Comments on: Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene — Post 1 http://www.humanumbrella.com/2008/07/07/richard-dawkins-the-selfish-gene-post-1/ A struggle for clarity in life; searching beyond barriers between us. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:25:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: humanumbrella http://www.humanumbrella.com/2008/07/07/richard-dawkins-the-selfish-gene-post-1/#comment-32 humanumbrella Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:00:08 +0000 http://www.humanumbrella.com/?p=94#comment-32 I don't think there's much to "buy" in the sense of the lifespan argument. Think about it with me: Let's say I'm predisposed to cancer. Why? Because I have relatives before me who have died from it, ie, their genes -- and those before them -- though they may be late bloomers, are in me. Why? Because my parents didn't wait to make sure those "bad, cancerous" genes were not in either of them, to then be passed on to me. According to Dawkins, there is no genetic reason why we should die, only that the later blooming genes are often bad ones, and they remain in the gene pool because we breed so young. Also, you must think about it in a generation-to-generation type mindset, rather than "oh, my kids." Once a ban was set on young child birth, any bad gene that began expressing itself at 30 would most likely not be passed on, because people looking to breed who were 30 would probably not choose these individuals for mates. IE, lack of those 'late-blooming' 30 something bad genes. Now, once the gene-pool is ridded, or semi-ridded, of those 30-something blooming genes, up the ante and go to 40. The same general concept follows. Is that a more clear explanation or does it still not jive? Let me know! I don’t think there’s much to “buy” in the sense of the lifespan argument. Think about it with me:
Let’s say I’m predisposed to cancer. Why? Because I have relatives before me who have died from it, ie, their genes — and those before them — though they may be late bloomers, are in me. Why? Because my parents didn’t wait to make sure those “bad, cancerous” genes were not in either of them, to then be passed on to me. According to Dawkins, there is no genetic reason why we should die, only that the later blooming genes are often bad ones, and they remain in the gene pool because we breed so young.
Also, you must think about it in a generation-to-generation type mindset, rather than “oh, my kids.” Once a ban was set on young child birth, any bad gene that began expressing itself at 30 would most likely not be passed on, because people looking to breed who were 30 would probably not choose these individuals for mates. IE, lack of those ‘late-blooming’ 30 something bad genes. Now, once the gene-pool is ridded, or semi-ridded, of those 30-something blooming genes, up the ante and go to 40. The same general concept follows.
Is that a more clear explanation or does it still not jive? Let me know!

]]> By: Brett http://www.humanumbrella.com/2008/07/07/richard-dawkins-the-selfish-gene-post-1/#comment-30 Brett Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:16:05 +0000 http://www.humanumbrella.com/?p=94#comment-30 Interesting post man. You did a good job summarizing what I'm sure is incredibly complex arguments. I am trekking with you, but I can't say that I can buy the lifespan thing. I might be missing something, but that one sounds a little too far-fetched...I know it's just a theory, and I'd have to read Dawkins to get the whole thing, but that's my first response. The part about Uniqueness is pretty cool. It's amazing to me the intricacies of every human alive, and what it took for Person A to be Person A and not Person A.1, A.2, B, Z, or any other sum of genes. It's fascinating to try and see how much genes play into who we are and how much has to do with how we are raised. Thanks for the post. Interesting post man. You did a good job summarizing what I’m sure is incredibly complex arguments. I am trekking with you, but I can’t say that I can buy the lifespan thing. I might be missing something, but that one sounds a little too far-fetched…I know it’s just a theory, and I’d have to read Dawkins to get the whole thing, but that’s my first response.

The part about Uniqueness is pretty cool. It’s amazing to me the intricacies of every human alive, and what it took for Person A to be Person A and not Person A.1, A.2, B, Z, or any other sum of genes. It’s fascinating to try and see how much genes play into who we are and how much has to do with how we are raised. Thanks for the post.

]]>