How to explain the behavior degeneration with selfish genes? Will behavior fall into extinction and violate the selfish purpose of gene survival?

1. See Chapter 4, an obvious error. The author compares the human brain to a computer and the gene to an alien. This logical inversion is very funny. Anyone who has studied ai or epistemology will not make such a low-level mistake. 2. The metaphors of personification and reductionism run through the whole article. If we carefully remove these imprecise parts, we will find that the author often contradicts himself. For example, he said that "genes predict animal behavior" and "compete with alleles" are contradictory. If the connotation and extension of these two "genes" are consistent, the former statement is even more exaggerated than waste utilization. If the chemical reaction of a certain polymer can be personified as selfishness, then the plastics and rubber we use are the products of selfish organic polymer monomers. They use their own usefulness to human beings, compete with other organic substances through replication and proliferation, and continue to grow. 3. Well, let's assume that human selfish behavior is for gene selfishness, and human selfless behavior is also for gene selfishness. All human behavior is for genetic selfishness. So what's the theory, falsifiability? Obviously not. Since all kinds of behaviors are explained by this theory, it is impossible to prove that human behavior is not for genetic selfishness. So what's the use of this theory? I'm selfish, you say it's for genes, I'm selfless, and you say it's for genes. Why don't you predict my behavior? You said I might be selfish or selfless. Anyway, I live for genes. I said, what's the difference between this and a fortune teller? All my actions conform to the elements of yin and yang. Can it be falsified? Can't? Right? It depends on whether you believe it or not. In fact, once this theory wants to explain all possible human behaviors, it will automatically leave the scientific category of falsifiability and run into the realm of metaphysics. You don't tolerate creationism running around in the field of science, but you don't know that you have run into the field of philosophy and religion. Moreover, this theory regards "selfish genes" as another kind of God to explain our purpose, which is probably the worst belief. As for selfish genes, I think the philosophical view implied in them is problematic. For example, he said that courtship was not desperate because it was risky and beneficial to the third party. As an opinion, of course, it makes sense. But this is no different from the fact that after the Nazis mastered the absolute force against the Jews, they could destroy the Jews to purify their blood (genes). Although the Americans defeated the Nazis, if there were only Aryans and Jews in the world, wouldn't the Nazis completely conform to this theory? It can only let selfish people defend themselves, and at the same time regard the selflessness of others as an equal selfishness. The fundamental source of this error lies in the author's complete abuse of various meanings of "gene" and "selfishness" under the condition that the connotation and extension are inconsistent (that is, there is no strict definition), which has caused this confusing effect. The so-called "genes can be selected" actually means that genes can be mutated. The relationship between mutant gene and source gene is competition rather than the will of source gene itself. Nature will choose what is beneficial to reproduction. This is natural selection. Therefore, selfish genes are actually expressing a truth that primary school students can understand: "Natural selection is based on genes". It is not that genes really have intelligence beyond human beings and can predict future changes a priori. In addition, a remarkable feature of human beings is cultural education. We all know the story of the wolf child, which shows that the scope of genetic determination is extremely limited in real life (although it may be hidden in some places of our psychology and physiology). There are high and low levels of human culture, which can be passed down or discarded and destroyed. These actions have created our history. Scientists have also proved that there are no obvious differences in intelligence and psychology among the races divided by human beings for hundreds of thousands of years, and the theory of racial superiority and inferiority is untenable-although our cultural gap can range from the oldest primitive society to the most advanced scientific civilization. This shows that in these hundreds of thousands of years, human evolution depends not on genes, but on culture. Where did this initial cultural and educational behavior come from? Perhaps it is the common behavior of mammals, birds and other advanced animals to raise young children. I don't know. However, there should be no doubt that this initial learning behavior will definitely make a great contribution to getting rid of the "control" of genes. Our spirit is always free, no matter what objective laws govern our bodies, no matter what this freedom is bound by, no matter what we will eventually be strangled by death. "People are born free, but they are everywhere in chains." The biggest problem with this book is that all behaviors and appearances are attributed to "there is a gene that determines …" and there is no evidence of the existence of this gene at all. Conclusion: After abandoning religion and philosophy, scientists are reluctant to part with the value they bring, so they regard genes as omniscient and omnipotent gods. For example, the following person: "individuals live for the continuation of their own genes, while the whole people live for the continuation of human genes." Living is just the change of matter or energy and information in the universe. There is no need for god's questions. If you think you are not worth living for your gene, you can let it die, or let it not reproduce with other genes. Do not admit it, or live for it. "