David Philip Barash > Quotes

“Infants have their infancy; adults, adultery.”
― David P. Barash

“It is seductive to be a good listener no less than a questioner, and once again we suspect this is because listening is another sign of reproductively relevant good behavior: taking the time to really listen to someone indicates attentiveness and hence a greater probability of committing oneself to the person being attended to, of being more likely to stick around and help out when things get tough, and so forth.”
― David P. Barash, Madame Bovary's Ovaries: A Darwinian Look at Literature

“It is not necessary for the whole of nature to take up arms to crush him: a puff of smoke, a drop of water, is enough to kill him. But even if the universe should crush him, man would still be more noble than that which destroys him, because he knows that he dies and he realizes the advantage which the universe possesses over him. The universe knows nothing of this.”
― David Barash

“But as we shall see, thanks to recent developments in evolutionary biology combined with the latest in technology, there is simply no question whether sexual desire for multiple partners is "natural". It is. Similarly, there is simply no question of monogamy being "natural". It isn't.”
― David P. Barash, The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People

“In the world of most living things, neediness isn't especially attractive; wealthiness is.”
― David P. Barash, Madame Bovary's Ovaries: A Darwinian Look at Literature

“Fitness is essentially a ratio, with the numerator reflecting the success of genes in projecting copies of themselves into the future and the denominator, the success of alternative genes. Since a gene (or an individual, a population, even—in theory—a species) maximizes its success by producing the largest such ratio, it can do so either by reducing the denominator or increasing the numerator. Most creatures, most of the time, find it easier to do the latter than the former, which is why living things generally are more concerned with feathering their nests than de-feathering those of others.

Because of natural selection, human beings have a capacity to be peaceful and warlike, cooperative and competitive, loving and violent . . . depending upon conditions. Those conditions include but are not limited to the amount and nature of resources available (such as food, mates, living and breeding space), the nature of social expectation, cultural traditions and indoctrination, degree of embeddedness among kin and other reciprocating individuals, and so forth. Like the proverbial cartoon in which both an angel and a devil perch upon each person’s shoulder, whispering in her ears and vying for attention, our evolutionary heritage offers different routes for future behavior, without necessarily predisposing us in any one direction.

Although it is definitely worthwhile to interrogate our evolutionary background for indications as to our predilections, the answer leads us to Jean-Paul Sartre’s famous formulation that human beings are “condemned to be free.” Whether devotees of peace choose to be relieved to learn that we are not biologically obliged to war, or to be distraught that by the same token, we are not unilaterally predisposed, through our biology, to peace, we are all stuck with an obligation (if not necessarily a predisposition) to respond to Sartre’s simple, daunting, existentialist challenge: “You are free. Choose.”
― David P. Barash

“Thus, prior to the cultural homogenization of the last few centuries, upward of 85 percent of human societies were preferentially polygynous. For yet more evidence of our polygynous patriarchy, look at boy-girl differences at the age of sexual maturation. Girls grow up several years earlier than boys, a pattern that is consistent with polygyny in other animals:”
― David Philip Barash, Madame Bovary's Ovaries: A Darwinian Look at Literature

“By contrast, highly defection-prone programs did on occasion defeat their opponents, particularly when paired with others that were excessively forgiving. But when highly aggressive programs encountered each other, the outcome wasn’t pretty: Each got caught up in a string of retaliatory defections so that they both ended up with low, punishing payoffs (mutual P). TIT-FOR-TAT, meanwhile, just kept moving along, defending itself against meanies while rewarding kindlies, and, of course, rewarding itself at the same time (via the comparatively high payoff, R). “Joint undertakings stand a better chance,” we learn from the ancient Greek playwright Euripedes, “when they benefit both sides.”9”
― David Philip Barash, The Survival Game: How Game Theory Explains the Biology of Cooperation and Competition

“But for now, let’s leave it that game theory seems to be a useful tool, not an end in itself. It can help clarify our thinking and, in some cases, even enable us to have a rollicking good time playing with our own minds and seeing familiar things in new ways. It isn’t, however, a holy grail, or even a map for how to find it.”
― David Philip Barash, The Survival Game: How Game Theory Explains the Biology of Cooperation and Competition

“Anyone wanting to get a sense of human nature in, say, the Bronze Age can do no better than to excavate among the words of Homer, or for the Elizabethan Age, Shakespeare.”
― David P. Barash, Madame Bovary's Ovaries: A Darwinian Look at Literature

“Here’s how it works. Peace is generally thought to be the absence of conflict. Moreover, peace is often considered to be more natural than conflict, perhaps because it is more desirable. Fair enough … except that the results of this perspective can be troubling in their own right. If you truly believe that the normal state is for the lion to lie down with the lamb, for people to live together in unconflicted bliss, then you are likely to feel especially annoyed when difficulties arise. As a result, when conflicts of interest emerge—as they inevitably do—well-meaning but disappointed idealists are sorely tempted to blame someone for upsetting the peaceful applecart. Convinced that serious evil is afoot, the next step may be to eradicate the evildoer.”
― David Philip Barash, The Survival Game: How Game Theory Explains the Biology of Cooperation and Competition