Dawkins defines a good gene as a “replicator” with the
characteristics of longevity, fecundity and copying fidelity. If the genes
possess these traits then it is likely to attain immortality through its copies
or the replicas it has made during its existence in its survival machine. By
having favorable or effective cooperation with its environment then the gene
may live for hundreds of millions of years, the nearest as it gets to
immortality. Dawkins also adds to these set of necessary traits the idea of
being selfish; you do not worry for the other genes’ survival but your own. The
alleles which also inhabit the survival machines are the “mortal rivals” and a
gene cannot afford to be altruistic and sacrifice itself for the benefit of
others; hence a good gene that will live long enough is a selfish one. These
immortal coils can only become so if the set of factors for their survival
machine is correctly developed, if not enough food is present or if one is
unlucky enough to be “strike by a lighting” then the process of replication will
not be completed. The trait of selfishness, implies a “gene is the basic unit
of selfishness”; an indispensable trait if survival is intended. I was amazed by
this explanation, since we have always been taught to help others whenever we can
expecting nothing in return, yet as explained by Dawkins it goes against our
most basic form of self.
I
founded fascinating how Dawkins explained that our mortality at a certain age
occurs because off spring were conceived before lethal genes came into action.
So by the time we are eighty or so they activate themselves and ultimately we
die of old age. Senility occurs because we inherited the lethal genes that
triggered it from our ancestors who had children before the gene actually
killed him. Dawkins uses Sir Peter Medawar’s definition to explain and catalog
genes that kill us at out “old age” as semi-lethal and lethal genes that act
not at our youth, but in most cases after we have reproduced and thus passed
them onto our children.
These
hypothesis leaves space for a much vast and longer human existence if it were
correct. Dawkins gives us two ways that we may achieve it. First, one must
understand we die at a certain age because late action genes take effect at
that moment, had we not inherit them from our parents then we would live
longer. If we could eliminate those genes from a population’s gene pool then
slowly the average life expectancy would increase. But in order to do so a
minimal age for sexual reproduction must be established, so that the people who
are going to die before forty do so and do not pass their late genes into the
next generation. Dawkins explains that if we follow this “minimum age limit” the
life span of humanity may last centuries.
The
other way follows a more complex chemical process and not a social system. In
this case doctors would have to identify the properties that young bodies have
and institute them in older bodies, so that the late semi lethal and lethal
genes are not activated. Overall avoiding death. But as explained in the book,
this process would be incredibly complicated as substance “S” might simply come
from lettuce, yet if it accumulates over time and triggers a “late-acting
deleterious gene” doctors might classify it as a mortal substance. So it is not
as easy as it may seem creating a more lasting human species. Plus it will take
a couple centuries changing the life span so that the late lethal action genes disappear
from the gene pool our species use. However, perhaps one day we may use the
second form and reinvigorate the old bodies into more youthful ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment