I just dropped this book half way through. it was too depressing...

Gorgefag here
Fuck off cultist

how can it not be troubling? every emotional moment can be undercut with that fact.

It's just an attempt to drive the human soul further away from god, ignore that shit and live a good life.

The universe is inherently depressing my guy.

>every emotional moment can be undercut with that fact.

Meaning what exactly?

>Whats the cure to this feel?
Read about the human female's dual mating pattern.

We are selfish on a macro scale, not a micro scale. We have evolved to, in general, make decisions that preserve our genes, but that does not mean that every decision we make are selfish.

For one, there are variations in our behavior that cannot be explained so simply. I think most people have moments where they do something that literally doesn't benefit themselves, not even in indirect ways like social standing or for a clear conscience or anything else. The gene is simply not complex enough to model every single kind of situation and how the brain will react, that's why we spend so many years learning and growing up. And in that process we can learn behavior that the genes didn't account for, in other words behavior that doesn't necessarily benefit the genes.

Secondly, even some behaviors that do benefit the genes, I would not call selfish in any meaningful sense of the word. For example we have evolved to care for our community. We get a bad conscience if we harm others, and we feel good if we give to others. Some would even sacrifice their own lives, their own genetic line, for others. You could argue that this ultimately does benefit ourselves, because makes humans form tighter communities which makes it more likely that individuals survive, but does that make it selfish? No, I don't think so, it simply doesn't make sense to call an action that more directly benefits others rather than yourself, selfish. At worst it is selfish for our species, not for individuals, but then again we feel bad if we hurt most types of animals too.

idk. can you explain how it doesn't? im talking about a depressing feeling. human beings are no more than creatures that need to spread their genes in the best way possible. all romanticism etc is just a poor interpretation of their behaviors.

I don't think our own emotional experiences are in any way diminished by being understood. We still experience them in the same way. We know that some experiences are good and some aren't. We know that some outcomes are desirable and some aren't. We can easily observe that we individually and collectively have the means to achieve things that are good or aren't. Being happy matters to me. That other people aren't needlessly suffering matters to me. I feel that way regardless of what biological imperative makes me feel that way.

>Let me explain to you the basic premise of a book I never read
Is the wikipedia description really that black pilled, OP?

The world wouldn't be totally horrible even if we acted only in selfish ways: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, and the baker that we expect our dinner..."
However (and thankfully), we generally don't! For example, preserving a brother's genes is pretty good in fitness terms, and connecting with one's parents emotionally helps you survive early in life, so people form familial bonds. Social groups develop because it's more advantageous to be nice to others than to hurt them in a lot of cases. Being nice to children is a way to show off that you will take care of your mate's children. All these things are created, at the most basic level, by evolutionary pressures that have no care for us, but they are still good. And humans are, in some weird way, different from other animals - more self aware, abstract, etc. We are capable of reasoning about our actions, and engaging in behaviors that are totally counter to our biological programming (or at least look like they are). We have societies with complicated rules that generally act in the common interest, because they have to. People are capable of feeling for others and acting in truly selfless ways - it's an evolutionary byproduct, but a real thing nonetheless.
What would you expect the world to look like if everyone was purely selfish? What would you see, and what wouldn't you see?

Attached: smallpox.png (411x351, 11K)

imagine getting upset reading a book about logical facts.

are you a female OP?

>people are selfish and narcissistic

NO FUCKING SHIT! DUMBASS

i think richard dawkins is just autistic and assumes that human beings act and think like he does, selfishly. so dont worry OP

>i think richard dawkins is just autistic and assumes that human beings act and think like he does, selfishly.
Sociopathic and autistic, but yes, that's the gist of it.

sounds pretty based to me to be frank.

The premise is that every gene is inherently selfish but this does NOT mean every individual is inherently selfish. In fact, it means the very opposite. Since you share genes with individuals around you then you as an individual are motivated to act altruistically toward those around you. The more closely related (race < ethnicity < extended family < immediate family) you are the more altruistically you should act toward those around you.

And even this is completely ignoring the dominance of consciousness over genetics - your genes might be selfish but they can overruled by memes. Read the whole book user, it's fucking great.

>Being a gaytheist in 2019
No wonder you are a depressed looser.

Attached: Photo 2019-03-19, 23 27 40.jpg (523x477, 62K)

The very existence of humanity is proof that being self-serving isn't the same as being selfish: that is, often working toward the greater good is the best way to serve one's own interests. If that weren't true we'd still be tree rats living isolated lives and only coming together to fuck. Enlightened self-interest requires the ability to plan long term and delay gratification, though, which is a big ask from people who are focused on day-to-day survival. But that's a whole other conversation.

Life was a mistake. There is no meaning and we spend 90% of our time in pain to varying degrees. The bravest decision we could make as humanity would be to launch all of our nukes and decimate all life on Earth, end this meaningless eternal dance on the puppet-stings of the universe. I'm still trying to find the best way to cope with the blackpill, since I know I can never be bluepilled again, but so far I've come up with nothing that has really helped me

You sound really obsessed with him. Why would you read about him if you didn't like him? Sounds like you're a jealous loser who wishes he could have have oshos life. You could use some enlightenment, maybe try putting the principals into practice

Boy, don't take all your philosophical understanding from one single book or you may end up like one of those political youtuber faggots. Wash your balls and read the classics.

you're more than an animal you have a conscience and a soul faggot.

>just dropped this book half way through. it was too depressing. its premise is that basically everything we find in nature can be explained by each individual gene and each individual person being purely selfish.
Do people really need a book to find that out?

you don't have to be obsessed to watch one video you low IQ spastic. I know to the two brain cells rattling around in your skull that seems like a lot of effort but to most people it's a minor curiosity at best.

>Reading History at a leading university.
>Only thing I actually learned is that humanity is driven by greed and oppression and enabled by ignorance and inertia.
>In the grand scheme of things, we are getting incrementally better but even if the progress was accelerated tenfold, we still would not evolve beyond any recognisable Hell during my lifetime.
>Have dropped out and decided to be a NEET for the rest of my life.
>I no longer care for humanity as a whole and will simply seek beauty in nature and the occasional woman good enough to make fuck with me.

Finish reading it and then go pick up Extended Phenotype. It makes you feel better. Dawkins acknowledges a lot of the criticism he got in Selfish Gene and understand that he oversimplified the issue in attempt to bring the issue to the public. He is more careful about that in the next book. Recall that Selfish Gene is essentially his first book.

You should also read Gould's responses to the Selfish Gene. He brings to light a lot of the evolutionarily dubious claims that Dawkins puts forward. Generally they argue about the term 'meme' and reading about it in 2019 is pretty fun.

It's blatantly obvious that everything everyone does is for selfish purposes, you don't need a book to know something that basic.