Tu—

You have a resisting reader in me; I’m not a fan of “the selfish gene” (I think it mixes up levels of agency in a confusing way —so I’m particularly impressed with what you’ve done here: written a very clear and compelling account—and defense—of Dawkins’ idea.

I very much like what you have done; my comments are mostly about wanting more, about fleshing out and supporting—as well as extending some of your ideas. For starters, you could very usefully draw on Dennett’s ideas about “greedy and proper reductionism” (which I think nicely summarize the difference between Dawkins’ account of the sort of reductionism he does, and the account given of it by his detractors).

You might also spend some more time giving a fuller (and fairer!) account of Dawkins’ critics; when you dismiss their detractions as “simply incorrect,” it doesn’t seem like your story is a very even-handed one!

And finally, I’m most intrigued by your finale, your claim that the story of our being only “carriers for our selfish genes” does not mean that we are “not in charge of our own destinies. Our life is what we make of it.” Can you really go that far? This is a very complicated question, for us to talk more about. Are there really no limits (genetic or otherwise) on what we can do?

Anne