A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation

Rating:
Summary: Good, But...
Review: This book is, as another reviewer put it, definitely worth reading. Singer brings to light several important issues that the left certainly needs to address. However, it is not without its flaws.

For one, Singer misrepresents some of Marx's ideas. Marx clearly *did* have a concept of a fixed human nature, albeit that interacted dialectically with its social surroundings. For more on this view, see Marx's Concept of Man by Erich Fromm and The Dialectical Biologist by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin.

Also, Singer relies to heavily on the discredited reductionist approach to biology championed by Dawkins and company.
There is no "nature vs. nurture". There is no linear relationship between genotype and phenotype. Almost everything results from nature *and* nurture. Take, for example, even a simple thing like height: we all have different genetic potentials for growth, but only with proper nutrition can those potentials by fully realized. And today, there are even limb lengthening operations, allowing for the phenotype to be further altered -- without genetic manipulation. One can only imagine the multitude of ways in which environment must, then, impact social and psychological development.

Similarly, Singer uncritically accepts Derek Freeman's attack on Margaret Mead. But, as Martin Orans argues convincingly in his Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans, there's ample reason to doubt Freeman's thesis.

But read it, and make up your own mind.

Rating:
Summary: Good, But...
Review: This book is, as another reviewer put it, definitely worth reading. Singer brings to light several important issues that the left certainly needs to address. However, it is not without its flaws.

For one, Singer misrepresents some of Marx's ideas. Marx clearly *did* have a concept of a fixed human nature, albeit that interacted dialectically with its social surroundings. For more on this view, see Marx's Concept of Man by Erich Fromm and The Dialectical Biologist by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin.

Also, Singer relies to heavily on the discredited reductionist approach to biology championed by Dawkins and company.
There is no "nature vs. nurture". There is no linear relationship between genotype and phenotype. Almost everything results from nature *and* nurture. Take, for example, even a simple thing like height: we all have different genetic potentials for growth, but only with proper nutrition can those potentials by fully realized. And today, there are even limb lengthening operations, allowing for the phenotype to be further altered -- without genetic manipulation. One can only imagine the multitude of ways in which environment must, then, impact social and psychological development.

Similarly, Singer uncritically accepts Derek Freeman's attack on Margaret Mead. But, as Martin Orans argues convincingly in his Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans, there's ample reason to doubt Freeman's thesis.

But read it, and make up your own mind.

Rating:
Summary: "Common Sense" for the 21st Century ?
Review: This is a difficult book to rate in a five star system. Very short (63 pages) it is essentially a political pamphlet or manifesto. To this reader it does this job well. The author starts by identifying what is essential to the Left: being on the side of the weak not the powerful. He then goes on to sift through what remains, discarding and assembling ideas based on evolutionary biology not received political theory. By the time Singer, in the last chapter, lists his principles for a new "Darwinian Left" as opposed to the old Left, he has convinced me. However, I was familiar with much of the biology before.

In attempting to cover three areas, Politics, Evolution and Cooperation, the book is uneven. It is particularly interesting and convincing on some of the political and intellectual history of Marx's relationship to Darwinism and Marx's critics. This is also true when it brings evolutionary evidence to bear in arguing against the perfectibility and the "infinite malleability" of human nature.

On the other hand his discussion of altruism and cooperation, a key part of the book, is sketchy and weak. Sketchy is understandable given the size of the book but his paradigm example of altruism, anonymous blood donation, strikes me as particularly weak. Wouldn't adding a pint of blood to the blood supply, increase the probability of me and my genetic offspring getting a needed transfusion, and thus be in my own self-interest and not altruistic? Singer may be correct but a more detailed explanation is needed to be convincing and for this we must go elsewhere.

Overall the value of this book will be found in the application of its principles and methods of analysis to specific problems. Another book in the Darwinism Today series attempts to do this: Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work by Kingsley Browne. I have also reviewed this book.

Rating:
Summary: "Common Sense" for the 21st Century ?
Review: This is a difficult book to rate in a five star system. Very short (63 pages) it is essentially a political pamphlet or manifesto. To this reader it does this job well. The author starts by identifying what is essential to the Left: being on the side of the weak not the powerful. He then goes on to sift through what remains, discarding and assembling ideas based on evolutionary biology not received political theory. By the time Singer, in the last chapter, lists his principles for a new "Darwinian Left" as opposed to the old Left, he has convinced me. However, I was familiar with much of the biology before.

In attempting to cover three areas, Politics, Evolution and Cooperation, the book is uneven. It is particularly interesting and convincing on some of the political and intellectual history of Marx's relationship to Darwinism and Marx's critics. This is also true when it brings evolutionary evidence to bear in arguing against the perfectibility and the "infinite malleability" of human nature.

On the other hand his discussion of altruism and cooperation, a key part of the book, is sketchy and weak. Sketchy is understandable given the size of the book but his paradigm example of altruism, anonymous blood donation, strikes me as particularly weak. Wouldn't adding a pint of blood to the blood supply, increase the probability of me and my genetic offspring getting a needed transfusion, and thus be in my own self-interest and not altruistic? Singer may be correct but a more detailed explanation is needed to be convincing and for this we must go elsewhere.

Overall the value of this book will be found in the application of its principles and methods of analysis to specific problems. Another book in the Darwinism Today series attempts to do this: Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work by Kingsley Browne. I have also reviewed this book.