Darwin’s revolution becomes a test of selfishness

In an extract from Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene, evolution shifts from a celebrated story about origins to a sharper question: whether life’s drive is selfish at the level of genes—while love, cooperation, and “the good of the species” may not fit as nea

The question sounds simple, almost childish: when intelligent life on a planet comes of age, what will it ask first about us? If superior creatures from space ever visit Earth, the first test might be whether humans have worked out the reason for their own existence.

In the extract from Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene, that question lands on a single milestone: Charles Darwin. The text says living organisms existed on Earth for over three thousand million years without ever knowing why. Then “truth finally dawned on one of them.” Dawkins places Darwin at the point where earlier “inklings” become something coherent—an account of why we exist that finally lets a curious child have a sensible answer instead of “superstition.”.

But Dawkins also argues that even now, the full implications of Darwin’s revolution have not been widely realized. Zoology, he writes, remains a minority subject in universities. Even those who choose it. he says. often don’t appreciate the “profound philosophical significance.” And philosophy and the humanities. in his view. are still taught almost as though Darwin never lived.

This isn’t presented as a general campaign for Darwinism. The stated purpose is narrower, and more provocative. Dawkins says the book will explore the consequences of evolution theory for a “particular issue”: the biology of selfishness and altruism.

He connects the stakes to human experience. The subject. Dawkins writes. reaches every part of social life—“loving and hating. ” “fighting and cooperating. ” “giving and stealing. ” “greed and generosity.” He points to other books that appear to address these themes—Konrad Lorenz’s On Aggression. Robert Ardrey’s The Social Contract. and Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt’s Love and Hate—but he insists they “got it totally and utterly wrong.”.

The problem, in his telling, is that those authors misunderstood how evolution works. They allegedly assumed that evolution turns on the good of the species (or group). rather than the good of the individual (or gene). Dawkins also describes an ironic contrast: he notes that Ashley Montagu criticized Lorenz as a “direct descendant of the ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ thinkers of the nineteenth century.” Dawkins says he would reject Tennyson’s phrase only partly—he argues that “nature red in tooth and claw” actually sums up modern understanding of natural selection.

From there, the extract moves into what Dawkins calls the shape of his argument—and what it is not. He compares it to inferences people might make if told a man lived a long, prosperous life among Chicago gangsters. Those guesses wouldn’t be perfect. he says. but they’re reasonable if you know the conditions in which someone has survived.

In Dawkins’s version, genes are the designers of the conditions. The argument of the book. he writes. is that “we. and all other animals. are machines created by our genes.” Like successful Chicago gangsters who survive for “millions of years” in a “highly competitive world. ” genes have survived by leaving room for expectations about what they might favor. Dawkins says he will argue that a predominant quality to expect in a successful gene is “ruthless selfishness.”.

He predicts that this gene-level selfishness will usually show up as selfishness in individual behavior. Yet he adds an exception—“special circumstances”—where a gene can best achieve its own selfish goals by fostering a “limited form of altruism” at the level of individual animals.

Those boundaries—“special” and “limited”—are central to the extract’s tension. Dawkins says that “universal love” and “the welfare of the species as a whole” simply do not make evolutionary sense.

The text then draws a line that Dawkins warns readers not to cross. He says he is not advocating a morality based on evolution. He is not saying what humans morally “ought to” do. He admits that a human society based on “the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live.” But. he adds. “however much we may deplore something. it does not stop it being true.”.

So what’s his takeaway, if readers want one?. If people want a society where individuals “cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good. ” Dawkins says they should not expect biological nature to help. His message, he suggests, is mainly a warning. He urges that humans should teach generosity and altruism because “we are born selfish. ” and that understanding “what our own selfish genes are up to” may give people at least “the chance to upset their designs. ” something “no other species has ever aspired to.”.

He then tackles another misunderstanding—common, he says—about evolution and inherited traits. It’s a fallacy to assume genetically inherited traits are automatically fixed and unmodifiable. His point is that genes may instruct us toward selfishness. but people are not necessarily compelled to obey all of it for the rest of their lives.

Among animals, Dawkins writes, “man is uniquely dominated by culture,” defined as influences learned and handed down. He lays out the debate: some would argue culture is so important that genes—selfish or not—are virtually irrelevant to understanding human nature. Others would disagree. Dawkins says it depends on where someone stands in the “nature versus nurture” debate.

He also says the book is not taking sides on that controversy. The extract says Dawkins will not express his own opinion except where it’s implicit in the view of culture he presents in the final chapter. If genes turn out to be totally irrelevant to modern human behavior. he writes. it would still be interesting to ask the rule from which humanity became the exception. And if humans are not as exceptional as they might want to think. then it becomes even more important to study the rule.

The final clarification is about method. Dawkins says the book is not a descriptive account of detailed behavior in humans or other specific species. He will use factual details only as illustrative examples. He rejects a simplified leap: he doesn’t mean “If you look at the behaviour of baboons you will find it to be selfish; therefore the chances are that human behaviour is selfish also.”.

Instead, he frames a different logic. Humans and baboons have evolved by natural selection. If natural selection tends to produce selfish behavior. then it would follow that anything evolved this way “should be selfish.” Therefore. he writes. when people look at baboons. humans. and all other creatures. they should expect to find selfishness. If they don’t—if they observe human behavior to be truly altruistic—then the finding would be “puzzling” and in need of explanation.

The extract ends with a publication snapshot. It is from The Selfish Gene: 50th Anniversary Edition by Richard Dawkins. released by Oxford University Press in June 2026. available in hardback. paperback. and ebook formats for £25.00. The New Scientist Book Club is reading The Selfish Gene in June, with sign-up and discussion hosted on Discord.

Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene Darwin evolution natural selection selfishness altruism genetics culture nature vs nurture book extract