Nature vs. Nurture

While reading the first chapter of “The Selfish Gene”, I couldn’t help pondering on the whole nature vs. nurture debate. Dawkins specifically states, however, that his intention in this novel was not to take sides in this “controversy”, although he does have an opinion on it. My guess until now is that Dawkins is more of a nature type person. My reasoning can begin with only the book`s title alone. Whenever a book is named after a topic in genetics, then it probably has to do with the idea that people are essentially defined by their nature instead of the environment they grow up in. Dawkins states that “the argument of this is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.” (pg. 3). How can the author mention something like this, and immediately on the next page say that he won`t defend the nature side of the debate? Later on in the chapter there are several more examples which give away his opinion.

Only a couple of weeks ago, I was reading the work of another great thinker, Jean Paul Sartre. This man was a philosopher while Dawkins is a scientist. “The Selfish Gene” actually reminded me of Sartre`s opinion on the nature vs. nurture topic. He says the man`s existence precedes his essence. In other words, every human defines who he or she is through actions. This obviously is an argument favoring the nurture side of the debate. Sartre shows no interest on the roll that genetics plays on a person, but focuses on the mind and power of choice. Of course, these are two very different people from very different times. I personally cannot take a definite side on the debate such as these men have, for I believe that there is no one factor which defines a human being.