Genes Are Selfish, Are We?

In 1809, Jean Baptiste Lamarck had a hypothesis about the inheritance of acquired traits. He thought that by the selective use or disuse of organs, organisms could acquire or lose certain traits during their lifetime. But Richard Dawkins clearly disagrees with this idea. “Genes do indirectly control the manufacture of bodies, but the influence is strictly one way: acquired characteristics are not inherited.” (pg.23).  Imagine if we could pass our traits on to our children. Although it would be interesting, it would also be chaotic. We would have a way of controlling evolution. If we want our offspring to be really fit, we could work hard at the gym to become strong. This acquired trait would be passed on to your future generations.  But this idea would not always be good. Imagine you were in an accident and lost an arm. Your children would also be born without an arm. But thankfully, “Each new generation starts from scratch.”(pg.23).

“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”(pg.25).  The way that Dawkins talks about the human body as if it were just meant for the good of genes, seems a little unusual to me. But once I think about it, it actually helps me understand our actual purpose. Scientifically, the purpose of life is to survive and reproduce.  That is all our genes care about, they need us to survive to a certain age were we can reproduce and they can live on, which seems pretty selfish. No wonder the title of the book is The Selfish Gene. But if our genes are selfish, does it mean that we are all truly selfish deep inside? 

Nothing

“In the beginning was simplicity. It is difficult enough explaining how even a simple universe began. I take it as agreed that it would be even harder to explain the sudden springing up, fully armed, of complex order-life, or a being capable of creating life.”-pg. 12

When I started reading this book, all sorts of questions about existence popped into my mind. Why are we alive? How is it possible that simple molecules formed a human being? where did these molecules even come from? Ever since I was a child I have wondered about the origin of everything we know. I would always ask my father about what there was before the universe. He would simply tell me, there was nothing there. I was (and still am) intrigued by the  thought of nothing. What is nothing? At first I would relate the concept to a huge open space submerged in darkness. But then I realized darkness is something, so that couldn’t be.  I guess nothing would be complete transparency. No colors, nothing at all.  But for a moment try to picture this in your mind. What was there before there even was a universe?  I find it impossible to picture.

 Dawkins starts explaining us how when atoms meet they may undergo a chemical reaction and become a molecule. One day, a new molecule was created by accident. It was the replicator. It was a special type of molecule that could create copies of itself. These molecules had a competition of who had the best survival machine. Dawkins refers to us as the genes survival machines. “They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.” –pg. 20  This makes me feel as if we were actually controlled by the genes. It sounds as if they are the real person, and you were only created to protect them and give them something to control.