The Meaning of Human Existence

The Anthropocene Epoch #2

by Edward O. Wilson

How did humanity originate and why does a species like ours exist on this planet? Do we have a special place, even a destiny in the universe? Where are we going, and perhaps, the most difficult question of all, "Why?"

In The Meaning of Human Existence, his most philosophical work to date, Pulitzer Prize–winning biologist Edward O. Wilson grapples with these and other existential questions, examining what makes human beings supremely different from all other species. Searching for meaning in what Nietzsche once called "the rainbow colors" around the outer edges of knowledge and imagination, Wilson takes his readers on a journey, in the process bridging science and philosophy to create a twenty-first-century treatise on human existence—from our earliest inception to a provocative look at what the future of mankind portends.

Continuing his groundbreaking examination of our "Anthropocene Epoch," which he began with The Social Conquest of Earth, described by the New York Times as "a sweeping account of the human rise to domination of the biosphere," here Wilson posits that we, as a species, now know enough about the universe and ourselves that we can begin to approach questions about our place in the cosmos and the meaning of intelligent life in a systematic, indeed, in a testable way.

Once criticized for a purely mechanistic view of human life and an overreliance on genetic predetermination, Wilson presents in The Meaning of Human Existence his most expansive and advanced theories on the sovereignty of human life, recognizing that, even though the human and the spider evolved similarly, the poet's sonnet is wholly different from the spider's web. Whether attempting to explicate "The Riddle of the Human Species," "Free Will," or "Religion"; warning of "The Collapse of Biodiversity"; or even creating a plausible "Portrait of E.T.," Wilson does indeed believe that humanity holds a special position in the known universe.

The human epoch that began in biological evolution and passed into pre-, then recorded, history is now more than ever before in our hands. Yet alarmed that we are about to abandon natural selection by redesigning biology and human nature as we wish them, Wilson soberly concludes that advances in science and technology bring us our greatest moral dilemma since God stayed the hand of Abraham.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction, Biology, Evolution, Nature, Psychology

207 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2014

About the author

Edward Osborne Wilson, sometimes credited as E.O. Wilson, was an American biologist, researcher, theorist, and author. His biological specialty is myrmecology, a branch of entomology. A two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, Wilson is known for his career as a scientist, his advocacy for environmentalism, and his secular-humanist ideas pertaining to religious and ethical matters. He was the Pellegrino University Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.

Reviews

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Din păcate, în cartea lui Wilson tocmai problema sensului vieții nu e discutată suficient. Știm cu siguranță mai multe despre om decât anticii și medievalii (chiar știm!), dar asta nu înseamnă că sensul vieții noastre a devenit limpede, transparent, vădit: tot nu știm de ce am ajuns aici. Și atunci, ce cuprinde volumul?

A. Generalități nobile despre care nu ai nimic de spus. Le citești și le accepți: „Existenţa umană ar putea fi mai simplă decât credem. Nu există predestinare sau mistere nepătrunse ale vieţii. Demonii şi zeii nu se întrec să ne obţină supunerea. Ne-am creat prin forţe proprii, suntem independenţi, singuri şi vulnerabili...”. Și încă: „Suntem cu toţii himere genetice, sfinţi şi păcătoşi totodată, campioni ai adevărului şi ipocriţi...”. Foarte adevărat! Dar care e sensul existenței umane?

La rândul lui, universul este o colecție de evenimente întâmplătoare. Ceea ce nu înseamnă că nu-i putem prezice (în linii mari) evoluția. Și sfârșitul...

B. Uimiri. Biologii nu au cercetat suficient universul microbilor. Explorarea acestei lumi nu a devenit o prioritate pentru experți, așa încât a rămas „în mare parte încă necunoscută”. Nici lumea virușilor nu ne este mai familiară. Am constatat asta în pandemie. Și totuși: care e sensul existenței umane?

C. Impresii despre lume și om. Deși este o ființă nobilă (sau poate tocmai de asta), omul are un handicap major. În deosebire de celelalte specii, omul se orientează prin văz și auz și foarte puțin (aproape deloc) prin miros și gust: „Sîntem handicapaţi chemosenzoriali”. Universul feromonilor - despre care mi-a atras atenția mai demult semiologul Thomas A. Sebeok - ne rămâne străin: „Peste 99% din speciile de animale, plante, fungi şi microbi se bazează exclusiv sau aproape exclusiv pe anumite substanţe chimice (feromoni) pentru a comunica cu membrii din aceeaşi specie”. Dar cu ce ne ajută acest adevăr să pricepem sensul existenței umane?

D. Rețin și acest amănunt pitoresc. Există o specie de furnici de o ferocitate atroce. Se numesc „furnici legionare”.

Și cam atât...

[David Rubenstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a wonderful little book by a preeminent biologist, Edward Wilson. He has remarkable insights into the world and the nature of progress. If there is a single theme in the book, it is that human progress depends on both science and the humanities. Neither is sufficient by itself. Wilson writes, "The most successful scientist thinks like a poet--wide-ranging, sometimes fantastical--and works like a bookkeeper." In his writing, the scientist must write precisely and avoid metaphor, while in poetry and other creative arts, the metaphor is all-important.

Humans are curious about the world, but mostly we are interested in ourselves. Our self-fascination helps to sharpen our social intelligence, the skill that makes human beings geniuses among all the species on Earth.

Wilson is a renowned expert on the social insects--ants, bees, and termites. He has this fascinating observation; "a major difference between people and ants: where we send our young men to war, ants send their old ladies."

Wilson points out a major error in so many science fiction stories about alien conquerors. Smart aliens would never try to colonize Earth, because Earth would be deadly to them. The alien world would have a radically different origin, molecular machinery, and different pathways of evolution. Their ecosystems would by incompatible with Earth's. The result of colonization "would be a biological train wreck. The first to perish would be the alien colonists."

Like in many of his other books, Wilson points out the fact that Earth's biodiversity is decreasing. Many species are going extinct even before they are discovered. This is a major detriment to the human quality of life, because this deprives us of pharmaceuticals, new biotechnology, and advances in agriculture. Biodiversity has given us antibiotics, agriculture that sustains cities and civilization, domesticated animals, and even the air we breathe.

Wilson points out an interesting question; why do people prefer some habitats to others? Why do we prefer to live near parkland and near a body of water? Wilson claims that it is because of prepared learning. We evolved in certain habitats like the African savanna, and we are best adapted to them. As a result, we intuitively prefer these landscapes above all others.

Wilson also takes some big shots at religion. While he recognizes the great services that religions have provided to humanity, he emphasizes the great evils. He writes, "The great religions are also, and tragically, sources of ceaseless and unnecessary suffering. They are impediments to the grasp of reality needed to solve most social problems in the real world. Their exquisitely human flaw is tribalism." Wilson describes how each religion has its own creation myth, and tribalism encourages discrimination against those who do not share a belief in that myth.

Wilson writes about biological parasites that ensure their own survival with minimum pain and cost to their host. And then Wilson writes about dogmatic parasites, that bring in blind faith in supernatural creation stories. The belief in religious superiority over rival tribes, and the belief in creationism are examples of cultural parasites. These beliefs are a "triumph of blind religious faith over carefully tested fact. It is not a conception of reality forged by evidence and logical judgment. Instead, it is part of the price of admission to a religious tribe."

Wilson sums up his main theme, that cultural parasitism is the denial of a basic tenet of science, that of organic evolution. However, if our species has a soul, it lives in the humanities.

This is a deep, deep book, but is quite accessible. I highly recommend it to all people interested in science, philosophy, and the humanities.

[Clif Hostetler · Rating 3 out of 5]

The narrative in this book reads much like the ruminations of a wise old professor talking about social evolution, the evolution of life, the humanities, instinct, religion, free will, and the fate of human existence. The author draws from a long career as a biologist and naturalists and speaks as one who knows his stuff.

However, he doesn't spend much time addressing the implicit question contained in the title of the book, what is the meaning of human existence? His implicit answer is that humans are the beneficiaries of a long series of accidentally creative steps in evolution and have arrived at a point where we are able to determine much about the universe, life, the past, and the future. We achieve meaning by exploring these subjects to their fullest.

He repeatedly defends the humanities as the ultimate in human creativity, and he frequently mentions his hoped for synthesis of the humanities and science. Science is the striving for knowledge of matter and the universe and ultimately doesn't lead to human creativity because it simply is what it is. In the end the knowledge of science will be the same the world over. However, there's no limit to creativity in the humanities.

The following are selected quotations from the book.

Does humanity have a special place in the Universe? What is the meaning of our personal lives? I believe that we've learned enough about the Universe and ourselves to ask these questions in an answerable, testable form. With our own eyes we can see through the dark glass. fulfilling Paul's prophecy, “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully. even as I am fully known." Our place and meaning. however. are not being revealed as Paul expected--not at all. Let's talk about that. let us reason together.(p 11)

The time has come, I believe, to make a proposal about the possibility of unification of the two great branches of learning. ... Might poets and visual artists consider searching ... the rainbow colors around the outer edges of knowledge and imagination? That is where meaning is to be found.(p 12)

There is no advance design, but instead overlapping networks of physical cause and effect. The unfolding of history is obedient only to the general laws of the Universe. Each event is random yet alters the probability of later events. During organic evolution, for example, the origin of one adaptation by natural selection makes the origin of certain other adaptations more likely. This concept of meaning, insofar as it illuminates humanity and the rest of life, is the worldview of science.(p 13)

Humanity, I argue, arose entirely on its own through an accumulated series of events during evolution. We are not predestined to reach any goal, nor are we answerable to any power but our own. Only wisdom based on self-understanding, not piety, will save us.(p 15)

Are there genes for religiosity that prescribe a neural and biochemical mediation similar to that of music? Yes, says evidence from the relatively young discipline of the neuroscience of religion. ... Altogether, the results of the neuroscience of religion thus far suggest strongly that a religious instinct does indeed exist.(p148)

The brain was made for religion and religion for the human brain.(p 149)

The great religions are also, and tragically. sources of ceaseless and unnecessary suffering. They are impediments to the grasp of reality needed to solve most social problems in the real world. Their exquisitely human flaw is tribalism, The instinctual force of tribalism in the genesis of religiosity is far stronger than the yearning for spirituality. People deeply need membership in a group whether religious or secular. (p 150)

Religious faith offers enormous psychological benefit to the believers. It gives them an explanation for their existence. It makes them feel loved and protected above the members of every other tribal group.(p 152)

Another way of expressing the history of religion is that faith has hijacked religious spirituality. (p 155)

The problem is not in the nature or even in the existence of God. It is in the biological origins of human existence and in the nature of the human mind, and what made us the evolutionary pinnacle of the biosphere. The best way to live in this real world is to free ourselves of demons and tribal gods.(p 158)

Conscious mental life is built entirely from confabulation. It is a constant review of stories experienced in the past and competing stories invented for the future. By necessity most conform to the present real world as best it can be processed by our rather paltry senses. Memories of past episodes are repeated for pleasure, for rehearsal, for planning, or for various combinations of the three. Some of the memories are altered into abstractions and metaphors, the higher generic units that increase the speed and effectiveness of the conscious process.(p 167-168)

To speak of human existence is to bring into better focus the difference between the humanities and science. The humanities address in fine detail all the ways human beings relate to one another and to the environment, the latter including plants and animals of aesthetic and practical importance. Science addresses everything else. The self-contained worldview of the humanities describes the human condition--but not why it is the one thing and not another. The scientific worldview is vastly larger. It encompasses the meaning of human existence--the general principles of the human condition, where the species fits in the Universe, and why it exists in the first place.(p 174)

Humanity arose as an accident of evolution, a product of random mutation and natural selection. (p 174)

The book contains an Appendix titled The Limitations of Inclusive Fitness. The following is Wilson's explanation of why it was included.

Because of the importance of genetic theory used to explain the biological origins of altruism and advanced social organization, and the much publicized controversy surrounding it, I have included here a recent analysis of the theory of inclusive fitness and the reason it should be replaced by data based population genetics.

This appendix material is quite technical. Most laypersons (including myself) will choose to skip it.

[A. Raca · Rating 4 out of 5]

"İnsan asla işçi karıncalar gibi yaşamayacak, her zaman köleliğe karşı ayaklanacaktır."

💚

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Meaning of Human Existence is a collection of essays by a great science writer. Probably never answers the title question, but who cares. I know the answer already anyway.

Individual-Level Selection VS. Group-Level Selection:

Humans are conflicted between the two. On the one hand, we evolved to think about ourselves over others. This might be the side that promoted "sin." On the other hand, we evolved to take care of our groups. This might be the side that promoted virtue, conscience, and honor. So we are forever in this conflict. Individual selection dissolves society. Group selection turns us into ants. In a manner of speaking, of course.

Scientist VS. The Poet:

The scientist relies on demonstrable fact; the poet relies on metaphor.

Gene Substitution:

In the future, we must correct more than a thousand genes for which rare mutant alleles have been identified as the cause of heredity disease. Gene substitution will replace the mutant with a normal gene. Wilson sees no opposition. But I am not so sure.

Immortality:

The only chance for the immortality of our species is on this planet. Amen to that.

So we must do something about the decline in biodiversity or face extinction ourselves. Unfortunately, exploring biodiversity has few friends in the medical or corporate world. Taxonomists are so important. They are able to find out about "keystone species" like the sea otter on the California coast or the beaver's ability to keep water in drought areas.

HIPPO:

The agents of destruction: H is for Habitat loss. I is for Invasive species. P is for Pollution. P is for Population growth. O is for Overharvesting.

Quotation:

"All of man's troubles have arisen from the fact that we do not know what we are and do not agree on what we want to be."--Jean Bruller (pen name Vercors) in his 1952 novel You Shall Know Them.

Ideal Place to Live:

Scientists find that humans prefer three things: 1) a vantage point on a rise looking down, 2) a grassland sprinkled with trees, and 3) a body of water. All probably based on the African savannas of our prehuman days.

Religion

The biochemical reward system that releases the transmitter molecule dopamine within the striatum of the brain, also mediates pleasure in food and sex. Music, food, and sex all have a connection to religion. Music began in Paleolithic times and remains universal in hunter-gatherer societies around the world. In all those societies there exists a connection between music and religion. Of course, there is more to religion, but that connection is important.

Even with the increase in science, the appeal of the supernatural remains. Great religions are a source of both good deeds and terror. Unfortunately, a religious group defines itself foremost by its creation story, the supernatural narrative that explains how humans came into existence. This story is also at the heart of tribalism. It assures its members that God favors them above all others. Other religions follow the wrong gods, use wrong rituals, follow false prophets, and believe fantastic stories.

Religious faith offers enormous psychological benefits to the believers. It explains their existence. It makes them feel loved and protected above all other tribes. It requires unquestioning belief and submission. Any doubts would have hurt the tribe.

As Seneca the Younger said, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

Scientists tend by nature to be cautious in anything they say about religion, even when expressing skepticism. The distinguished physiologist Anton J. Carlson, when asked what he thought of the 1950 ex cathedra pronouncement by Pius XII that the Virgin Mary ascended bodily into heaven, is reported to have responded that he couldn't be sure because he wasn't there, but of one thing he was certain that she passed out at thirty thousand feet.

Virtually all of the major religions have had problems with homosexuality, artificial contraception, female priests, and evolution.

George Washington said, "Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing and ought most to be deprecated."

James Madison agreed and noted the "torrents of blood" arising from religious competition.

John Adams insisted that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954 in response to communism.

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard called the Absolute Paradox: That God could enter the world "just like a person."

Wilson's conclusion: "The best way to live in this real world is to free ourselves of demons and tribal gods."

Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein said in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus that any statement that is true in all situations contains no specific information about any particular situation.

[Jafar · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's nothing in this book that you don't expect from a scientist who only accepts explanations grounded in nature and physical reality: we're a product of evolution and our existence has no preassigned purpose and meaning. The problem with the book isn't just its predictable statements. I'm afraid E.O. Wilson sounds like a broken record. He's written a book titled The Meaning of Human Existence, and he spends nearly half of it promoting group selection and refuting kin selection. I doubt he's forgotten that he's already written another book, The Social Conquest of Earth, entirely dedicated to group selection. He just doesn't seem to be able to stop talking about it. Group selection was out of vogue with biologists, including Wilson himself, but then he changed his mind. Many biologists felt outraged. Richard Dawkins was particularly rough on him. And now Wilson wants to double-down and construct the meaning of human existence on group selection.

[Sara K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved.
Wasn’t religious based which I love yet he included many aspects of science, religious views by others and how they correlate to humanity. There is alien talk, questioning if free will is real or just a figment of humans imagination, as well as marine life and micro organisms plus their importance. None the less it was an extremely easy read and could be put down and picked back up with no confusion.

[L.G. Cullens · Rating 5 out of 5]

Douglas Adams said, "The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is 42." :-)

Of course the writing of Douglas Adams and Edward O. Wilson are worlds apart in intent. I found this book interesting and informative, though it necessitates careful reading to appreciate all that E. O. Wilson says. I believe this book should be read by all that are interested in our futures. If you have read Richard Dawkins, it would behove you to also read this book to get a more balanced appreciation of the progress of evolutionary science.

In the following, I include paraphrasing of passages from the book to give you and inkling of what to expect, hopefully whetting your interest. To me, his writing is well organized, and is neither overly concise, nor rambling. Unless you have some familiarity with evolutionary biology though, you may need a dictionary or Wikipedia at hand.

As the lead in to this book states, history makes little sense without prehistory, and prehistory makes little sense without biology. Knowledge of prehistory and biology is increasing rapidly, bringing into focus how humanity originated and why a species like our own exists on this planet.

In setting the tone of the book, he explains that the ordinary usage the word "meaning" implies intention, intention implies design, and design implies a designer. There is a second, broader way the word "meaning" is used though, and a very different worldview is implied. It is that the accidents of history, not the intentions of a designer, are the source of meaning. In this broader use of the word "meaning" there is no advance design, but instead overlapping networks of physical cause and effect. During organic evolution, for example, the origin of one adaptation by natural selection makes the origin of certain other adaptations more likely. This concept of meaning, insofar as it illuminates humanity and the rest of life, is the worldview of science.

The French writer Jean Bruller (pen name Vercors) was on the right track when, in his 1952 novel You Shall Know Them, he declared, "All of man’s troubles have arisen from the fact that we do not know what we are and do not agree on what we want to be." Human nature is the ensemble of hereditary regularities in mental development that bias cultural evolution in one direction as opposed to others and thus connect genes to culture in the brain of every person.

One important point I was happy to see, is his explanation of the fauna and flora of any ecosystem being far more than collections of species (which we don't know near the whole of). Ecosystems are complex systems of interactions, where the extinction of any species under certain conditions could have a profound impact on the whole, and ultimately ourselves. Extinction rates are 100 to 1,000 times higher than before the global spread of humanity, and will increase with human induced climate change.

To my amusement, in one chapter he even delves into the inanity of our imaginative science fiction, but I doubt that will change our subjective alternate reality longings. One faulty perception is that of those who believe humanity can emigrate to another planet after using up this one. Those whose imagination ignores that two living worlds, ours and another, are in all probability radically different in origin, molecular machinery, and the endless pathways of evolution that produced the life-forms thereon. Thus the ecosystems and species of an alien world would be wholly incompatible with our own and the result would be a biological train wreck. H. G. Wells was at least on the right tract back in the 1890s with The War of the Worlds.

Another chapter dissects religion, and how it fosters much of the animosity in the world. The Founding Fathers of the United States understood the risk of tribal religious conflict very well, but we have regressed since to the point of the consequences we see today.

In yet another chapter he delves into what we think of as Free Will. Did you know that half of the twenty thousand to twenty-five thousand genes of the entire human genetic code participate in one manner or other in the prescription of the brain-mind system, and this amount of commitment has resulted from one of the most rapid evolutionary changes known in any advanced organ system of the biosphere. Philosophers have labored off and on for over two thousand years to explain consciousness (their job). Innocent of biology, however, they have for the most part understandably gotten nowhere.

One thing he focuses on at various points of this writing is recombining the humanities and science, as began in the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries), but faltered in the 19th century Romantic transition (feelings through creative art). For the next two centuries and to the present day, science and the humanities went their own ways. This to me, the eclipsing of objective thinking in the broader populace with subjective perspectives, yet how can we have one without the other? The greatest contribution that science can make to the humanities is to demonstrate how bizarre we are as a species, and why, but understanding that as yet takes more fortitude and forthrightness than we seem to be able to muster in too many. The meaning of human existence cannot be explained until “just is” (Romanticism) is replaced with “just is, because” (Enlightenment). Only then can we begin to understand and compensate for our self-destructive proclivities. It was only after eons of time, during which millions of species had come and gone, that one of the lineages, the direct antecedents of Homo sapiens, won the grand lottery of evolution. The payout was civilization based on symbolic language, and culture, and from these a gargantuan power to extract the nonrenewable resources of the planet—while cheerfully exterminating our fellow species.

All of the points he focuses on lead to a final section and chapter entitled "A Human Future," which I found well examined.

[Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Throughout his distinguished career, Edward O. Wilson has brought a vast wealth of interdisciplinary knowledge to bear on some of humanity’s most complex and pressing questions. The Meaning of Human Existence is his most philosophical work, and contains many worthwhile insights about humanity’s origins and possible futures. Wilson’s method, best characterized as a kind of “biohistory,” integrates findings from the natural sciences with humanitarian wisdom to achieve a long view of the human story.

Wilson, who was falsely accused of bigotry in the 1970s for his Pulitzer Prize-winning book On Human Nature , has always been ahead of the curve in understanding evolution. Reminding a “blank slate” culture about the considerable influence of evolution and genetics on human behavior was his 20th century achievement, but Wilson’s grand project since the turn of the millennium has been promoting yet another paradigm shift: the transition away from kin selection and the inclusive fitness model in favor of multilevel selection. Wilson and his collaborators claim that multilevel selection explains the tension between competitive instincts that cause conflict within human communities and cooperative instincts that bind them together. Genes (or groups of genes) are selected not only for their ability to support the survival of oneself and one’s kin, but also for their ability to generate collaborative behaviors that cause certain human groups to triumph over or outlast others. Individual and group selection take place concurrently as people compete for resources and status while simultaneously banding together to defend their common interests against hostile groups. This perennial conflict, Wilson suggests, is the humus that makes fertile the garden of human joy and suffering.

Multilevel selection theory has come under fire from many big names in biology, but as a non-scientist who is unfamiliar with the mathematical models that supposedly prove or disprove its veracity, I’ll confess to accepting Wilson’s view as an appeal to authority. He has been right in the past and may very well be so now. I won’t be making any bets, but if I did my money would be on multilevel selection’s eventual vindication.

Although multilevel selection helps explain humanity’s vacillation between selfish impulses and altruistic ones, not all of the ideas put forth in this book are equally useful. Wilson exudes a tender humility in his best moments, but also occasionally falls back on Enlightenment notions of human dominance over nature. For example: “The evolutionary innovations that made us dominant over the rest of life also left us sensory cripples” (90). Even in light of our vast influence on Earth��s biosphere, most insidiously embodied in anthropogenic climate change, it is absurd to characterize us as “dominant over the rest of life.” “We have become the mind of the planet and perhaps our entire corner of the galaxy as well,” Wilson writes in another section. “We can do with Earth what we please” (176). I suppose that’s technically true in the short run, but if we don’t learn how to better live within certain consumptive limits, our ability to do “what we please” will rapidly evaporate.

These sentiments resonate with Wilson’s willingness to gloss over the exploitative/extractivist aspects of scientific progress: “The circumnavigation of Africa and the discovery of the New World led to new, global trade routes and expanded military conquest. The new, global reach was a turning point in history that placed a premium on knowledge and invention. Now we are launched into a new cycle of exploration––infinitely richer, correspondingly more challenging, and not by coincidence increasingly humanitarian” (52). Wilson’s not spinning untruths here, but he’s also not acknowledging some inconvenient parts of the story, namely the West’s unprecedented exploitation of other humans and the natural environment in the name of “progress.” This includes the less savory elements of modern globalization, which can only be characterized as “increasingly humanitarian” with blinders on. I agree with those who think human life is genuinely better today for most people than in past epochs, but I also think this reality was shaped by many brave people over generations who heartily decried the very horrors and hardships Wilson seems content to ignore.

I take issue with the above sentiments not because I think they justify dismissing Wilson’s outlook, but because I find them strangely antithetical to his prevailing tone, which champions biodiversity and implores human civilizations to be more thoughtful about how we treat one another and other species: “Even in purely economic terms, the opportunity costs of extinction are going to prove enormous. Research on just small numbers of wild species has yielded major advances in the quality of human life…Without nature, finally, no people” (127). This more balanced, relational attitude is where Wilson’s true import shines through.

There are two additional issues where I find myself at least in partial opposition to Wilson. The first is the question of whether humans will begin using technology to consciously manipulate our genome in hopes of improving and hastening our evolutionary development. Wilson is hostile to this idea, and also seems to think intelligent extraterrestrials would share his views: “I believe it would be unnecessary for our species’ survival to retrofit the human brain and sensory system…We will choose to retain the uniquely messy, self-contradictory, internally conflicted, endlessly creative human mind that exists today…We will be existential conservatives…And I find it comforting to believe that smart E.T.s, wherever they are, will have reasoned the same way” (118-9). Even before jumping into the murky question of whether humans ought to use technology to augment genetics and intelligence, stating that we are already doing so and will almost certainly keep it up in the future is more descriptive than speculative. Although conscious evolution should be undertaken with great caution and its benefits distributed as democratically as possible, humans have never allowed risk to preclude innovation and opportunity, and I see no reason why we would start now. And although conscious evolution may not prove necessary for humanity’s survival, who’s to say it shouldn’t be explored for experimental or recreational purposes?

Wilson conflates the manipulation of human nature with its domestication: “We must learn to behave, but let us never even think of domesticating human nature” (180). Conscious evolution will be a nonlinear process with many missteps along the way, but I believe it will ultimately empower individuals and communities with greater autonomy, sustainability, stability, and experiential richness. These goals will be achieved by extending human creativity rather than muzzling it, by solving conflicts of scarcity so we can better articulate conflicts of the human spirit. Further, I believe all of this can be done without gross exploitation of the environment, and in a way that makes us more aware of our profound interdependence with the rest of life on Earth. As Wilson seems to fear, we might wake up one day in the far future and discover that we’re not quite human anymore––but isn’t that how evolution works?

My final criticism is that Wilson’s definition of “superorganisms” is not sufficiently broad. As a renowned entomologist, Wilson knows more than almost anyone about ants and other eusocial insects, which clearly behave in ways that constitute superorganic entities. But he is dubious about the capability of humans, who he also classifies as eusocial, to form superorganisms of our own: “We, unlike social insects, are too selfish to behave like cells in an organism. Almost all human beings seek their own destiny. They want to reproduce for themselves…They will always revolt against slavery; they will not be treated like worker ants” (100-1). This is an oversimplification. Yes, humans do appear to seek our own destinies, but scientists such as Wilson himself have revealed just how much of that process is determined by our biology, not to mention cultural traditions and expectations. And when faced with dire conditions or sumptuous rewards, it seems to me that many people will tolerate being treated like worker ants, or whatever their human equivalent might be.

Nation-states, corporations, religions, social networks––all of these can be classified as human superorganisms. Given sufficient complexity, human organizations can begin to exhibit emergent properties that favor the priorities of the institution over those of individual constituents (just look at the current US Congress!). Participation in such organizations often demands that people to give up certain freedoms or even act directly against their own self interest. From our comparatively enlightened perspective, it’s easy to view worker ants as selfless drones with which humans––so utterly intricate and individualized––have little in common beyond mere participation in a species made successful by hyper-socialization. But it’s much harder (probably impossible in the fullest sense) to grasp the scope of how thoroughly we are embedded in and subservient to natural and cultural systems that are massively larger, more complex, and perhaps even aware of radically different curiosities and motivations than our singular selves. We’ve only just begun to scratch the surface of that ever elusive but endlessly fascinating question, now pursued via scientific investigation after millennia of mindless mysticism: “Who’s driving this thing, anyway?”

It’s fun to reconnoiter the chinks of Wilson’s otherwise impressive intellectual armor, but it would also be insincere not to register my hearty concurrence with this book’s final and most important message. Wilson posits that while major scientific discoveries “will ease off and begin to decline in number,” the humanities “will continue to evolve and diversify indefinitely” (185). Storytellers might draw from a much simpler bag of tricks than the laws of nature, but their products are nevertheless humanity’s most basic and essential obsession. The meaning of human existence is not singular, but rather a font of self-generated declarations of significance––the best of which spring from fusions of empirical inquiry and bold imagination: ”If the heuristic and analytic power of science can be joined with the introspective creativity of the humanities, human existence will rise to an infinitely more productive and interesting meaning” (187). Spirited cross-fertilization between the sciences and humanities could revive stagnant academic pursuits, reduce friction within and between human communities, deepen our understanding of the universe, and drive human narrative toward a more diversified and fulgent future. Great thinkers like Edward O. Wilson will help us get there.

This review was originally published on my blog, words&dirt.

[Osama Siddique · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a tour de force this book is. Science, philosophy, social sciences, humanities - so many deeply informed perspectives combined to take a hard look at who we are and where we are headed. One of the world's preeminent biologists and naturalists Edward O. Wilson is only one of two writers to have won two Pulitzers for his popular science books, which underlines his ability to write so intelligibly for the non-technical readers. Written lucidly and with great precision and insight, the relatively slim volume engages with themes of tremendous scientific and metaphysical significance and persuade one to look at things very differently.

His essential starting point, which he then elaborates upon at great length and substantiates further is:

"Humanity, I argue, arose entirely on its own through an accumulated series of events during evolution. We are not predestined to reach any goal, nor are we answerable to any power but our own. Only wisdom based on self-understanding, not piety, will save us. There will be no redemption or second chances vouchsafed to us from above. We have only this one planet to inhabit and this one meaning to unfold."

However, despite a convergence of sorts of this starting point with those of the ilk of Richard Dawkins, he is not bitterly engrossed in producing diatribes against theism and faith systems. Indeed, his is a much gentler, joyous, and non-confrontational exploration of what life means and can mean if indeed it is in existence without a divine design and intervention.

Though a big devotee of the value of humanities, he essentializes the significance of biology to understanding the present human condition. While humanities, he says, have described human nature in endless permutations; however, why do we possess a particular nature from amongst vast possibilities is a question that it does not address. In order to answer that one cannot be restricted to six millennia of human civilization but has to examine hundreds of millennia. 'Eusociality' - or 'true' social condition, is behind most complex societies and has been found in other animals (though an oddity still as only 19 from amongst hundreds of thousands of revolving lines of animals in past 400 million years have been identified as having it; humans are the 20th). Members of a eusocial group, Wilson says, cooperatively rear the young across multiple generations. Further, division of labor enhances their 'reproductive success.' Known eusocial species emerged very late in the history of life. And such species, Wilson tells us, have dominated (ants and termites are the only two such species amongst insects and they comprise more than half of the global insect body weight). Wilson goes on to explain the various factors that led to the emergence of eusocial species.

One of the most significant dimensions here is his explanation of 'multilevel selection' - an idea that has potently challenged the traditional theory of 'inclusive fitness,' and of which Edward O.Wilson is one of the main scientific proponents - which asserts that natural selection takes place at two levels: individual selection based on competition and cooperation between the same group and group selection that arises from competition and cooperation between groups. This new idea in evolutionary biology explains why what may work at an individual level in terms of selfishness may lead to extinction at the group level (that may require altruism and cooperation if the group does not want to be decimated by competing groups). Underlining the value of both understanding the role of evolutionary biology as well as humanities, Wilson is a strong advocate for combing both to better understand human social behavior.

In subsequent chapters, Wilson further elaborates upon this two-tiered dimension of human evolution that creates what we refer to as internal conflicts - and many look upon as a contestation between our noble self and our ignoble side; between good and evil.

"Human existence may be simpler than we thought. There is no predestination, no unfathomed mystery of life. Demons and gods do not vie for our allegiance. Instead, we are self-made, independent, alone, and fragile, a biological species adapted to live in a biological world."

According to Wilson, our intense, even obsessive interest in other people; our overpowering instinctual urge to belong to groups (and that too mostly those who look like us, speak the same dialect, hold same beliefs - traits that have generated abysmal eras of racism and tribalism); the fact that within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals but groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals; and, the conflicts created by our prehistory of multilevel selection are factors that define who we are as humans. Thus, we are ever torn between giving in completely to individual selection that would dissolve society and surrendering to urgings from group selection that would make us angelic robots. This eternal conflict, Wilson says, is not God's test of humanity or a machination of Satan. It is just the way things worked out. Thus, through plainly explained insights in Part 1 The Reason we Exist, Wilson brilliantly questions extant forms of human knowledge and their limited scope to fully explore the meaning of human existence. At the same time he categorizes all that have been traditionally explained in religious, metaphysical and personality terms as essentially an inherent contradiction that owes itself to our manner of biological evolution.

In subsequent parts: II. The Unity of Knowledge; III. Other Worlds; IV. Idols of the Mind; and V. A Human Future, Wilson refers back to and employs this fundamental framework and offers more insights into and ideas about, inter alia, how we ought to approach knowledge; what firmly held notions need questioning; whether we have any prospects of ever leaving our planet and making intergalactic journeys to settle beyond the stars; and, what the most meaningful way would be to approach our future in the absence of evidence of divine intervention, as well as our existence being restricted to the planet we evolved on. These are in many ways disturbing and rather belittling thoughts and strongly assail and expose our anthropocentricity and our very limited sensory capacity which means that we don't detect vast realms of experience and stimuli open to say the insects, including the world of pheromones. Wilson provides some enthralling examples of how other forms of life interact with this world. Wilson is also the foremost global authority on ants and explores this strange and complex world. The menu of fascinating topics is vast: he dwells on why microbes rule the galaxy; what potential ETs could look like; why our planet has not been colonized and why galactic conquests haven't happened; why would we always like to hold on to our nature and minds as we evolve further - self-contradictory and internally conflicted but unique as they are; the adverse human impact on bio-diversity; our less than minuscule existence against the unimaginably grand scale of the cosmos; and, our dangerously limited wisdom as well as long-held notions of grandeur, centrality and significance. Yet Owen also finds great value and worth still in human existence and the need for us to embrace and build on that.

Regarding the evolution of the human brain and human nature he discusses various perspectives scientific and philosophical and arrives at:

"Human nature is the ensemble of hereditary regularities in mental development that bias cultural evolution in one direction as opposed to others and thus connect genes to culture in the brain of every person." Human nature says Wilson cannot be deconstructed into non-existence, for it is real, tangible and a process that exists in the structures of the brain. His chemical and neurological explanation of religion is also fascinating; a phenomenon that he says is also cultural and historical.

"The brain was made for human religion and religion for the human brain."

Unusually for a scientist, he exhorts the value of speaking aloud about and candidly holds forth on the boons and banes of religion; its social and psychological benefits for the believers; the fact that it is biologically understandable as a Darwinian device for survival and reproduction. At the same time, he laments sectarianism, essentially a conflict between those faithful to different myths and also faith hijacking religious spirituality. Further, a fascinating section of the book deals with the physical basis of consciousness of which free will is a part. He critically examines the approaches of neuroscientists and philosophers and tells us about the ambitious Brain Activity Map Project (BAM Project akin in ambition to the Human Genome Project but much more complex).

We are alone and free in the universe - with all our species' dysfunction and hereditary biases and us hardwired to be both noble and ignoble. Given this we can still have a fairly exciting destiny according to Wilson, if only we would start recognizing who we truly are.

Stripped of cultural, social, religious & philosophical wrappings and explanations, Edward O Wilson provides a brilliant evolutionary and neurobiological view of who we are and why we are the way we are, while underlining the value of employing humanities with science to examine ourselves. What emerges are behaviors and a nature that according to Wilson can be fully explained by our evolutionary turns. If not by divine design is this then who we ultimately are and what of it then? A brilliant, troubling but also hard to ignore scientific explanation.

[David Teachout · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the difficulties in modern science is the hyper-specialization that, with some good reason, has had to happen. Unfortunately a side-effect in this is the further distancing between the realm of science and the common populace identification with it. The result is a social separation that is not at all helpful and leads to a felt support in the ridiculous claim that science is incapable of providing any meaning or even the means of determining meaning. Wilson knocks this false claim down, smothers it in the passion of a man who loves science for the sake of understanding his existence and moves on with an appreciation for the continued pursuit of knowledge. Whatever one may agree with particular stances on evolutionary biology that Wilson takes, what cannot or should not be denied is the claim and pursuit of life's meaning through the lens of an ever-increasing understanding of human existence.

[Richard Block · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening

One of the world's great scientists has written, in all probability, his last book. E.O. Wilson is in his 90's, and it would be difficult to choose a topic more fitting to the end of his life's journey than this unusual combination of hard science and speculation.

Wilson in not only the world's premier insect scientist, he is a founder of sociobiology and one of the great public intellectuals on evolutionary biology. He writes with charm and great depths of hard earned knowledge about his chosen fields (especially ants and termites) and extends into humans with ease. So...what is the meaning of human existence?

Wilson believes that mankind evolved as the premier species on Earth due to the eternal conflict between individual drives and collective cooperation - one that will never cease. We have both a big brain that drives our unique individual progress, and developed the collective eusociality (co-operation for the group's success) that only 19 other species also share (like ants and termites, who have tiny brains). This unique combination drives progress, and is in constant conflict. It also means we have difficulty reaching our potential and making rational choices. Religion is a major negative, as it re-inforces tribalism which divides people into in groups and out groups. It is part of the human condition that Wilson wishes we could leave behind.

Wilson is an old ally of Richard Dawkins (as you can see, they share a similar view of religion), but the two great science writers have fallen out over kin selection (once one of Wilson's core beliefs, but now, he claims is unfounded by evidence). Despite his years, Wilson has remained a hard scientist, and has been testing kin selection for over a decade and found it wanting. Dawkins is much more the public face of science and has clung to kin selection (as have many others) in the face of Wilson's strong case against. Like in The Social Conquest of the Earth, this takes up quite a bit of space in this short volume, as it is so critical to Wilson's late thinking.

This book is different from any other I've read by Wilson - he advocates the bringing together of the humanities and science, so long separated since the Enlightenment. He first posited this idea in Consilience (in the 1990's) and develops this idea even further. Unlike most scientists, Wilson venerates the humanities (what makes us different) while basing most of what he believes science is about (defining reality). He lets his hair down on the question of ET life (must be some, but not like we think). He thinks we are most probably alone in the universe and gives pretty good reasons why. He tells us how badly we are screwing up the environment, and what our limits are.

Don't expect this book to answer the question - we are the result of some very unlikely evolutionary accidents, and there is no God who made us, judges us, or guides us. If this is your first book by Wilson, think again. Much better start with Sociobiology, Consilience, The Social Conquest of the Earth, etc. On it's own, this is not a 5 star effort. But as a culmination of a lifetimes' writing on science, this is a delightful read, short, to the point, full of ideas and bold as it gets

[Mehmet]

"Er ya da geç, içimizdeki kargaşayla birlikte yaşamanın ve hatta onu yaratıcılığımızın kaynağı olarak görmenin bir yolunu bulabileceğimize inanıyorum." (s.28)

Yazarın çeşitli dergilerdeki nispeten farklı konulara değinen yazılarının bir araya getirildiği kitap özelde insan varlığının anlamını sorarken; genelde bilim felsefesi, yöntem, sosyal bilimlerin işlevi gibi konuları da içeriyor.

Kitapta yazarın uzmanlık alanı olan karıncalara bolca yer verilirken; yazarın teorisi olan "Kapsamlı Uyumluluk Teorisi" ve bununla ilgili tartışmalar da ön plana çıkıyor. Bu teoriye ait makalesi kitaba ek olarak eklenmiş.

Başlığı her ne kadar iddialı olsa da popüler bilim kitaplarında okuduğumuz konulardan aşina olduğumuz şeylere fazlaca ilave yapmayan kitabın anlatım ve ilgi çekicilik açısından sönük kaldığını söyleyebilirim. Uzayda yaşam olsaydı ne olabilirdi? Temalı bölüm ise fazlaca spekülatif kalmış ve kitabın bilimsel havasına uymuyor.

M. B.

[Danielle · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really like E.O. Wilson. This book seems like a retread of his earlier ideas. It could be enlightening for someone with no background at all in biological or evolutionary science but I really didn't find anything new here. The exploration, such as it is, of the interplay of science and humanities was lacking in depth. This seems like a compilation of excerpts from Wilson's other books and articles. Read those if you want a better, more in-depth look into the sociobiological and humanistic ideas for which Wilson is known throughout the scientific community.

[Mag · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this crossover of philosophy and science, Wilson says to humanity, Know thyself, and thou shalt survive. Know that some of your behaviours are inborn, your propensity for religion is hard-wired albeit irrational, know that the Earth is the only habitable planet for you. The behaviours that guide you come in part from the natural selection that worked on the individual and in part from group selection. Those that we came to see as vices come from an individual's fight for survival; those that we see as virtues: altruism and compassion, for example, from group selection. Selfish members win within groups, but groups of altruists best groups of selfish members. Otherwise, the future is bleak. There is an overwhelming chance we as a species will not survive.

Overall, after a somewhat pompous and preachy beginning, we have an eloquent treatise dealing with our place in the universe and the meaning of our existence. The meaning, which Wilson defines in most humanistic and atheistic terms. He argues that we are a product of natural laws and evolution and there are no deities to take care of us, or second comings. This is it. Wilson condemns religion very strongly, yet, unlike Dawkins, he manages to do it without offending anyone. He makes religious leaders responsible for keeping humans in tribal mindset, which in turn keeps us locked in the type of mentality that prevents global peace and conservation efforts. We need the second enlightenment, he argues- we need to realize that not everybody thinks the same way, and that there may be subtle genetic causes for it. He also argues that we need both science and humanities to come together again to brace with the meaning of our existence.

Nothing very new overall, a continuation of much disputed by some advocacy for the multilevel theory of natural selection that selects both for the individual and the group traits that Wilson discussed in detail in his The Social Conquest of Earth .

I would definitely recommend it even if only for its unsentimental humanistic message, but I also find it quite thought provoking on other levels.
4.5/5

[Sebastian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Edward Wilson is considered one of the leading biologists of the 20th century and also the father of sociobiology and biodiversity. He was a professor at Harvard University for 40 years and won 2 Pulitzer prizes.
After all his years of research and study he thought that he could explain the meaning of human existence and so he wrote and published this book.

From what i've seen in other reviews a lot of people were expecting to find a, let's call it classical, speculation on the meaning of life, derivative from philosophy, religious or methaphysical point of views, even though, Wilson, right from the start, warns us that he will address this from a scientifical/biological perspective only, because that's the only one that makes sense, or exists.

And actually the answer is pretty simple: the meaning of human existence, just like the meaning of all other lifeforms is and can be only one: survival!

But he puts this into context and so he tries to explain our place in this world while giving us plenty of really interesting pieces of information like: why do people find beautiful sceneries that have a high vantage point, trees and a body of water; why is there a perpetual conflict inside of most humans between what is considered a sin and what is considered virtuos? You can find the answer in biology and evolution, hence, that's why the meaning of our existence can and is to be found in this scientific explanation.

Even though he insists on the importance of science and scientific reasoning in our society, from the beginning of the book, until the end, he emphasizes the importance of humanities in our evolution and future survival, because the humanities is what actually makes us special and different.

He also addresses some serious question about religion and while he recognizes the enormous benefits it has brought us, he highlights that it's also the main source of our past, current and future problems, claiming that religion is no more than the manifestation of the tribal instinct that resides in all humans.

The main problem i had with this books is that it was too short considering the themes of it's discourse. Also, he might seem a bit preachy at times, even though i had no problem with that.

“to get hold of the human condition, we need next a much broader definition of history than is conventionally used.”

“Human existence may be simpler than we thought. There is no predestination, no unfathomed mystery of life. Demons and gods do not vie for our allegiance. Instead, we are self-made, independent, alone, and fragile, a biological species adapted to live in a biological world. What counts for long-term survival is intelligent self-understanding, based upon a greater independence of thought than that tolerated today even in our most advanced democratic societies.”

“The true cause of hatred and violence is faith versus faith, an outward expression of the ancient instinct of tribalism.”

“The great religions are also, and tragically, sources of ceaseless and unnecessary suffering. They are impediments to the grasp of reality needed to solve most social problems in the real world. Their exquisitely human flaw is tribalism. The instinctual force of tribalism in the genesis of religiosity is far stronger than the yearning for spirituality. People deeply need membership in a group, whether religious or secular. From a lifetime of emotional experience, they know that happiness, and indeed survival itself, require that they bond with others who share some amount of genetic kinship, language, moral beliefs, geographical location, social purpose, and dress code—preferably all of these but at least two or three for most purposes. It is tribalism, not the moral tenets and humanitarian thought of pure religion, that makes good people do bad things.”

“The human impact on biodiversity, to put the matter as briefly as possible, is an attack on ourselves.”

“In a nutshell, individual selection favors what we call sin and group selection favors virtue. The result is the internal conflict of conscience that afflicts all but psychopaths, estimated fortunately to make up only 1 to 4 percent of the population. The products of the opposing two vectors in natural selection are hardwired in our emotions and reasoning, and cannot be erased. Internal conflict is not a personal irregularity but a timeless human quality. No such conflict exists or can exist in an eagle, fox, or spider, for example, whose traits were born solely of individual selection, or a worker ant, whose social traits were shaped entirely by group selection.”

[Elizabeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

Up front disclaimer: I have a Master of Divinity degree. That being said, I am a science enthusiast and read Scientific American regularly. I hoped this book would be a thoughtful examination of the inter-play of science and religion. Instead I found it to be an arrogant argument for science as the path to truth with the humanities as the discipline that keeps humans interesting. I was not persuaded by Wilson's argument, but more than that I was left wondering why this book is called The Meaning of Human Existence. This wasn't a reflection on that topic, which was disappointing.

[Jason · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nothing new here. On top of the unpleasant writing style, the author offers nothing really new or innovative to the conversation, and at times goes off the subject. One chapter is dedicated to guessing what E.T.s would look like. This is a filler chapter, skip it. In the end, this book may be a good read for people beginning to increase their knowledge of genes, evolution and group evolution, yet the language and structure just mind hinder those readers' ability to grasp them.

[Irina Subredu · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Alegerea noastră va fi una profund morală. Înfăptuirea ei depinde de un nivel al cunoașterii pe care încă nu-l avem și de un simț al decenței pe care încă nu-l deținem. Suntem singura specie care a înțeles realitatea lumii vii, care a văzut frumusețea naturii și a conferit valoare individualitățuii. Numai noi cunoaștem valoarea compasiunii pentru cei din specia noastră. N-am putea-o extinde și asupra lumii vii care ne-a dat naștere?"

[Kenny Chaffin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was somewhat disappointed in this book. It is very well written as are all his books for popular audiences. The problem I had with it was that it never really seemed to address the title and was more of an attempt at pushing his view of cultural evolution than anything else. Almost a bait and switch. :(

[Dave Peticolas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why are we here, what does it mean for us to be human, and now what are we supposed to do? Wilson's answer to the first two questions is the same: we are the product of an ancient history of physical, evolutionary, and cultural processes which have been unfolding for millennia and longer and which are extraordinarily contingent and could easily have produced an entirely different form of life. And to be human is precisely to be the utterly unique current culmination of those processes in the form of our bodies, minds, predispositions, cultural patterns, and social institutions.

What makes us truly unique amongst life on Earth, and the reason we currently find ourselves the most powerful species on the planet, is our sociality. So far as we know, complex social organization has arisen only twenty times in Earth's evolutionary history. It is present in the ants, termites and bees (and not coincidentally those three forms dominate the insect world) and a few other species. But even in that small group humanity stands apart because it has achieved sociality via the route of high intelligence instead of fixed instinctual behaviors.

Which is not to say that our evolutionary inheritance has no hand in shaping our behavior. We are born predisposed to learn certain kinds of things and in certain ways. And there are two conflicting impulses continually at war within us: the urge to put oneself first whatever the consequences and the urge to make sacrifices for the community as a whole. These two impulses are a result of natural selection operating at two different levels, the individual and the group. It is group selection that caused the rapid increase in brain size that turned a small group of australopithecines into homo sapiens. Much of that extra brain seems to be used for thinking about other people and anticipating what they will do. Our brains are story-telling machines and the stories are usually about us.

As to what we are supposed to do, Wilson's answer is nothing: we are not supposed to do anything. As the product of historical processes without purpose or intention we are radically free to choose. There is no transcendent task we have been given, no moral imperative handed to us by the universe and no end results we are obliged to achieve. And there is, certainly, no other life for us other than this one. Whatever heavens or hells we experience will be experienced right here in this, our one and only world, and they will be largely our own creations.

What then should we choose to do? Wilson sets our task as nothing less than the peaceful unification of humanity and the responsible stewardship and conservation of life on Earth. As daunting a challenge as the first is, the second is probably even harder and more urgent. Wilson documents the depressing rate of extinction that our civilization is wreaking upon the biosphere, a rate that seems sure to rise as the rest of the world proceeds with industrialization.

Wilson's vision is sweeping in scope and deeply humane. I must confess I find it more than a little naive as well, though I desperately want to be proven wrong about that. To take one specific example: we are on the cusp of gaining the ability to manipulate our own genome. In effect, we will be capable of directing our own evolution. What should we do with this awesome power?

Wilson claims he knows what our answer will be: we won't do much. We will decide to use this power to correct certain genetic defects, such as the one that causes cystic fibrosis, in the womb. This prediction is unsurprising. But Wilson claims that is all we will do. Rather than tinker with human nature, we shall conserve it in its present form as that which makes us what we are. To do otherwise would be, in a sense, a form of willing self-extinction.

I am skeptical. Once this power is in our grasp, I find it difficult to imagine that we will collectively decide not to use it. Surely the possibility of bequeathing higher intelligence, better memory, or enhance bodily function to one's children will prove irresistible to at least some of those with the means to do so. Will none of the secretive and autocratic governments on Earth elect to experiment with technology of this sort? For good or ill I think we may be about to embark on a process of self-directed genetic evolution with unknown consequences.

But my quibbles over the book are minor. Naive or not, this slim volume contains a startling amount of deep and controversial thought. It won't take long to read and is well worth the time.

[Jon Stout · Rating 3 out of 5]

E. O. Wilson sets out to bridge the gap between science and the humanities, the “two cultures” of C. P. Snow. Evolutionary biologists such as Wilson often have important insights into how human beings have developed, the nature of emotions, for example, or the nature of human cognition. Sometimes they go too far, in my opinion, by trying to reduce everything in cultural history to a biological phenomenon. But E. O. Wilson seems to have a healthy appreciation of the humanities, and to be willing to serve as an honest broker in reconciling the humanities and evolutionary science.

This is promising, and a welcome contrast to someone like Richard Dawkins, who savages central features of cultural history, such as religion or free will, without really understanding them. As the reviewer Terry Eagleton put it, “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”

When Wilson talks about biology and Darwinian insights into culture he makes some interesting points, as when he makes a distinction between individual and group selection in the evolution of human beings. While most species have evolved because of successful adaptive characteristics of individuals, some twenty species, including humans, have also evolved because of adaptive characteristics of kinship groups. The result is that an individual who behaves altruistically may not survive, but yet increases the reproductive success of the kinship group as a whole. Thus selfishness on an individual level is not directly opposed to altruism in a group context. To my mind, this helps to explain how selfishness and altruism relate to each other.

When Wilson discusses religion, he is more diplomatic than Dawkins, but not much more tolerant. He correctly (in my view) characterizes much of religion as being tribal. But when he describes what he thinks religious people believe, most members of the faith communities in my experience would smile, not in self-recognition, but in recognition of a naïve stereotype.

Wilson says at one point, “Faith is the one thing that makes otherwise good people do bad things.” A chapter later, he says, “You have to have faith to be a neuroscientist.” Where is the disconnect? Why does he have a primitive conception of faith in one context, but a working understanding in another? Unfortunately, like Dawkins, Wilson lapses into clichés about religion.

Wilson’s attitude toward free will, another bellwether for me of whether he understands the humanities, is more nuanced and interesting. He approves of neurophilosophers Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennett, but disapproves of some of their interlocutors who think they are “reductive.” But he ultimately accepts the practical reality of free will. “So does free will exist? Yes, if not in ultimate reality, then at least in the operational sense necessary for sanity and thereby for the perpetuation of the human species.”

While E.O. Wilson has written an interesting book, he falls short of understanding the humanities to the extent that he appreciates evolutionary science, much less of reconciling the two cultures.

[Kathryn Bashaar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was very thought-provoking. It was worth reading for the chapter on consciousness alone. Wilson makes the point that our consciousness(as well as what we call our "self") consists of making a narrative out of a series of random moments and sensations. I never looked at it quite that way.
He also explains the mix of good and evil in human nature from an evolutionary standpoint. His theory is that from the standpoint of the individual, selfishness is a better survival strategy, but from the standpoint of the group altruism is a better survival strategy. So human beings evolved with both selfish and altruistic motives. But the in the last chapter where he draws his conclusions about the meaning of existence, he misses his own point and says something about expanding our senses and the convergence of the sciences and the humanities. NO, no, no! He already TOLD us the point of human existence in the chapter about the mix of good and evil in human nature: it is for the good part of our nature to ultimately triumph. He even hints at this when he write about how we will have to become more altruistic pretty fast or the planet we live on will become uninhabitable (at least by us).
Don't read this book if you are a person of faith who is easily offended. Wilson is an intransigent atheist, and thinks that the tribal nature of organized religion makes it more harmful than helpful. But ironically, if he had drawn the correct conclusion from his own work, he would have come around to a meaning of human existence not too dissimilar from the Christian view.
I am a person of faith who is NOT easily offended, so I enjoyed this book very much.

[Galibkaan · Rating 4 out of 5]

çok önemli şeyler söyleyen bir kitap, kapaktaki sorulara elbette cevap vermiyor ama insan varlığının anlamına nasıl erişileceğine dair bir yöntem ileri sürüyor. ben sıkılmadan ve çok şey öğrenerek okudum, bir bilim adamının insan ve hayat üzerine bilgece görüşlerini içeriyor. bence okunmalı

[Christi · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is nothing in particular that I dislike about this book thus the 4 star rating. The author obviously knows his biological stuff and what the book does, it does well. The only issue I have is not with this book in particular - it is more with a particular attitude that I see cropping up in a lot of the science books and articles that I read in general, this one included. I know that many scientists are not religious and I don't expect them to be, to each his own, I am not exactly a "religious" person myself. I know that there are exceptions to this but I'm just speaking in generalities. However, my problem is with the attitude they take towards religion and believers in general. The condescending assumption that if you believe any of that old religious claptrap, you are obviously an idiot. They don't always come right out and say it but you can bet it's always there. Now this puts me in the awkward position in my own mind of having to come to the defense of religion which is something I am generally not in the habit of doing. I am usually more likely to bitch and gripe about all of the stupid ass behavior that is carried out in the name of some particular God or another so this is just not my thing. I believe it has to do with the fact that this comes across to me as bullying behavior, and if there's one thing I cannot stand, it's a bully. The old, you know, they don't believe like me so I'm gonna treat them like they're stupid and blah blah blah..btw I know everything. What they don't seem to realize is they are just the flip side of a coin on the other side of which are all of those intolerant religious types who basically think their beliefs are the be all and end all and if you don't think like they do, then you are obviously an idiot. Two sides of the same coin. Now I don't expect science and religion to come together and get married and live happily after or anything because you know that just ain't never gonna happen. I just wish the two sides would agree to disagree and instead of acting like it's a contest where there can be only ONE!!! try...just a little bit...to find some common ground. You know religious people to admit that hey...this is what I believe and if you don't agree, then that's okay, everyone's beliefs are their own business and the science types to stand up and say hey...I know science is really awesome and basically enables so many of us to live really fantastic lives and does so much for the good of mankind, but you know, we may not ever know everything and that's okay. It just seems really sad to me that so many scientists just go AFTER belief like it's some kind of monster that they have to eradicate. If a person is happy in THEIR beliefs and not hurting anyone, just let them be for pete's sake. And same goes for the scientists..go forth and you know, discover shit in peace. Jeez all of this fighting between science and religion really just drives me bonkers. And I'm not defending the batshit crazy religious beliefs that do great harm in the world here, just the...you know...good and reasonable kind. They do exist. It just seems like everything in our society now has disintegrated to such a childish and intolerant level ~~cough cough~~politics~cough~~ and it's just tiresome as hell. And now I'm gonna put the brakes on here because this has just devolved into a rant and poor old E. O. doesn't deserve all of this bitching. Seriously if you are a scientificcy* type then by all means read and enjoy, but if you are like me and maybe a little overly sensitive about condescension towards others then you've been warned. I personally prefer my science stuff without the side dishes of disdain and arrogance. Peace out.

*and yeah it's a bullshit word I made up

[Samarth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Note: This is not so much a book review as it a review of my exploration of evolutionary biology which reached a new high when I finally read Edward O. Wilson's work. This is a summary of my notes masquerading as a book review.

In the second half of this book, Wilson tells the story of how he eventually landed at multilevel selection as the definitive explanation for human social and cultural evolution. Ever since I started reading about evolutionary biology, I've been torn between the two leading theories that aim to describe our complex social structures through simple evolutionary processes - the theory of kin selection and the theory of multilevel selection. Following Wilson's journey of enlightenment through the endowment-effect-ridden world of academia quite poetically helped me realize which theory holds more water. I now firmly believe that multilevel selection (i.e. evolution working at level of the gene, individual, and groups) is a broader and more general theory that explains the most number of observations with the least number of assumptions. Why does an arcane topic of theoretical evolutionary biology engender such fierce partisanship? Well, because the questions that will be answered are of fundamental importance to humans and the consequences of accepting an incorrect theory could be catastrophic.

Let me give you an example of how radically different explanations for the same phenomenon can be equally convincing. There are two theories that I think do a good job of explaining the rise and persistence of religion in human societies. The first is the theory of adaptation which says that religion as an extended phenotype (sorry, Sir Dawkins, for using your own devices against you) provided an adaptive advantage to groups of people by increasing altruism, bonding, co-operation, in-group out-of-group distinction etc. The second theory is that of exaptation which posits that religion was co-opted by the neuro-biological circuitry that existed originally for other reasons like harm detection, causal narrative generation etc. According to the exaptation explanation, religion would have taken over the existing neurological pathways in a way similar to how the flight mechanism in birds took over the feathers which originally evolved for heat regulation and display. The adaptation explanation finds support from great biologists like E.O. Wilson, David Sloan Wilson, and even the mathematician Nassim Taleb. The exaptation explanation is backed by an equally star-studded group led by Sir Richard Dawkins who famously refers to religion as a mind-virus.

It does feel good to have reached a conclusion even though it is only a temporary moment of rest. Ed Wilson's description of 'good' and 'bad' through the lens of individual and group level selection (while potentially oversimplified) is truly profound. I am still processing the deeper implications of applying multilevel selection to something like morality but the approach definitely provides a sound evolutionary explanation for a lot of what Jonathan Haidt writes about the topic. There is a kind of happiness that comes from discovering an entirely new perspective on a problem that you have spent much time thinking about. And then there is the happiness that comes from discovering an entirely new application of a tool you have always valued. This book gave me about a week's worth of dopamine from both sources.

[Evan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Shockingly incoherent. I would recommend it for the sole purpose of demonstrating a proper object for the critique of scientism. Scientism, usefully understood, is not good science or justifiable enthusiasm for the uses and accomplishments of science. Scientism is a form of chicanery, advancing unscientific analyses and assertions in the name of science.

Wilson misuses science by mixing descriptions of fact and scientific discovery with highly speculative and idiosyncratic interpretations without making distinctions between them. Without apparent irony, he rejects all non-scientific epistemologies, but then asks the reader to entertain his own speculative assertions (e.g. that human consciousness functions like an ant colony.)

He claims to offer a "meaning" of human existence based in science and freed from subjectivity and superstition. But there is no meaning in this book, no penetrating insights. How could there be? Wilson treats significance as if it were an emergent quality of description. List out enough wonderful scientific discoveries and Logic will dictate their meaning.

Well, the book itself provides ample evidence of the falsity of that view. One cannot logically derive conservationism from understanding of the ecosystem; nor can one derive ethical philosophy from the evolution of moral instincts. Wilson is an untrained philosopher floundering in deep waters.

There is one other reason I would recommend this book: to read the weirdest defense of the humanities I've ever seen. In a chapter titled "The All-Importance of the Humanities," Wilson argues thus: When extraterrestrials come to Earth, our primitive science will hold little interest for them. Our humanities, however, will fascinate them (whether as a triumph or a peculiarity, Wilson isn't so clear). Therefore, the humanities are valuable. Convinced? You should be. It's a "scientific" argument!

In all honesty, the most interesting part of the book is Wilson's discussion of the debate over inclusive fitness in evolutionary biology. But that's pretty peripheral to the book's ambitions. And Wilson is an acknowledged partisan in that debate.

[Dennis Robbins · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recommend this book. There are many like it describing a science world-view of humanity, its history and future, but this one is succinct. At times I wanted greater coverage and treatment of many of its fascinating topics but when I got to the end I realized in was the right length.

According to Wilson we are ultimately free. There are no supernatural entities to save us. There is no second life after this one. We are the products of accident and necessity. The human brain is the most complex system in the Universe and consciousness is our special trait and curse; the illusion of free will preserves our sanity. Over millennia as small bands of hunter-gatherers we became socially and emotionally adapted to that lifestyle but now find these traits dysfunctional in a crowed and urban techno-scientific world. Our ancient religious tribalism threatens to destroy us. But through understanding our prehistory, genetics and brain function we are not destined to any fate but are free to choose.

There is much to talk about in this literary work. Perhaps the book's brevity is the author's way of allowing us space to fill in its empty spaces with thought and reflection.

[Jeremy Thompson · Rating 2 out of 5]

As many other reviewers have noted the title is not representative of the content. For some that's not such a big deal, but at least in this case I found it highly annoying. Should have just been called random collected essays of EO Wilson.

[Robin Tierney · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Meaning of Human Existence
by Edward O. Wilson

A slim volume of elegant essays to be read when you’re in a calm, contemplative and open-minded mood. Most of my favorite essays are toward the book’s end. If you nod off at discussions of “inclusive fitness” and “universal design principle” vs. population genetics” (a debate about what accounts for selection for a trait in evolution), you’re not alone.

Cogent points include those about humans’ hereditary myopia, having trouble caring about other people beyond their own tribe or country, and even then past one or two generations.

Below are my notes, not a review:

Two levels of natural selection: individual (competition and cooperation) and group (conflict or competition in finding and harvesting of new resources, Coop child rearing.... Human existence. Not predestination, no real demons.

Hereditary social behavior.

The unit of natural selection is not the individual organism but the gene.
Better organized competitors win, pass on genes.

Biological origins of competition, cooperation, altruism.

Caste systems ants and human societies - between-group selection.
All humans geniuses at reading intentions of others.
(theory of self)

17th 18th c Enlightenment. Western intellectual world. Cause and effect, knowledge instead of superstition.

We’re addicted to anthropocentricity.
Yet Earth tiny, mote of stardust, not center of the Universe - we’ve known that since Copernicus and Galileo.

Animals from blue whale and African elephant down to superabundant photosynethic bacteria and scavenging picozoans of the sea, the latter so small they cannot be studied with ordinary light microscopy.

Senses:
Humans less range of smell, hearing.
Then there are tiny freshwater eels, catfish and elephant-nose fish confined to murky water, deprived of vision, they live instead in a galvanic world. They generate charged fields around their bodies with trunk muscle tissue that has been modified by evolution into organic batteries. With the aid of electric shadows in the pattern of charges, the fish avoid obstacles, locate prey, and communicate with others of the same species. Yet another part of the environment beyond the reach of humans is Earth’s magnetic field, used by some migratory birds to guide them during long-distance journeys.

We know (sense) tiny segments of continua ...humans celebrate them in minute detail and over and over again in endless permutations.

Trade local, then opening of global sea routes by Western Europe from the late 15th century onward. Circumnavigation of Africa and the discovery of the New World led to new, global trade routes and expanded military conquest. The global reach was a turning point in history that placed a premium on knowledge and invention. Now a new cycle of exploration...increasingly humanitarian...beginning to realize the dreams of the Enlightenment.

Biotech, nanotech, robots. Replace jobs, live longer. Brain implants - how affect human nature?

The origin of the human condition is best explained by the natural selection for social interaction -- the inherited propensities to communicate, recognize, evaluate, bond, cooperate, compete and from all these the deep warm pleasure of belonging to your own special group. SOcial intelligence enhanced by group selection made Homo sapiens the first fully dominant species in Earth’s history.
(combination of these selected traits enabled/prompted enlarged brain)
Memory for language and origin of civilization.
Bipedal allow hands construct and manipulate tools.

Humans chemosensory idiots. Moths distinguish sex pheromones in same species differ by just one atom. Color in snakes, poison dart frogs to warn off, not just beauty or attraction.

Driver ant colony superorganism.
Odor trails. Retrieve dead to eat. Workers female,male just to reproduce.
2% of insect species social (ants, bees, wasps, termites) but ¾ of insect biomass.
CCD sign of superorganism vulnerability.
Only one habitable planet, biome, to which we have adapted.

Any ET able to travel between solar systems smart enough to have preserved theirs.
Ecosystems, flora and fauna, and base: genes that give species distinguihing traits.
Keystone: sea otters eat sea urchins that feed on kelp forests vital...almost wiped out so, and barrens resulted.

Biodiversity - ⅕ species threatened...extinction 100-1000 times rate as before rise of human civilization.

HIPPO - anthropocene age damage to world:
Habitat loss
Invasive species - Hawaii lost half...introduction of mosquito and feral pigs stomp breeding ground for more mosquitos.
Pollution - ag runoff, oxygen-depleted dead ones.
Population growth - paired with unsustainable growing per capita demand consumer goods.
Overharvesting.

Save biodiversity up to sense of decency.

Adaptive value of prepared learning...includes phobias - snakes. Need to learn something fast and embed long time. Though phobias maladaptive. Not have enough time yet to evolve fear of sugar, cars.

Habitat - prefer rise overlooking copse green and water body. African savanna hypothesis.
Species attracted to habitats that provide the food, shelter, mates needed to survive, and avoid unfamiliar parasites and predators.

Human nature: the whole of our emotions and the preparedness in learning over which those emotions preside. It is not the cultural universals, which are its ultimate product. Human nature is the ensemble of hereditary regularities in mental development that bias cultural evolution in one direction as opposed to others and thus connect genes to culture in the brain of every person.

Religion
Music love hardwired.
Uplifting, connection to religion.
Astral world where join in bliss those gone before.
Supernatural explanations explained, sacralize the basic tenets of morality and law. Cmfort the afflicted. Meaning to life. Makes tyranny bearable (controls, quells)
But negative side: suffering, impediments to grasp of reality needed to solve social problems.
instinctual force of tribalism. Desire acceptance in group.
Believe creation story, chosen, better, others wrong from beliefs to rituals.
(protective cover, excuse)
In more secular societies faith tends to be transmuted into religion-like political ideologies. Hence “God favors my political principles over yours, and my principles, not yours, favor God.”

Free will
Required for perpetuation of species, otherwise fatalism.
Neuroscience
Evolved consciousness. Other species.
Complex systems axons, neurons, chem, elect.
Narrow range of perception of sensory info.
Hardwired for storytelling. Confabulation. Create scenarios, abstract (and infer others’ desires, thoughts).
Cells constantly bombarded with stimuli. Can entrain brain in cascades of changes in local neural patterns.

Brain map
Decisions made unconscious several seconds before arrives in conscious part.

Future
More choices, more risks and responsibilities.

Humans genetically adapted as to early hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but having trouble dealing with world politics and earth stewardship.

“Too paralyzed with self-absorption to protect the rest of life, we continue to tear down the natural environment, or species’ irreplaceable and most precious heritage. And it is still taboo to bring up population policies aiming for an optimum people density, geographic distribution, and age distribution. he idea sounds “fascist,”and in any case can be deferred for another generation or two - we hope.”

Myopia: not extend care past tribe. And barely concerned with animal species beyond those domesticated to be our servile companions.

Even political leaders and business leaders say they accept supernatural explanations of the human existence … which benefits them, as that (and the religion’s core doctrines) keeps people in line. The subordination of the faithful...plus profitable when people believe their religion and their kind are the best (and thus worth fighting/buying for.) They don’t benefit from stirring up the populace about issues like climate change, habitat loss, loss of biodiversity. (Profits from oil and overharvesting of other natural resources/nature.)

what is competitive advantage now eventually destroys group resources, so not long-term adaptive. Behavior/activity that’s cooperative and altruistic tends to reduce competitive advantage.

Parallel with tolerable parasites that draw enough to sustain themselves but not cause pain and decline/loss of the host. And not want to eliminate the tolerable, particularly if symbiotic, and given the fact you’d eradicate some good along with the tolerable parasites (even the time/energy not worth wasting on an attempt to eradicate).

Humans need to stop regarding ignorance as a virtue (and an excuse).

We creative and imaginative, but are primarily audiovisual in how we sense and understand the world, and even in those 2 senses have limited range. We are severely limited in the realms of taste and smell, and even touch, and oblivious to the electromagnetic spectrum and the common frequencies surging past us through the earth, air and water.