Is 'the Selfish Gene' actually worth reading or is it as debunked as some of the anti-Dawkins crowd says it is?
>>8167716
>reading liberals
Kill yourself, bluepilled faggot
>>8167716
it's not literature
Kind of boring, but good in other ways. I never finished it (started back in highschool), but I remember some rich guy saying that it was one of the most influential books he'd ever read. Yeah, too bad it was just boring, bullshit science though
>>8167716
It's not debunked my Mythbusters loving friend. It's been thoroughly criticised and more or less refuted. That doesn't make it not worth reading.
The thing to be aware of is Dawkins is a troglodyte when it comes to non pop sci philosophy of science, so he un ironically skirts eugenics and malthusianism a few times. I've never been able to confirm whether this is why some people think it's influential beyond memeing
>>8167724
>some rich guy
wasn't that one of Apple's top guys? He posted some list of his favorite books that made him the succesful guy he is today. Don't remember what it was exactly but it was pretty cringy, Reddit-tier.
>is an atheist book debunked
>>8167746
I have no idea, this was way back in ~2007-2008. I was solely just trying to stack this mon back then.
