Decadence

What I read in this chapter remined me of something I heard a while back. Dawkins here speaks mainly of parental investment, and how every parent is prepared to take on a certain amount of responsabilities and invest a certain amount of time and effort into their children and their welfare. I was told that in some foreign places such as Europe, people are deciding to stop having children and dedicate their lives to each other instead. Apparently this has become more and more common, and this leads me to wonder whether this has anyhting to do with our selfish gene. We humans are starting to care less each time about the developement of our kind. With this going on, and happening so often, Europpean countries are somewhat running out of young generations, and their population is now mainly senile. I found this to be rather interesting and peculiar, due to that it is not that often you come across people who don't look forward to becoming a family. This leads me to conlcuding that in fact our selfish gene is leading to our decadence, and our downfall.

Challenging Mother Nature

What caught my attention from chapter seven was that Dawkins mentions how the natural way of things is actually chaotic and miserable. Creatures living in their natural environment usually do not live long. They often die of starvation, predators or disease. All these get to them before old age, and many die before they even hatch. What I find ironic, is that I have heard that people in the past, had an increasing number of children with the purpose of having a fair amount of them surviving in case some of them died. Dawkins explains in this chapter, that it is the other way around. He says that a large amount of offspring leads to starvation, resulting in only a few of them surviving and growing to reproduce. From this I get the feel that Dawkins supports the idea of contraceptives and birth control, for he thinks that a state of good health and welfare is unnatural and cannot be achieved unless these strategies are used to do so. This leads me to asking myself about the so called perfect and precise ways in which we have been taught the world of nature is built. If animals do really live under such degrees of misery, where barely any of them achieve old age, then I think Mother Nature should be questioned. This gives me to some extent, a small degree of hope for mankind. Maybe we haven’t messed the world up as much as we thought we had. Mother Nature didn’t build everything to be so perfect to begin with.

The same but different

The selfish gene manifests itself in altruistic ways. Although child protection may seem as a selfless, noble way of putting someone else’s life over one’s own, in reality, it is all a selfish way of preserving our genes, our traits. In a way we are selfish and altruistic all at once. In terms of human behaviour, people protect their young to preserve their genes and traits, this is altruistic because it is for the progress of the species in general that we protect our children. If a parent and a child are at risk, the parent would much rather chose to save the child’s because it has a greater probability of preserving the genes than himself.

Competition and Coexistence

Chapter five speaks mainly of the competition existing between different organisms due to their differences. Dawkins explains that if we all agreed to behave in the same manner, then other organisms living within our environment would not be our rivals, but rather our conspirators. Anyhow, the problem with conspiracies is that sooner or later, one organism will begin to take advantage over the other, and then the all-dove group would allow hawks to surge. these hawks would do so brilliantly well, that the rivalry between hawks and doves would inevitably arise. This, I find, relates a lot to the way we humans behave. Although we may attempt at being or becoming equal to others around us, treachery is bound to occur. It isn’t possible for humans to peacefully coexist forever. This is why Dawkins states that an environment where competition and aggression exist is far more stable, because although it does not benefit all of the organisms living in it, they do not betray each other.

Interpretation or Truth

Chapter 3 speaks mostly of DNA, chromosomes, and hoy genetic material is transfered from one generation to the next. Although it is a lot to take in, once again I am surprised by how simple Dawkins makes it seem. The idea of the binder and the architect plan he uses to describe recessive and dominant genes was an interseting metaphor which I found perfectly suitable. I found it curious how in page 23 Dawkisn says he "shall introduce other metaphors". Writers never let the reader know when they are about to introduce metaphors, they simply do. This is a way in which I believe science books such as The Selfish Gene differ from fictional novels. Books like this are straightforward. They contain no rhymes, no embelishments. They say everything exactly how it is. Science books don't pretend to break the fall, or dress facts up. Some people may find this to be the beauty of science, that things don't exactly vary, there is barely any room for interpretation. Science is facts supported by experiments and proof. I find the sibjectivity of fiction to be more enjoyable, but then again that is just an opinion.

The Predetermination of Genes

In this chapter, Dawkins exposes how all oroganisms are built to function in a certain way. We and all other living creatures are machines, and are built in this way with the sole purpose of preserving our genes. I believe this holds a clear connection to predetermination because it tells us that our bodies are built in a certain way that we cannot alter or define. We cannot help what we have been born to do, which is merely reproduce and preserve our DNA, in other words, our selfish gene. Preserving these genes leads to evolution, and to my point. If we really are nothing but machines, built for the purpose of making our genes prevail, then our fate is set. We will evolve, becoming every time more selfish, the gene becoming more and more dominant, leading inevitably to our self destruction. We are gene machines meant to grow and evolve to preserve a gene that is meant to kill us. I find this to be very ironic, but it is the way we are built, anbd it is what we mostly do, work to preserve and maintain what in reality hurts us most.

Forever Young

We are machines, and our genes live off us with the sole purpose of replicating, of growing, and of being passed on. What Dawkins argues in this chapter is that our genes are what keep us alive. When we die, all we will have left to remind others of our existence is what traits and characteristics we pass on to our future generations. This gives us some kind of comfort, for it somehow makes safe that existence. Knowing that a part of us will still live within someone else helps us make the process of dying away slightly more bearable. We are all afraid of being forgotten, and our genes make us believe that can somehow be avoided. Our genes are “the replicators” they will not die out, they will live forever, and this is what we so desperately want, to live forever.

Why Are People?

Dawkins begins by introducing to us the difference between species that are altruistic and those that are selfish. The examples he gives are clear and concise, and in my opinion portray the points he wishes to make. The situation of the mother bird and how she pretends to be wounded to drive the hungry fox from her chicks manifests the behaviour of an altruistic species. What I understand from the term "altruistic" is an individual that seeks that puts itself at risk for the welfare and survival of the rest. Although the human race is a species that is apparently selfish, I think they are altruistic up to a certain point. A parent would do nearly anything for their children. Yet, we humans are selfish in the sense that this isn't for the welfare of the species, but rather for selfcomfort. I expected this book, given that it is a science book, to be more dense and confusing, but I have found it to be intersting and somewhat nice to read. Dawkins' way of writing is soothing and makes the complex topic of genetics easy for the reader to digest. He explains everything in detail, but at the same time clearly so that the reader is left without doubts. I think I might come to enjoy this book more than I thought.

Make it Happen

In section nine, Epictetus implies here that the will and the mind are not affected by what happens in the body. While physical pain can be excruciating, if the will is not diminished, then pain will not result in anything. Will cannot be hurt by pain. Will is the last thing we should loose. Section twenty-one is one that I find I agree with in certain ways. I have always seen pain as an element that puts our strength to the test. When we deal with difficult situations and painful experiences, these make us stronger. “Let death and exile, and all other things which appear terrible, be daily before your eyes, but death chiefly; and you will never entertain any abject thought, not too eagerly covet anything.” (Epictetus, 21). What I can infer from this is that when you prepare yourself for the worst, you become safe, for you can be either surprised by a better result, or vaguely affected if it goes wrong because you expected it already. But on the other hand, I think it is also best to hope. Hope and will are weapons that can also come to influence what happens to you. I partly agree with what Epictetus says in this section because I do think it is safer to be prepared for the worst, but at the same time, your attitude towards things can also make a difference. In some way, nothing happens unless you make it happen.

The Dangers of Desire

Satisfaction and happiness can only be attained if we manage to detach ourselves from all that we cannot change. Focusing only on what is our own and how we can alter it, is what is thought to bring peace of mind. Section two was what really made me wonder, for it tells us that desire should be controlled. It is desire that causes disappointment. This is without a doubt true, for whenever we fail to achieve something we desire, we are disappointed. But I believe desire would be meaningless if we felt it when wanting to change only what is within our reach. Desire is unavoidably intertwined with pain, with displeasure. That is what makes desire so passionate, that there is a risk of losing. If we only desired what we know we can change, then there would be no point in wanting it to change, it would be predictable, expected. It would be far too easy to desire something without hesitating, without doubting of it first. Desire alone is a risk we must take, and without feeling it in the presence of a situation we know we cannot control, then it wouldn’t be a risk at all. This is why I disagree with what Epictetus is saying in these sections. Indeed life would be a great deal less complicated and less worrying if we thought of nothing but our world and how we can manage it, but our worlds are not only populated by ourselves. If we only desired something that we can easily attain, then we would constantly be thinking: What now? The end would mean everything, while the journey would be worthless. The journey is what motivates, what moves us and creates, while the destination is merely a moment, a sliver of a second that is gone in no time. Several people usually affect and impact our lives in countless ways, and we cannot control them. So in a way, achieving complete and utter control over what affects us is nearly impossible.

Knowing and Losing

What terrifies us most are not things themselves, but our view and notion of them. We do not fear death because it is death, but because it is unknown to us, and we therefore imagine it as many different things. We don’t know what to expect in the face of death, and that is frightens us most. This is what section five is discussing. Section eight is one that also caught my attention, for in one line, I saw laid out before me the cynical thoughts and ideas of Epictetus. “Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well.” (Epictetus, 8).I strongly disagree with what he is saying here, for I believe that if we took everything as it came then there would be no mystery to life. If everything resulted as expected, or if we simply accepted all that resulted, then living would be boring, meaningless. Intrigue would be a foreign subject, and along with it all of life’s excitement. This is a way in which I believe the handbook can be related to what we saw in Slaughterhouse Five. The Tralfamadorians, through their fourth dimension see life as it is meant to be and cannot be changed; there is no mystery to it. Knowing it all causes us to lose hope, to see no prospect. There is no point in living if we already know what will happen, and this is why I disagree with Epictetus and particularly his eighth section.

True or False

When the plane crashes, Billy is the only one to survive because of his mumbling of the words “Schlachthof-funf”, Slaughter House Five in German. This caught my attention because I found it curious that at such a moment of despair and hopelessness, the only thing Billy could think of was the address of his “prison” in Dresden. This I believe also shows in some way, why this is the name of the book. Facing death, the only vivid memory in Billy’s mind is that of Dresden, and its destruction. “Billy was unconscious for two days after that, and he dreamed millions of things, some of them true. The true things were time-travel.” This fragment caught my attention because it exposes how Billy is truly consumed by his belief of time travel. He believes to tell the difference between what is true and what is not, and he is utterly convinced that time travel is of the few things that are certain.

Unstuck in Time or Stuck in Life

In this chapter, I came to realize the state of desperation Billy Pilgrim must be in due to that he is in fact unstuck in time. He is forced to travel through the moments of his life all over again, unable to change anything, a helpless spectator who can do no more than watch from the sidelines as he makes the same mistakes all over again. I have come to realize that the truth is life would not be life if we had the chance of fixing our past mistakes. Learning from them is what really makes it worth living. It is hard to put into words, but what I am trying to say is that the power of controlling time would only bring us more insecurities and more confusions, for there will always be countless solutions to the moments we found ourselves caught in and couldn’t escape from. When there is nothing to do about these mistakes but learning from them to act on them in the future, we find a way of letting go and moving on.