"Blind faith can justify anything."

Technology has become increasingly important in our society throughout the years. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins demonstrates his open-mindedness by saying that technology and other cultural aspects like religion, fashion, architecture, art, etc. can be considered to evolve. Again, a pattern in this book appears: How mistakes make something new. Dawkins explains that it is only through mistakes that new "memes" (see below for definition) are created. For example, in birds, when a tune is misconstructed, a new one is created.

Another pattern is also portrayed once again: Competition. He in a way implies that the only way for a meme to survive is through survival of the fittest. In other words, it must get rid of competition - or at least minimize it - in order to become popular and prevail through generations. For example, if a religion is to last, it must reduce the amount of people who believe in others. It could be said, that different religions are rivals of each other,  and so are different styles of architecture, different types of art, etc.

I'm not the only one who decides to use the example of definition, though. Dawkins does as well, and it seems like he criticizes it at every chance he gets. Out of all the examples he could use - fashion, art, music, architecture, technology - the one he uses the most is religion. And not to boast about it, or even favor it in any way. It could be even be said that he mocks it. He portrays God as something that would die out easily if it weren't for popular belief in him (which could be said to be true, but still adds to his criticism) when he says "God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or ineffective power, in the environment provided by human culture." (P. 193) Not only is he attacking religion but also presenting God merely as man's fictitious creation.

It doesn't stop here, though. Afterwards, to show how memes help each other to propagate themselves, he doesn't use inventions or anything of the sort; he uses religion again. He uses one of the church's most criticized aspects: How it utilizes fear to control the people. Then he explains that the idea of hell and the "God meme" help each other prevail. He describes this technique as "nasty", and then considers whether it could have been a psychological technique arranged by priests, but then decides they couldn't be "that clever."

He does this one last time. He uses the example of celibacy and describes a priest trying to convince young kids to follow this idea. However, he  doesn't just say children, but a"young boys who have not yet decided what they want to with their lives." (P. 198) This implies that the children are still very young and maybe even quite naïve, leading the reader to agree that the priest is manipulating the children since they don't know much about what everything is like. They would probably come to regret their decision later, but the priest has earned followers for the celibacy meme, and that is what every meme wants: More followers than the rest.

Vocabulary

Cultural mutations (P. 190): The rearrangement of a cultural aspect.

Meme (P. 192): A replicator of human culture.

Psychological appeal (P. 193): Appeal to brains.

Imitation (P. 194): "How memes can replicate." (P. 194)

Idea-meme (P. 196): "An entity that is capable of being transmitted from one brain to another." (P. 196)

“You Scratch My Back, I’ll Scratch Yours.”

For a long time, humans have observed that animals live in groups: Wolfs in packs, fish in schools, birds in flocks, etc. However, I used to believe they did this just for the sake of it, or even simply to have company (as naïve as that may sound). However, Dawkins explain that animals do not live in groups just because, there is a whole bigger reason, and this can be traced to nothing else but selfishness. When they are surrounded by many of the same species, animals are less likely to be eaten, thus allowing them to propagate their own genes.

Although Dawkins avoids using human beings as models, his own examples clearly demonstrate that humans are no exceptions. True, I do not hang out friends to make sure they protect me from harm, and this is probably because society has managed to protect us and removed many of or primitive habits. But still, it hasn’t eliminated our instincts and there are both subconscious and conscious things that humans do, that can be traced back to selfishness.

For example, most people I know dislike being left to sit on the corner in places like the cinema. I had never asked myself why, but this is probably due to an instinctive feeling of vulnerability we dot give much thought to.  Perhaps this makes us feel more prone to danger without even realizing. Similarly, a friend once told me that many people subconsciously sit facing the door because their instincts want them to be on the look out, and this certainly applies to Dawkins theory. If they had their back to the door, any threat could approach without them noticing, so their primordial instincts lead them directly to a seat facing the door (I’m not saying it applies to all cases, but it does apply to many).

Just like there are ways in which we subconsciously want people around us to protect us, there are also ways that we are fully aware of. For example, people feel safer when walking on the street when another person is with them. However, many have probably not stopped to think that if they were attacked in any way, let’s say mugged, their companion would have no way of protecting them. It’s almost as if they were alone, yet we feel safer with someone by our side. Maybe deep, deep down, very subconsciously, we are hoping that they’ll be attacked instead of us, just like animals do…?

There are also bodyguards, who are hired to protect a person who is more prone to danger. However, these bodyguards are also selfish and won’t do it just for the sake of it. In exchange for protecting a person, they receive money, which Dawkins acknowledges as a “formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism.” (Page 188) So even though many people believe we are the exception to animal savagery and primordial instinctiveness, we are not. We might even be more similar to animals than we initially though.

Vocabulary

Reciprocal altruism (P. 166): Doing a favor to another, expecting to later benefit from this.

Selfish herd (P. 167):  A herd of selfish individuals

Cave Theory (P. 169): The theory that an animal of a certain species warns others about a danger for the purely selfish reason of avoiding others from catching the predator’s eye.

Never Break Ranks Theory (P. 169): The theory that an animal warns others of the same species about a danger to avoid being left as the only one and thus losing the advantage of living in a group.

Symbiosis (P. 181): Also known as mutualism, this is the “relationship of mutual benefit between members of different species.”

Sucker (P. 184): An animal that helps another even if the other won’t help in return, “indiscriminate altruists.”

Cheat (P. 184): “Gain benefits without paying the costs.”

Grudger (P. 185): Only help those who help them in return.

Evolutionary Stable Strategy (P. 185): A strategy that is prone to defeat others and evolve.  

"DNA works in mysterious ways."

Humans have been on earth for million of years, and still we don’t even know half of the animals and plants we share our planet with; yet, we think we do. It is nearly impossible to know every single species, as (as Dawkins says) there are around three million different types of insects alone. And still we continue to believe we know everything, and we have the power over the world. But we don’t, and Dawkins proves this by saying that every species depends on the others; like trees depend on monkeys and water depends on fish.

Dawkins also explains how chromosomes work. In the past, teachers have tried explaining this to me and I’ve barely understood a thing. However, Dawkins, with an allegory, was able to make me understand easily for the first time. He compares the human body to a building, each cell to a room, the nucleus to bookcases, chromosomes to 46 volumes of books, and genes to pages. He then proceeds to explain by using this allegory and once the reader understands, he simply uses the real terms. Surprisingly, with no need for questions, everything was clear for once and for all.

“Acquired characteristics are no inherited,” says Dawkins (Page 23), and I completely agree. People sometimes think a boy is good at soccer because he inherited it from his father, or that another is good at math because he inherited it from his mother. But I disagree. Things like math and soccer, although they have been present for a long time, were initially created by man, so genes cannot carry information for these. However, by living in an environment were these are practiced and by one practicing these as well, one can develop the skills necessary. This is the inherited vs. acquired debate comes in, but I believe skills are acquired; so it doesn’t depend only depend on who your parents are, but where you live.

"Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines."

For years we have been taught science. What chemicals are, what they're made up of, the periodic table, evolution, etc. This bring up the debate of science vs. religion. Some say it was God who created the universe, while others ridiculize this idea and say it was nothing greater than a new mixture of molecules. Truthfully, I believe we'll never know, because we weren't there and nobody will be able to come back from the dead and confirm whether God exists or not. So we'll just keep doubting, never knowing what is actually true. With such a scientific book, it is evident that Dawkins supports the scientific theory over the religious one. This is specially obvious when he discusses errors made in history and chooses out of all examples to say "I suppose the scholars of the Septuagint could at least be said to have started something big when they mistranslated the Hebrew word for 'young woman' into the Greek word for 'virgin', coming up with the prophecy: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son...'" (p.16) By doing so, he is attacking religion in a way which could be called subtle, as he can simply deny it when he is criticized and say it was an incorrect inference made by the reader.

Never had I realized that everything we know - all humans, other animals, and plants - came from the same molecule. Never until now, that is; thanks to The Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins explains that we were created by accident, since the replicator molecule wasn't even meant to be formed. But it was. And so it began replicating until errors in replication caused the existence of hundreds of different replicas. This is what allowed animals and plants to be created. Before, there was only one type of molecule. But now since there were tons of different ones, it became a competition: survival of the fittest.

Never before had replicas had to fight to survive. However, with the newly-formed diversity, they were forced to create various new defense devices to outsmart others, and survive. This is the reason why they created what today is known as the cell wall, which in the end allowed life to appear on earth, and created us, their "survival machines."

Passive Voice Exercise II

8. If expansion is not accomplished, then two less-efficient alternatives must be acted upon: either the book sales will have to be in separate quarters or else the whole enterprise will have to be moved to a new location. [Try "we."]
9. Trees on average sites are expected to be about twenty inches in diameter when they are eighty years old if they are managed properly since youth. [Start "Managed properly."]
10. Any amended declaration should be filed with the Internal Revenue Office with whom the original declaration was filed   even if you move to another district.


8. We will have to choose between selling the books in separate quarters or moving the store to a new location, if we can't expand the shop.
9. Managed properly, eighty year old trees grow twenty inches in diameter. 
10. The Internal Revenue Office must file any amended declaration, even if you move to another district. 

Passive Voice

1.      Children cannot open these bottles easily.

The bottles cannot be easily opened by children.

2.      The government built a road right outside her front door.

A road was built right outside her front door by the government.

3.      Mr. Ross broke the antique vase as he walked through the store.

The antique vase was broken by Mr. Ross as he walked through the store.

4.      When she arrived, the changes amazed her.

She was amazed by the changes when she arrived.

5.      The construction workers are making street repairs all month long.

Street repairs are being made by construction workers all month long.

6.      The party will celebrate his retirement.

His retirement will be celebrated at the party.

7.      His professors were discussing his oral exam right in front of him.

His oral exam was being discussed by his professors, right in front of him.

8.      My son ate all the homemade cookies.

All the homemade cookies were eaten by my son.

9.      Corrosion had damaged the hull of the ship.

The hull of the ship was damaged by corrosion.

10.   Some children were visiting the old homestead while I was there.

The old homestead was visited by some children.

"Will you kindly tell us why such a strange animal as man was ever made?"

Candide is a book different from any other I have ever read. As I went further into the story, I tried looking for works it reminded me of. Yet, I found none. This is of no surprise, though. Never before had I read a satirical piece. I didn't even know what satire was until a few weeks ago. So it is undeniable that satire is what makes this work different from any other.

In Candide the reader is not meant to identify with the characters or even wish that they succeed. On the contrary, I was constantly looking forward to Candide's failures and to being able to make fun of all the characters. It usually bothers me when I can't really relate to the characters, but in this case, it thrilled me. I loved it when Candide killed the two monkeys and these happened to be the two ladies' lovers,  I was excited for Pangloss's death, and I was delighted after reading that Cunégonde had become ugly. I guess the irony of it all made me happy.

In addition, I found that what I wanted most was to have Candide discover that Pangloss was in fact wrong: We do not live in the "best of all possible worlds", as Pangloss never failed to remind him. It was for this reason that the only character I really liked was Martin. Martin constantly disagreed with Pangloss's teachings and ideas. Many would believe he was pessimistic, but I just think he was realistic.  Everyone in this story was too optimistic, and Martin was the only one who was able to see what everything was really like. Too bad this makes him seem as the pessimistic character in Candide.

Voltaire maintains a constant battle between optimism and pessimism. Pangloss always says everything is for the best. He even develops an explanation as to why getting syphilis was not a curse, but a blessing. Since without it, America would not exist, and therefore, there'd be no chocolate. On the other hand, when Candide asks Martin why the Earth was formed, he answers "To drive us mad." So is this the best of all possible worlds or are we just here to fight the constant injustices and learn to survive? Well, I guess that is up to each one of us to decide.