That's what really bugged me about the Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene. There are no selfish genes, and genes don't try to get replicated. Some genes are replicated, and some genes are not. In fact, the genes that get replicated aren't even the successful ones. Consider a gene that makes an animal able to digest one type of grass over another arose because a previous type of grass available disappeared. It might not even provide an advantage. It just replicated because it could without detriment. But if in a time, the preferred grass disappeared, and the previously available grass took over again, that gene could quickly become a detriment without ever providing advantage. If an animal is better off without a gene, do you have a selfless gene that sacrifices itself? I'd love to read this article written without anthropomorphism. It might be a more difficult read, but it would be a more honest one. Even so, it's very interesting stuff.