If a soldier dove on a grenade to save an enemy soldier who’d killed his mother, I’d be impressed in terms of it’s apparent altruism...though I could imagine there’d be a Darwinian explanation (even if it doesn’t occur to me in the moment.)
What about an environmental or a neurological or a psychological explanation? What’s so special about genes as a causative factor?
I think Dawkins admits ‘selfish’ was the wrong term to use.
The main reason for this is because people constantly misunderstand it.
But it’s helpful to think of a replicator-centric mechanism for evolution, versus anything on the organism level.
It certainly is the right way to think about evolution, and I also think the figure of speech is nice to have if not misunderstood.
They are an important factor in everything the soldier does, for instance they set limits to what kinds of beliefs he can have given his experiences. Genes don’t do anything at all without the environment they interact with however.
What about an environmental or a neurological or a psychological explanation? What’s so special about genes as a causative factor?
The main reason for this is because people constantly misunderstand it.
It certainly is the right way to think about evolution, and I also think the figure of speech is nice to have if not misunderstood.
I’d imagine you’d be right. (Sufficient belief in an afterlife might do it.) Though I don’t know if I’d rule out the genes.
Nonetheless.
Exactly my thought.
They are an important factor in everything the soldier does, for instance they set limits to what kinds of beliefs he can have given his experiences. Genes don’t do anything at all without the environment they interact with however.