Constant Change

As we go deeper and deeper into what Dawkins proposes, I find many flaws in his theories. I do not know if he is talking about a utopia or about our world, what he proposes will only work in a utopia. He mentions, “Since one male can theoretically produce enough sperm to service a harem of 100 females we should suppose that females should outnumber males in animal populations by 100 to 1” (143). This might be true, unfortunately we can not choose weather to have a boy or a girl. If nature did not intend for us to be able to choose, and we still have a very large population of males, it might mean that it was mean to be. Males might have other purposes like hunting or caring for the women. They might not all be needed for reproduction but they are certainly needed for something else.

As I write this blog I remembered lady Macbeth. According to my standards she is the opposite of what a women should be. Macbeth is not convinced about what he should do in order to become king. His lady on the other hand believes that he has to do anything it takes. The man and the women might have switched roles. Normally, according to the Selfish Gene, men have a very small role, which is to reproduce. If it is true than Lady Macbeth does not agree with Dawkins. Macbeth is not only used to reproduce but to gain power, and protection. Maybe our genes were meant to do what Dawkins proposes but we clearly do not obey. They are constantly changing.