I started and then abandoned a note replying to Chris' note, in which I
reminded people (though most know this, including, I think, Chris, I suspect
Cliff, and certainly Dawkins) that all the use of phrases like "successful
from a gene's perspective" is purely metaphorical.
Why did I even think of writing that, when most already know it, and when I
wrote it in an earlier note? Because (1) not everyone does know it, and (2)
even those who know it still get a bit carried away with it, as Dawkins
does. (We are merely survival machines for our genes, etc.)
So let's remind ourselves of the following unambiguous, literal truths
before returning to the world of metaphor:
(1) Genes are not selfish.
(2) Genes have no perspective, point of view, or goals, and hence no success
or failure.
(3) Genes do not seek or find ways to survive (even "survive" isn't the
ideal term, literally speaking).
etc. etc.
This emphatically noted, we can use all the metaphors we want. Just KNOW
that they're metaphors, and so NOT literally true. Remember this if one
ever finds oneself taking these metaphors a bit too seriously, starting to
wax pseudo-scientifically about how selfishness undergirds all of nature
(our very genome depends on selfishness!!!!! ....), we are simply survival
machines for our genes (we exist only to ensure their survival!!!!!), etc.
etc..
One final point: it's important to recognize the literally false nature of
such claims not just RATIONALLY, but EMOTIONALLY as well. There's nothing
whatever to such statements, taken literally. And as metaphors, they can be
very useful, but only to those who recognize their literal falsehood, or
perhaps those for whom the literal truth is irrelevant.
John