Blackpill Why you should read Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene"

[Fontaine]

In this moment I am euphoric... Just kidding.

Jokes and memes aside, Dawkins is actually a heavyweight vulgarizer of Evolution. His biological books are very solid.

I consider "The Selfish Gene" to be the most important book written in the modern era. It is in fact far more important than Darwin's own works... Why?

Because Dawkins successfully demonstrated that the basic unit of Evolution is the gene, not the individual or the species. The implications of this are enormous. It completely demolishes any narrative of "the meaning of life is to have children", "it is rational and healthy to make children", "natural selection is good for the species", or "genetic superiority". Natural selection does not serve any purpose in particular, and reproduction is actually an absurd process determined by the obstination of each individual gene you possess (even the most shitty) to remain immortal. Dawkins himself admits in the prologue that his book can cause nervous breakdowns in people due to the horror it exposes. We are basically "survival machines" for genes. Just like the shell of a snail. Genes are master puppeteers. They don't give a flying fuck about us, and you shouldn't give a flying fuck about them. They will murder you if they think it's in their best interests.

The power of this book is that it goes a lot farther than mere opinion. Dawkins provides many vivid examples of his theory in action.

I suspect most of those who criticize Dawkins have only read the titles of his books. Their content is surprisingly solid and persuasive.

 

[NEETAndTidy]

100,000% agree. One of the most blackpilled books I've ever read.

Everyone should read this book

 

[LDARBuddah]

Yeah I've read it. Its scary tbh. Chad lions eating other lion cubs to spread his own genes. Passing on genes is all that matters it seems

 

[Red Shambhala]

Totally agree.

 

[Villain]

Im gonna fucking read it!!!!! thanks

 

[Hunter]

no thanks, already got enough suifuel in my mind rn

 

[LDARBuddah]

already got enough suifuel in my mind rn

tbh this makes me not wanna read aswell i keep thinking of my oneitis while i read and get sad she has not answered my last message

 

[Hunter]

tbh this makes me not wanna read aswell i keep thinking of my oneitis while i read and get sad she has not answered my last message

>oneitis

stop orbiting her.

 

[Fontaine]

Yeah I've read it. Its scary tbh. Chad lions eating other lion cubs to spread his own genes. Passing on genes is all that matters it seems

It matters to the genes and to the genes only. They manipulate their hosts into doing their bidding, mostly through their tight grip on the limbic system. There is actually no rationality or "meaning" in doing their bidding.

 

[Red Shambhala]

tbh this makes me not wanna read aswell i keep thinking of my oneitis while i read and get sad she has not answered my last message

Seeing your avatar, you might enjoy Robert Wrigth's "Why Buddhism Is True" - it's a book written by an evolutionary psychologist (who shares Dawkins gene-centered view on evolution) about the secular parts of Buddhism and about using meditation as a way to get our feelings under control.

 

[diogenes]

This is cope. Genetic recombination and epigenetics is where it's at. This book is extremely reductionist.

Also this book is a meme with no empirical evidence and makes no sense when you think about it.

 

[Solitarian_Walker]

You need an advanced IQ to read this stuff

 

[engineerescortceler]

not all biologists agree with richard dawkings. the selfish gene theory is not accepted widely in biology

 

[Dude420]

Isn't the "meaning of life is to have children" from the gene perspective. (maximizing quantity/quality. the gene wanting to spread as much as possible. I read a lot of EP books but not Dawkins one, pretty much the only one I didn't read, I do not why, I think because I tend to avoid older books)

But the best book on EP is without a doubt the Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, 2 volumes, only 1300 pages long, covers everything about EP. Yea I have no life.

 

[ColdLightOfDay]

As I’ve said before; our genes are not utilitarian, they have not granted us consciousness to facilitate our happiness, they have done so to facilitate the highest probability that we will continue to produce their (and our) descendants, and if it means causing us hideous agony along the way, that’s a sacrifice they’re willing to take.

 

[Fontaine]

This is cope. Genetic recombination and epigenetics is where it's at. This book is extremely reductionist.

Also this book is a meme with no empirical evidence and makes no sense when you think about it.

What you wrote is so dumb I don't even know where to begin. There is no "genetic recombination" in the sense of "genes losing their identity". They are just shuffled around; they're still intact. As to epigenetics, dynamic expression of genes in a survival machine can serve their own survival even more than constant expression.

not all biologists agree with richard dawkings. the selfish gene theory is not accepted widely in biology

Of course not all biologists agree with Dawkins. Theories encouraging nihilism tend to be unpopular. Doesn't mean they are wrong.

 

[diogenes]

What you wrote is so dumb I don't even know where to begin.

Nice argument there boyo. Dawkins has no empirical evidence as I said. It's all just cope.

 

[TheGoodGuy]

stop orbiting her.

 

[Fontaine]

Nice argument there boyo. Dawkins has no empirical evidence as I said. It's all just cope.

Lol, his theory is the only one with empirical evidence. Have you truly read The Selfish Gene or are you just displaying your ignorance for the public?

 

[Dude420]

Seems like not reading it was the right decision
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.04391.pdf

 

[Deleted member 60]

one of my biology professors taught a lot of material from this book. That class changed my life tbh

 

[deepthroat]

I think I could give it a shot, but hopefuly it won't be all just playing with words and untestable ideas or speculations.

 

[Untermenschcel]

yes it is a great book

 

[Fontaine]

Seems like not reading it was the right decision
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.04391.pdf

Lol wut

You have to do better than a female psychologist criticizing memetics

 

[Dude420]

I think I could give it a shot, but hopefuly it won't be all just playing with words and untestable ideas or speculations.

Honestly the best book on EP is this much more recent https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary...t_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1536358341
if you don't want to read the Handbook which is 1300 pages long and very costly

Lol wut

You have to do better than a female psychologist criticizing memetics

Might be shit haha idk didn't had time to read, wanted to read it later on, but I heard many times that some of his conceptualization of EP were flawed, not sure how and where since I am not familiar with his work, idk if the link exposes it well, she is losing credibility because she is a woman for sure

that book is old, it almost for sure flawed since EP was in his infancy and incomplete in many ways

 

[Fontaine]

I think I could give it a shot, but hopefuly it won't be all just playing with words and untestable ideas or speculations.

Nah, exact contrary. Dawkins spends his time with vivid examples and clear logical trail of thought. When he recounts the exact chronology of life on Earth: that's when you understand he is right.

We are the last, most modern envelope above dozens of other envelopes living inside us, devised by genes to optimize their survival. Of course, genes don't think; it's purely the result of brute forcing over billions of years.

 

[diogenes]

Lol, his theory is the only one with empirical evidence. Have you truly read The Selfish Gene or are you just displaying your ignorance for the public?

The book is reductionist. There is no evidence for it. Genes do not act separately (or at least not most). Genes work together aka epistatic interaction, for example eye color genes.

Even if he is right your post makes no sense. It is not a blackpill because genetics are more complicated than genomes. A "perfect" Chad genome still needs a good environment.

 

[Inbuddhist]

Very high IQ, OP i really respect you a lot, you are one of the rare incels who don't confuse the selfish gene blind "goals" with personal well-being and success. JFL at genes slaves who anthrophormize selfish genes goals and think life has "goals" and "winners"

Sure having femoids, sex and being attractive is nice because it ENHANCES personal well-being, not because perpetuating genes for perpetuation sake is "winning" or because "the purpose of life is procreation" or some dumbshit like that

 

[Dude420]

Isn't the "meaning of life is to have children" from the gene perspective. (maximizing quantity/quality. the gene wanting to spread as much as possible)

Can someone answer this thought?
Meaning of life is to reproduce from the gene perspective, no?

 

[Fontaine]

Genes do not act separately (or at least not most). Genes work together aka epistatic interaction, for example eye color genes.

That's actually a good argument. However, is it that hard to understand that over many eons, some genes have "learned" that a mild degree of association tends to result in survival of both genes more often than playing it solo? I guess you truly haven't read the book, because Dawkins does mention genetic cooperation.

 

[deepthroat]

We are the last, most modern envelope above dozens of other envelopes living inside us, devised by genes to optimize their survival. Of course, genes don't think; it's purely the result of brute forcing over billions of years.

Interesting. Looks like there could be some amazing perspectives as you hinted there. I will definitely share my thoughts and impressions if I find me a copy and read through it.

 

[Inbuddhist]

Can someone answer this thought?
Meaning of life is to reproduce from the gene perspective, no?

"From the gene perspective" = the gene perspective doesn't have "meaning" it's dumb to speak of meaning from the gene perspective.

Also why would you be the slave and spokeperson of genes that don't give a flying fuck about your well-being and do their bidding like a cheap whore instead of caring about your well-being mainly even if it goes against the genes ""interest"" ?

 

[Dude420]

"From the gene perspective" = the gene perspective doesn't have "meaning" it's dumb to speak of meaning from the gene perspective.

Also why would you be the slave and spokeperson of genes that don't give a flying fuck about your well-being and do their bidding like a cheap whore instead of caring about your well-being mainly even if it goes against the genes ""interest"" ?

Yea ok it is semantics, the meaning is not the right terminology, but the end output which the encoded information is attempting to maximize is to reproduce if you will.

 

[Inbuddhist]

Yea ok it is semantics, the meaning is not the right terminology, but the end output which the encoded information is attempting to maximize is to reproduce if you will.

It's not semantics, it's a subtantial difference, a category mistake. If you don't understand the difference between what increases your well-being and "what increases selfish gene fitness but doesn't benefit your well-being or decreases it" and think it's mainly semantics, i'm afraid there is nothing i can do for you.

 

[deepthroat]

Can someone answer this thought?
Meaning of life is to reproduce from the gene perspective, no?

Reproduction is a process ensured by hormones, which production is ensured by units, which production is ensured by genes and other subsidiary elements. So from 'gene perspective' it's meaning is to build those subsidiary units am I right? Then reproduction seems to me like an emergent feature of an organism as a whole. It could imply that nature isn't so selective but rather random or even chaotic in evolution

 

[Dude420]

It's not semantics, it's a subtantial difference, a category mistake. If you don't understand the difference between what increases your well-being and "what increases selfish gene fitness but doesn't benefit your well-being or decreases it" and think it's mainly semantics, i'm afraid there is nothing i can do for you.

Yea I get it, the gene inflicts pain to his host to condition him to take actions which end maximizing his reproduction (but there is environmental mismatch now so we often act in maladaptive ways in this day and age). I thought about meaning as the end goal of one existence if you define your meaning as having children than there is a sort of overlap with the gene encoded output(even if it doesn't act in a purposeful fashion). The overlap is what I meant where we enter semantics territory, it is sort of the same "end goal"(I know again it is flaw to say it that way, it's not the same it overlaps) or whatever you want to call it.

Reproduction is a process ensured by hormones, which production is ensured by units, which production is ensured by genes and other subsidiary elements. So from 'gene perspective' it's meaning is to build those subsidiary units am I right? Then reproduction seems to me like an emergent feature of an organism as a whole. It could imply that nature isn't so selective but rather random or even chaotic in evolution

Didn't follow you there, not sure if me, how you explained it or your understanding and/or logic is flawed.

 

[Doomedanincel]

fuck Darwin
feminists and atheist cucks worship him

 

[backyardslayer]

Sperm wars is another blackpilled book.

 

[Deleted member 5861]

why OP sound like a book advertisement pop-up?

 

[NeetSupremacist]

Richard Dawkins is an enemy to incels, he's getting promoted by degenerate ppl like feminists, communists and other immoral groups.

 

[Fontaine]

fuck Darwin
feminists and atheist cucks worship him

Richard Dawkins is an enemy to incels, he's getting promoted by degenerate ppl like feminists, communists and other immoral groups.

Darwinist atheists have not yet swallowed the second blackpill, being that religion is needed to overcome the natural evil of genetics. That does not invalidate Darwin. Darwin is the first stepping stone in the intellectual journey.

 

[speedmaxed]

Darwinist atheists have not yet swallowed the second blackpill, being that religion is needed to overcome the natural evil of genetics. That does not invalidate Darwin. Darwin is the first stepping stone in the intellectual journey.

agreed. Most of his followers are relatively redpill tbf. Better than nothing

 

[Limerencel]

Read that book when I was a child. It has been my favorite book ever since.

I hate that you create the threads that I wanted to make, kek. I gotta do better. @Fontaine

 

[Weed]

Wait... what.. So natural selection is pointless according to him?

 

[Limerencel]

You need an advanced IQ to read this stuff

The book is very digestable. No difficult words, everything is simplified to the max, but not more.
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"

 

[Fontaine]

Wait... what.. So natural selection is pointless according to him?

Totally. Dawkins is actually "against" Evolution.

 

[Weed]

Totally. Dawkins is actually "against" Evolution.

Does natural selection include sexual selection by yours and Darwin's definition?

 

[Deleted member 1252]

Absolutely correct. I was going to make a post about this actually. It’s an excellent book and explains the cold, harsh reality of animal behaviour very succinctly.

Steve Jones also wrote some great books on genes and evolution that are excellent blackpilled suifuel. One of which is “The Descent Of Men”.

 

[Angus13]

more evidence that normies are allowed to drop black pills and use them to justify beaten down lower tier men, somehow when we start dropping black pills though, normies don't wanna talk about superior genes or any of that shit anymore.

 

[SynCope]

This book is hardly an empirical inquiry into evolutionary biology, instead it draws upon loose correlations between both genetics and the social-sciences too sell itself as being relevant. Beetlejuice IQ.