The Selfish Gene: 40th Anniversary Edition (Oxford Landmark Science)

My Copy: Oxford Univ. Press: 30th Anniversary Edition (Hardbound) There is much more to "The Selfish Gene" than is advertised, even in the most glowing of its reviews. In fact, I (not a biologist, but fascinated by evolution ever since "dinosaurs" and the first high school biology course) have been vaguely aware of this book since its initial wave of rave reviews many years ago, but never bothered to read it because as it was advertised its theme(s) always seemed pretty obvious. But something recently piqued my curiosity again, not sure what that was now, and after reading the prefatory material online I finally decided to take a look. After reading quickly through the first 3 chapters, it became apparent that there was a great deal more underlying the book than was overtly presented, that it was not just an over-extended, over-simplified, over-popularized, metaphorical presentation .... but rather that its metaphorical treatment is painstakingly faithful to an elaborate, closely-reasoned, even rigorous, scientific underpinning. At which point, I stopped reading and began again from the beginning, first the prefatory material, then from page 1, this time more slowly and more carefully, taking care to appreciate and reflect on all the markers of the underlying basis and their implications. This is a wonderful book, even beautiful in many respects, from its initial beginning (at the "beginning") with the purely chemical/physics "evolution" of the primordial soup (cast suggestively in the form of biological evolution); to the consequent continuity with the creation of "replicators", elementary "survival" cells, genes, and the beginnings of life forms; to the important distinction between genes and individuals, as genes and their "survival vehicles" (the first cells and "us", for example); to the nicely extended notion of "gene" itself, required by underlying scientific reality; to a clear presentation of the conflict between Darwinian and "group" selection and evolution; to the nature of evolution, operating (in distinct ways) in terms of both genes and individuals, aka both genes and "their" survival vehicles, aka both chemical/physics and biological evolution; to genetic kinship and its very special selective and social implications; ... ; to the delicious End Notes to the 1st eleven chapters, which provide much supporting and fascinating material. "The Selfish Gene" goes on to clarify not only its expressed subject, the nature and genesis of Selfishness and Altruism, but to make clear the error, scope, and source of various (idealistic, and often political) arguments and ideas centered around group selection fallacies, including the genesis of (ill-conceived) "group-beneficial", cooperative "functions" vs. (individual) evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS) and kinship. It also sheds light on many other commonly-posed questions, among them: the fundamental "reason" for the 50:50 sex ratio (despite the number of different breeding strategies observed for male competitors); the driving source of the natural variability upon which (continuing) evolution depends; the variety and shadings of competing "strategies", which can be both conceived and advantageous, clustered around a given regard (partly on account of environmental inconstancy), one incidental, unintended but important, implication of which is that this is itself an evolutionary driving source of the natural variability upon which (continuing) evolution operates; .... and NOT so commonly posed: that "In its long journey down the generations therefore, an [ANY] average gene will spend approximately half its time sitting in male bodies, and the other half sitting in female bodies", and thus genes will generally contribute positively to both sexes, sometimes in very different ways, and that, indeed, many "purely male / purely female" effects pass (unexpressed) through many bodies of the opposite sex; and much, much more. Beautifully written and packed with wonderful insights, "The Selfish Gene" is not only well-worth the read, but will amply reward the reader in proportion to the thoughtfulness and reflection with which they read it. In fact, there is so much food for thought in the story-lines and examples (e.g., the fig, "lichenization", and organelle endosymbiosis) provided in "The Selfish Gene", that one must often stop and consider, at length and at leisure, the questions which it provokes or which Dawkins rhetorically poses. I will, however, amend Dawkins' wonderful characterization of "us" (Preface to the First Edition, p. xxi): “We are survival machines --- robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Though I have known it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it.” ...... by grafting it to my own previous synopsis, with the result: "We are Conditioned-Reaction Engines [built on Basic Senses + Unconditioned Reflexes (among them innate Kantian "Categories", instincts, emotions, etc.)] built as Gene-Survival "Machines" [genetically "programmed" to serve the "interests" of our genes] = Pavlo-Kantian Conditioned-Reaction, Darwin-Dawkins Gene-Survival Automatons.

Given the sloppy research and broad proclamations in Dawkins' more recent books (a tendency I'm tempted to attribute to arrogance, for a variety of reasons I shall not get into here), it is something of a shock to go back and read his older work, which, despite being a work of 'popular science,' is rigorous in its logic and actually contributed a great deal to changing the modern understanding of how evolution works in the long haul. People could debate all day about which of his books are the 'best,' but certainly nothing more provocative and influential has issued forth from his pen than his first work, The Selfish Gene. Even a cursory glance through the negative reviews here will serve as a testament to the power of its ideas: this book forces us to rethink so many of our fundamental assumptions about life, the universe, and everything (rest in peace, Douglas Adams!). Many people on here find the implications of the ideas on display here frightening, and perhaps even dangerous. This is to be expected: it provoked much wonderment and thought in me, a staunch atheist. I can't imagine how alien the world of the selfish gene must seem to the religious temperament. But I digress. Many of the positive reviews are VERY positive, and this is a cherished book for many people. My point here is, first, that the ideas introduced here are important, and, second, they're introduced very well. It would be impossible for me to do justice to the ideas contained in this book, and so I won't even bother. But the fundamental argument and worldview of this book is worth discussing briefly, if superficially. When this book was published in the late seventies, naive ideas about evolution, such as group selection theory, were wide-spread, and so a distorted image of what Darwinism really amounted to was continually encountered. Enter Richard Dawkins, who argued that our conventional understanding of life was upside-down: rather than thinking of evolution as groups of organisms or even individual organisms using genes to replicate themselves, perhaps genes were using individual organisms to replicate themselves. That is, Dawkins argued that the primary unit of selection was not the group, or even the individual, but the gene itself, in the long run. Genes are not the tools organisms use to make copies of themselves; rather, replicating molecules build increasingly efficient vehicles for delivering themselves through the generations in any given environment, and this process of increasing efficiency is called evolution. This ultimately reduces organisms from the main actors in the play of life to mere "survival machines" (Dawkins' term) being indirectly manipulated by their genes. It is obvious that this stabs at the core of the uneasiness and fright some people feel when they are engaging this work: according to Dawkins, we are robots, or puppets. Dawkins uses both metaphors in this work to describe organisms, but the one he really runs with is the metaphor of organisms as robots. Needless to say, people don't like being classified as "gigantic lumbering robots." For the religious, the objection is obvious: they believe humans to be animals with souls. But even many secularists have raised their eyebrows as the oft-quoted passages comparing organisms to robots. But, as Dawkins notes, robots are not necessarily the clumsy, mindless clods of old science-fiction shows, and if we are puppets, he says, we can at least understand our strings. Needless to say he goes out of his way to disassociate himself from genetic determinism or the establishing of any kind of morality: Dawkins is not here to preach, but to present a conceptual framework for understanding the mysteries of evolution. The central metaphor of the book, however, is that of the eponymous selfish gene. Of course, genes are microscopic molecules and thus can't be consciously selfish, but they act AS IF they were. So anthropomorphic language runs throughout the work. While Dawkins often introduces extended metaphors, he never lets them run wild and take over the work. In the case of the selfish gene, selfishness is defined in a purely behavioral manner, so there are no real problems introduced by this. The selfish gene exploits every available opportunity to replicate more efficiently and spread throughout the local gene pool. As said before, I'm not going to relay the various arguments in this book, but I do want to give potential readers a basic outline of this book, so that they understand that scope of the material discussed here: Chapters 1 - 3 discuss basic stuff in biology, from a certain theory about the origin of life (he intentionally uses different origin theories in each of his books, due to our lack of knowledge in that area) to basic discussions on cell biology and the function of DNA. Chapter 4 sets up selfish gene theory through a basic discussion of what 'behavior' is. Chapter 5 discusses animal aggression and its relationship to such concepts as dominance hierarchies and ESSs (Evolutionarily Stable Strategies, an application of game theory expanded upon in a later chapter). Chapter 6 explores how individual altruism (a strange observation in the cut-throat world of Darwinian ruthlessness) can be explained through gene selfishness. Chapters 7 and 8 discuss kin selection, with 8 focusing squarely on parent-offspring relations. Chapter 9 talks about sexual selection and exploitation. Chapter 10 focuses on reciprocal altruism. Chapter 11, the final chapter in the original edition, introduces the now famous ideas of cultural replicators, or memes. In the book's second edition in 1989 Dawkins tacked on two chapters to the end, which, I think, are also two of the best. Chapter 12 takes a closer look at game theory and how it relates to our understanding of evolution. And chapter 13 reproduces in abbreviated form the central argument of his second work, The Extended Phenotype, which argues that the effects of genes can ultimately be described as influencing things outside of the individual organism as well, if very indirectly (of course, as Dawkins points out, the genetic influence on the organism is itself indirect, if to a much lesser extent). I hope that this review might serve its purpose of giving undecided customers some hint as to the richness and breadth of scope in this work. I hope everyone reads this book. Now, it isn't perfect: Dawkins has edited almost nothing from this work, leaving it virtually untouched, so that what you read in the first eleven chapters in 2010 was all there in 1976 as well. What this inevitably means is that some of Dawkins' speculations have been shown to be false over time. Most of these errors were pointed out in the voluminous end-notes added in the second addition of the work (Dawkins never failed to point it out when he is wrong about something, which is something I can really respect-- here is a thinker with integrity), although some, such as the correct function of surplus DNA, were only discovered recently, so that they escaped mention in this book. It is fairly easy to get up-to-date on all this, and there are no shortage of people who love to point out where exactly Dawkins is wrong on something. So be sure to supplement this book with some minor research if you care about keeping your understanding current. Also, the chapter on memes is admittedly sketchy (although many see more value in the idea than I do), and some sections of this work, especially when he is discussion the origins of life, are contentious. Keep this in mind. But you'd be hard-pressed to find a more important and readable introduction to both Darwinism and selfish gene theory than this. This third edition of the work, released in 2006, doesn't really add anything to the central text, like the huge overhaul of the second edition, but it restores all previous introductions, forewords, and prefaces, and adds a new one for this 30th anniversary edition. Also included are extracts from reviews of the work. This is really like an Ultimate Edition of The Selfish Gene, and if you've never read before, I advise you to read it now. At worst, it'll give you some interesting ideas to chew on. At best, it'll give you a whole new perspective on life. Read it.

A thought provoking book, very well written, it does a great job of presenting some basic but interesting ideas in biology, genetics and game theory to the non-specialist. Let me put this straight: this is not a book about finding a gene that is responsible for selfishness or "inhumanity" (that's already been done, just take Bush DNA in stock, and remember to take away the idiocy gene;) it is not a book about moral philosophy, it is not a book against religion and it won't make you feel better if you are an egoistic as*#*le. It is just a lively written exposition of the workings of evolution and the subtle interactions that living creatures have among themselves. The focus of the book is on shifting the idea of evolution from species evolution and individual animal evolution to gene evolution. To be true, at the elementary level the game of survival, mutation and evolution is played by the genes and not the organisms, and this is a very important and interesting idea to behold. Sometimes Dawkins gets a bit carried away by his "communicative genius" calling animal bodies "lumbering robots built by the genes" but at least he manages to catch the reader attention vey effectively. I personally don't understand his sectarian hostility towars group selection. To me, species, group, individual, kin and gene selection are all valid, they just tend to be the dominant force in different time/space domains. The only downside of the book is the smell of the petty disputes of the "specialists" in the field, which seemed to be quarreling more on words and way of seeing things than on real, sound, genuine ideas. This is the unmistakable sign of a stagnant field. I think that what makes some religious people snarl at this book is not its main idea (evolution is played at he gene level, and genes that are around today must have done well in diffusing at the expenses of others) but the very natural explanation it gives of selfishness and altruism (they help a single gene or a pool of similar or identical genes to survive and spread), something that religious people see as too "God-related" to be subject to biological explanations... Overall a a great book that will spark your interest in biology, genetics, ethology, sociobiology and even apparently unrelated fields like game theory.

Listed as number 10 on The Guardian’s “100 best nonfiction books of all time”, Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene explores a “gene’s-eye view of evolution” in a re-imagining of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. He explains his thesis concisely in the first chapter: “I shall argue that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of heredity. To some biologists this may sound at first like an extreme view. I hope when they see in what sense I mean it they will agree that it is, in substance, orthodox, even if it is expressed in an unfamiliar way.” This book is also the origin of our current English word meme, for better or for worse. While I typically use “meme” to refer to image files shared on social media platforms, usually with text typed over the image, the actual word refers to: “an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture”. Not every common word in our tongue has a definite point of origin, so it’s a minor pleasure of mine to read a book that is known to have originated a new word. (My first experience with this was reading Isaac Asimov’s short stories that contained the first usages of the word “robotics”.) What I Liked Least About It My primary difficulty with this book was not a fault of the author, but rather my own lack of scientific knowledge, especially in the field of biology. Consider that my high school biology course was taught by an elderly Christian woman who stated early that she wouldn’t teach evolution because she didn’t believe in it, and my college biology course was taught by a licensed minister in a denomination that denies evolution’s existence. So I knew next-to-nothing about evolution until the past few years when I began to read about it in earnest. Many of the concepts Dawkins uses in this book leapt over my head at first, and some required multiple re-readings of many sentences and paragraphs. However, Dawkins’ writing style is clear, and most terms are explained as he introduces them. Another downside was the placement of the footnotes, which might have been the fault of the publisher rather than the author. These notes were added in a later edition, marked in the original text with asterisks, and found in the back of the book. Most of them dealt with new information that had arisen since the original publication and so were enlightening and helpful, but their placement in the back of the book means the reader regularly has to flip to the back to find the note that accompanies the just-found asterisk. I would have greatly preferred to find the notes at the bottom of each applicable page. (I do understand the arguments against such a placement, especially since a few of the notes were lengthy.) What I Liked Most About It Despite regular accusations from the anti-science crowd that “science is a religion” or that evolution is a matter of “faith”, I found no leaps of faith or baseless assertions in this book (or in any other science-related book I’ve read recently). Where something is unknown, the author said it’s unknown. If something is assumed, he said it is assumed, and explained why it’s assumed. For example: “The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened... We do not know what chemical raw materials were abundant on earth before the coming of life, but among the plausible possibilities are water, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia...” This kind of language is exactly why I like science. It uses terms like “as far as we know”, “to the best of our knowledge”, “recent studies have shown”, “with a few exceptions, which I will mention below”, and so on. When contrasted with the firm language of religion (“absolute”, “always”, and “every”), it shows that science is a quest for knowledge rather than an assertion of it. Science tends to recognize what it doesn’t yet know; in fact, what isn’t known is the very reason for the existence of science. I also liked the ideas presented, because they make sense, intuitively, given the knowledge of genetics and DNA that science has uncovered. The idea that natural selection works on genes — rather than individuals, groups, or species — is logically sound. “Individuals are not stable things, they are fleeting. Chromosomes too are shuffled into oblivion, like hands of cards soon after they are dealt. But the cards themselves survive the shuffling. The cards are the genes. The genes are not destroyed by crossing-over, they merely change partners and march on. Of course they march on. That is their business. They are the replicators and we are their survival machines. When we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever.” The idea that individuals are complex “survival machines” built by genes to ensure future replication is powerful and humbling, yet surprisingly difficult to dispute. It does what a good scientific theory should; it explains observed phenomenon. “Different sorts of survival machine appear very varied on the outside and in their internal organs. An octopus is nothing like a mouse, and both are quite different from an oak tree. Yet in their fundamental chemistry they are rather uniform, and, in particular, the replicators that they bear, the genes, are basically the same kind of molecule in all of us — from bacteria to elephants. We are all survival machines for the same kind of replicator — molecules called DNA — but there are many different ways of making a living in the world, and the replicators have built a vast range of machines to exploit them. A monkey is a survival machine that preserves genes up trees, a fish is a machine that preserves genes in the water; there is even a small worm that preserves genes in German beer mats. DNA works in mysterious ways.” It Should Be Noted The theory proposed, described, and defended by Dawkins in this book is not entirely his own, as he hurries to mention in his book. The gene-centered view of evolution first began to arise not long after DNA was first correctly described in the late 1950s, and was pioneered by scientists George C. Williams and John Maynard Smith in the 1960s. But, as Robert Trivers (another scientist) wrote in the forward to The Selfish Gene, it was Dawkins’ book that “for the first time... presented [this theory] in a simple and popular form”. This idea is also not without its detractors. There are notable scientists who disagree with the central tenets of Dawkins’ views, among them famed paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (now deceased) — one of two men responsible for the punctuated equilibrium theory. Gould believed natural selection worked on several levels, but learned toward the species as being the fundamental unit of selection. He also argued against the acceptance of the idea that many behaviors are genetically determined. My own view (which is relevant here, since this is my book review) is that they’re probably both right. My view doesn’t arise from any scientific knowledge — my lack of which I have already mentioned — but purely from my observational experience that two-sided arguments are often artificial, that both sides often contain enough truth to be valid. It would surprise me if scientists as a whole someday determined that natural selection only works on the genetic level or only worked at the species level (or only at any other level: group-selection, kin-selection, individual selection, etc.) While one level or another might turn out to be more important than the others (and that most important level could easily turn out to be the genetic level), it stands to reason that the other levels carry weight as well. Dawkins and Gould are probably both right on the determinism argument as well. Based on my own experiences with addictive behavior (not to mention many studies published in the decades since Gould and Dawkins disagreed) shows that genetic determinism must play at least some part in many behaviors. At least, I am currently convinced of this. But also clear is that behavior is often influenced by our views and beliefs, and our views and beliefs are changeable, so it stands to reason that some of our behavior is not genetically determined. (I am using “reason” here in the sense of “common sense”, which I recognize is often shown to be incorrect; intuition is not always right — take for example that it’s “common sense” that the Sun moves while the Earth does not, something that was eventually disproved.) Conclusion I would recommend this book to anyone interested in science in general, though I would advise first building a rudimentary knowledge of biology and evolutionary theory. As already mentioned, my own shortcomings in these areas made it difficult to understand parts of this book.

The rule of Occam's Razor is that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the correct one. Although no one can yet know whether Dawkins is right in his neo-Darwinian view of the gene, his argument certainly seems simpler and more consistent than those he argues against. Basically, his point is that evolution must be analyzed from the perspective of what is likely to have facilitated or discouraged the continued reproduction of a given bit of DNA. Most alternative theorists favor looking from the perspective of the individual carrying the DNA or the group the individual belongs to. On the eve of the deciphering of the human genome, this is a terrific time to read this thought-provoking book. Basically, the book repeatedly looks at observed plant and animal behavior in terms of whether it furthers reproduction of a particular gene or set of genes. In most cases, Dawkins can construct a mathematical argument that is reasonably plausible to support his thesis. The only places where you may be uncomfortable is that the conclusions often depend on the assumptions that go into the models used. Those cited by Dawkins work. Others would not in many cases. That's where the room for doubt arises. I was especially impressed when he took the same arguments into the realm of conscious behavior, looking at classic problems like the Prisoner's Dilemma and explaining it from a genetic reproduction perspective. He also built some very nice arguments for why altruism can turn out to be an appropriate form of positive genetic selection. The main thing that bothered me as I read the book is that I was under the impression that in humans the female's genes account for 2/3rds of the offspring's total genes, while the male's genes account for 1/3. If that is true, then I am left at sea by the fact that all of the examples assume equal amounts of genes from the male and the female. I was left wondering if other species are typically 50-50, so that humans are the exception. I don't know how to account for this because I lack that knowledge. The introduction says that the publisher would not let there be a wholesale rewrite of the book in the new edition. Perhaps this is something that Dawkins wanted to revise and could not. There are two new chapters, and they are both quite interesting. If most mammalian species are 2/3 to 1/3, then many of the examples involving mammals are miscalculated. It would be worth redoing them if that is the case. I suspect that the conclusions would still be robust, however, directionally. Any work of speculation will always be subject to refinement and revision. I hope Dawkins keeps working on this one. His thinking has great potential for outlining new questions for research. One of the delights of this book is finding about plant and animal behaviors that I had never known about before. My favorite was the irresistible cuckoo gape. Apparently, a baby cuckoo in a next with its beak open begging for food is somehow so compelling that other birds carrying food back to another nest will stop by and give the food instead to the baby cuckoo. The book is full of thought-provoking examples like this that will keep me thinking for years. Dawkins is a very fine writer, and employs a number of simple, but compelling stories and analogies to carry forth complicated mathematical arguments. Even if you hate math, you will follow and enjoy his writing. Unlike many popular science books, he writes to his reader rather than down to his reader. Another benefit you will get from this book is a methodology for thinking through why behavior may make sense that otherwise looks foolish from the perspective of the individual (like bees dying to defend the hive). You will never look at behavior in quite the same way again. Enjoy!

Wonderful book

It is a shame that this is required reading. I had some reservations about writing this review as I am a fan of Dawkins and the circle of academics he is grouped with. But I must have standards and not break from them because of a bias. It should be noted that this review might not be understood by some who are not familiar with the theory, my apologies for this. I will also apologies for my own wordiness, though to my credit I'm not a world renown author who has been writing for over 40 years... There are three main knocks I have against this book. The first being it's wordiness, the second being lack of references, and the third being lack of evidence when there might actually be some. Dawkins addressed the comments of previous editions being too simple in explaining genetics. I am not referring to this type of explanation. I am referring to a different kind of wordiness- For example in the chapter Genesmanship, Dawkins went to great lengths explaining why individuals do not favor others who are not related to them when it is obvious they share some genes. He could have simply stated that one or two genes aren't likely to overpower millions voting to favor someone who is related. As a related note, I wonder why Dawkins never listed examples of exactly how much favoritism kin generally give each other and how much this changes when families are put together that are not blood related, adoptions, marriage with kids from previous partners, etc... Every chapter seemed to be begging for both more real world examples and simpler wording. The second knock is lack of referencing. I know this is a book explaining a theory, which I give leeway for. But I wanted everything that could be referenced to be referenced. One small example is on page 130 where the author says “one well-authenticated story” but never references this story, shall I Google every bit of this? Lower down on the page Dawkins refers to a “respected authority” that “According to her” disagrees with Dawkins- WHO? It's as if Dawkins believes everyone keeps up on the latest in zoology. In the back of the book there is a bibliography, it does not list page number and I am stuck guessing if the reference listed is the one I am looking for. The third knock, which in my opinion is the hardest it lack of real world examples. There is much research on how adopted children are treated, and it would have been nice to see a discussion of what happens in cases where a child is switched at birth, but the parents were unaware. I will end with a recommendation to read the book anyway. This book is readable, and many books on evolution and psychology refer to this one, so for that this book is worth reading. At the end of this book I felt I had a deeper understanding of not just evolution as Dawkins sees it, but evolution as other authors see it. I would recommend this book before reading The Red Queen by Matt Ridley for example. Buy it, read it, but don't expect too much out of it. Edit: for my terrible grammar, which admittedly is still terrible...

This is Dawkins' famed seminal work on his view of evolution written in the 70s. It has been recognised as a classic of modern scientific writing. It is also where he presented his view of natural selection via individual gene. In the first chapter, he already clearly stated his unique view in contrast to selection based on group or the larger category of species which is a more conventional view at the time. Chapter two on replicators and chapter three on the immortal gene are the key chapters by which Dawkins explains the nature of a gene as a replicator exhibiting selfish behaviour in evolution. The primeval soup environment had molecules that are replicatators, molecules that are with longevity and/or capacity to replicate themselves with high longevity/fecundity/copying-fidelity. The gene made of replicating DNA molecules are the basic unit of evolution responding to natural selection pressure. A gene's replicating feature makes it possibly "immortal", for it can survive for a million years though many don't make it past the first generation. Dawkins characterises the gene as a survival machine with the capacity to learn from the environment in order to respond to and make predictions to its various changing parameters of the environment. Its learning capacity helps it to replicate and hence survive in the environment. Learning, adapt and replicate are ways a gene respond to selection pressure. The rest of the books reveals how the gene exhibits certain behaviours in the evolutionary process. In the area of aggression, Dawkins offers the surprising analysis that aggression is not necessarily the best way to survive in the evolutionary process. He invokes Maynard Smith notion of "evolutionary stable strategy" (ESS) throughout the book. It is a survival strategy adopted by most members of a population that cannot be bettered by an alternative strategy. The genes select a unique mixture of hawks and doves that is the best ESS for the population to survive, and not necessarily hawkish blind aggression survives better. On the process between generations, the genes enable the parents to choose a balance between reproduction and rearing in a way that best utilizes parental resources. Best replicating strategy ESS is not a blind maximal reproduction. Another interesting observation by Dawkins is parent/child relationship being as crucial as siblings relationship in terms of gene replication. Children would not blindly hoard food that risks the balance of his own survival and siblings survival. The gene enables the right balance. On the battle of the sexes, each sex selects the best way to replicate its own genes as reflected in even the mate selection criteria. Dawkins highlighted two selection criteria, the domestic bliss criterion according to which the female selects a male based on domesticity and fidelity to invest in her offsprings, and the he-man criterion which is based on males with best quality genes to sire their offspring. For males, promiscuity with multiple partners seems to be the best way of replicating. With regard to the dynamics between species, it is seen in nature that different species help each other for mutual reproductive benefits forming symbiotic relationships. An example is that aphids suck nutrients out of plants for ants while ants offer sanctuary to protect them from natural enemy. Dawkins mentioned also mitochondria which provides energy for human gene is bacteria in origin which cooperates with our cells making human beings a symbiotic colony of genes. Throughout this whole work, the selfishness of a gene is actually metaphorically used because selfishness only depicts the natural behaviour of gene replication by responding to selection pressure. Any apparent calculation of strategy actually takes place at a genetic level, not consciously decided at an agent level of the organism. Despite this notion, Dawkins suggests humans are different than other species in that it uses "memes" to transmit culture. Memes are means of cultural transmission. Examples are ideas, tunes, fashions, and artefacts. They replicate like genes jumping from body to body by humans imitating them from human to human for transmission. Dawkins also suggests that genes and memes can work against each other. Another thing that makes humans different from other organisms is the capacity for conscious foresight to work against selfish genes that have no foresight. It is conceivable that humans can work against their own genes interest. But that would imply humans possessing a free agent capacity over and above his own genetic makeup. I don't know if Dawkins would allow such a paradox but it is conceivable not all of human features are made for genetic replication. This work provides an impressive wealth of insights of how the gene function as a unit of survival machine in evolution. Just like any good books in biology, anecdotal examples from nature are indispensable and Dawkins does not disappoint. Some of my favourite examples are cuckoos that lay eggs in other species nests to spread their species and lessen its own parental investment, and the ruthlessness of hatched honey guides that would smash the eggs of their foster family eggs making it the only offspring of their parents. Baby swallows push other eggs out of the nest after hatching. In the 40th anniversary edition, the last chapter is just a summary of his next work The Extended Phenotype which he suggest the reader to skip and go on to that book and a 40th anniversary epilogue which is a good and updated summary of his book