Rating: 
Summary: We owe our success as a species to our social instincts
Review: Does true morality exist? Does altruism exist? Does true co-operative spirit exist? Or are all of these mere examples of subtle selfishness? In other words: are moral, altruistic and co-operative looking people just acting these behaviors to manipulate others? Are they in fact being opportunistic and selfish? Many economists claim altruism does not exist. They would say that, even when a person would do a nice thing to another, it would be, in the end, for his own benefit, and thus be an act of subtle selfishness. He would do it to gain the trust of the other person, to make a good impression and build a reputation of friendliness and trustworthiness or perhaps to create a dependency. Most of economic theory is still based upon the idea that people are in the end selfish and opportunistic. These economist call this 'rational'. Matt Ridley does not deny that individuals can act out of selfishness bu he argues that harmony generally prevails over selfishness. This book explains the paradox that our minds have been build by selfish genes to be social, trustworthy and co-operative. He says we owe our success as a species to these social instincts. He explains that morality is the stuff society is made of. In short his argument goes like this: 1. Society is important because is allows for divison of labor. It allows for people to specialize. And the sums of all our specialized efforts are greater than they would be if we all had been generalists. In other words: society is synergy between specialists. 2. In order to have a harmonious society, we have to be well-connected to each other. This requires us to be co-operative, social and trustworthy. 3. Being social, co-operative and trustworthy is a way to thrive and thereby an evolutionairy advantage. These traits are built into our nature by evolution. Matt Ridley carefully argues his case. He uses findings from many disciplines like biology, psychology and economics. Very important parts of this book, and a delight to read, are the chapters where he explains the great work of Robert Axelrod (see: The Evolution of Co-operation, 1984) and the inspiring theory of moral sentiments of economist (!) Robert Frank (see: Passions within Reason, 1988). The message of this book is important. One lesson is that it is wise to teach our children to be good, because in the long run it pays. If you only act rationally (in the sense of the rational man from economic theory) you can only expect to reap short-term benefits. Another wise suggestion is that we need to build our institutions in such a way that they draw out our co-operative instincts (instead of building mechanisms aimed only at suppressing our supposed selfish nature). Ridley: "Pre-eminently this means the encouragement of exchange between equals. just as trade between countries is the best recipe for friendship between them, so exchange between enfranchised and empowered individuals is the best recipe for co-operation. We must encourage social and material exchange between equals, for that is the raw material of trust, and trust is the foundation of virtue." Inspiring material...
Rating:
Summary: Listen and learn from a billion years of evolution
Review: Feel like you are at your favorite professor's best lecture, the one that entertains, teaches and leaves you with that "A-ha! Now I get it" feeling. The chapters are dense with facts on animal biology and social behavior. These are presented through Ridley's libertarian/free market theories and the chapter titles hint at this:
-"Tribal Primates: In which animals cooperate in order to compete"
- "Public Goods & Private Gifts: In which no man can eat a whole mammoth".
Even if you disagree with the ideas the facts are more than `food for thought'-- they are a banquet and you'll love discussing them with others. Yes - it's heavy into the biology; but at each moment I thought I was getting more than I wanted about the mating rituals of ants and bees or the Hadzi and Ache tribes, Ridley turns the corner and makes a point you immediately want to tell to the guy next to you. "Did you know that weaker male baboons gang up in pairs to steal females from older/ stronger males? Or that throughout monkey societies you find this type of cooperation a lot- mostly when they are competing?" Why read this book? The subtitle, Human Instincts & the Evolution of Cooperation, tells you a lot more about the book's value. Scientists have observed behavior throughout the animal kingdom (& replicated theories on lab computers) with particular attention to how animals chose to interact in society and who best survives. Throughout the book there are surprising parallels to human society. And isn't that what we all want? That is to learn how to live here, with others, best. Seems sensible to listen and learn from a billion years of evolution.
Rating:
Summary: Engaging and quixotic arguments, but with rigour underneath
Review: Matt Ridley is a British science journalist who has the estimable quality of relying on facts rather than opinions to make his case. In this short, highly readable book he puts forward the evolutionary biologist's theory for the existence of human cooperation and altruism, and he does it brilliantly. The depth and breadth of material covered is extraordinary, and this book well rewards repeated readings (always the sign of good science writing). From an introductory description of the ideas of Kropotkin, through game theory and Evolutionarily Stable Strategies, to a discussion of free market economics as the 'best fit' to human models of social cooperation, Ridley introduces a wealth of meticulously researched material with sufficient digs at current bien-pensant wisdom on the acquisition of culture to make the average sociologist's hair stand on end. Matt Ridley writes a weekly column (Acid Test) in the UK broadsheet newspaper The Daily Telegraph, and his customary penetrating analysis of accepted cultural and environmental theory is always a joy to read. He brings this penetrating style to bear on some of the shibboleths of modern sociology (there is a particularly devastating broadside reserved for the egregious Margaret Mead and her band of fellow travelers in the 'Culture Makes Mind' school). The book concludes (rashly, as even the author acknowledges) with a defense of economic libertarianism. Ridley attempts to show that the whole panoply of cheater-detectors, enlightened self interest and Ricardo-esque comparative advantage that characterises the evolution-moulded systems of human altruism and socialisation can be used to argue in favour of a market-based, minimally interventionist society in which trade is as little hampered by government (or other) interference as possible. Although attempting to introduce economic theory into a work on biology might seem strange, it links in well with the lessons drawn from earlier sections of the book that demonstrate that extra-group commerce is a uniquely human activity. It should also be remembered that an economic analysis of human nature is far from new: the great F. A. Hayek analysed just such a thesis, although his work predates this book by many years. In summary: a marvellous and rewarding book; extremely highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: read another book by Ridley
Review: Matt Ridley is my favorite popular science writer, but this is his worst book. Maybe it's not that bad, but his others are much better, especially "Genome" and "The Red Queen." Anyway, a lot of research has been done since "The Origins of Virtue" was published. In its time it was better than it is now, but I recommend getting a more recently written book instead. As above, I especially recommend "Genome" and "The Red Queen." But here are some other books you may want to check out before deciding what to purchase: Jared Diamond's classic "Guns, Germs and Steel" Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal" (predates "Origins of Virtue" but is still better) Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" Sarah Hrdy's "Mother Nature" Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained"
Rating:
Summary: read another book by Ridley
Review: Matt Ridley is my favorite popular science writer, but this is his worst book. Maybe it's not that bad, but his others are much better, especially "Genome" and "The Red Queen." Anyway, a lot of research has been done since "The Origins of Virtue" was published. In its time it was better than it is now, but I recommend getting a more recently written book instead. As above, I especially recommend "Genome" and "The Red Queen." But here are some other books you may want to check out before deciding what to purchase: Jared Diamond's classic "Guns, Germs and Steel" Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal" (predates "Origins of Virtue" but is still better) Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" Sarah Hrdy's "Mother Nature" Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained"
Rating:
Summary: Cooperation as selfishness
Review: Matt Ridley poses the intriguing question: If life is a competitive struggle, why are people such eager cooperators?
He proofs convincingly that cooperation is literary part of our nature, but not for virtuous reasons. It is a tool to achieve selfish results and sexual monopoly.
Two cooperating weak individuals are stronger than one brutal one. Therefore, human beings have social instincts and are equipped with predispositions to learn how to cooperate, to discriminate the thrustworthy, to exchange goods and information and to divide labor.
But this cooperation is selective. Human societies fragment into competing groups causing societies to be torn by genocidal feuds, wars, violence, theft, dissensions and inequality.
The solution Matt Ridley proposes for this innate confrontation is far from convincing and narrow minded: 'if we are to build back into society the virtues that made it work for us, it is vital that we reduce the power and scope of the state, (we need) a massive disassembling of the public bureaucracy.' (p. 264). The end of the book is a diatribe against bureaucratization and for privatization.
But privatization favours inequality (the haves over the have-nots) and influences individual connections only within a single state or unity. It doesn't promote exchanges between equals. Or, should the UN, GATT, NATO or the Ministries of Defense be privatized?
The competition between states and/or other authorities (religious, ethnic) is as heavy and deadly as the one between individuals. States intervene in the world to install their hegemony, to protect their markets and basic resources. Within that state, groups (try to) influence the decisions of state authorities to defend their special interests.
What we need are strong international authorities (not private ones) which can turn virtues into rules. But if an individual state feels strong enough to sweep those rules from the table and to impose his interests above those of others, it will do it.
This book is a very mixed bag, but thought-provoking.
Not to be missed.
Rating: 
Summary: A little information, some good, some incorrect
Review: Ridley is at his best when describing the dynamic equilibrium of evolution, as in "Red Queen." In "Origins of Virtue," those portions of the book dedicated to explaining how cooperative behavior can promote the genetic information of the individual are the most instructive. The text suffers from two shortfalls, however. The first problem is that Ridley relies heavily upon anecdotal references, often from personal experience, that may or may not bear any resemblance to what is typical. The second problem, and by far the more damaging to Ridley's credibility, comes when he weighs in on issues of law in general, and property law in particular. From what he writes I would imagine he has no more expertise in these fields than the average homeowner with a mortage. What is especially unfortunate is that most of this discussion is irrelevant to what I might have supposed was the purpose of his book. But, as another review notes, the book, though only 300 pages long, is highly repetitive. It would have been a slight volume, indeed, had all the irrelevant portions been removed.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating and thought-provoking
Review: Ridley says that our behavior is the result of natural selection -- that we behave the way we do because it's been the most successful strategy for passing along our genes. He then tries to apply certain lessons he believes we can learn from that process to social structures. A lot of it is very speculative, but it's quite interesting.
He may be right in his general approach, but I don't share his near-mystical trust in mutation and natural selection. He assumes, for example, that if a creature is better off by adopting behavioral pattern A, then mutation will create and natural selection will prefer pattern A -- no matter what it is. But who says that all possible behavioral patterns can be expressed in our genes?
ISTM that his view of ethics could be compared to Euthyphro's "advantage of the stronger," and may be subject to similar criticisms. Also, I don't see how a high school kid could be convinced to change his behavior on the basis of Ridley-an ethics. "So you're telling me," the kid will say, "that I should do such and so because it was to the selective advantage of hunter-gatherers in the Pleistocene? Give me a break! Your entire scheme is based on one imperative -- that we should do what's most efficient for passing along our genes. I don't care if my genes stop with me, so your system has no moral traction. But thank you for debunking the notion that values and ethics are transcendant. Now that I know the source, I can ignore my conscience with impunity."
A population of youths trained by Ridley would be a scary proposition, IMO. Ridley means well. He wants to establish a solid basis for ethics. But his system can't do it.
Later, Ridley gets away from biology and starts talking about trade and economics. Many of the other reviewers believe this is the weakest part of the book. I disagree. It's the best part! I recommend the whole book, but if you just have time for the important stuff, read from chapter 10 to the end of the book.
Rating:
Summary: Thrilling insights into biology and ethics.
Review: This book is a truly inter-disciplinary venture. It explores evolution (group selection BY survival of it's individuals) and works gradually up into game theory, ethics, human psychology, anthropology and finally, the possible biological origin of good government. Ridleys main argument is to show that human cooperation is not- contrary to popular thought- a biproduct of government and law, but a natural development. What's odd about this is that cooperation seems to come straight out of the prisoners dilemma which is generally depicted as a selfish game. For those not familiar, in brief, the prisoners dilemma is- 2 or more players are in a game. If each cooperates with eachother, they share the reward equally but if one deciedes to cheat the others, she alone gets the full reward. Rationallity dictates that it's in the individuals interst to cheat, getting the full reward. Ridley shows us that emotions, possibly evolutionary ones, come in to counter this and encourage cooperation. In other words, Ridley blows holes in the theory that cooperation comes out of 'group selection'- rather, it comes from individual selection. The only problem with books as inter-disciplinary as this one, is that one doubts from time to time whether the author really knows about biology, government, law, psychology, anthropology, history AND philosophical ethics. I can't say that Ridley is definitely overstretching. His statements do appear sound and error free. Still, his tendency to make sweeping statements in so many fields detracts from his credability. Not enough to loose a star though.
For the interested reader, another great book on the evolution of law as an extention of human nature (coming to much the same conclusion as Ridley's) is Judge Richard Posner's "The Economics of Justice." Albeit a bit more academic and not as coversational, Posner's book serves as a good paralell read to Ridley's.
Rating:
Summary: Generally Good, but with a few problems
Review: This book presents a good and interesting defense of the idea that virtue is innate and humans cooperate with their own self-interest at heart. I think the idea is presented more accurately and better in the words of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, though Ridley conceives of the idea in a few different ways. He relies a bit too much on personal anecdotes and stories, though many of them were very intriguing. However, the problems with the book start when Ridley begins making pronouncements outside of his field of expertise. His chapters on the environment, private property, moral sentiment, and trade make a number of unwarranted political conclusions and at times indulge the naturalistic fallacy. His conclusion that establishing private property will clean up the environment is outright ridiculous. Private property is a fundamental cause of environmental damage due to the pursuit of profit. If Ridley were to take his original arguments and draw a correct conclusion from them, he would have argued for decentralized, communal ownership and not private ownership. Private ownership tends to centralize things (which is what Ridley wanted to avoid in the first place). To summarize, Ridley makes good observations and a good argument, but faulty conclusions.
| 
