Chapter 4 The Gene Machine

In which Dawkin's explains the psychology of a puppet

Dawkin's definition of behavior is a little different from any I've heard before. He explains it as "the trick of rapid movement largely exploited by the animal branch of survival machines." I understand that Dawkin's is trying to shake us up with his unique definitions, and I'm all for breaking things down into simpler forms to enhance understanding, but to me this seems a little too simplified. First of all, is behavior only movement? Isn't laying perfectly still also behavior? Or maybe that trully doesn't exist because the body is moving rapidly, transporting nutrients, beating the heart, all the minor movements that make life possible. Is behavior only possible from animals? Don't plants behave? They grow towards sunlight, they transport nutrients, isn't this movement and behavior? Is it not behavior for plants because they don't have a conscious mind directing them? Cockroaches don't have conscious mind and he's still classifying their movement as behavior. For me this definition seems to raise far more questions then its worth.
Dawkin's theorizes that the brain was developed by the genes in order to control muscle movements and interpret sensory information because if the genes tried to directly control the "survival machine" the time lag would be too great to function. While its undeniably true that the main function of the brain is to control the muscles and react to stimulus I don't know if its even possible to prove why the genes don't control these things themselves. There could be a million reasons why genes don't take control of these functions. They may simply be incapable or a gene capable of doing it may simple have not evolved yet. It seems like pointless posturing to try and guess the why here.
The genes extremely simplistic "programming" of our brains has some interesting consequences. Yes, you can get a rush from a job well done, an orgasm with a mate, a healthy meal, or exercise. This is how the genes enforce our survival. There are a lot of people that want to skip the middle man however. Why go for that jog? Why not just inject yourself with heroin? Do you not get the same end result? In fact, in Dawkins term you could say that the heroin addict is living no less of a fulfilling life then a "normal", "sane" person so long as they're able to reproduce. So why should we jump through the hurdles that our genes create for us in order to benefit from our pre-programmed rewards? If the executive decision maker has grown to be independent of the genes why not rejoice in that independence by telling our genes to get stuffed and rewarding ourselves with ingested chemicals? Life that exists solely to propagate its genes is extremely rewarding to the genes and entirely futile to the organism. Who is more the slave, the heroin addict or the puppet of the genes?
Dawkin's also theorizes that for as long as there has been communication there have been entities that exploit that communication. This is part of a larger point that any system will be exploited as the temptation to not exploit it will be impossible to resist.