The book of the famous scientist, English biologist Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" caused a controversial reaction in the literary and scientific circles. In it, he popularizes a gene-centric view of evolution, introduces the concept of "meme", meaning a cultural unit that one person can copy and transfer to another. This information has properties for mutagenesis, natural selection and artificial selection. It is noteworthy that the release of the book was marked by positive reviews of this work, but after several years this work caused heated debate. Some, such as well-known scientists W. Hamilton, D. Williams, and R. Trivers, expressed positive opinions about this book, seeing somewhere even innovation in the methods and approaches of the theory of the selfish gene, while others, especially believers, called the book extremist .

Critics criticized Richard Dawkins for the fatality of this theory, for the fact that too much in our life is predetermined before birth, and what a person will be, all this is determined at the gene level. However, the author of The Selfish Gene says that there are inclinations that are given to us from birth, but we can change them. Only humans are capable of this. Under the influence of society, upbringing, education, we are able to fight the tyranny of selfish replicators. In the "Gene Machine" section, the scientist explains that genes are not strings in the hands of a puppeteer with which he controls his puppets. Genes only control protein synthesis in the cell. And in the course of the evolution of genes, a developed brain arose that is able to adapt to environmental conditions, assess the situation, simulate it and make independent decisions. Genes can only give general recommendations on what to do. For example, how to avoid pain, danger, etc. In other words, the author does not deny that not everything in the body depends on genetics. Culture and education play an important role in this process. We ourselves can soften our "selfish gene".

The main feature of any individual is selfishness. It is closely related to the process of evolution and natural selection, where the strong always win over the weak. Weakened individuals do not survive. Nothing has changed in our modern world. Successful people are often those who are willing to go over the heads of other people for the sake of their goal. This is an experience, an instinct, a gene that came to us from those distant times, when people lived in caves and hunted mammoths. If you are not a strong, hardy egoist, you will simply be killed. Although wild times have passed, our genetic memory, experience, remembers all this. And that is why it is so important from an early age to learn altruism, to help others, because such qualities are absolutely not inherent in our biological nature, says the author of the book The Selfish Gene. We can achieve this only by hard work on ourselves, says Richard Dawkins.

On our literary site, you can download the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins for free in formats suitable for different devices - epub, fb2, txt, rtf. Do you like to read books and always follow the release of new products? We have a large selection of books of various genres: classics, modern science fiction, literature on psychology and children's editions. In addition, we offer interesting and informative articles for beginner writers and all those who want to learn how to write beautifully. Each of our visitors will be able to find something useful and exciting.

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 of 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 life 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 ​​flooding us with direct evidence that we are "managed", 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 of the author's constructions reminded me of 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 analogs 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.

The Origin of Altruism and Virtue [From Instincts to Cooperation] Ridley Matt

The Selfish Gene

The Selfish Gene

In the mid-1960s, a real revolution took place in biology, the main instigators of which were George Williams and William Hamilton. It is referred to by the famous epithet proposed by Richard Dawkins - "the selfish gene." It is based on the idea that in their actions individuals, as a rule, are not guided by the good of the group, or the family, or even their own. Every time they do what is beneficial to their genes, for they are all descended from those who did the same. None of your ancestors died a virgin.

Both Williams and Hamilton are both naturalists and loners. The first, an American, began his scientific career as a marine biologist; the second, an Englishman, was at first regarded as a specialist in social insects. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Williams, and later Hamilton, argued for a new, stunning approach to understanding evolution in general and social behavior in particular. Williams began with the assumption that aging and death are very counterproductive things for the body, but for genes, programming aging after reproduction is completely logical. Consequently, animals (and plants) are designed in such a way as to perform actions that are beneficial not to themselves and not to their species, but to their genes.

Usually genetic and individual needs coincide. Although not always: for example, salmon dies during spawning, and a stinging bee is equated with suicide. Submitting to the interests of genes, a single creature often does what benefits its offspring. But even here there are exceptions: for example, when there is a shortage of food, birds abandon their chicks, and chimpanzee mothers ruthlessly wean their babies from the breast. Sometimes genes require actions for the benefit of other relatives (ants and wolves help their sisters raise offspring), and sometimes for a larger group (in an effort to protect the cubs from the wolf pack, musk oxen stand up as a dense wall). Sometimes it is necessary to force other beings to do things that adversely affect themselves (when we catch a cold, we cough; salmonella causes diarrhea). But always and everywhere, without exception, living beings do only what increases the chances of their genes (or copies of genes) to survive and replicate. Williams formulated this thought with all his characteristic frankness: "As a rule, if a modern biologist sees how one animal does something in the interests of another animal, he believes that the first is either manipulated by the second, or is guided by hidden selfishness" 12.

The above idea arose from two sources at once. First, it followed from the theory itself. Given that genes are the replicating currency of natural selection, it is safe to say that those that induce behaviors that make them more likely to survive must inevitably thrive at the expense of those that do not. This is a simple consequence of the very fact of replication. And secondly, this was evidenced by observations and experiments. All kinds of behaviors that seemed strange when viewed through the prism of a single individual or species suddenly became understandable when analyzed at the level of genes. In particular, Hamilton proved that social insects leave more copies of their genes in the next generation, not reproducing, but helping their sisters to breed. Hence, from the genetic point of view, the striking altruism of the worker ant turns out to be pure, unambiguous selfishness. Selfless cooperation within an ant colony is just an illusion. Each individual strives for genetic eternity not through its own offspring, but through its brothers and sisters - the royal offspring of the uterus. Moreover, she does this with the same genetic egoism with which any person climbing the career ladder pushes rivals. Ants and termites themselves might have renounced the "Hobbesian War," as Kropotkin argued, but their genes hardly 13 .

This revolution in biology had an enormous psychological impact on those directly affected. Like Darwin and Copernicus, Williams and Hamilton dealt a humiliating blow to people's conceit. Man turned out to be not only the most ordinary animal, but, in addition, a disposable toy, an instrument of a community of selfish, selfish genes. Hamilton remembers well the moment when he suddenly realized that the body and the genome are more like a society than a well-coordinated mechanism. Here is what he writes about this: “And then the realization came that the genome is not a monolithic database and a steering group devoted to one project - to stay alive, to have children, which I imagined it to be before. It began to seem to me like a boardroom, a battlefield where individualists and factions fight for power... I am an ambassador sent abroad by some fragile coalition, the bearer of conflicting orders from the masters of a splintered empire” 14 .

Richard Dawkins, then a young scientist, was just as dumbfounded by these ideas: “We are just survival machines: self-propelled vehicles blindly programmed to preserve selfish molecules known as genes. This is the truth that still continues to amaze me. Despite the fact that she has been known to me for more than a year, I just can’t get used to her” 15 .

Man turned out to be not only the most ordinary animal, but, in addition, a disposable toy, an instrument of a community of selfish, selfish genes.

Indeed, for one of Hamilton's readers, the selfish gene theory turned out to be a real tragedy. The scientist argued that altruism is just genetic egoism. Determined to refute this harsh conclusion, George Price studied genetics on his own. But instead of proving the falsity of the statement, he only substantiated its undeniable correctness. In addition, he simplified mathematical calculations by proposing his own equation, and also made a number of important additions to the theory itself. The researchers began to cooperate, but Price, who was showing increasing symptoms of mental instability, eventually turned headlong into religion, gave away all his possessions to the poor, and committed suicide in an empty London closet. Among his few possessions were found letters from Hamilton 16 .

However, most scientists simply hoped that over time, Williams and Hamilton would fade into the shadows. The very phrase "selfish gene" sounded too Hobbesian, and this repelled the bulk of sociologists. More conservative evolutionary biologists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin fought a never-ending rearguard fight. Like Kropotkin, they were clearly disgusted by the reduction of any manifestation of altruism to fundamental egoism, as insisted on by Williams and Hamilton and colleagues (we will see later that such an interpretation is wrong). It's like drowning the diversity of nature in the icy waters of self-interest, they resented, paraphrasing Friedrich Engels 17 . author Jeta Casilda

CHAPTER 12 The Selfish Meme (Evil?) Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, coined the term "meme" to refer to a piece of information that, through learning or imitation, can spread through society in the same way that a preferred gene spreads through society.

Richard Dawkins / Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene

Translation from English by N.O. Fomina.
Biology Literature Editorial Board Federal target program of book publishing in Russia.
ISBN 5-03-002531-6 © Oxford University Press 1976 ISBN 0-19-286092-5 The Edition © Richard Dawkins 1989 This book was originally published in the English language by Oxford University Press, Oxford , England © translation into Russian, Fomina N. O., 1993

The English author's book presents one of the modern approaches to the problem of evolution. The biological foundations of behavior and its role in natural selection are considered. The book has a brilliant, engaging writing style. The first edition was an international bestseller, translated into 13 languages ​​and widely used in biology teaching around the world. This translation is from the second, revised edition.

Geoffrey R. Baileys. "Animal Behavior":

We are created by our genes. We animals exist to keep them, and serve as machines to ensure their survival, after which we are simply thrown away. The world of the selfish gene is a world of fierce competition, ruthless exploitation and deceit. But what about the acts of sheer altruism seen in nature: bees committing suicide when they sting an enemy to protect a hive, or birds risking their lives to warn a flock of a hawk's approach? Does this contradict the fundamental law of gene selfishness? No way: Dawkins shows that the selfish gene is also a very cunning gene. And he cherishes the hope that the Homo sapiens species - the only one on the entire globe - is able to rebel against the intentions of the selfish gene. This book is a call to take up arms. It's a guide and a manifesto at the same time, and it grabs you like an action-packed novel.

The Selfish Gene is Richard Dawkins' brilliant first book and still his most famous book, an international bestseller translated into thirteen languages. Notes have been written for this new edition, which contain very interesting reflections on the text of the first edition, as well as large new chapters.

Richard Dawkins

The main idea of ​​the book is to demonstrate the ability of genes, in the face of their phenotypic manifestations, to go beyond the body - the carrier. For example, the genes of the influenza virus manipulate the behavior of a person - a completely different organism, causing him to sneeze and thereby spread the virus; the beaver's genes that encourage it to build dams have an effect on the surrounding landscapes up to several square kilometers; in principle, interplanetary spaceships that have already left the solar system can also be considered a distant influence of genes.

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins's book shows in a popular and lucid way how from primordial Simplicity, without the participation of any higher intelligent being, highly organized Complexity can arise. The watchmaker mentioned in the title of the book is taken from the famous treatise of the 18th century theologian William Paley, who argued that watches cannot appear spontaneously and spontaneously, but only as the fruit of the mind and efforts of a conscious being (watchmaker); thus, even more complex (than clocks) living beings can be created only by the will and mind of the Creator. Dawkins in his book shows that natural selection, operating on spontaneous variations of simple initial forms, over hundreds and thousands of generations can produce no less impressive complexity. The book also shows the specific mechanisms behind this incremental selection and provides answers to frequently asked questions about evolution.

Richard Dawkins

The famous English evolutionist and popularizer of science Richard Dawkins, about whom Chemistry and Life wrote so much, is not only the author of the theory of memes and a passionate supporter of the Darwinian theory of evolution, but also an equally passionate atheist and materialist. Charles Darwin, in one of his letters, remarked, half in jest, that only "the book of the Devil's Servant" could tell about the gross, blind and cruel creative activity of nature. A century and a half later, the challenge was accepted. A collection of his articles, first published in 2003, Dawkins called "Servant of the Devil" ("A Devil" s Chaplain. Selected Essays by Richard Dawkins ", Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2003). However, only a part of the articles included is devoted to evolutionary mechanisms Another and, perhaps, the most important theme for the author is the irreconcilable, uncompromising struggle for clarity of thought.

Richard Brody

A daring and witty book by Richard Brody turns everything on which psychology, political science and management have stood until now. Human thinking and behavior, he argues, are dictated by memes. A meme is a psychovirus, a mental image. It originates in our consciousness and begins an independent life. It multiplies and changes our behavior. Memes are as funny as Pokemon, as harmless as miniskirts, as harmful as McDonald's food, or even as sinister as fascism. Memes can make you happy and rich, or they can make you poor and sick.

Maxim Krongauz

Today it is impossible to imagine communication without memes, especially on the Internet. They constantly pop up like a jack-in-the-box, seize the communicative space, impudently and aggressively, and then somehow disappear imperceptibly. Few people understand what it is and what rules they live by, although there are people who try to create memes, and sometimes they even succeed.

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 of 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 copy fidelity.

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. In this case, different species can be a role model. 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.

Thus, extinction is a side effect of the 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 the sexual desire of bees - a well-known 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 both interspecific 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 conduct. 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, and the other 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, an 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 population 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 contraceptive use has been 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 the nutrients are 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 excretion 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, for example. 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.