X-Message-Number: 33109
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Memes, selfish genes and Darwinian paranoia
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:44:55 +0100



http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rationally-speaking/200907/memes-selfish-genes-and-darwinian-paranoia


I'm reviewing a book by philosopher of science Peter Godfrey-Smith entitled 
"Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection.  (This is not the book review, 
forthcoming.) Godfrey-Smith makes an excellent argument at some point in the 
book (chapter 7, on the gene's eye view) that genes are not at all the sort of 
things Richard Dawkins and some other biologists think they are. For instance, 
contrary to the standard view, genes are not "unities of heredity  (and 
therefore do not last as "individuals ) for the simple reason that 
crossing-overs (the molecular processes that shuffle bits and pieces of genetic 
material, the real reason for sex) do not respect gene's boundaries, but rather 
cut genes into pieces and shuffle them. Indeed, as Godfrey-Smith points out, for
this and other reasons sophisticated theoretical biologists are abandoning talk
of "genes  altogether, referring instead to the more diffuse concept of 
"genetic material.  As PGS puts it, this is "a stuff, not a discrete unit. 


The interested reader will have to read PGS's book or wait for my review 
(forthcoming in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews) to learn more about the issue 
of the nature of genes. But what struck me toward the end of that chapter is 
Godfrey-Smith's unusual (and, I think, rather compelling) argument that talk of 
selfish genes (and memes) is one example of a broader "agent-positing  discourse
that is shared, of all people, by some evolutionary biologists (though by all 
means not all, yours truly being one of many exceptions) and theologians!


Here is how PGS himself has characterizes the phenomenon: "Two explanatory 
schemata can be distinguished within the general agent-positing category ... The
first is a paternalist schema. Here we posit a large, benevolent agent, who 
intends that all is ultimately for the best. This category includes various 
gods, the Hegelian 'World Spirit' in philosophy, and stronger forms of the 
'Gaia' hypothesis according to which the whole earth is a living system. The 
second schema is a paranoid one. Now we posit a hidden collection of agents 
pursuing agendas that cross-cut or oppose our interests. Examples include 
demonic possessions narratives, the sub-personal creatures of Freud's psychology
(superego, ego, id), and selfish genes and memes. 


I must say that I am rarely struck by a novel enough idea that my first reaction
is "wow.  This is one of those instances. There is something profoundly 
intellectually satisfactory in suddenly seeing disparate phenomena like 
Augustine's god and Dawkins' memes as different aspects of an all-too human 
tendency to project agency where there is none. Not to mention, of course, the 
admittedly wicked pleasure I'm getting from imagining Dawkins cringing at the 
comparison.


David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33109