#foreveralone

This internet meme has become very popular lately. This happens through sharing on popular sites such as facebook, twitter, tumblr, 9gag, etc... in order for others to see them. This fcae means "forever alone" a phrase that has become very common among friends and specially girls who continously say they will never have someone to be with. Since its origins it has repeteadly been used in websites as making fun of socially akward people  thinkthey will be lonely for the rest of their lives. It has become popular because of the humor it causes amongst people.

Give to Recieve... Or Not

            You give what you recieve. Us humans are always looking for power, superiority, and of course, revenge if something bad is done to us. We are always fighting for success, no matter who we may hurt in the process. I related this to what Dawkins talked about"cooperate" and "defect". If I have the chance to lose nothing but let someone else win everything, or win equally as my opponent, or lose along with my opponent, what would I do? Considering these options, I could either take a risk and win or take that risk and lose.

            This is what Dawkins said about Tit for Tat. Both players begin cooperating, both beneffiting themselves equally, "in the next move, each player copies the other´s previous move" (pg. 210). This got me thinking: Having the chance to win everything, why wouldnt I take the risk? But its more complicated than that. We are always looking for competition in order to benefit ourselves and obtain success. This cooperate and defect game made me realize that despite the fact that we could lose, that small chance of achieving success over our opponent is what makes us competitive and fearless (in this case).

            It happened to me when I was playing the game in class. The first two turns, my opponent and myself both scored cooperate, both benefitting ourselves with a total of .6 points each. But in the third turn, I asked myself "what if he cooperates? Why wouldnt he if he has done this for the first two turns?". So I defected, and as a matter of act, I won .5 points while he won none. This brings us back to Dawkin´s theory of Tit for Tat. The next turn, my opponent repeated the action I had done previously. I did the same, costing both if us the loss of .1 points. However, this theory or strategy didnt apply for the fifth and last term. I cooperated, thinking that since we had both lost this time it would be better not to risk it, costing me the loss of .1 points. This was Dawkin´s Naive Prober strategy. "Say on a random one and ten moves, it [the player] throws gracious defection and claims the high temptation score" (pg. 210). This is exactly what happened. Temptation was what led us to take the risk of defecting, and we both won but list as well.

            This blog will be one of the many that I have written that criticize human behaviour and society. We are at a constant competition, our lives revolve around it, even though we may not notice.  However, even though this selfishness and competition may lead us to our wanted success, it may also make it hard to trust others, which is exactly what Darwin shows in this game. In some cases, due to the lack of trust, people cooperate in all their moves. They do this because of the risk there is of defecting if the other person does the same. It is better to lose no points than to lose one right? Or is it better to take the risk of gaining 5 points while your opponent wins none?


            It is a dilemma. But why do we defect if it is the only way that we can win maximum points? Why not cooperate all time, that way, there is a big chance of winning but losing nothing. We defect because of the slight chance we have of making our opponent failing greatly against us, winning advantage, which is in my opinion, what our society really revolves around: our constant urge for success, revenge, and benef

The Selfishness of the Animal World

            I already criticized the book enough so I have no other option than to write about its meaning. Despite my criticism, there is something I found interesting, and it is the way I related the "selfishness" of the genes to the selfishness of people. However, I want to keep clear that I still think the book is very boring. I jumped to this conclusion because of the way I saw that each part of the gene or the process of each organelle and DNA work independently, on their own. Each part occupies itself on doing their job. Independently. I think that thats why Dawkins describes them as selfish, and it is because of how independent and "self centered" they are, as well as humans and animals.

            This has a close relationship to humans. Of course, this does not apply to all of us, but I have to admit that most of the time we put ourselves before everything else. Its our nature: Humans are selfish, and self centered, and independent. Thats the relationship I found that we have with genes, we do everything for our own benefit and we do our part, rarely going beyond expectations to satisfy others. But I believe that society would work no other way. Yes, society is pretty messed up by now, but what if we constantly tried to satisfy others or do everything ourselves? It would be impossible. For example: Doctors are doctors, politicians are politicians, and teachers are teachers. But imagine how the society would be if we tried to be and do everything all at once. It wouldn't work because I believe we are in a way meant to be selfish and independent.

            As a result, we have the whole point of the book: Evolution. Selfishness is what makes us advance, despite the fact that sometimes being selfish may not be the best option. But is this really what Dawkins means? I believe this is why he compares us so much with the animal kingdom. Its our nature.

            However, Dawkins does mention how working together does help our lives (and the ones of animals), and how that is also our nature. "If animals live together in groups their genes must get more benefit out of the association than they put in. A pack of hyenas can catch prey so much larger than a lone hyena" (p.166). Here, Dawkins is saying that even though our genes are independent and selfish, as well as we are, sometimes things can be done better with some help, after all, our society not only relies on our selfishness but also on our need for help or company.

           This is why I agree with Dawkins in the sense that we are very similar to the animal kingdom. By nature, we are selfish and self centered, just as animals are and function through the food chain. Ones die so others can live. Humans ourselves live in our own food cycle, each being selfish and independent to get to the top and succeed yet needing the help of others in order to live properly. That is the cycle of life, which revolves around evolution and natural selection, the mayor topic and message Dawkins wants to transmit through this boring informative book.

Don't Read This Book!

            I hate The Selfish Gene. I feel as if I were reading my biology textbook studying for the final exam. Its like a textbook explained in first person. I believe the book is boring, the font is extremely small, and since nothing aside from facts about genes and reproduction and biology is mentioned, the book is very slow. The only thing I have to admit that is helpful about the book is that it is really going to help me in the final exam, but other than that, i don't even understand how the book can be "The million copy international bestseller".

            Maybe its me that doesn't understand any kind of meaningful message the book may have, but I really feel that I'm reading a textbook. Yes, I have to admit that I can relate the book to the selfishness of people and society, but I don't understand why the author has to talk about it and explain it through writing what I'm supposed to learn in Biology. Nothing in the book happens! Why would I care about cistrons or gene pool or how many pairs of chromosomes we have? Im not going to study medicine or anything related to that, so do I really have to know all this? Sure, it would be fine if the book mentioned a thing or two about genetics, or about reproduction, or even about proteins, but how is it possible to write a 332 page book that goes on and on literally explaining all parts of genetics? Just stating the facts and definitions, nothing else.

            Thank God the book is at least easy to understand! Since it is pure facts and meanings, no further analyzing is needed (in my opinion). But how can there not be a single character or plot? That wouldn't make the book such a pain. Yes, the author is very bright and "original" or however you want to call it, and the book may be interesting for many people, but I just don't want or like to read it. 332 pages? Seriously? How much is there to say?

            Not only does the content of the book bore me, but also the tiny tiny font. I don't even want to imagine how long the book would be like if the font were bigger. Since it is so small, I take even more time reading because I get dizzy. I like to read, but a book that is more informative than my biology textbook that has no illustrations and looks like a dictionary? Not really my thing.