Thread:Forum:Genetic evolution vs memetic evolution (LQT!)/Gene propogation machines/reply (14)

RTFM - seriously.

In the meantime - from Wikipedia

The Selfish Gene is a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins coined the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group. From the gene-centred view follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with one another. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a selfishness gene.

An organism is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness — the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy. The book also coins the term meme for a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, suggesting that such "selfish" replication may also model human culture, in a different sense. Memetics has become the subject of many studies since the publication of the book.

Note that this implies that evolution favours the survival of the gene rather than the individual. In most cases this comes down to the same thing but bees which die to protect the hive are a classic example of when it's not.

At the risk of oversimplification in evolutionary terms my "job" is to be a vehicle for the survival and propagation of the various genes that I am made up of. My evolutionary "fitness" is determined by the number of genetic offspring I produce. Note that it's the number, not the quality, whatever that might mean. As such I am programmed to prefer my offspring over those of others. This is not wholly determined - adopted children are loved as much as natural offspring - but it is summed up in the old phrase "blood is thicker than water" or, as SJC's son said - "Kids that you are related to are cuter".

This is why eugenics is counter to genetic evolution. I would gladly give my life for my children - my genetic offspring - and would make sacrifices for my tribe - my close genetic cousins. However expecting me to give up genetic survival for the sake of... of what? Some vague concept in the "improvement" of humanity? This is doubly true when, as you point out, strict genetic determinism is highly doubtful - now you're asking me to give up genetic survival for some vague "improvement" in humanity using a method that may not work very well. Nah, that breaks the program.