the future and refusal to directly follow the instructions of genes. Computers haven't learned this yet. Thank God, because now we are in the role of genes. To sum it up: the genes make the policy and the brain is the executor.

  Genes do not solve anything in the truest sense of the word. The presence of a particular gene says that, other things being equal, and in the presence of other important genes and external factors, a person is more likely to, say, save another drowning person than if it were an allele of this gene.

  It's time for words on communication and animal lies. Communication is the influence of one survival machine on another. Ethologists believe that communication occurs when it is beneficial to both potential communicants. But in order to survive and reproduce, some animals and plants deceive others. Flowers exploit sex drive bees is a common fact. Moreover, even the children of their parents, husbands of wives, and brothers of each other deceive.

  Aggression: stability and selfish machine

  Survival machines interact in the biosphere. Often not directly. For example, both moles and thrushes feed on worms. If one of the species suddenly disappears, it is obvious that the second one will multiply rapidly due to the free resources that have fallen on their heads. This is what pest control professionals face: by defeating one pest, they can worsen the situation, because another pest will come in its place.

  If we are talking about direct impact, then it can be like interspecies competition, and intraspecific. Lions can fight with antelopes for the body of an antelope, or with each other - for females and territory.

  But it is inhumane to kill members of your own species, even if you have to fight for a female. Therefore, there are formal competitions. On this occasion, Dawkins recommends reading Konrad Lorenz (On Aggression). If the loser surrenders, then the winner refrains from delivering the killing blow.

  A strategy is a pre-programmed line of behavior. ESS is an evolutionarily stable strategy - a strategy that, if adopted by the majority of the members of a given population, cannot be surpassed by any alternative strategy. In other words, an ESS is a strategy that is effective against copies of itself.

  Further, Dawkins considers what would be the ratio of individuals in the population if they could be of two types - "doves" and "hawks" - one of which always attacked, while others always ran away. Then he complicates this scheme by adding another type and giving various examples. In general, this chapter looks rather boring. There is too much chewing in it, which is perhaps necessary for understanding a certain category of people.

  Gene fraternity

  In a sense, the meaning of the life of a gene is to occupy a dominant position in the gene pool. This idea can be developed to explain the phenomenon of altruism.

  Close relatives are more likely than average to have common genes. It is for this reason that parents' altruism towards their children is so common. Altruism towards close relatives is called kin-altruism. If you can save ten of your relatives by sacrificing yourself, then most likely it will be done. But how to determine the exact edge when it's worth it?

  By the way, interesting fact is that all people have about 90% of the same genes. This is logical: everyone has two arms and legs.

  The definition of the generation distance (g) of two individuals A and B is introduced. In order to calculate it, you need to find a common ancestor, raise it from A to it, and then go down to B. The total number of steps gives the generation distance. If A is B's uncle, then the common ancestor is A's father. Then the generation distance is 3. The relationship coefficient is 2p. This is in the case of a single common ancestor.

  If there are n common ancestors, then the generation distance is n*2 p . In this way, the effectiveness of kin-selection can be determined. Caring for offspring is a special case of kin-altruism. An adult individual should give his orphaned infant brother as much attention as his own children.

  There is a formula. The total risk for the altruist must be less than the total gain for the recipient, multiplied by the relationship coefficient. Of course, animals do not do all these calculations in their minds. They don't know anything about it at all, they just act as if they were doing such calculations. The snail's shell is an excellent logarithmic spiral, but where does it store tables of logarithms? We, too, in life somehow accept all the pros and cons.

  The formula for altruism can be refined by noting that an animal never knows for sure that a particular individual is guaranteed to be related. Thus, the total gain for the recipient must be multiplied by the percentage of confidence in the relationship.

  How do animals know who their relative is? A member of a species whose members move little has a good chance that an individual he encounters by chance is his relative. That's what the genes say: be nice to all members of a given species that you meet.

  Sometimes there are failures and a completely left-handed individual is recorded as a relative. You've probably heard of the cuckoo that lays eggs in other people's nests. Birds believe that it is unlikely that their child will be in their nest, and therefore they can raise a cuckoo, mistaking him for his own.

  It remains to explain why parents care more about their children than children about their parents, despite the same ratio of relatedness in both directions. The fact is that children are younger, which means they have a longer life expectancy.

  Family planning

  We found out that caring for already existing individuals and the birth of new ones do not have fundamental differences. At the same time, it should be understood that the strategy of care in its purest form is detrimental to the species. In such a case, the population would quickly be flooded with mutant individuals who specialize in caring for offspring.

  I want to quote a couple of paragraphs that I especially liked. They well reflect the style of reasoning in the book and may be an incentive for someone to read it.

  Humanity has too many children. The population size depends on four factors: fertility, mortality, immigration and emigration. If we talk about the population of the entire globe as a whole, then immigration and emigration can be discarded; deaths and births remain. As long as the average number of children surviving to puberty per couple exceeds two, the number of babies born from year to year will increase at an ever-increasing rate. In each generation, a given population does not grow by any fixed amount, but by something like a fixed proportion of the size it has already reached. Since this number itself is increasing all the time, the size of the increase also increases. If such growth continues unchecked, the population will reach astronomical levels surprisingly quickly.

  By the way, even those people who are concerned about population problems do not always understand that its growth depends on the age at which people have children, as well as on the number of these children. Since the size of a population usually increases by a certain fraction per generation, it follows that by increasing the interval between generations, it is possible to reduce the rate of growth in the number per year. Slogans calling for "Stop at two" could equally well be replaced by slogans "Start at thirty!"

  Then there is the issue of old age. Man is in some way a precedent. In the animal kingdom, death from old age is very rare. The most common cause of death is predators or diseases. Another regulator of numbers is hunger. But the animals themselves perfectly regulate their numbers.

  How does this happen. Don't forget that we are justifying the selfish gene theory, not group selection. In relation to it, individual parents practice family planning in the sense that they optimize fertility rather than limiting it for the common good. They try to maximize the number of surviving young (the golden mean).

  People, of course, are not like that. Because people who have many children are helped by the state and all things. Dawkins writes that the application contraceptives criticized as "unnatural". But at the same time, he says, the general welfare that everyone dreams of is also unnatural.

  Battle of generations

  Parental Contribution - Any contribution by a parent to an individual child that enhances that child's chances of survival at the expense of that parent's ability to invest in another child. This indicator is very convenient in that it is measured in units close to those that are really important. RV is measured in terms of the reduction in life expectancy of other cubs already born or likely to be born in the future.

  However, this indicator is not very accurate. Ideally, a generalized measure of the contribution of altruism should be introduced, because RW focuses on the role of father and mother. Each individual has during his life a certain amount of RS, which he can invest in cubs (and also in himself and other relatives). The question is whether an individual can have favorite children in whom he invests more.

  Probably yes, and it depends on various factors. Let's say if there are two children: the youngest and the oldest. With limited resources, the mother is more likely to feed the younger, because the older is unlikely to die. That is why female mammals at some point stop feeding their young with milk. But if she knows that the child is the last, she can feed him longer. Given the fact that there is no needy nephew nearby, the contribution to which will be more useful.

  Explain menopause in women. If a woman had both a son and a grandchild (from her adult child) on the same day, then the life expectancy for the grandson would be higher. Because as a woman grows older, it becomes more and more difficult to raise children.

  At some point, the average chance of surviving to adulthood for each of her children became more than twice that of a grandson. And while her genes averaged only one in four grandchildren, and her children only one in two, this is outweighed by the greater expected longevity of grandchildren. If a woman continued to have children, she would not be able to devote the necessary amount of time to her grandchildren.

  Then again there is a boring analysis of how children deceive their parents. For example, a chick may squeak louder to get more food. But still, there is some limit, upon reaching which his voice can be heard by a predator. In general, evolution finds a compromise between the ideal situation that parents strive for and the ideal situation that children strive for.

  Battle of the sexes

  Now consider "marriage relationships." There are two parents, both making the same genetic contribution to the offspring. The winner is the one that invests the least resources in the child. Because then he can spend more resources on children conceived with another partner, and thereby spread more of his genes.

  What is the main difference between males and females? Most respondents will cynically answer that the difference lies in the presence of a member in the male. This is not the best criterion, since some species (for example, frogs) do not have a penis. Correct answer: in the size of germ cells (gametes). This difference is especially pronounced in birds and reptiles (the ostrich egg is such a big egg).

  But this is not the case for all living beings. In the sense that sex cells of different sizes are not a prerequisite for sexual reproduction. Mushrooms thrive on isogamy: they can interbreed with each other as they please.

  But back to eggs and sperm. Obviously, at the moment of conception, the father already contributes less than 50% of the resources. Since each spermatozoon is very small, the male can produce many millions of them per day, that is, produce a lot of children in a short time.

  Most likely, in the beginning, all organisms were isogamous. At some point, larger gametes appeared, which received advantages for obvious reasons. In turn, smaller gametes realized that they would benefit if they became more mobile and had the ability to actively search for large gametes. And the intermediate gametes were at a disadvantage. The initial difference in size was so slight that it could have been accidental.

  It seems that males in such numbers are not really needed. For example, in elephant seals, 88% of copulations are performed by 4% of males. Dawkins does a thought experiment showing that a 1:1 ratio is an ESS. Then the boring arguments begin again, like the comparison of "doves" and "hawks" from the chapter on aggression.

  Funny example. It is believed that the female works for the benefit of the child more than the male. Apparently this is the case in birds and mammals. Fish are different. Many fish do not copulate, but regurgitate their cells into the water. Fertilization takes place in water. Since the female spawns first (eggs are larger and do not disperse in water as quickly as sperm), the male is more likely to be left alone with the baby in his arms.

  How to choose a good male? At first it was strong muscles and long legs for obvious reasons. But in the end, it is beneficial for females to give birth to attractive males, because then their children will be attractive, which means that the female will have more grandchildren.

  The question of who to mate with is understandably more of a concern for females than males. One reason is the need to avoid mating with another species. Hybridization is undesirable at least because even if the child is born, he will be sterile. It is also important to prevent inbreeding. The main consequence is the transition of lethal and semi-lethal recessive genes to the homozygous state.

  Reading this chapter (and indeed the whole book), I want to transfer the questions we are discussing to human society. Of course, then I would like to answer the question: is a person monogamous or polygamous? There are different societies in the world, showing amazing diversity. This suggests that the way people live is primarily determined not by genes, but by culture.

  Scratch my back and I'll ride you

  The relationship between animals has a number of surprising aspects. One of them is the tendency of many species to group lifestyle. Obviously, every single individual should benefit from this. Consider fish. A fish swimming behind another fish gains some hydrodynamic advantage due to the turbulence of the flow created by the fish in front. That's one of the reasons to get together in shoals. Another reason, which concerns not only fish: it is easier for a group to defend themselves from predators.

  Dawkins elegantly explains the phenomenon of scotting (high-jumping in a gazelle at the sight of predators). The genes that determine the ability to jump high are not likely to be eaten by predators, because predators usually choose prey that looks weaker.

  The exploits of social insects are considered separately on the example of bees. The temperature in the hive is maintained at a constant level, like the temperature of a person. Most individuals in the insect community are sterile workers. The "germ cell line" - the line that ensures the continuity of immortal genes - passes through the bodies of reproductive individuals, who constitute a minority. These are analogous to our own reproductive cells in our testes and ovaries. And sterile workers are analogues of our liver, muscles and nerve cells.

  There is one more example. Naked mole rats are small, almost blind and almost hairless rodents that live in large underground colonies in the arid regions of Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia. These are real "public insects" from the world of mammals. Workers can be of both sexes, like termites.

  These cute animals are homocaprophages (a polite way of explaining that they eat each other's feces, although they also include other food in their diet, otherwise it would be contrary to the laws of nature). Naked mole rats are unable to regulate their body temperature in the way that all other mammals do; they are more like "cold-blooded" reptiles.

  The resemblance of ants to humans is repeatedly emphasized. Real wars, in which large armies of opponents fight to the death, are known only among humans and social insects.

  Again, I cannot deny myself the pleasure of quoting two paragraphs about farming ants and pastoral ants. It's great.

  Several species of ants in the New World and, independently, termites in Africa, breed "mushroom gardens". The most well-studied among them are the so-called leaf-cutting ants (or umbrella ants) of South America. They are doing remarkably well. Some leaf cutter anthills are home to over two million ants. The nests of the leaf cutters consist of an interweaving of passages and galleries, widely spread underground at a depth of 3 meters or more; digging these tunnels, ants throw up to 40 tons of earth to the surface! Mushroom gardens are placed in underground chambers. Ants deliberately sow mushrooms of a certain type on beds from compost, which they make by chewing the leaves into small pieces. Instead of just collecting the leaves and eating them, the workers make compost out of them. The “appetite” for leaves in leaf-cutting ants is monstrous, which makes them dangerous pests, but the leaves serve as food not for them, but for the mushrooms they grow. Ultimately, the ants collect fungal conidia, which they feed their larvae and feed on themselves. Fungi break down plant tissue more efficiently than the stomachs of the ants themselves; this is the benefit that ants derive from growing mushrooms. It is possible that fungi also benefit from this situation: although ants eat fungal conidia, they spread their spores more efficiently than does the distribution mechanism that exists in the fungi themselves. In addition, ants "weed" mushroom gardens, destroying mushrooms of other species. This probably benefits the mushrooms grown by the ants as it eliminates competition. One can even talk about the existence of a relationship between ants and fungi based on mutual altruism. It is noteworthy that a very similar fungal breeding system independently arose in termites not related to ants in any way.

  Ants not only grow plants, but also keep pets. Aphids - in particular the green apple aphid and other species - are highly specialized for sucking plant sap. They very effectively pump out juices from plant tissues, but do not digest them to the end. As a result, aphids secrete a liquid from which nutrients only partially extracted. Droplets of sugar-rich "honeydew", or honeydew, are released at the rear end of the body at a high rate - sometimes in one hour the aphid releases more honeydew than it weighs itself. Usually honey dew falls on the ground (perhaps this is the same "manna" sent down by Providence, which is spoken of in the Old Testament). But ants of some species intercept the dew as soon as it leaves the insect's body. Ants even “milk” aphids by stroking the backs of their bodies with their antennae and paws. In response to this, aphids in some cases seem to delay the release of their droplets until some ant has stroked them, and even draw the drop back until the ant is ready to receive it. It has also been suggested that in some aphids, the back of the body looks and feels similar to the front of the ant's head, which makes the aphids more attractive to ants. What benefit do the aphids themselves derive from this connection? Apparently, ants protect them from enemies. Like cattle, aphids live in hiding places, and those species that ants use most effectively have lost their usual defense mechanisms. In some cases, the ants tend to the aphid eggs in their underground nests, feed the young aphids, and finally, when they grow up, carefully carry them upstairs to protected pastures.

  A relationship like that between ants and aphids that is beneficial to both species is called mutualism or symbiosis. The mouthparts of aphids are adapted to sucking sap from plants, but such sucking mouthparts are useless for self-defense. Ants, on the other hand, are unable to suck the juices from plants, but they know how to fight well. Similar relationships are often found between plants and animals.

  In a sense, the same can be said about a person, but at the micro level. Each of our cells contains numerous small bodies called mitochondria. Mitochondria are the chemical factories that supply most of the energy we need. The loss of mitochondria would result in death within seconds.

  And again the quote, it is very good.

  But let's get back to interactions at the highest level. The scientists concluded that delayed reciprocal altruism could arise in species that are able to recognize and remember each other as specific individuals. Dawkins again begins to compare different strategies, but this time it will be the grooming animals that interact.

  Again, saying that this is nothing more than speculation, Dawkins offers the following idea. It is possible that man's large brain and predisposition to mathematical thinking evolved as a mechanism for ever more ingenious fraud and for ever more astute detection of deception on the part of others. The apotheosis of reasoning is the ingenious formulation: "Money is a formal sign of deferred reciprocal altruism."

  Memes are the new replicators

  Summing up, Dawkins asks: what is faith? It is a kind of state of mind that makes people believe in something - no matter what, in the absence of supporting data. If there were reliable proofs, then faith as such would be superfluous, since these proofs would convince us by themselves. This is why the oft-repeated statement that "evolution itself is a matter of faith" sounds so silly. People don't believe in evolution because they choose to believe in it, but because of the vast amount of publicly available evidence that it exists.

  Finally, in the last chapter of the first edition, Dawkins explains why man is not like other survival machines. And the most important difference is expressed in one word: culture. The analogy between cultural and genetic evolution is obvious.

  For more than three million years, DNA has been the only replicator in the world. However, it is not obliged to maintain its monopoly rights forever.

  The new broth is the broth of human culture. The analogue of the gene is "meme", derived from the Greek μίμημα, meaning similarity. This idea was so revolutionary at the time that in my book the English meme was translated using a transcription like a mime. But today, when any Internet user is familiar with the concept of an Internet meme, the question of the correct translation does not exist.

  Wikipedia says that a meme is a unit of cultural information. Dawkins gives examples: melodies, ideas, buzzwords and expressions, etc. A concrete example is the idea of ​​God. We don't know how it came about. Suppose, as a result of a mutation. It is replicated through the spoken and written word, supported by great music and visual arts. Its survival and distribution in the "meme pool" ensured its great psychological appeal.

  Consider another aspect of evolution. If genes compete with their alleles for a place on the chromosome, then what are memes competing for? Dawkins suggests that over time. Let me remind you that the book is from 1976, and therefore an analogy is given with old computers and machine time, for which you have to pay.

  Memes and genes often reinforce each other, but sometimes they are in opposition. For example, the bachelor lifestyle is supposedly not inherited genetically. A gene that would determine celibacy is doomed to failure and can only survive in the gene pool under very specific conditions, such as those found in social insects. But still, a celibate meme can succeed in a memo pool. The following is an example of implementation: celibacy among priests.

  Do not forget that genes are distributed in the gene pool only because he himself wants it (and this “wants” is quite conditional). Same thing with memes. The evolution of a given cultural trait occurs in this way and not otherwise, simply because it is beneficial for this trait itself. We don't need to look for the usual biological values ​​that determine the survival of things like religion, music, and ritual dances, although they may exist. Once the genes have equipped their survival machines with brains capable of rapid imitation, memes automatically take over.

  I would like to end with one more quote, summing up the whole book.

  My statements about memes are somewhat negative, but they also have a cheerful aspect. When we die, two things remain of us: our genes and our memes. We were built as gene machines, designed to pass on our genes to our descendants. But in this aspect we will be forgotten in three generations. Your child, even your grandson, may be similar to you in facial features, musical talent, hair color. But with each generation, the contribution of your genes is halved. Very soon this contribution becomes negligible. Our genes may remain immortal, but the combination of genes present in each of us will inevitably perish. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. However, it's possible that she doesn't have any of the old king's genes.

  You should not seek immortality through reproduction.

  If, however, you contribute to world culture in some way, if you have a good idea, if you have composed a song, invented a spark plug, written a poem, they can continue to live in their original form for a long time after your genes will dissolve in the common pool. As J. Williams noted, no one is concerned about the question of whether at least one or two of Socrates' genes have been preserved in the world. The mimocomplexes of Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus or Marconi still retain their full force.

  An interesting book on evolutionary biology. In 1976, when the first edition went to press, it probably had the effect of an exploding bomb, but now it is an interesting artifact that retains a noticeable value. Although against the background of Markov's books it looks pretty old-fashioned and somewhat chaotic, but at the time of writing it, the author was young and he really wanted to misbehave.

  Dawkins from the first pages wins over by the fact that he does not hide his acrimony, irony and scrupulousness. Most of his conclusions about marriage strategies and, more broadly, strategies for social behavior can be extended to people, but he almost never does this deliberately, leaving the reader to do it himself.

  The main idea of ​​the book is that a person (as well as other living beings) is a mortal machine, the whole meaning of whose existence is to transfer its genes to descendants. All vital activity in one way or another, directly or indirectly, is subordinated to this task, while the genes are relatively indifferent to what exactly will happen to the “mortal machine” itself, which is the carrier of these genes.

  The author develops this idea for quite a long time, and then, on its basis, rethinks the behavior of animals, destroying the constructions of other scientists. The main methodological hole he fails to notice is that he offers alternative non-contradictory explanations for apparent facts. But this consistency by itself does not prove anything. It is simply a more complex (compared to the derided theory of group selection) theory in which the facts fit. But in accordance with Occam's razor, a more complex theory should be sacrificed for a simpler one that explains the same facts.

  Direct evidence lies in a slightly different plane - under the glass of a microscope (although at the time of the publication of the first edition of the book, most of the evidence was not available, they are just for Markov), but the author deliberately refuses the idea of ​​​​filling us with direct evidence that we are "controlled", rather, they set behavior vectors, genes. He wants to prove it with logic. This hurts the book somewhat.

  But these are my quibbles. The chapters on social insects, on non-zero-sum games, the already classic story about the "prisoner's paradox" - all this is presented cheerfully and efficiently, and most importantly - interestingly.

  It is curious that in the notes and additions to the book the author disavows almost all his ardent remarks and political allusions - in just 13 years he has become calmer and more mature.

  Many constructions of the author reminded me economic theories, it is clear that both sciences have experienced the action of certain forces of convergence. Ideas about the marginal utility of a unit of food when distributed among creatures, theories of dynamic equilibrium and the distribution of types of individuals (fraudsters, simpletons and vindictive ones) in a population - all this is very, very similar to the corresponding analogues from the field of national economics.

  The creative success of the author - chapters on marital behavior. All these strategies of females and males, “homeliness”, various contributions to offspring, attempts at fraud, abandoned children, attempts to get a partner to build a nest before having offspring - everything is directly and unambiguously transmitted to the human environment, despite the tricks of the author, who claims that he discusses birds or something else, and people, they say, surpassed the Darwinian world thanks to the presence of reason. We are not far from the level of social life of birds of paradise and weavers.