Life Lessons

I feel bad for constantly declaring Dawkins as a pessimistic person. All my views on him have changed ever since Chapter 11, but Chapter 12 is what completely swayed me.

Chapter 12 presents us with the Prisoner’s Dilemma and Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a problem game that demonstrates why two people may not cooperate even if it is in both of their best interest to do so. These participants will always tend to choose Defect because they don’t have trust in each other. The Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma is pretty much exactly the same as the Prisoner’s Dilemma but it is repeated between the same two individuals for a number of rounds. This way, the result would be different – both individuals would most likely choose Cooperate because there’s always the next round. Thus, the Tit-for-Tat strategy is used in this game – a strategy known as the “equivalent retaliation.”

Unlike all those times when Dawkins stated his pessimistic view on these survival machines that barely have any control of themselves, his game theory approach offers us with a basis of optimism about people.  Regardless of initial conditions, climate, and the current dominance of nasty strategies, the analogy we can draw between this and human behavior is that a nice but tit-for-tat strategy can cross the “knife-edge” and never go back.   Obviously, this cannot be applied 100% to humans; however, it’s a useful outline in examining the patterns of an altruistic behavior. Despite the fact that genes struggles for continuance and maintenance of itself, altruism can achieve this continuation through reciprocation – those who are nice enough to cooperate will make others cooperate with them in return.

Also, there's another thing that we need to take a look at in this chapter. That is the matter of trust. Dawkins demonstrates how important trust between individuals is through all this game demonstrations. Without trust, nothing can be done. No one will cooperate. The game will become a mess; the players will feel unsure, not exactly sure what they should do. This is exactly the same in life. Trust is the key to life.

There is Hope

Humans are selfish. This is a fact that Dawkins was able to prove through his selfish gene theory. It even runs in our genes. Yet, Dawkins takes another step to talk about the culture side of human beings. He introduces us to the memes (who knew this word came from him?). Meme is an element of culture that gets passed down from one generation to another (but not genetically). Examples include fashion, music, catch phrases, etc. I’m sure many of you heard about “internet memes” especially now because there are the email forwards, instant messages, webpage links, etc for the memes to travel instantly. Memes are a way for people to transmit social memories and cultural ideas to each other – a mind-to-mind connection. If you still don’t understand what it is, just think of all those Chuck Norris jokes on the Internet. That’s a perfect example.

Example of a Meme

So typical of Dawkins, he immediately compares memes with genes. Just like genes, memes also have their own selfish side to them (although it’s not like they have any emotions). However, they have that instinct for survival. Memes compete with each other so that their idea would last longer, would become more popular, etc. They are the new replicators. Similar to genes and any other replicators, they need the “longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity” (194).

So are we just these gene and meme machines who can’t even control ourselves? Are we after all just controlled by something we cannot take over?

For those of you who want to believe in the good of human beings, there is still hope.  Dawkins clarifies that just because our genes or our human nature tell us that we are selfish people, it doesn’t mean we actually are. Ultimately, it is us who create who we are. Even the scientist who I believe to be extremely pessimistic seems to agree with me! “We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators” (pg. 201). 

SELFISH

“A pack of hyenas can catch prey so much larger than a lone hyena…” “Spiders cooperate in building a huge communal web.” “Emperor penguins conserve heat by huddling together” (pg. 166). Dawkins begins Chapter 10 with some examples that prove his theory of altruism. He believes that animals perform what seems to be “selfless acts” to help others; however, in reality, they are doing it to benefit themselves. He examines apparent altruistic animal behavior and attempts to explain it solely in terms of the benefits gained by a selfish gene. He expands into an analysis of reciprocal altruistic relationships, where both benefit from the relationship.

Nonetheless, what I wanted to concentrate on was humans – us. Dawkins uses the examples of the animals and applies it to the minds of human beings. He zooms into the level of our own bodies and suggests “we are gigantic colonies of symbiotic genes.” As much as my heart desires to argue against this, I can’t help but think that it might actually be true. We help others to benefit ourselves as well. Look at our society. Most high schoolers nowadays only do community service – help the old people, the people in need, constructing houses for homeless people – just because they need the hours or it would look good on their transcripts. Celebrities offer donations for countries in need just to improve their reputations. Although I want to believe that there are people who perform altruistic things purely for the fact that they care about others, I think Dawkins completely smashed my hope that real selfless people do exist. He does this by connecting everything with genes – he gives a clear explanation that seems so reasonable through science. Honestly, I’m not a science person and I never believed that genes had much to do with who you are. Dawkins proved me wrong, but this only presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature. It makes life seem utterly pointless. I cannot present any arguments to refute his point of view…but I want to believe. I want to believe that humans have complete free will and they choose to be nice and help others. 

Our genes do not control us. Dawkins seems right in almost everything, but I think he forgot about something. Human nature changed...it definitely changed from those times when we lived only to survive. We don't think about survival nowadays – it seems to come to us naturally. Thus, maybe our genes are connected to the past, but we have moved on. We are no longer "survival machines;" we are humans – humans with feelings.

KEY WORDS:

• Altruism (n) = the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others
• Aggregation (n) = collection: several things grouped together or considered as a whole
• ‘Domain of Danger’ = the area of ground in which any point is nearer to that individual than it is to any other individual
• Predator (n) = an animal that that naturally preys on others

Spotlight on the Genes

Have you ever had that moment when you go, "Aha!" Well, that was me a few minutes ago when I was reading the third chapter "Immortal Coils" of The Selfish Gene. In my earlier blog post, I have asked a few questions that came to my mind while reading the second chapter. One of these questions was "Why is the title of the book The Selfish Gene?" The third chapter pretty much gives you a straight forward answer.

No, I was completely off-track when thinking that the genes were selfish due to their "personality." It has nothing to do with characteristic traits. "The gene is a basic unit of selfishness" (pg 36). When we think about evolution and its process, we normally think about the organisms. They're the ones going through the process; they're the ones evolving into even more complex organisms. What Dawkins is trying to tell us here is that that is NOT the case. It's the genes. Genes are the ones going through all the different survival of competitions between different genes. It's the gene-centered view of evolution where all the genetic material, natural selection, and evolution are considered from the perspective of the genes.

Vocabularies that I did not know in this chapter:

1. cistron = a section of a DNA (or RNA) molecule that codes for specific polypeptide in protein synthesis
2. flotilla = a fleet of ships or boats
3. troupe = a group of dancers, actors, or other entertainers who tour to different venues
4. aggregation = collection; several things grouped together or considered as a whole
5. denizen = an inhabitant or occupant of a particular place
6. altruism = practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others

Exactly what it's NOT suppose to mean...

Questions on The Replicators

Many people who saw me holding this book The Selfish Genes told me that it was the one of the best works they have ever read. Excited to read it, I started off with the second chapter The Replicators in class. In all honesty, I was disappointed. I felt like I was reading a biology textbook instead and probably didn’t understand half of the things Dawkins was trying to explain to us. However, here is a short summary of what I understood from this chapter:

Dawkins starts off with “In the beginning was simplicity” (pg 12). He starts explaining about the emergence of life and the evolutionary stages that occurred afterwards. I’m no biologist and although you don’t have to be a biologist to understand his work, I didn’t understand any of the first part he said until I got to the “primeval soup” part. The only thing I know is that he 100% supports Darwin’s theory of evolution. The primeval soup, which he didn’t explain too well so I had to look it up on Wikipedia later, is some type of ocean that contains a lot of chemicals or molecules (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc). So in other words, life started from a chemical reaction that occurred inside that ocean. There were several chemical reactions, which soon left from one simple molecule to a very complex one. What I grasped from this was that there was a sudden transition from a non-life (or inorganic substance) to an actual living thing. Is this even possible? Obviously, one of those molecules was the DNA – also known as the Replicator. The name pretty much says it all. Replicators have an ability to produce copies of themselves; therefore, they soon started dominating the primeval soup because they start combining with other molecules. How did these replicating molecules lead to the creation of complex life? Well, they didn’t just stay as molecular kings but steadily became very complex through evolution. It was able to build bodies for protection – a wall of protein around itself. These bodies are what he calls “survival machines” in which when the replicator grew more complex, so did their survival machines. I’m not exactly sure how this happened, but we, humans, happen to be these survival machines.

This chapter left me with numerous questions that I probably need clarification on:

1)   Why exactly is the title of this book called “The Selfish Gene?” Is he claiming that genes are selfish?

2)   Do these primitive molecules exist today? Where are they now?

3)   I don’t understand if this primeval soup/ocean thing is a theory of Dawkins or it’s actually a fact in science, but if it was realm then…when did the ocean stop brewing up all these possible chemical reactions? When did this ocean go away? Clearly, looking at our world right now, such ocean doesn’t exist anymore.

4)   If believing what Dawkins said, “there is a tendency towards stability” – then why exactly is there such a variety of survival machines today? If it was so stable, then why didn’t one stable form occur and quickly become the norm?

A depiction of the primeval soup

Cultivate Our Garden

When I first received the book Candide, I didn’t know what to expect from it. I knew it was a satirical novel and I knew that it was mocking optimism. Yet, I didn’t understand the point of reading it.

"That's true enough, but we must go and work in the garden" (Page 144). What a perfect way of ending the book. In just one line, Voltaire was basically able to summarize his whole message and the purpose of him writing a satirical novel.

Basically, this line shows the character development of Candide. He obviously no longer believes in Pangloss' ridiculous philosophy of optimism. Through his experiences, he was, for once, not blindly following and believing what someone said, but he actually applied his experiences to the way he thinks now. Bravo Candide, I am so proud of you.

The "work in the garden" phrase is so symbolical. It alludes to Adam and Eve. As you all know, Adam and Eve were in this utopian place where everything was for the best. Once I thought it through, I realized that these gardens played a significant role, not just in the ending, but throughout the entire novel. The first Garden of Eden was represented through the Baron’s castle in Westphalia – a “little coppice, called the park” that was surrounded by bushes (Page 19). Candide, who I guess is a similar to Adam, is kicked out from this perfect, isolated place. Once he got out of there, he suffered the harsh reality of life.

The second garden was Eldorado, which was also another utopian society. It was like paradise and everything seemed to be perfect. However, Candide was not happy in that his “true love” was not with him. Therefore, he left Eldorado in search of Cunegonde. He, then, experienced several hardships.

Finally, there is Candide’s garden which is the most realistic and true to our world. It is literally a garden in which you have to sow, toil, and reap. This applies to his life in general as well. He must work for what they have and what they need. Life is unfair and one will face difficulties. However, it’s not as bad as Martin claims it is. One can obtain happiness, if one works for it.

I feel like the message that concluded the book was pretty inspirational. One must work in order to achieve happiness. Sometimes, we, humans, forget this valuable lesson. Sometimes, we expect happiness is awaiting us somewhere or believe that "time will solve everything." We don't work hard or take any actions to achieve this happiness that we constantly desire for. Happiness is not something you receive; it's something that you earn. Voltaire reminds us all about that.

Overall, I really liked the book. The first part of the book was full of giggles and laughter…towards the second half, it might have gotten a little bit tiring. I still hate the fact that Pangloss was alive and I absolutely cannot accept the fact that he still tries to spread the philosophy of "all is for the best." Come on Pangloss, just give up already. I didn't see any character development in him and that disappointed me. However, I’ll let that pass because I am just so happy that Candide was able to change. Although this isn’t the stereotypical happy ending, I felt that it was pretty fair because there is hope and a high possibility that Candide and his comrades will find happiness (some already did…like Cunegonde. I mean she still thinks she’s pretty, she’s married to the person she always wanted to marry, and she isn’t getting raped anymore!)

Superficial Love

     There's something that I must admit to all of you. I, Luna Yamashita, am a hopeless romantic. I am in love with love stories like Wuthering Height, Gone with the Wind, and all of Nicholas Spark books. I don't know what my life would be like without chick flicks like The Notebook, Titanic, etc. If two people are in love, I will always, most definitely, one hundred percent support them

…with the exception of Candide and Cunegonde.

     The problem with Candide and Cunegonde is that, first of all, their love is extremely shallow. I mean admit it, how many of you started crying or felt even a tiny bit of sadness every time Candide and Cunegonde got separated? Unless one had some dust in his eye while reading that scene or was thinking about something completely different, no one did. Why? Because we don't care. Candide and Cunegonde's supposed love for each other is so fake and has no depth whatsoever. I know I shouldn't treat Candide as a love story because it isn't a love story, but regardless, it's pretty obvious that Candide and Cunegonde's love for each other is nothing but absurd. To begin with, I can't seem to figure out if Cunegonde even has feelings for Candide…

     First of all, when the Baron "drove Candide from the house with powerful kicks on the backside," Cunegonde didn't even help him. Yes, she was unconscious, but after she woke up, couldn't she at least try to convince her brother to change his mind? (page 21)

     On top of that, Cunegonde causes nothing but trouble to Candide. This is a fact that no one can deny. First, because of Cunegonde, he got kicked out of the Thunder-ten-tronckh house. This is what started all of Candide's horrible events. In other words, romance is what causes Candide's hardships. The only message I get from here is "love is painful."

     It's also this oh-so-powerful love that causes Candide into committing numerous murders. First, he kills the Inquisitor and the Jew in Lisbon to free Cunegonde. Later, he attempted to murder her brother in South America so that he could marry her.

     Most importantly, Candide left Eldorado because of her. The first time he was in a place where the "all is for the best" philosophy worked, the first place where everything seemed to be perfect, the first place where nothing bad happened to Candide -- and he threw it all just to be with Cunegonde (who, I might mention, was about to marry the governor of Buenos Ayres then).

      The absurd lengths to which Candide sacrifices for his "love" are mocked by the fact that once Candide does reunite with Cunegonde, he ironically isn’t attracted to her anymore. His reaction in seeing her was actually pretty funny. He "drew back in aghast" at the sight of her…he doesn't even consider her as a woman, even worse, a human being (page 137). He sees her as an object. "The first objects which met [his] gaze were Cunegonde and the old woman" (page 137). [But then again, the readers never saw Cunegonde as a human being either; she's more of a puppet who has no thoughts or personality.] Why is Candide not attracted to her anymore? The answer is simple. Cunegonde is no longer the pretty girl that she used to be. I can't recall how many times the book mentioned her ugliness in the last couple of chapters. I mean that's basically what their love was all about…appearances. Now that Cunegonde no longer is the "buxom girl of seventeen with a fresh, rosy complexion," Candide does not love her (page 19). Of course, I'm pretty sure she was just aging. After all, who can stay that pretty after experiencing dreadful experiences one after the other and not even have the luxury to buy anti-aging cream? This just shows the readers that Candide mostly loved Cunegonde for her beauty and nothing else.

      As for Cunegonde, I have no idea if she even cares for Candide. Of course, there's the fact that she can't do anything to prove her love for him because she's a woman. There's a lot of discrimination in this novel and women seemed to not have much say in anything. They are merely used by the men (mostly for sexual purposes). Thus, it's not like Cunegonde could have done much. Yet, there is no denying in that she ditched and left Candide for the governor of Buenos Ayres. To be honest, I would have too. The governor of Buenos Ayres is so much more powerful and he's rich…after all that I experienced, I would want to be with somebody that would cause me less trouble. However, that's ONLY considering the fact that I don't love Candide and just think he's an idiot. Cunegonde is supposedly in love with him, but she still left him for the governor of Buenos Ayres. Doesn't that pretty much say she cares more about herself and money than Candide? If she really was devoted to Candide as Candide to her, then she wouldn't even have to hesitate or think or ask the old woman for her opinion when the governor proposed to her.

     Nonetheless, Candide still marries her. Now this, I really admire of Candide. He stayed true to his words and kept his longstanding promise. I feel like that makes Candide a moral and proper man.

     At the end, I could not help but think that Voltaire is simply satirizing Candide's love for Cunegonde.