Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene

Rating:
Summary: The Tide is Turning
Review: 30 years from now, people will look back on the claims made by sociobiologists today and laugh. This book masterfully demonstrates why.

Rating:
Summary: The Tide is Turning
Review: 30 years from now, people will look back on the claims made by sociobiologists today and laugh. This book masterfully demonstrates why.

Rating:
Summary: Economics and Sex: A Closer Look at Selfish Genes
Review: It is about time someone stood up for the use of solid data to back up "scientific" claims about the human psyche. Niles Eldredge has now written, I think, a nearly perfect rebuttal to the currently popular, but often undocumented, "selfish gene" view of human nature in his new book "Why we do it."

It is obvious to Eldredge that humans are animals. Indeed it has been known since at least the time of the early Greeks that humans were animals. This is thus not a new discovery, whatever the evolutionary psychologists may claim. It is, however, also true that we (and indeed all organisms) are more than the sum of our genes. Sure there is a "Human Nature." Sure we are not born with a "Blank Slate" personality, infinitely malleable. We are, however, more plastic in our behavior than the extreme "selfish gene" concept would allow. We have to have some plasticity in our behavior because we live in a complex society that requires cooperation. It seems to me that our ability to cooperate is thus as much a part of our nature as our "baser instincts." The question that scientists should ask is not whether murder, rape, thievery, and carnage characterize humans, but why most people do not participate in these antisocial activities!

Eldredge touches on many of these problems in his new book, especially in regard to sex and economics. By economics he means the functions (ingestion of food, drinking water, respiration, digestion, elimination of wastes and undigested food) that allow the organism to survive. Without survival there is no reproduction. In his characteristically clear prose he does a good job of demolishing the strict genetic determinist view of human behavior. Indeed, the so-called genetic determinists are not quite so deterministic in their real lives or in the details of their writing. So-called "blank slate" proponents ("environmental determinists") are often equally closer to "genetic determinists" than they or their rivals would like to admit. Much of the hype about human nature being the determinant of every human action, or conversely nurture being paramount, comes from the popular press and the profit motive (ah- proof of human basic depravity!)

Actually I have quite a bit of respect for (although I don't always agree with) many researchers often lumped as evolutionary psychologists, sociobiologists, or ultra-Darwinists (as Eldredge characterizing them). Of these, works by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Daniel Dennett and John Alcock are especially worth reading. Again one has to be careful in characterizing individuals in one "school" of thought as being always in lockstep every other "member." My main gripe is that when some sociobiologists or evolutionary psychologists get carried away by their own rhetoric they will often resort to value-laden anthropomorphic prose (words do matter!), extrapolation beyond their data, and refusal to present valid counter arguments and evidence. Such works, whether based on right or left-leaning political perspectives are nothing more than polemics, and while far too common, have no valid place in science. Despite human failings, the goal of science should be to approach to the closest approximation of reality as possible. Darwin would be appalled by the lack of honest debate often shown in such works! In his "Origin of Species," Darwin summarized and answered (or admitted the apparent validity) of numerous criticisms of his theory.

An example of a spacious argument for a rather bestial human nature is the hypothesis that a tendency to rape is an adaptive feature of human males. I think Eldredge does an especially good job of demolishing this view, based on a critical review written by Frans de Waal. In fact, most rapes do not occur with reproduction in mind as many (if not most) rape victims are either above or below the age of reproduction. Also (although Eldredge mentions it only in passing) many women die as a result of the attack (as the number of young women murdered over the last few years in Juarez testifies), especially in war time. If rape causes pregnancy the fetus is often aborted or the baby is put up for adoption, as noted by Eldredge. When criticized about the fact that rape is obviously currently maladaptive (many, but unfortunately not most, rapists wind up in jail), proponents fall back on the view that it must have evolved back in Pleistocene times, when it was adaptive! How this could ever be documented, short of inventing a time machine, is beyond me. However, as Eldredge points out studies on our close ape relatives and of modern hunter-gatherers do not support the hypothesis. Other rather tenuous arguments for "hard wired" behavioral tendencies have been made by Michael Ruse for wife beating and Stephan Pinker for infanticide.

What it all comes to is that, as near as I can see, humans are a complex weave of genetic and environmental influences that are nearly impossible to separate from each other. Because of this I trust the "expert" no more than I trust religious fanatics or fascists to make social policy.

It is perhaps my own bias that I prefer an at least somewhat indeterminate universe to a totally deterministic one, but I am willing to change my opinion if I am ever shown reasonable evidence that is unequivocal. Certainly Daniel Dennett has tried to make a convincing argument that free will can result from a deterministic system (he can have his cake and eat it too!). At least Dennett is aware of the problem and tries to solve it. However, I (for one) am not yet convinced and Niles Eldredge has, I think, published solid arguments as to why I probably will not be, at least any time soon.

Even if you disagree with him, read this book. For that matter, also read books by Dennett, Hrdy, Alcock, as well as E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr and Richard Lewontin if you are at all interested in the subject. Then make up your own mind!

Rating:
Summary: Economics and Sex: A Closer Look at Selfish Genes
Review: It is about time someone stood up for the use of solid data to back up "scientific" claims about the human psyche. Niles Eldredge has now written, I think, a nearly perfect rebuttal to the currently popular, but often undocumented, "selfish gene" view of human nature in his new book "Why we do it."

It is obvious to Eldredge that humans are animals. Indeed it has been known since at least the time of the early Greeks that humans were animals. This is thus not a new discovery, whatever the evolutionary psychologists may claim. It is, however, also true that we (and indeed all organisms) are more than the sum of our genes. Sure there is a "Human Nature." Sure we are not born with a "Blank Slate" personality, infinitely malleable. We are, however, more plastic in our behavior than the extreme "selfish gene" concept would allow. We have to have some plasticity in our behavior because we live in a complex society that requires cooperation. It seems to me that our ability to cooperate is thus as much a part of our nature as our "baser instincts." The question that scientists should ask is not whether murder, rape, thievery, and carnage characterize humans, but why most people do not participate in these antisocial activities!

Eldredge touches on many of these problems in his new book, especially in regard to sex and economics. By economics he means the functions (ingestion of food, drinking water, respiration, digestion, elimination of wastes and undigested food) that allow the organism to survive. Without survival there is no reproduction. In his characteristically clear prose he does a good job of demolishing the strict genetic determinist view of human behavior. Indeed, the so-called genetic determinists are not quite so deterministic in their real lives or in the details of their writing. So-called "blank slate" proponents ("environmental determinists") are often equally closer to "genetic determinists" than they or their rivals would like to admit. Much of the hype about human nature being the determinant of every human action, or conversely nurture being paramount, comes from the popular press and the profit motive (ah- proof of human basic depravity!)

Actually I have quite a bit of respect for (although I don't always agree with) many researchers often lumped as evolutionary psychologists, sociobiologists, or ultra-Darwinists (as Eldredge characterizing them). Of these, works by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Daniel Dennett and John Alcock are especially worth reading. Again one has to be careful in characterizing individuals in one "school" of thought as being always in lockstep every other "member." My main gripe is that when some sociobiologists or evolutionary psychologists get carried away by their own rhetoric they will often resort to value-laden anthropomorphic prose (words do matter!), extrapolation beyond their data, and refusal to present valid counter arguments and evidence. Such works, whether based on right or left-leaning political perspectives are nothing more than polemics, and while far too common, have no valid place in science. Despite human failings, the goal of science should be to approach to the closest approximation of reality as possible. Darwin would be appalled by the lack of honest debate often shown in such works! In his "Origin of Species," Darwin summarized and answered (or admitted the apparent validity) of numerous criticisms of his theory.

An example of a spacious argument for a rather bestial human nature is the hypothesis that a tendency to rape is an adaptive feature of human males. I think Eldredge does an especially good job of demolishing this view, based on a critical review written by Frans de Waal. In fact, most rapes do not occur with reproduction in mind as many (if not most) rape victims are either above or below the age of reproduction. Also (although Eldredge mentions it only in passing) many women die as a result of the attack (as the number of young women murdered over the last few years in Juarez testifies), especially in war time. If rape causes pregnancy the fetus is often aborted or the baby is put up for adoption, as noted by Eldredge. When criticized about the fact that rape is obviously currently maladaptive (many, but unfortunately not most, rapists wind up in jail), proponents fall back on the view that it must have evolved back in Pleistocene times, when it was adaptive! How this could ever be documented, short of inventing a time machine, is beyond me. However, as Eldredge points out studies on our close ape relatives and of modern hunter-gatherers do not support the hypothesis. Other rather tenuous arguments for "hard wired" behavioral tendencies have been made by Michael Ruse for wife beating and Stephan Pinker for infanticide.

What it all comes to is that, as near as I can see, humans are a complex weave of genetic and environmental influences that are nearly impossible to separate from each other. Because of this I trust the "expert" no more than I trust religious fanatics or fascists to make social policy.

It is perhaps my own bias that I prefer an at least somewhat indeterminate universe to a totally deterministic one, but I am willing to change my opinion if I am ever shown reasonable evidence that is unequivocal. Certainly Daniel Dennett has tried to make a convincing argument that free will can result from a deterministic system (he can have his cake and eat it too!). At least Dennett is aware of the problem and tries to solve it. However, I (for one) am not yet convinced and Niles Eldredge has, I think, published solid arguments as to why I probably will not be, at least any time soon.

Even if you disagree with him, read this book. For that matter, also read books by Dennett, Hrdy, Alcock, as well as E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr and Richard Lewontin if you are at all interested in the subject. Then make up your own mind!

Rating:
Summary: Unstructured rant
Review: The author is his own worst enemy. I would love to get into his argument, but the entire book is poorly structured and has the taste of a religious rant. Chapters give an illusion of order. By page 40 he has said all he had to say, over and over again at every possible opportunity. I have reached half way and am finding it difficult to motivate myself to continue. The stream of conciousness style and repetition makes for heavy going and little new hard material seems to come. I am especially irritated because I got it in hardback and it wasn't cheap. Catchy title, though.

Rating:
Summary: Persistent phrases and polemics
Review: This book is an embarrassment. Using the most misconstrued phrase in biology - "selfish gene" - as a foundation, Eldredge constructs the flimsiest of straw edifices. The structure, named "evolutionary biology" is then subjected to ritual ranting and vituperation. The denunciation focusses on the false idols of Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson. The chorus of the chant is "ultra-Darwinism" - a meaningless term incomprehensibly still in use after a generation without definition. The theme of the exorcism is "economics". In countering what he sees as an established dogma of sex drive and reproduction motivating evolution, Eldredge asserts that all life pivots around its economic environment - food and other resources. How are these obtained, retained and controlled by organisms?

The significant organisms, however, aren't elephants or magpies or scurrying mice. They're humans. This canon of the Gould-Lewontin-Eldredge cabal - keep humans separated from evolution's process - has long been a mainstay. For a book supposedly unveiling the mysteries of evolution's long progression, Eldredge skims over other life in his haste to explain humanity. And he valiantly struggles to do that, but with a novel approach - he focusses on exceptions. In Eldredge's view, the economic foundation of natural selection is manifested in various cultural norms. Not all of these are pleasant, of course. Chinese and Indian cultures weed out daughters [or potential ones] to reduce family costs. To Eldredge, this somehow refutes the notion of DNA's drive to reproduce itself.

An underlying agenda in this book is the long-standing ambition to ease Darwin from centre stage in postulating how evolution works. Darwin fostered "gradualism" and Eldredge was part of the team advocating "punk eek" - the notion that species would reach a state of equilibrium before a "punctuation event" initiated a new type. Darwin wrote of "sexual selection" - almost forecasting how "selfish genes" worked. Eldredge will have none of it, instead postulating that resource demands lead to change. An unfortunate offshoot of his approach is the justification for humans savaging the environment in response to their genetic economic drive. This, of course, is Eldredge's way of undercutting Edward O. Wilson's hopeful proposal of "Consilience" as a means of increasing our knowledge and protecting the biosphere.

Even books intended for general audiences usually include some further reading recommendations. Eldredge can't be bothered with this chore, except for some sketchy entries in his Notes section. His immediate targets are but scantily represented. The true culprits of overstressing the "selfish gene" concept turn out to be media writers, not established researchers. To the initiated, his use of Gabriel Dover in demolishing "ultra-Darwinism" will come as a jolt. This blemish is only one pimple in a deeply flawed and misconceived work. Eldredge fans will rejoice [as will certain anti-conservationists] at this book. Those who've watched the growing wealth of information on animal behaviour, however, will only wonder at his grim tenacity in holding to false concepts. [stephen a. haines, Ottawa, Canada]