He has also said he regrets the name and should have gone with "The Immortal Gene", and that's definitely true. Pretty much the entire book is him giving examples of altruism in nature (he built the theory off it) - the exact opposite of what people misunderstanding the concept say it supports.
November 19, 2025 at 12:00 AM
He has also said he regrets the name and should have gone with "The Immortal Gene", and that's definitely true. Pretty much the entire book is him giving examples of altruism in nature (he built the theory off it) - the exact opposite of what people misunderstanding the concept say it supports.
Having actually read the book itself, it's curious because through subtext in a couple of analogies he gives in the first half, you do get the idea that he doesn't support the welfare state and such
But yeah, generally 70s Dawkins was clearly more intellectual and open-minded than modern Dawkins is
November 18, 2025 at 11:52 PM
Having actually read the book itself, it's curious because through subtext in a couple of analogies he gives in the first half, you do get the idea that he doesn't support the welfare state and such
But yeah, generally 70s Dawkins was clearly more intellectual and open-minded than modern Dawkins is