Whenever I hear Richard Dawkins champion his selfish gene theory ("Richard Dawkins's Big Idea"), I cannot help but feel a touch of sympathy.
Assuming arguendo that Dawkins is correct with regard to genes ruthlessly seeking to replicate themselves, he, with one child, must therefore be host to defective genes -- ones without a level of ruthlessness to adequately replicate.
So, based on his own theory, Dawkins is not a pinnacle of his beloved evolution, he is but an evolutionary defect whose genetic legacy is bound for extinction. I assume he recognizes this, hence my sympathy.
Maybe, for his own sake, he should consider an alternate theory, especially the one he so whimsically denies.