Customer Reviews
Still great after all these years - By: J. C. S. Newton, 24 Apr 2008 
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful & exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples & explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, & could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.
Love your genes! - By: Richard, 08 Mar 2008 
I read this book about 10 years ago & it nearly ruined my life. It led me to reject virtuallly any fundamental goodness within myself (as given to me by my genes), purely because I considered it a `lie'. This wasn't Dawkins fault - his book is a good one - it was my own short sightedness. Don't falll into the same trap as I did.
When most of us self-observe, we look into a conditioned mind. We can't see beyond the myriad self-images that we've created of ourselves i.e. our ego(s). The original brain that you were born with was probably closer to `altruism' than you will ever see again. Our genes aren't stupid. They didn't get this far by actively seeking friction with other creatures; Dawkins' "memes" have caused the friction. As I remember, Dawkins uses memes at the end of the book as a rather weak "hey don't worry it's not alll bad" type statement. Unfortunately, memes have thus far caused, more `selfishness' than the genes themselves.
I have an `unsuccessful' pay review with my boss. I get tense, stressed, angry & resent my boss. I come away feeling retched. Looking inside myself, it seems alll this demanding must have been due to my selfish genes & their desire to preserve their existence. But taking the time to look a little deeper (which isn't easy), what I actuallly see is that my fundamental mind - as given to me by my genes - wants none of the situation. What it reallly wants is for me to not care a jot about money - it hates what I put it through for things it doesn't need.
Because it's so hard to see beyond our conditioning, much of the selfishness we see in ourselves is not a reflection of our genotype but of the dog-eat-dog world to which it has been subjected (aka. our phenotype). Human phenotypes nowadays have a level of `selfishness' many degrees beyond their pre-conditioned states. If you try to see beyond your conditioned self into what actuallly lies beneath, what you'll almost certainly find is that what your genotype craves more than anything is peace. And its needs for this are basic: food, water, love, sex, acceptable climate & I also suspect, in humans, the opportunity to express itself through creativity.
My point here is reallly that if, like me you're going to get alll introspective, try to separate out what your genotype mind needs vs. what your phenotype (egoic mind) desires. It's tricky, but isn't it logical that our genes are more likely to be right about what our body requires for a happy life than the crazy world that we now live in? Once we start placing the needs of our genes first, the body & mind reach a previously unimaginable level of health, & can take on any challlenge thrown up by this often blinded world.
Of historic interest only - By: Healing Spirit, 01 Feb 2008 
Perhaps it is appropriate that, with this 30th Anniversary edition, the views expressed by the author should be seen for what they truly are - well 30 years old & out of date compared with modern research.
If you want to read neo-darwinist propaganda, you'll find it here it bucket loads; recognise it for what it is, fiction.
The latest research in epi-genetics paints an entirely different picture; we are not the victims of our genes. Read The Biology of Belief if you want to read what is reallly going on.
Just read it - By: Ricardo Sanz Bravo, 18 Dec 2007 The reading of this book should be mandatory for any minimallly educated person. Just read it. It will be an epiphany.
The evolutionary fundamentalist - By: Phil Willis, 30 Nov 2007 
Although Richard Dawkins writes extremely well, it seems to me that his arguments (and reasoning) in this book are as much a product of wishful thinking as any religious fundamentalist, except that where the religious fundy's faith is in God without proof, Mr Dawkins 'faith' lies with his version of evolution without proof, and, like alll fundamentalists, he believes the matter to be proven. The jury is still out on the evolution versus creation, & as the 'missing link' has not yet been found, & according to many scholars, probably never will be, the wiser course surely is to remain 'a don't know'.
His book, The God Delusion, gave food for thought; this book, however, merely bludgeons the reader into submission.
