Rating: 
Summary: A big idea in a little book
Review: After reading this book, it's easy to see why some editors of The Wall Street Journal detest Peter Singer. He's a bold new thinker who is not afraid of new ideas. This book offers the first new idea in socialism since the start of the Industrial Revolution -- one new idea in 200 years certainly isn't going to overload any socialist's neural circuits. From Canada to Zambia, and all little lands inbetween, socialism collapsed because it operated on the same basis as unregulated capitalism -- Greed is Enough. Greed is the heart of free enterprise, as Marx said, but it accomplished more in its first century than mankind did in all previous human history. Socialists didn't question this principle; capitalists got rich, socialists wanted the riches of the capitalists. Samuel Gompers summed it up nicely, workers wanted "More, more, more." Leftists spent 200 years trying to get more from the capitalists, and usually failed miserably. Singer uses the first half of his book to demolish old socialist assumptions, pointing out that even in the 1870's the anarchists (today's Libertarians) proved communism could not work. But, anarchists got a bad name. Instead of heeding their ideas, half of the world experimented with various degrees of socialism while the other half tried naked greed. The second half calls for altruism to humanize the opportunism of the "Greed is enough" idea. Will it work? Only 6 percent of people donate to blood banks -- a truly altruistic action since donors do not know the recipients -- yet, this is a valuable part of our society. Charitable gifts often go to unknown recipients, such gift s are to "help others" rather than a specific person. Until now, as Singer writes, "Belief in the malleability of human nature has been important for the Left because it has provided grounds for hoping that a very different kind of human society is possible." His response: Wrong. Instead of trying the change human nature, Singer wants Leftists to accept human nature as it is -- such as the inborn spirit of altruism, the willingness to help others without expecting a reward. He stands firmly on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed. Instead of handouts or simply taking "more" from the rich, Singer believes, "most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation." Instead of propping up the rich or arbitrarily redistributing wealth, government should "Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends." What is this in practical terms? For example, celebrate the fact that Amazon dot com is the best idea in selling books since the paperback -- the government shouldn't interfere with Jeff Bezos' brilliance. But, if Bezos' comes up with a new cooperative venture -- suppose he can vastly improve the effectiveness of Habitat for Humanity -- then the government should say "Right On!" and provide whatever help is appropriate. Let's encourage cooperation, as we now subsidize existing businesses. Singer doesn't suggest anything as specific as this. Instead, he outlines a new idea that celebrates riches and will effectively help the weak, poor and oppressed. In other words, "You can have your cake, and here's how we can get some for others too." His idea is great. It already works in hundreds of little ways. If adopted, thousands of pages of other books will be written to explore the details. If not . . . well, think of the miserable century the world endured for rejecting anarchist views of the futility of communism. It's the idea that is important, not the personality behind the idea. Singer's book offers two themes; 30 pages to explain why the old socialism failed, and 33 pages to outline a new altruism. It's a pure idea, unembellished with pages and pages of examples and larded with tedious philosophy. For anyone who can handle ideas, it will make you think. It's so good, even the editors of The Wall Street Journal may like it.
Rating: 
Summary: Semi-illiterate apologists of corporatism
Review: Darwin has confused more philosophers, beginning with Nietzsche, than any other scientist. It is time the game stopped. After Robert Wright's reactionary version of political Darwinism in his incoherent Non Zero with its Kant desecration we now close the circle with Peter Singer's pseudo-leftist behind the back switch of Darwin and Marx. The author of the fine Animal Liberation and a short work on Hegel seems to have drifted downwards in a spiral to the point where it is hard to see any consistent grounds by him for any opinion on evolution. This booklet, no more than a pamphlet, contains no scientific discussion to speak of apart from the same sociobiological pulp about ethics and the theory of games that has driven a generation of mathematically competent mathematical idiots also social scientists into thinking they have a theory. Mr. Singer suggests the left needs a new paradigm, that could start with a critique of evolutionary economy, and the theories promoted in such economies. In fact, the confusion over Darwinism began very early with Engels, and has persisted to this day. Any account of the left and Darwinism should aggressively point out the calamitous misuse of selectionist thinking as class extermination in the post-Revolutionary situation after 1817. To suggest more of this in the poorly concealed racism of sociobiologists can only backfire. The whole point of the critique of ideology was to rescue thought from improper theories applied to society. Instead we are asked for a new hybrid compromise, enough. It is time to be rid of this Darwinian pretense and the poisoned Marxism it helped to create. We need a new evolutionary perspective, and an intelligent debriefing of both rightist and leftist abuses of Darwinism.
Read Singer's Animal Liberation. Let's hope this once acute 'philosophical animal' will find liberation as a post-Darwinian.
Rating: 
Summary: Post Darwinian Manifesto???
Review: I give it two stars only because I can give this book to people who do not really understand what the left is all about, on to the review. In the introduction Singer is forthright in telling of his idealist "egalitarian society to which the left should aspire" Of course this is obtained as Singer puts it by "urging us to work towards a more equal distribution of resources" [9]. And "This strongly suggests a need to do something about the economic trends in developed nations which for the past decade or more have increased economic inequality. The left, of course has ample reason to reverse these trends and to make people at the bottom better off." [52] And even clearer "A tax on spending - payable through our tax returns rather than as part of the price we pay when we buy - would have a significant positive impact in changing habits. ... this idea, and others in the same arena, are ripe for further investigation." [59] Of course what Singer is talking about is redistribution of wealth. This repressive, regressive tax structure doesn't surprise me, what does is when he equates people who are the most productive and industrious members of our society; and are justly rewarded for their efforts, as "LUCKY enough to among the rich" [46]. What would Darwin think about these skillful entrepreneurs and businesspeople? Would he attribute their hard work, talent, ingenuity, time, brainpower and toil as luck? Mr. Singer I doubt that very much and for you to suggest this is an affront to every thinking person who has read your book. As we move to chapter 1 Singer makes a glaring mistake in confusing a conservative with a capitalist [10-12]. Capitalism is an economic system while conservatism is a political belief. Capitalism knows no political ideology, it's only interest is in economic outcome. Next we arrive at this quote "While the core of the left is a set of values, there is also a penumbra of factual beliefs that have typically been associated with the left."[18] I would have to ask Singer to quantify and qualify the set of values he is talking about. Is he speaking as wanting to be part of the oligarchy of the left or of the massive proletariat of the left? If singer espouses the values of the oligarchy than this whole book is a hypocritical façade and no further comment is needed as we toss it in the trash. However, if he indeed aspires to be with the masses than what values are there. The left's hold on the common people is the fact that they encourage a system of relativistic values that are in fact a pseudo-system of values. The left has aspired to and cloaked itself with the aphorism of moral relativism, in essence it has recreated itself as pliant, amorphous front. This is where its great appeal lies, in its chameleon like quality of showing care and concern to totally dissimilar groups that in many instances are in conflict with each other. To say that it espouses a set of concrete values completely decimates what the left is all about. Why would Singer even pen such ludicrous lines is beyond comprehension, unless of course he envisions himself in the oligarchy. Let's move onto the core of his book and the importance it has to the left. "Belief in the malleability of human nature has been important for the left because it has provided grounds for hoping that a very different kind of human society is possible."[24] This is the driving thought of the oligarchy of the left. How do we turn people into a malleable workforce doing whatever the state wants them to do? Of course Singer has the obvious answer, it is to inculcate the masses through our public education system " The remaining great barrier to the acceptance of Darwinian thinking by the left is the idea of the malleability of human nature . . . . From this it follows that education in the broadest possible sense is the great panacea, with the potential to mould human beings into perfect citizens." [32-33] WOW, how much clearer can it be. The state through education will mandate you what to think, say and believe. In an attempt to show how cooperative pursuits can help people, Singer than chooses the ignoble example of two prisoners who are in jail.[47-50] They are both given a chance to implicate the other one in a crime and if one does he will walk out free. Singer spends 4 pages out of a 63-page book discussing how they should work together (altruism) and it will be better for them. Not once does the matter of truth (who really committed the crime) come into question, or justice (should the perpetrator be punished) or fairness (why should an innocent man have to spend time in jail if a guilty prisoner frames him). Once again facts and moral questions are simply swept under the rug. But of course trying to deal with the essential concept of truth is the ultimate and insuperable Pandora's box of the left. In Chapter 4 "From Cooperation (read subjugation) to Altruism" Singer ask the question "Is it really impossible for the left to seek to promote a society in which there is a strong feeling of concern for the good of others". Of course Singer has the answer, he has already revealed that the state has control by indoctrination through the education system. Next we take our dumbed-down workers and study them because the state "need(s) to understand more about what it is that leads people to donate blood or bone marrow, so that we can base social policies on a more secure foundation of knowledge about human behaviour." [58] SOCIAL POLICIES: Hitler had social policies, Stalin had social policies, Pol Pot had social policies, etc etc etc ad-nauseam. Wake up people can't you smell the primordial stew bubbling?
Rating:
Summary: Swapping Marx for Darwin
Review: In Singer's own words, this book is "a sketch of the waysin which a Darwinian left would differ from the traditional left thatwe have come to know over the past two hundred years" [60]. This is a very heavy little book which people who hold the values of the political left will be well advised to read very carefully for it's very constructive and sympathetic criticism. "The left needs a new paradigm," writes Singer, as he proceeds to argue that the Darwinian theory of evolution should be the basis of that new paradigm [6]. In a nutshell, we should "swap Marx for Darwin." Singer explains how the left has been all too influenced by Herbert Spencer's arguments that Darwin's principle of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, implies an ethical imperative which justifies laissez-faire capitalism, and the principle of "might makes right." Darwin's principle of natural selection, which says that generally only the strong survive, was transformed by Spencer into a moral principle, "only the strong SHOULD survive," which became popularly known as "Social Darwinism." This Social Darwinism was enthusiastically embraced by the right, in defense of ruthlessly unregulated capitalism as a natural and just eugenics program [10-11]. Spencer's Social Darwinism, Singer points out, is not a necessary implication of Darwinism, and, most importantly, it overlooks the role of cooperative behavior in Darwinian evolution, as if competition is all there is to it [19]. Marx himself embraced Darwinism as an explanation for the origin of the human species and the behavior of nonhuman animals, but drew the line between human and nonhuman behavior, rejecting Darwinian implications regarding human nature. Singer argues that this is most plausibly because of Marx's naive non-Darwinian belief that human vices such as greed were solely the product of social circumstances and his utopian hope of eliminating human vice through changes in social circumstances [24-5]. Singer hopes that, in the light of the tragedies of Stalinism, Pol Pot, etc., the left has abandoned the utopian dream of the perfectibility of humankind, and will look to Darwinism for a deeper understanding of human nature. That dream, the intellectual hold of Marx's theory of history, and the idea of the infinite malleability of human nature are barriers to a Darwinian left. The removal of those barriers and a reexamination of the political goals of the left in the light of Darwinian insights on human nature should enable a Darwinian left to come closer to realizing its values. Setting out some of the tasks we need to face, Singer suggests that the time is ripe for "the development of a field of social research that shows the way towards a more cooperative society" [47]. In the end, Singer leaves us with some important questions: * "How can we build a society that is cooperative and offers a strong safety net for those who are unable to provide for their own needs" [46]? * "What structures can overcome the anonymity of the huge, highly mobile societies that have come into existence in this century and show every sign of increasing in size with the globalization of the world economy" [52]? * "Can we strengthen concern for others by shifting ideas of status away from conspicuous consumption, in a more socially desirable direction" [59]? and * "Can [our moral insight] ever overcome the pull of other elements in our evolved nature that act against the idea of an impartial concern for all of our fellow humans, or, better still, for all sentient beings" [62-3]?
Rating: 
Summary: A Bonobo's View of the Darwinian Left
Review: It becomes more difficult every day to competently use the writings of Marx or Darwin as guideposts for human social life. For our society has indeed evolved to include all human apes--male and female alike--as active participants in the sphere of public life. Because Marx and Darwin both discuss the situation of man, and because in their century the political participants were men alone, what a discussion of man means is unclear to a reader in this century. The issues are further confused by Singer's own use of nineteenth-century language. When, on page 27, Singer asks whether economic systems or biology is responsible for the "antagonism between man and man," we cannot say if Singer is discussing the antagonism and the dreams of men or of all human beings. A reader might, after all, assume the dream of woman kind does not need to be perfected. For Singer states: "Since women are limited in the number of children that can have, they are likely to be selective in their choice of mate. Men, on the other hand, are limited in the number of children they can have only by the number of women they can have sex with. If achieving high status increases access to women, then we can expect men to have a stronger drive for status than women. This means we cannot use the fact that there is a disproportionately large number of men in high status positions in business or politics as a reason for concluding that there has been discrimination against women." Self-propagation as the purpose of evolutionary adjustment is a concept whose validity is rapidly diminishing. Human procreation increasingly threatens the future of humanity itself, and of everyone else who might evolve along with us. And to think of this activity as offsetting sex discrimination in business and politics seems a throwback to Darwin's era. Regarding the role co-operation can play in survival and reproductive success, we might justifiably be more interested in co-operation simply for its own sake. In that area, men have much to learn from women. Yet this book is full of famous males who have achieved what Singer calls status, and all of them attained it by competing for the leading role in teaching the rest of us how to co-operate. I offer no proof here of famous female co-operators, but I can offer an entire culture as an example. One 11 May 1998, a front-page article in The Salt Lake Tribune (Associated Press) called bonobos "the feminist apes." Free bonobos live in the deep rainforests of Congo. Scientists didn't seem to notice them until the 1970s (a lapse which has arguably been the bonobos' good fortune, for their unique social structures probably would have made bonobos the subjects of numerous studies by bands of experts). Bonobos, who are just as related to humans as are chimpanzees, challenge theories that the pattern of human evolution is inextricably woven with that of the competitive, male-dominated chimpanzee. Female bonobos are only 85 percent as big as males, yet their bonds with other females establish their level of influence with the group. Female bonobos control choice food. A male's rank depends on his mother's social standing. In contrast to chimpanzees, who often fight viciously, bonobos prefer to resolve social tension with sex. Bonobos have been noted for their ability to view the world from someone else's perspective -- advanced thinking once considered unique to humans. They have also provided some of the best-known examples of altruism. As altruism is the subject of A DARWINIAN LEFT's final chapter, a mention of their culture would have been both relevant and welcome. "We may be more bonobo-like than we want to admit," Frans de Waal has said. Feminists who discuss non-human interests have not had a problem admitting it, of course. And neither should Peter Singer.
Rating: 
Summary: Well worth reading
Review: It was thought not too many years ago that the architects (so to speak) of the modern world were Marx, Darwin, Einstein and Freud. Now that the postmodern era is upon us, a reevaluation has been made and Marxist ideas have been largely discredited. Einstein has suffered a correction (from quantum mechanics), Freud has been reclassified as literature, and it is only Darwin's reputation that has survived unsullied. Furthermore during this period the right has taken Darwin as its own, believing that the competitive biological nature of human beings as revealed by evolutionary biology is what leads to the inequalities that exist in human societies while justifying the war of one against all, etc. But what Peter Singer is crowing about (and is the occasion for this lengthy essay/short book) is that the "red in tooth and claw" (Tennyson) interpretation of biological evolution that prevailed throughout the modern era is now coming under fire. No longer can biological evolution be seen as simply the strong taking advantage of the weak (a notion understandably obnoxious to the left). The larger truth now emerging from biology is that cooperation plays an important role in being fit and has, especially for humans, great adaptive value. It is becoming clear that Richard Dawkins's idea of the "selfish gene" is only part of the understanding, and that natural selection operates on groups through the individual, leading to an understanding that one (more cooperative) tribe may be selected over another, and that it is through cooperation within the tribe that Darwinian fittest may be most strongly expressed. Now this is an idea that the left can appreciate. Consequently Singer's enthusiasm. Marx is dead, long live Darwin! My problem with this intellectual enterprise is one that Singer points to on page 38, namely that we cannot form an argument from what IS to what SHOULD BE. Singer opines that we can instead through an appreciation of evolution gain "a better understanding of what it may take to achieve the goals we seek." Beginning on page 31 with his second chapter, Singer compares behaviors across societies. This allows him to note which practices are universal or nearly so and which are highly diverse. The conclusion is that the more universal the behavior, the more it is a product of our biological nature and not a construct of society. To the extent that this process is valid, the information gotten is valuable. This is indeed one of the tools of evolutionary psychology that some people on the Darwinian left would like to discredit. They fear that an emphasis on our genetic endowment will work against our ability to nurture positive values and behaviors. They want nurture trumping nature. However, in my opinion, the entire argument is passé and invalid. It is now generally understood in biology that nature gives us a predisposition to certain behaviors that develop in concert with our environmental experience so that our behaviors are an intimate product of both our nature and our nurture and cannot in any way be separated. The old "nature vs. nurture" debate is now seen as based on a false dilemma. Also, it should be appreciated that today's scientific understanding of human nature as derived from biology, genetics and kindred disciplines, is just that, today's understanding, and as such is tentative. Consequently any oughts, shoulds, etc. drawn from such an understanding--even if such a practice were logically valid--would also be of a provisional nature. Having said all this, I want to note that Singer's argument is well presented and his prescription for a Darwinian left in Chapter 5 well worth reading. If adopted it would work toward relieving the left from its fear of what evolutionary psychology is discovering about human beings. As Steven Pinker (not exactly a leftist) cheerfully notes, "Singer challenges the conventional wisdom that a recognition of human nature is incompatible with progressive ideals..." He does, and indeed Singer demonstrates that the discoveries of evolutionary biology can be completely compatible with the traditional values of the left. This is an important understanding, since evolutionary biology is not going to go away, nor are its discoveries. We must learn to live with who and what we are without necessarily condoning our less attractive tendencies or attempting to sweep them under the rug. Bottom line: the opening chapter which concentrates too much on the well-known Marxist delusions and the Soviet doublethink might well be skipped. The meat of Singer's essay begins with Chapter 2, and works very well by itself.
Rating:
Summary: Well worth reading
Review: It was thought not too many years ago that the architects (so to speak) of the modern world were Marx, Darwin, Einstein and Freud. Now that the postmodern era is upon us, a reevaluation has been made and Marxist ideas have been largely discredited. Einstein has suffered a correction (from quantum mechanics), Freud has been reclassified as literature, and it is only Darwin's reputation that has survived unsullied. Furthermore during this period the right has taken Darwin as its own, believing that the competitive biological nature of human beings as revealed by evolutionary biology is what leads to the inequalities that exist in human societies while justifying the war of one against all, etc. But what Peter Singer is crowing about (and is the occasion for this lengthy essay/short book) is that the "red in tooth and claw" (Tennyson) interpretation of biological evolution that prevailed throughout the modern era is now coming under fire. No longer can biological evolution be seen as simply the strong taking advantage of the weak (a notion understandably obnoxious to the left). The larger truth now emerging from biology is that cooperation plays an important role in being fit and has, especially for humans, great adaptive value. It is becoming clear that Richard Dawkins's idea of the "selfish gene" is only part of the understanding, and that natural selection operates on groups through the individual, leading to an understanding that one (more cooperative) tribe may be selected over another, and that it is through cooperation within the tribe that Darwinian fittest may be most strongly expressed. Now this is an idea that the left can appreciate. Consequently Singer's enthusiasm. Marx is dead, long live Darwin! My problem with this intellectual enterprise is one that Singer points to on page 38, namely that we cannot form an argument from what IS to what SHOULD BE. Singer opines that we can instead through an appreciation of evolution gain "a better understanding of what it may take to achieve the goals we seek." Beginning on page 31 with his second chapter, Singer compares behaviors across societies. This allows him to note which practices are universal or nearly so and which are highly diverse. The conclusion is that the more universal the behavior, the more it is a product of our biological nature and not a construct of society. To the extent that this process is valid, the information gotten is valuable. This is indeed one of the tools of evolutionary psychology that some people on the Darwinian left would like to discredit. They fear that an emphasis on our genetic endowment will work against our ability to nurture positive values and behaviors. They want nurture trumping nature. However, in my opinion, the entire argument is passé and invalid. It is now generally understood in biology that nature gives us a predisposition to certain behaviors that develop in concert with our environmental experience so that our behaviors are an intimate product of both our nature and our nurture and cannot in any way be separated. The old "nature vs. nurture" debate is now seen as based on a false dilemma. Also, it should be appreciated that today's scientific understanding of human nature as derived from biology, genetics and kindred disciplines, is just that, today's understanding, and as such is tentative. Consequently any oughts, shoulds, etc. drawn from such an understanding--even if such a practice were logically valid--would also be of a provisional nature. Having said all this, I want to note that Singer's argument is well presented and his prescription for a Darwinian left in Chapter 5 well worth reading. If adopted it would work toward relieving the left from its fear of what evolutionary psychology is discovering about human beings. As Steven Pinker (not exactly a leftist) cheerfully notes, "Singer challenges the conventional wisdom that a recognition of human nature is incompatible with progressive ideals..." He does, and indeed Singer demonstrates that the discoveries of evolutionary biology can be completely compatible with the traditional values of the left. This is an important understanding, since evolutionary biology is not going to go away, nor are its discoveries. We must learn to live with who and what we are without necessarily condoning our less attractive tendencies or attempting to sweep them under the rug. Bottom line: the opening chapter which concentrates too much on the well-known Marxist delusions and the Soviet doublethink might well be skipped. The meat of Singer's essay begins with Chapter 2, and works very well by itself.
Rating:
Summary: Important For The Left
Review: Much of the Left has treated genetics as a right-wing fabrication by those seeking to protect the status quo or, worse yet, attempting to resucitate the notion of a master race. Of course, this statement should be qualified. The Left has no problems with genetics as long as it is applied exclusively to "physical" characteristics. In this last sentence we can begin to already see the cracks: how can there be such a neat division between the physical and the behavioral? In this IMPORTANT essay, Professor Peter Singer calls on the Left to reconsider its position. Certainly there have been those on the Right who have misinterpreted genetics in order to defend the status quo, defend racism, imperialism, etc; however, it is not reasonable to condemn genetics and the scientists working in that area just because the Right has attempted to appropriate the field for its ideological purposes. That is tantamount, in my opinion, to condemning physics just because some have applied it to militaristic purposes. It is sad to report, but there are a lot of people on the Left- and I am myself a Leftist- who thrive on tired bromides and have little tolerance for complexity. Of course the system, culture, and class that we are born into are important. Very few would deny that. However, these cultural phenomena arise from, conflate with, express and sometimes frustrate certain genetic constants of human nature. Denial of this has already had dire consequences for the Left.
Where has there been a Party or government -Left or Right- that has not been rife with power-seeking, self-interested people?
If aggression were supposed to disappear with socialism, then why
did the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia? Why did China then pillage Tibet, attack India and even make incursions into Vietnam? And for that matter, why were the Chinese and Soviets at each others throats after the early 60s? We on The Left can continue to put our head in the sand and deny the existence of human nature; in the end this will only turn into cynicism or lead others to neoconservatism (the ranks of which are filled with former trotskyists...in the US anyhow).
The wiser choice, as Singer states, would be to take into account this phenomena and reconcile it with our aims of creating a more just society.
Sure, this means admitting that people often act out of narrow self-interest. However genetics reveals another side of human nature also: the cooperative side of human nature. On this theme I would advise a close reading of the works by the biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, especially their "Acquiring Genomes". Singer does not propose a program, but his work does challenge us to begin thinking about this important topic and formulating our tasks accordingly.
Rating:
Summary: Important For The Left
Review: Much of the Left has treated genetics as a right-wing fabrication by those seeking to protect the status quo or, worse yet, attempting to resucitate the notion of a master race. Of course, this statement should be qualified. The Left has no problems with genetics as long as it is applied exclusively to "physical" characteristics. In this last sentence we can begin to already see the cracks: how can there be such a neat division between the physical and the behavioral? In this IMPORTANT essay, Professor Peter Singer calls on the Left to reconsider its position. Certainly there have been those on the Right who have misinterpreted genetics in order to defend the status quo, defend racism, imperialism, etc; however, it is not reasonable to condemn genetics and the scientists working in that area just because the Right has attempted to appropriate the field for its ideological purposes. That is tantamount, in my opinion, to condemning physics just because some have applied it to militaristic purposes. It is sad to report, but there are a lot of people on the Left- and I am myself a Leftist- who thrive on tired bromides and have little tolerance for complexity. Of course the system, culture, and class that we are born into are important. Very few would deny that. However, these cultural phenomena arise from, conflate with, express and sometimes frustrate certain genetic constants of human nature. Denial of this has already had dire consequences for the Left.
Where has there been a Party or government -Left or Right- that has not been rife with power-seeking, self-interested people?
If aggression were supposed to disappear with socialism, then why
did the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia? Why did China then pillage Tibet, attack India and even make incursions into Vietnam? And for that matter, why were the Chinese and Soviets at each others throats after the early 60s? We on The Left can continue to put our head in the sand and deny the existence of human nature; in the end this will only turn into cynicism or lead others to neoconservatism (the ranks of which are filled with former trotskyists...in the US anyhow).
The wiser choice, as Singer states, would be to take into account this phenomena and reconcile it with our aims of creating a more just society.
Sure, this means admitting that people often act out of narrow self-interest. However genetics reveals another side of human nature also: the cooperative side of human nature. On this theme I would advise a close reading of the works by the biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, especially their "Acquiring Genomes". Singer does not propose a program, but his work does challenge us to begin thinking about this important topic and formulating our tasks accordingly.
Rating:
Summary: Integrating leftist politics with evolutionary science
Review: The purpose of this little book (I read it while walking the distance of 22 city blocks on a pleasant late summer day) is to counter some of the fallacies of both the left and the right hold with regard to the use of Darwinism in social science, and to suggest a better uses of evolutionary theory and findings. In it, Singer says that the application of evolutionary theory to the individual person on a micro-economic scale (aka Social Darwinism) is a misreading of the theory of evolution by misguided champions of the right. The survival of the genetic fittest is not equivalent to the survival of the economic fittest. At the micro-level of analysis, cultural evolution and existing economic conditions play a much larger role than genetically heritable traits. The poor aren't poor because they are genetically weak, and the rich aren't rich because they are genetically more fit. Spencer may not have intentionally created Social Darwinism, but there can be little dispute that this form of "common sense" philosophy has arisen, and that it reflects serious misunderstanding of evolution. And there is also little doubt that this ideological thread--that started with misreadings of Spencer and Darwin--continues to this day, and is especially strong in the most reactionary misuses of evolutionary theory. First, whether or not Darwin was a social Darwinist is irrelevant to Singer's point. Darwin's theory of evolution is solid science that has potential implications for human natures and human society. Other writers, politicians and economists created social Darwinism from misuse of evolutionary theory. The existence of social Darwinism as an artifact of the political right is asll that is needed to make Singer's point. Second Darwin's reputed standing as a social Darwinist is not only unsupported by the quote provided by the Australian reviewer below, it is in fact disproven by that quote. Darwin was commenting, quite understandably, on the possible genetic consequences of human medical interventions. When resistance to disease is medically induced, rather than genetically transmitted, the offspring of the survivors will not be "selected" to carry on genetic resistance to the disease. Rather than letting natural selection operate unhindered to continually improve human genetic fitness, cultural intervention creates a bias in the process. It hardly makes Darwin a social Darwinist to have said this, though some of the politically incorrect vocabulary (ie "lower races") he uses may be challenging and alarming to the contemporary reader. Darwin makes just the opposite point from the one that the Australian reviewer seems to think he is making. He is not saying that the "civilized races" genetically superiority to the "lower races" is causing their triumph of population. Instead he is alarmed that medical intervention may be harming the disease resistance of the species, and that the numerical replacement of the "civilized" over the "lower" may indeed be harmful to overall human genetic fitness. But back to Singer. Singer is making the point that evolutionary theory was politically hijacked for the purposes of advancing particular economic agendas. He describes the left's unfortunate reaction to this right-wing misreading of evolutionary theory as the rejection of the potential relevance of evolutionary theory to sociology, psychology and ethical theory. This leftist rejection is perhaps at the root of Richard Lewontin's and Steven Jay Gould's backlash against sociobiology that is well documented in other sources. I think it stems from a well-grounded fear that the murky information available about the genetic foundations of behavior will be hijacked by political activists with potentially tragic results. Gould and Lewontin may therefore be attacking sociobiology and evolutionary psychology not primarily as bad science (which they vigorously assert it is) but more out of fear of its misuse in human affairs. Singer proposes a different approach: we should recognize that human natures are not infinitely malleable; there are tendencies and recurring themes in behavior that play out on a larger historical scale; and the left should strive to understand these undercurrents if it chooses to continue the task of reshaping human culture. Singer uses the example of Marx's virtual debate with Kropotkin to illustrate the risk of ignoring the bases of human natures in the reshaping of culture. Singer's not ignoring the gulags, the genocides, and other sources of massive suffering in communist regimes, instead he's attempting to show that these are the results, at least in part, of the false utopian sense that human natures are completely malleable, and that they can be systematically changed by altering developmental and material conditions. In counterpoint ot Gould and Lewontin, Singer says that ignorance of evolutionary behaviors is just as risky as ideological misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Singer does not say that because evolutionary nature "is" it in turn "ought" be. In fact, he systematically rejects this equation. Instead, he says, if we desire to achieve an ideal "ought" we need first understand the current and histrical "is" and its causes, whether genetic or environmental. Singer wants the left to be effective. He argues that it cannot be so long as it dogmatically rejects some scientific information, theories and hypotheses as politically dangerous and incorrect simply because they are reminiscent of past ideas that were in fact mistaken and dangerous. Ignorance of the implications of evolutionary science, he shows, can be just as dangerous as its misuse. He argues that the left instead should strive to understand what these evolutionary findings can show us about ourselves, and work to use this information in its agenda to improve the human condition. The book is not a piece of meticulous scientific research, perhaps, but rather a call for a change of attitude among scholars and activists. In the execution of this mission, it is compelling and convincing.
| 
