If you want to talk about genes as an immortalizing life form then those genes are just as prone to natural selection as the carrier. Some genes are old, some are new. New genes have an incredibly high attrition rate. Not much different from nature. Genes are suckers and losers just like their carriers.
Genes aren't goal directed towards something higher.
> This cause requires no convincing because only winners get to play the next round
The 'winners', us humans, are literally destroying the ecosphere which supports our life.
> Understanding is overrated.
That's an appeal to ignorance.
> Control does not require it [understanding]
We can control something without understanding it? Most of science would disagree.
No, but "this gene cluster" is me - and I am goal-directed.
> We can control something without understanding it? Most of science would disagree.
No, they wouldn't. Epistemology has progressed beyond this. Models have various levels of fidelity. And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control. Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars.
But I do enjoy the amusing attempt at cutting out the sentence to create damning gotchas. Here, I mimicked your style and made one from your comment:
> We can control something without understanding it
Why, thank you for agreeing with me! Quite gratifying to receive such support.
OK, straight questiom goal directed towards what?
> And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control
Don't agree - further
> Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars.
Understanding is about understanding of aspects. They may well not understand the engine aspect (how it works precisely) but "Most drivers can drive their cars" means they control their cars, which means they understand what happens when a steering wheel is turned, and how not to grind the gears, and not to hit accelerator and brake together. They model it. That is the embodiment of their understanding. Without that they could not control a car.
> Why, thank you for...
Quite clearly there was a question mark at the end it to indicate my implied doubt. Science seeks better understanding of x so it can manipulate x more precisely. Please give me a couple of examples of complex systems which we don't understand but can control, so I can understand you better.
Well, my goals (like anyone's) are far too nuanced to get into in their entirety. But for the sake of this discussion, we can assume that the endurance of sapience is desirable to me.
Happy to conclude the 'understanding' discussion by replacement with 'understanding of fundamentals and nth-order consequences for n > 3' if that will do the trick. As for the rest, you're going to have to stop butchering my sentences.
> Quite clearly there was a question mark at the end it to indicate my implied doubt.
Indeed there was, but I was able to (like you did) chop off the comment and create a 'quotation' that had you take the opposite position. Normally, that would be disingenuous but I did it solely to show you what you were doing.
And this gene cluster is aiming to master the rock that is the Earth through modifying other gene clusters. And you can't stop it. Because through modification it grows stronger and more able. And it has rallied the memome and the hologenome to its cause. This cause requires no convincing because only winners get to play the next round. Change is inevitable. Understanding is overrated. Control does not require it.
Transformation Theology has subsumed this world. You live in an ether floating in it. You cannot choose the path of no change. No such path exists.