Another Post on Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins prides himself on his rationality but it seems that even he is unable to escape the need to believe that man is more than the sum of his genes and his environment.  He has argued that man is able to transcend his biology although he really doesn't specify how this would happen.  (I doubt that memes explain this.)

He offers as an example of transcending biology the fact that humans practice birth control,which he describes as contrary to his hypothesis that life's goal is to inject as many genes into the next generation as possible. It is scarcely believable, I think, that he would offer such a flimsy "proof."

Surely he realizes that the goal of evolution is not to have the most offspring but to have the most surviving offspring.  The two are not necessarily the same.  There are two basic reproductive strategies. One is to have many children.  This will mean that each child gets a smaller share of the "pie" of resources like money, food, health care, parental teaching, etc.  The other strategy is to have fewer children but to invest more in each child.

It is ridiculously easy to see why one's genetic fitness might be served by having fewer children but investing more in each one.  For example, let's compare a midde class family with two children and an  impoverished rural family with five children  The two children live in a gated community, have first-rate medical care, and go to private schools and four-year colleges.  The poor children go to inferior schools, and have limited options. They do not go to college but work in a convenience store, go into the army, or turn to crime. Let's create a hypthetical scenario for the poor family. One child goes into the military and survives but with post-traumatic stress disorder. He becomes depressed and a substance abuser.  This removes him from the gene pool. Family resources that could have gone into the next generation are used to care for him. Another child gets addicted to Hillbilly Heroin and goes to prison for a long time, thus removing him from the gene pool.  A daughter has an out-of-wedlock child, reducing her chances for education and for finding a suitable husband because many men don't want to deal with other men's children.  These children are at greater risk for crime, dropping out of school, sexual abuse, depression, and a whole host of other problems.

Even if more of the poor family's children survive for a few generations, if there is some kind of catastrophe, like a war, a depression, or a plague, these children are far more vulnerable.  Poor kids die in wars more than rich kids do.  This is a fact of life.  They also die of illnesses that rich people don't die of.

Note, too, that the children from the middle class family have far more control over their lives in terms of education, employment, medical care, and the ability to influence government policy.  If, perish the thought, some kind of war or famine breaks out, these kids are more likely to be able to emigrate and find safety.

During the Holocaust, who was more likely to survive--and survive with the least amount of trauma?  The poor Chassidic family with 11 kids or the upper-middle class family with three? The family with three kids is far more likely to have the skills needed to get a coveted visa in a safe country.  Something similar no doubt applies in Iraq.

In short, Dawkins wants to believe that we transcend biology. The religious do too. The religious do this through God. Dawkins does it through wishful thinking and poor examples.