Not only against your own genes but possibly against others' genes and life scripts as well. (which is not always received enthusiastically)

@ juliane,
well said.

Pim

Enthusiasm is reserved for sports, rebellion for relationships.

Maybe some of our genes are walking around with little T-shirts with our face in the famous Che Guevara-portrait. Of course, others probably hate our guts and are planning a coup d'etat

Would you consider Abstinence, Celibacy and A-sexuality as rebellion towards the gene as well?
Does rebellion in this case equals a higher form of intelligence/consciousness?

Trojan horse

The name of the condom suggests the genes are using their brains too.

Billy

Genes are susceptible to suggestion.

It's even more frightening if you think that these gene rebels would have nothing more than a chance to get more often less.

Contraception

If the use of contraception enhances the survival chances of a society, which it might just do, for instance by making it more stable, letting it function more smoothly, it really isn't rebellion at all. The genes still win, they always will, is Dawkins suggesting a free will by this example? That's just silly.

M. Hordijk

Are you suggesting that there is a gene for the use of contraceptives?

Genes

We are our genes. Our brain is an instrument controlled by our genes. Our genes want to proliferate. Any action the brain takes, is directed towards survival. If we for some reason invent contraceptives, than this something that our genes think wil help them proliferate. You have to think about this on the scale of societies, not on the scale of individuals. Sometimes an individual has to die for the society to stay healthy. Sometimes some people have to stop proliferating for the society as a whole to proliferate. Our genes know what they are doing.

M. Hordijk

You are well advised to read Dawkins' book. Genes don't think.

A long time ago, we were supposed to have rebelled against God, now we are supposed rebelling against our genes… ? (I have not read the book yet)
Maybe we are rebelling against our thoughts.

Oscar Wilde

"Genes don't think" This is an interesting question. How does one account for the development of thinking in an otherwise apparently inanimate universe? It would seem that DNA strands must at least hold the potential of thinking.

Another thing: the neurons in our brains are controlled by the DNA they contain. In other words our higher (and lower) mental functions do have a direct genetic basis.

I wonder about RIchard Dawkins. He seems to be making a religion out of atheism.

'Another thing: the neurons in our brains are controlled by the DNA they contain. In other words our higher (and lower) mental functions do have a direct genetic basis. '

Exactly. I know genes don't 'think', i was taking the 'intentional stance' D. Dennett often refers to.

M. Hordijk

DNA controls the construction of the neurons that make up our brain. DNA does not control the activity of our neurons, nor the actions taken by the brain.

Evolutionary selection at the level of the gene is a very slow process. Genes are not actors, they are genetic codes that change, and the interaction of an organism with its environment determines the succes of that organism's genes in the gene pool.

The fact that a particular thing was invented does not prove that that thing is useful. An invention may work in our favor, in which case using the invention promotes the spread of our genes. But there is no reason to assume that our genes had anything to do with the conception of the invention.

Carlos

In his book “The Selfish Gene” Mr. Dawkins gives a convincing explanation for the survival ability of the meme “God”.

Juliane

Forgive me for this personal question, but when you use contraceptives do you feel that you are rebelling against the genes of your boyfriend? Do you plan to rebel against my genes as well? If the answer is yes, could you give a short explanation? Please limit yourself to two hundred words.

Oscar Wilde

I think you are viewing the brain as a cybernetic machine. In cybernetics one could envision an intelligence that was purely software. In other words, it would operate on any cybernetic machine able to execute a number of basic operations and that has sufficient capacity.

The actual brain however is a living organism. Individual hormones, proteins, receptors on the surface of the cell do influence the way the brain thinks. These in turn are controlled by the neuron's DNA (identical incidentally to every other cell in our bodies). After all a cell's DNA controls everything it does, how it develops, how it reacts to external conditions even down to how to assemble different proteins and substances.

If our thinking mechanism was purely cybernetic we wouldn't get drunk, stoned, high, halucinate or have modifed thought patterns after consuming particular substances, having too low a blood sugar level etc.

Another point is the origin of IQ. When we look at a brain of a person with low IQ we do not see significant physiological differences from someone with an extremely high IQ. We know IQ levels are an inherited trait. Does this not imply then that genetic information (a particular DNA code) has a profound influence on our thinking processes?

I think that the truth is that we don't actually know how our brains think or form memories.

Arnon

If his genes tell him that it would be a good idea to procreate, than yes, I am rebelling against his genes. I'm feeling a bit like what is so beautifully called a "Gebärverweigerer".

Concerning your genes. I'm not planning anything. So if your genes (and thus you, yourself) are convincing they might stir up the wish in me to bear your child. But don't hold your breath.

rebelrebel

Incidentally, that is how I got my first kid.

Carlos

The DNA of a cell does not control everything that that cell does. It determines how the cell develops, but only to a certain extent--let's not forget that the development of a cell or organism is strongly influenced by its environment. Right now, as you read this sentence, there is no direct influence of your DNA on the activitiy of your brain cells.

You seem to believe that there is some form of interaction between DNA and cells but this is not the right way to think about things in the context of explaining human behavior. You are confusing time scales here; habits spread through learning within the lifetime of an organism are very different beasts from certain types of behaviors that are innate and the result of countless generations of natural selection at the level of the gene.

Juliane

Arnon's genes are irresistible. You will find out.