or for anytime of the year! I just finished reading The Proving Ground and I felt compelled to write a quick review. This book will appeal to just about anyone and it is a GREAT summer read! I enjoyed Knecht's writing and it is obvious that he spent A LOT of time researching his subject before he started to write The Proving Ground. As a result, the book is full of detailed descriptions and reconstructed dialogues (and the unspoken thoughts/fears of some of the individuals who participated in the '98 Hobart). While reading The Proving Ground, I felt as if I was a member of the crew experiencing the events firsthand! Instead of attempting to write a chronicle of the entire race, Knecht concentrated on a few of the participants. Being a sucker for older sailboats, I particularly enjoyed the segments regarding The Winston Churchill. (I use the word "enjoyed" loosley, because I genuinely feel/felt for the survivors and victims of this tragedy). Buy this book for yourself and as a gift for a friend!

I read The Proving Ground in one night ... I just couldn't put it down. And I didn't mind that I was exhausted from lack of sleep the next day because I so enjoyed the read. Bruce Knecht not only has written a detailed account of the horrific experiences of the yachtsmen on three boats in the Sydney-Hobart race, but he has captured what it was like for the sailors to endure the ordeal ... the fear, the heroic sacrifices, the physical endurance, and the struggle over having to make decisions that could result in fatal errors (which some did).

As an experienced ocean sailor, I can say that Mr. Knecht has done an excellent job of portraying life at sea on a racing boat, without getting overly technical. I recommend this book to anyone interested in a gripping adventure story with characters who are both heroic and flawed, and for the men who died, are also all too real.

As an author with my debut novel in its initial release, I know a great story when I read one. G. Bruce Knecht's THE PROVING GROUND tells one of the most exciting sea stories of recent years. Knecht's book, nonfiction, provides an up close and personal report of the disastrous Sidney to Hobart Yacht Race in 1998. Knecht examines the obsession of many of the competitors and tells of one the most tragic competitions in modern sporting history. Over one hundred yachts sailed from Sidney, yet less than half that number reached Hobart. Six sailors lost their lives, and dozens of others needed rescued from the sea. Adverse weather caused the disaster, and Knecht tells this whale of a tale of eighty-foot waves wiping out numerous competitive crafts. Knecht also presents the pressures of competition, the drive of several crews, and the reactions of many individuals to various forms of stress. This book is an excellent one. Just don't read it while riding out a storm at sea.

Reading Yehouda Harpaz' review, I realized that some people have trouble understanding Dawkins' ideas, apparently because they would rather confine evolution to a limited area -- the biology of animals -- and keep it from applying to humans, most especially to our minds. I'd like to express some of the ideas in Dawkins' book to entice you and clarify these misconceptions.

1) The central thesis is that genes act as if their intention was to selfishly help themselves spread throughout the gene pool. This is not because they have the ability to make decisions or are capable of being selfish the way a person could. It's simply that those that happen to act as if they had wanted to spread do spread, and they do so at the expense of the rest. This notion of apparent design from natural selection is the keystone of neo-Darwinism.

2) The idea of analyzing evolution by looking at how each individual gene spreads itself in the environment of other genes is not only clear but illuminating, solving problems that the organism-centered approach cannot. Remember, an environment consists of whatever circumstances, objects, or conditions one is surrounded by. That means that, just as it makes perfect sense to say that other people form part of each person's environment, it is logical that other genes form part of a gene's environment. A gene competes with other alleles -- alternative genes at its locus -- and often does so by cooperating with genes at other loci, as per Dawkins' rowing team analogy.

3) It's not that Dawkins ignores neurobiology, but that he supports the new understanding that there is neither biological nor cultural determinism for behavior, but rather development based on epigenetic rules. In other words, Dawkins denies the Standard Social Science Model of tabula rasa human nature, replacing it with a less extremist stance that is demonstrably true. As Steven Pinker makes very clear in _How The Mind Works_, humans are intelligent not because we are free from the instincts that drive other animals but because of our ability to use the mental organs that implement our instincts to solve general-purpose problems.

4) Dawkins does not in any way restrict cultural transmission to imitation. However, as his interest is in its neo-Darwinistic evolution, not mere transmission or random change, he focuses on the units of replication -- the memes -- that are naturally selected among. This is particularly interesting since it opens up the way to understanding the coevolution of genes and memes, as E. O. Wilson explains in _Consilience_.

In summary, if you want to understand these issues, don't take Yehouda's word on this or even mine. Get the book and read it for yourself. Life is so much more interesting than anti-evolutionists would have you imagine, and Dawkins is so painfully clear that even the layman has to work hard to misunderstand him. He is, quite literally, a joy to read.

In "The Selfish Gene," Richard Dawkins accomplishes the incredible: He creates an original paradigm for understanding evolution which is based on a false premise, yet nevertheless, which has astounding explanatory power. The false premise is the notion the genes can behave in a selfish (or unselfish) manner to begin with. Well, since genes are just sequences of DNA of a particular length, they are not exactly in a position to have a "self," much less to behave "selfishly."

Yet, throughout the book, Dawkins use of language ascribes conscious, purposeful motives to these silent, unconscious pieces of organisms. Dawkins talks about "what a gene wants," or about "what a gene is trying to accomplish," or about "what is GOOD for the gene." Thus, the reader can imagine genes as supremely slow, yet effectual manipulators that build enormous robots (beavers, bacteria, trees, woodpeckers, humans...) in order to propagate their numbers through space and time.

Of course, as Dawkins reminds us, the gene has no purpose. It is not "trying" to do anything. This language is just a conceptual tool. And if we wish, we can easily convert our rhetoric about "selfish genes" to the respectable language of natural selection. The respectable view is the view that genes that build critters with longer legs (or bigger wings, or more acute sense organs) will tend to survive and thus pass themselves on to new generations more successfully than those genes that are less effective at building survival machines.

But when we use the "selfish gene" language, we have an amazing tool. This tool helps us to understand the evolution of the organism all the way from the primordial soup to the abundance of bafflingly complex life that exists today.

Dawkins accomplishes quite a bit throughout the course of "The Selfish Gene." What can you expect if you read it? Well, obviously he puts forth his view of natural selection as roughly sketched above, albeit in much more detail (okay, and with much more eloquence). Dawkins then applies his methodology to various puzzles, causing much enlightenment along the way. He uses it to argue against group selection theory. He uses it to analyze the phenomenon of apparent altruism between kin. He uses it to explain the origin of the differential role of the sexes. And so on across many cool areas of biology.

I would also thoroughly enjoy exploring the chapter on memes in my review. Are memes an alternative to genes as explanations for human behavior? Are memes deterministic? Do non-human animals have memes? I'm afraid that would quickly turn this book review into a philosophy treatise however. So I will refrain for now.

To draw to a close, who should read Dawkins' book? The short answer is: everyone. It's that good.

Anyone interested in the evolution of social behavior in animals (including humans) must read this 1976 classic work by Richard Dawkins. Even today, more than 25 years later, it continues to provoke muddle-headed mystics -- both religious and political --with its clear-headed application of darwinian natural selection to questions such as how and why one might deceive, cheat, and manipulate others (and what limits such behavior).

In the book's forward, Robert Trivers laments the fact that the application of natural selection to social hehavior "has been widely neglected." That was 1976. Today, in 2003, however, the application of darwinian analysis in the social sciences is ubiquitous. So, the "Selfish Gene" indeed was on the cutting edge of intellectual history.

The term "selfish gene" is of course metaphor as Dawkins reminds the reader many times. Many people are put off by it, but I think it makes the book more readable (probably because human brains are programmed to think in terms of actors with motives). Sometimes the "selfish gene" produces selfish behavior, and sometimes it produces extremely unselfish behavior. Don't be deterred by the term. Its memorable, and certainly better than calling the book "Gene-level Selection and the Evolution of Social Behavior".

On the technical side, I found Dawkins' definition of the gene very intuitive, as I also found his explanation of why the gene was the unit of selection rather than the individual or the group.

Finally, the book is NOT as some have claimed on treatise on biological determinism. Dawkins gives wide scope in his last chapter to cultural transmission mechanisms. And it is here where he coins the term "meme", a replicating cultural unit analogous to the biological "gene". And, yes, memes are also "selfish".

Reading Richard Dawkins is always a highly interesting adventure.
Dawkins portraits convincingly our genetic system as a river of digital quaternary (the 4 DNA components) information with 46 databases (chromosomes) and an operating system which works as a computer. The system has only one goal: the survival of our DNA.

This book depicts life as a bunch of bytes, with no essential difference between living and non-living material. Vitalism is dead. As is solidarity: the well-being of the group is a coincidental consequence, but never a primary motive.
Nature is not good or bad, not cruel, not economical, but only mercilessly disinterested.

Chapter 3 of this book contains formidable examples to counter the creationist viewpoint (e.g. an explanation of a gradual evolution). It should open the eyes of the blind. But that seems to be a very difficult exercise, seeing some other reviews here.

This book is a must read for everybody. It should constitute a background for all politically, socially, environmentally, legally, judicially, religiously ... responsible people with his message that nature is essentially amoral.

I am amazed by Dawkins' ability to write in so many different and interesting ways about one topic. This book is filled with his usual intellectually satisfying arguments for evolution. In addition, he touches on issues related to the philosophy of science, and even on issues related to "meaning." I was amazed at my feelings of complete satisfaction, even as Dawkins was saying that the Universe has no meaning or purpose (in the way that we think meaning and purpose). If you have never read any books written by Dawkins, you should at least give this one a try. This book is short, has much less technical jargon than his other books, and, in my opinion, pretty much sums up what Richard Dawkins stands for.

Easy to read book which discusses the concept of a gene, the existence of those genes which manage to propagate and the disappearance of others, evolution as a river of genes which branches into different species, and DNA as a digital carrier of genetic information. Dawkins shows how effective gradual evolution can be, and provides a powerful retort to the view that evolution is not capable of producing complex, interacting structures such as the eye. Dawkins provides easy to understand explanations of the usefulness of mitochondrial DNA, as opposed to nuclear DNA, in finding last common ancestors, as well as the approximate time of such last common ancestors. The limitations of what is and what is not a common ancestor, eg, maternal versus paternal, are also discussed.

Richard Dawkins is one of the most interesting popular science writers working today, and usually his books are filled with insight and perception about evolution (and other topics), written in clear and effective prose. This book is different from most of Dawkins's books, as it targets biologists rather than laypeople, and so it is a much more frustrating and difficult reading for such readers.

Frankly, if you are, like me, a lay person, don't read this book before reading other books by Dawkins, most notably The Selfish Gene, but also other stuff by him. I doubt I would have understood this book had it been my introduction to Dawkins's ideas. The glossary, though helpful, is far from complete and rarely detailed enough.

But for all this, The Extended Phenotype is richer in observations and ideas then any other book by Dawkins I have ever read. Dawkins says this is his best book, and you can see that he has a point.

The book has three main themes. The first is discussion of left over issues from The Selfish Gene, answering criticism and elaborating on the ideas in that book. The second is clarifying some issues in discussion of evolution, such as replicators and vehicles, fitness, etc. The third one, and the one for which Dawkins is most proud is his 'Extended Phenotype' - the concept that genes operate on the enviornment, and that the body (the individual organism) is a link in the chain of orders passing from DNA to the external phenotype - beaver dams or host behaviour that helps the parasite, or any other activity that helps the genes.

Frankly, the concept of the extended phenotype is best explained in the chapter about 'The Long reach of the gene' in the new (1989) edition of 'The Selfish Gene'. The book is actually best when Dawkins deals with the two other themes -difining genes for example, and discussing replicators. Those chapters are masterworks of clear, essential thinking, of which Dawkins is always a champion.

Finally, one would wish that the book was updated. Many discussions are based on information that at the time was brand new, and follow up would be useful. uinfortunately, Dunnet's afterword does not do the trick, and is more of a hymn to Dawkins (albeit a justified one) than anything else.

'The Extended Phenotype' is not an easy read, but it is definetly worth it.

Biodiversity is more than a buzzword for ecologists. Variation gives life its grandeur, and Richard Dawkins gives us a description of the workings of variation. Fortunately, with a sharp mind and sharper wit, he has the ability to deliver this portrayal so that nearly everyone can understand it. That's not to say this book is an easy read. Although he delivers his narration as if sitting with you in a quiet study, you may still need to review his words more than once. That's not a challenge or a chore, it's a pleasure.

Dawkins, unlike other science writers, is forthright in declaring his advocacy in writing this book. It's a refreshing start to his most serious effort. After publication of The Selfish Gene led to a storm of fatuous criticism, Extended Phenotype comes in response with more detail of how the gene manifests itself in the organism and its environment. It's clear that Dawkins' critics, who label him an "Ultra-Darwinist" [whatever that is] haven't read this book. His critics frequently argue that The Selfish Gene doesn't operate in a vacuum, but must deal within some kind of environment, from an individual cell to global scenarios. Dawkins deftly responds to critics in describing how genes rely on their environment for successful replication. If the replication doesn't survive in the environment it finds itself, then it, and perhaps its species, will die out.

The child's favourite question, "why" is difficult enough for parents and teachers to answer. Yet, as thinking humans we've become trained to deal with that question nearly every context. So well drilled that we consider something for which that question has no answer to be suspicious if not insidious. Part of Dawkins presentation here reiterates that there is no "why" to either the process of evolution nor its results. It isn't predictable, inevitable or reasonable. It's a tough situation to cope with, but Dawkins describes the mechanism with such precision and clarity, we readily understand "how" if not "why" evolution works. We comprehend because Dawkins does such an outstanding job in presenting its mechanics.

This edition carries three fine finales: Dawkins well thought out bibliography, a glossary, and most prized, indeed, an Afterword by Daniel C. Dennett. If any defense of this book is needed, Dennett is a peerless champion for the task. Dennett's capabilities in logical argument are superbly expressed here. As he's done elsewhere {Darwin's Dangerous Idea], Dennett mourns the lack of orginality and logic among Dawkins' critics. Excepting the more obstinate ones, these seem to be falling by the wayside. It's almost worthwhile reading Dennett's brief essay before starting Dawkins. It would be a gift to readers beyond measure if these two ever collaborated on a book.

This book, while more technical than Dawkins' other works, is still easily accessible to any layperson willing to think long and hard about the concepts (and to use the glossary!). The book's basic premise - essentially, that a beaver's dam should be considered as much a product of beaver genes as a beaver's body - is right on target. Not to mention that seeing this type of old problem in a new light is becoming Dawkins' specialty - in "The Selfish Gene", he popularized and expanded the theory of gene-based natural selection and also developed the concept of memes as the basis of cultural evolution; now he shows that phenotypic effects extend far beyond the boundaries of the body.

Dawkins also takes this opportunity to expand on his theory of the replicator, or replicating entity, and develop its classification further. I'd recommend reading the book after The Selfish Gene just to get the concepts down (unless you're familiar with evolution - and NOT of the punctuationist variety!).

While the characterization is often vibrant and exacting, this debut novel falls short of its promise. A main shortcoming is that the story of Arthur and his family, one of the two interwoven tales, fails to be more than filler, a structural place-holder. And Arthur's telling of the other story, that of a woman several years older than him, rings false--his need to relate these events is nowhere evident. Most disappointing is that many of O'Nan's sentences are ragged and difficult to read. One gets the sense he'll get a lot better.

I first bought this book four years ago and have read it 5 times since. Haunting images, desperate characters. Although this book is about murder and divorce, there are no villans and no heros. This book made Stewart O'Nan my favorite author. Also check out THE SPEED QUEEN

Dense! Needs to be read slowly: sentences are often put together in a way that brings the story to a halt and forces you to read them two or three times. My favorite is on p. 124: "Colored floodlights bathed the front of the complex aqua." Love it or hate it! Reading an O'Nan novel is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You know that horrible things are going to happen. When they do, they're not as bad as you thought they would be, and yet at the same time they're worse.

Well written compendium on the origins and transformations of the orchestra over time.

Although above the level of the newcomer, this has much info which will inform and interest music lovers of all levels in classical music interest.

It is thorough in its coverage of instrument development, composers, conductors, electronic recording, concerts, vocal vs. instrumental, etc.

This is an excellent defense of Darwinian evolution, both classical and neo-Darwinism, and it does its job well. It examines both of these theories, explains them well, and even presents alternative theories and explains the proof for (or lack thereof) and against them. However, that does not mean that the book is without problems.

First of all, Dawkins has a tendency to wander off onto tangents that are only quasi-related to what he is talking about. The editor should have pounced on these and told him to elucidate further (his writing style and voice could have easily carried the book the extra twenty to fifty pages that these points would have taken), to include some footnotes for further reading (especially on points like the opinion that males and females in each species carry on a biological arms race against each other), or to simply take out these points which are of real interest, but not real discussion. They were poorly explored in some places. Secondly, Dawkins sometimes makes the subject matter more confusing than it really needs to be with excess terminology. It isn't really important to the average reader what the four types of taxonomists are called. We don't really need to know, and we don't really care. Yes, it is important to understand cladistics (and some information on the use of ribosomal DNA for cladistical purposes would have been quite appropriate, but is lacking), but the actual names of the groups, or even nicknames to help us keep them straight, are unnecessary. At other points, the reader can easily be bogged down in the various biological and genetic terms that the author uses. I don't actually know how great a problem this is (I have taken courses in genetics and biology at a local university), but it would seem that it may be slightly confusing to the average reader, which is his target audience.

Don't get me wrong. Dawkins writing style is great. I challenge anyone to read this and not be absolutely enthralled with his discussions of wandering through Biomorph Land that take place in Chapter 3. I have read that part of the book twice, and both times I was enraptured by his meanderings through an artificial land of artificial life forms. It is a classic in the field, and I am already planning who I will loan it to (most of my scientific friends) and the implications of the work. One last comment that I have runs toward the recommended items. Apparently, several people have recommended Darwin's Black Box, a classic by Michael Behe which challenges the idea of Darwinian evolution and presents a case more for creationism, instead of this book. I understand that some people probably cruise the site and make recommendations that are contradictory to the non-fiction books so that alternative viewpoints are read, and that is good, but I would, rather, prefer that people read both, and then make up their minds.

Definately a book which everyone should read once, and that people interested in theology or biology should purchase, and leave on their coffee table when friends are not eagerly borrowing it. Highly recommended, despite the missing star.
Harkius

Read and find out.

Dawkins does a superb job explaining and attempting to popularize the theory of evolution. The book is not primarily directed to the scientific community since virtually nobody serious in the biology field denies the power of the fundaments of evolutionary theory: the non deterministic, non teleological emergence of complexity through mechanisms of natural selection operating on replicators. Still, anybody in any field will find this book amazingly informative and enjoyable.

This is the kind of work that is bound to stir up all kinds of criticism from the ones that have been thought or have convinced themselves that they know the mind of God understand His purposes, have a direct line of communication with and were personally handcrafted by Him. They have been around all along thinking that they have all the answers and the right to condemn a priori whatever does not fit their preconceived ideas. Their posture not only epitomizes arrogance it also trivializes both science and religion.

It also appears to me that some of the reviews come out of sheer ignorance sometimes abundant in pseudo-scientific/technical jargon perhaps as an attempt to give some glimpse of validity to the dubious opinions and the shallow knowledge of their writers. Fortunately, I think, these writers only fool their kind. It is also obvious that some of them did not even read the whole book in which case at least half of the objections in some of the reviews below would have not been made again and again.

Science (good science) does not claim to have the globally objective "God's eye" view of the universe. Objectivism in science means reproducibility by others beyond ideology or other confusing factors; it is equivalent to realism based on empirical (experiential, experimental) knowledge. Science does not claim to be objective beyond what human cognition can generate and it is for that reason that is in contraposition of systems of belief that claim full global understanding of the universe from a generally objective (beyond human) "God's eye" point of view.

Darwin ideas came out in 1856, long before most of the knowledge that now we take for granted was even drafted, but the central ideas of his theory are so powerful that converging evidence for them has come from fields as diverse as agronomy, toxicology, geology, genetics, and computational science. It is not that alternative opinions are wrong because they go against Darwinism. It is that most of these opinions are so rudimentary, simplistic, cumbersome, and self-inconsistent and the fact that often require the spontaneous existence of very complex supernatural beings, what makes them just not good candidates to explain anything at all, let alone the existence of organized complexity in the first place.

Some reviewers below shamelessly declare that to be considered a human being (in their book of illusive attributes) one needs to base fundamental and crucial aspects of existence on unfounded mysticism or, worse, blatant mythology. But Darwin was not the horn-headed, cloven-footed evil man that is taught in Sunday school; he was actually quite religious. He spent a few years in Cambridge studying religion and initially considered the Book of Genesis to be literally true. Something similar can be said about Copernicus, Galileo (even after the torture), Descartes, and Mendel among many others. However, they did not allow religious fundamentalism to take over their passion for nature. They devoted their lives to understand many phenomena that were calling out for better explanations. This is a measure of personal integrity that is conspicuously absent in many "anti-evolutionists".

So, the intention of the book is to explain and popularize evolution not to attack religion. However, not addressing one of the traditional and most contemptuous postures against evolution would not be intellectually fair or honest. Many religions (not all of them) are based on authoritative knowledge provided by leaders or by Revelation. They admit little questioning or analysis from bottom to top or from the out side. Such belief systems can do little explaining natural phenomena with any level of accuracy so, if their beholders claim to be able to really come with explanations they need to learn to accept serious criticism and understand that rhetorical, emotionally appealing spiritualism is just not going to fly.

For the ones that are fully satisfied with their own self-assuring "explanations" and that feel comfortable with the opinion that complex things exist because somebody literally made them, this book will prove to be very irritating. If your curiosity leads you to find better explanations of natural phenomena do not miss this gorgeous exposition of what Darwin and many other brilliant biologists like Dawkins mean with evolution.

Also strongly recommended "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" from Sagan and Druyan, "Chaos" and, of course, Darwin's Autobiography.

Next to The Selfish Gene, this is probably Dawkins' most impressive and worthwhile book. Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection remains under fire from those determined to find a ghost responsible for human beings and the rest of life. Dawkins answers the obstructionists with clear logic and good science. He directly addresses the big compound question of who we are and whence we came. It's a daunting task, not only because of the tenacity of resistance to the answer. Dawkins asks readers to open their minds to envision vast stretches of time and conceive of the collection of minute changes that must have occurred to arrive here from such remote beginnings. His writing ability gently leads readers along the many steps necessary to come to an understanding of how life works.

His choice of Paley's 1802 publication "Natural Theology" to outline the roots of obstructionist attitudes is excellent. Although he wasn't challenging Darwin [who wasn't born yet!], Paley's logic and arguments are still used by those who resist being toppled from their divine pedestal. Dawkins begins his presentation by explaining "the watchmaker" is nature's blind forces of physics acting in an environment that could give rise to life. He spends time addressing the issue of complexity, its meaning and its application to the forces of life in contrast to inert matter such as rock.

Dawkins follows this analysis with examples of "design" [or lack of it] in nature compared with design by humans. From bats through bears to Boeings, Dawkins lucidly explains the differences between nature's "decisions" and those of engineers. Evolution, no matter how illogical it seems to the human witness, doesn't foresee the result of changes. Our brief existence demands answers within our lifetimes. Dawkins posits that we need patience, that nature works too slowly [with some exceptions - see Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch for an update] to provide quick, simple answers to how life works.

His chapter Accumulating Small Change addresses the issue of change in a novel fashion. It also counters the frequently raised challenge that "statistically, life can't evolve through random change". Here, Dawkins introduces a computer program which takes us through the evolutionary process in accelerated steps. He shows that while life is constantly changing, these changes occur within certain constraints. "Randomness" is hemmed in by such limits as weather, antecedents and valid physical structure. Giant pterodactyls and miniature bats appear vastly different to us, but their fundamental structures are nearly identical. Evolution, then, relies on tiny steps of cumulative selection. Little changes tested in life's cauldron. The survivors ultimately become polar bears, flatworms, kangaroos, us.

After a wonderful chapter, "Puncturing punctuationism" demolishing Stephen Gould's iconoclastic attempt to erode Darwin's thesis, Dawkins moves on to examine other, competitive ideas of how evolution operates. Since many of the ideas discussed in "Doomed Rivals" have been utilized by the obstructionists attempting to counter Darwin, this conclusion is one of the most valuable sections of the book. Starting with the premise that no-one conscious of life can deny evolution, he goes on to examine how various thinkers have addressed its mechanism. Lamarck, who understood life changed through time, still inspires adherents. It's an easier system to understand than Darwin's natural selection. Its premise of acquired characteristics remains wrong, however, no matter what new versions of the idea are forwarded. Dawkins carefully examines the ancient and modern proposals on acquired characteristics, respectfully disposing of them as good common sense, but bad science.

This book is vital to those wishing to develop a feeling for understanding our place in the universe. Our society is so imbued with the concept of divine origins that we've found it too easy to override the life around us. Dawkins book realigns humanity with the rest of life on this planet. If we read and understand him, perhaps we'll regain the respect for our surroundings we lost when we first conceived of gods. If we aren't the result of a spirit's whim, then perhaps we can address the future more realistically. Read this book and see for yourself.

Susan Blackmore's bold and fascinating book "The Meme Machine" pushes the new theory of memetics farther than anyone else has, including its originator Richard Dawkins. The reader should already be well-acquainted with the concepts of memes and Universal Darwinism before tackling this book. Those who are not would do well to first read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (and even better to also read Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea).

Dawkins himself wrote the Foreword to this book, giving it his enthusiastic endorsement, and providing some enlightening remarks about the origin of the meme concept. He concedes however, that his original intentions were quite a bit more modest, and that Blackmore has carried the concept further than he had envisioned.

The central thesis of this book is that imitation is what makes humans truly different from other animals, and what drives almost all aspects of human culture. A meme then, is a unit of imitation. Anything that can be passed from one person to another through imitation -- such as a song, a poem, a cookie recipe, fashion, the idea of building a bridge or making pottery -- is an example of a meme. From the meme's point of view, Blackmore claims, we humans are simply "meme machines", copying memes from one brain to another.

This book is highly speculative. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means the claims have not been proven scientifically. To Blackmore's credit she does clearly highlight the areas of speculation. She also points out the testable predictions made by her theory, and describes possible experiments that could be performed to validate or falsify them.

One such prediction is that specific neural mechanisms would be found in the brain that support imitation -- the key requirement for replication of memes. The recent discovery of mirror neurons seems to satisfy this prediction and provide a powerful validation of the theory.

This book is ambitious. It purports to be nothing less than a comprehensive scientific theory which answers such major scientific questions as the "big brain" problem, and the evolutionary origins of language, altruism, and religion -- all currently unresolved problems. Blackmore's presentation of these issues to be persuasive and insightful, though in some instances she has overstated her case. For example, while memes may have been a significant causal factor in the origin of language, it is not necessary to adopt a purely non-functional explanation for language.

The most controversial part of the book is likely to the last two chapters, where Blackmore discusses the concept of the "self", the real you which holds beliefs, desires, and intentions. Like Dennett, Blackmore believes the idea of a "self" is an illusion but unlike Dennett she does not see it as benign and a practical necessity. In her view, the illusion of the self (what she calls the "ultimate memeplex") obscures and distorts consciousness, and advocates adopting a Zen-like view to actively repel the self illusion.

After having read the book you may feel, that Blackmore has gone too far; that she has pulled some sleight-of-hand and come up with an outlandish conclusion. However, upon further reflection, the thoughtful reader will be forced to admit that Blackmore has made a forceful case and told at least a plausible, if not utterly convincing story.