What do you think?
Rate this book
Population Wars: A New Perspective on Competition and Coexistence
From the very beginning, life on Earth has been defined by war. Today, those first wars continue to be fought around and literally inside us, influencing our individual behavior and that of civilization as a whole. War between populations - whether between different species or between rival groups of humans - is seen as an inevitable part of the evolutionary process. The popular concept of "the survival of the fittest" explains and often excuses these actions.
In Population Wars, Greg Graffin points to where the mainstream view of evolutionary theory has led us astray. That misunderstanding has allowed us to justify wars on every level, whether against bacterial colonies or human societies, even when other, less violent solutions may be available. Through tales of mass extinctions, developing immune systems, human warfare, the American industrial heartland, and our degrading modern environment, Graffin demonstrates how an over-simplified idea of war, with its victorious winners and vanquished losers, prevents us from responding to the real problems we face. Along the way, Graffin reveals a paradox: when we challenge conventional definitions of war, we are left with a new problem, how to define ourselves.
Populations Wars is a paradigm-shifting book about why humans behave the way they do and the ancient history that explains that behavior. In reading it, you'll see why we need to rethink the reasons for war, not only the human military kind but also Darwin's "war of nature," and find hope for a less violent future for mankind.
320 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 15, 2015
77 people are currently reading
1437 people want to read
About the author
Greg Graffin
10 books305 followersGregory Walter Graffin is an American punk rock musician and college professor. He is most recognized as the lead vocalist and songwriter of the noted Los Angeles band Bad Religion, which he co-founded in 1980 and has been its only continual member. Graffin obtained his Ph.D. at Cornell University and has lectured courses in life sciences and paleontology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Graffin attended El Camino Real High School, then double-majored in anthropology and geology as an undergraduate at the University of California, Los Angeles. He went on to earn a master's degree in geology from UCLA and received his Ph.D. from Cornell University. The Ph.D. dissertation was officially a zoology Ph.D., supervised by William B. Provine at Cornell. The dissertation was entitled "Monism, Atheism and the Naturalist Worldview: Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology." It is described as being essentially an evolutionary biology Ph.D. but having also relevance to history and philosophy of science.
Greg Graffin spends most of his time in Upstate New York, and teaches Life Science 1 and Earth & Space Sciences 116 (paleontology) at UCLA during the winter or fall quarters of each school year. According to a June 2008 interview with Bad Religion bassist Jay Bentley, Graffin will be teaching there from January to March 2009.
Greg Graffin received the Harvard Secular Society's "Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism" on April 26, 2008. During the award ceremony he played some acoustic versions of Bad Religion songs as well as songs from his solo career.
Preston Jones, a historian at the Christian John Brown University in Arkansas, sent Graffin an e-mail asking about one of his songs, and Graffin replied. Their resulting year-long e-mail exchange was published as a book in 2006, entitled "Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant? A Professor and Punk Rocker Discuss Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity."
In 2009 Graffin announced that he had written a book entitled "Anarchy Evolution," and that it will be published by Harper Collins with a tentative release date of April 14, 2010.
Courtesy of Wikipedia
Graffin attended El Camino Real High School, then double-majored in anthropology and geology as an undergraduate at the University of California, Los Angeles. He went on to earn a master's degree in geology from UCLA and received his Ph.D. from Cornell University. The Ph.D. dissertation was officially a zoology Ph.D., supervised by William B. Provine at Cornell. The dissertation was entitled "Monism, Atheism and the Naturalist Worldview: Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology." It is described as being essentially an evolutionary biology Ph.D. but having also relevance to history and philosophy of science.
Greg Graffin spends most of his time in Upstate New York, and teaches Life Science 1 and Earth & Space Sciences 116 (paleontology) at UCLA during the winter or fall quarters of each school year. According to a June 2008 interview with Bad Religion bassist Jay Bentley, Graffin will be teaching there from January to March 2009.
Greg Graffin received the Harvard Secular Society's "Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism" on April 26, 2008. During the award ceremony he played some acoustic versions of Bad Religion songs as well as songs from his solo career.
Preston Jones, a historian at the Christian John Brown University in Arkansas, sent Graffin an e-mail asking about one of his songs, and Graffin replied. Their resulting year-long e-mail exchange was published as a book in 2006, entitled "Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant? A Professor and Punk Rocker Discuss Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity."
In 2009 Graffin announced that he had written a book entitled "Anarchy Evolution," and that it will be published by Harper Collins with a tentative release date of April 14, 2010.
Courtesy of Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
January 25, 2016
"Perhaps the real 'hell' of war is that you can never really win one."
This evocative quote, from Greg Graffin's new book Population Wars: A New Perspective On Competition and Coexistence, elucidates the dilemma that faces humanity and the lesson we have failed to learn. Graffin demonstrates how war's ultimate goal of eradication of the enemy never actually occurs and that the "defeated" population in war continue to exist.
Graffin believes that war is ultimately a by-product of population growth and furthermore warring populations, whether they be cellular or organismic, tend to eventually reach equilibrium and a degree of co-existence. This renders our various modern wars such as "the war on drugs" or "the war on terror" fundamentally ineffectual.
Graffin undermines other popular and often unquestioned notions such as competition and evolutionary 'fitness' driving natural selection and that these (competition and fitness) are also markers of success or failure in society. Then there is that old chestnut "free will" which Graffin pulls apart with the skill of a surgeon.
The author also contends that the ideas we have about success and achievement in life are wrong. He argues that we are far more at the mercy of our biological history (particularly our neurobiology) and our environment than we believe or admit. With this in mind the concept of free will and the idea that we are in control of our destinies, begins to collapse.
I was astounded to learn that almost half of our genome is viral. This means that viral DNA, over the entire course of our evolution, has become an endogenous part of our gene sequence. Other parts of our body such as our immune system show cellular activity that was present in the Precambrian epoch. We are the result of the interactions of some very ancient organisms.
What does it mean? Well, we are more than just individuals. We are really a symbiotic amalgamation of millions of different organisms coexisting with relative equilibrium. With this in mind, we can see that our evolution and our hope of future survival is predicated upon coexistence and cooperation and not upon competition and war.
This is a magnificent book. Not only because it is written by one of my favourite artists (Greg Graffin is the lead singer of punk band Bad Religion as well as being a professor of evolutionary biology). Not only because it is a science book written in a style that is easily accessible for scientific fledglings like me. It is a great book because it has something important to say about the future of our species and it is ultimately optimistic. We have the opportunity to replace our untenable ideologies and replace them with a unifying ethic that we can all understand. An ethic based on coexistence and knowledge of what we really are.
This evocative quote, from Greg Graffin's new book Population Wars: A New Perspective On Competition and Coexistence, elucidates the dilemma that faces humanity and the lesson we have failed to learn. Graffin demonstrates how war's ultimate goal of eradication of the enemy never actually occurs and that the "defeated" population in war continue to exist.
Graffin believes that war is ultimately a by-product of population growth and furthermore warring populations, whether they be cellular or organismic, tend to eventually reach equilibrium and a degree of co-existence. This renders our various modern wars such as "the war on drugs" or "the war on terror" fundamentally ineffectual.
Graffin undermines other popular and often unquestioned notions such as competition and evolutionary 'fitness' driving natural selection and that these (competition and fitness) are also markers of success or failure in society. Then there is that old chestnut "free will" which Graffin pulls apart with the skill of a surgeon.
The author also contends that the ideas we have about success and achievement in life are wrong. He argues that we are far more at the mercy of our biological history (particularly our neurobiology) and our environment than we believe or admit. With this in mind the concept of free will and the idea that we are in control of our destinies, begins to collapse.
I was astounded to learn that almost half of our genome is viral. This means that viral DNA, over the entire course of our evolution, has become an endogenous part of our gene sequence. Other parts of our body such as our immune system show cellular activity that was present in the Precambrian epoch. We are the result of the interactions of some very ancient organisms.
What does it mean? Well, we are more than just individuals. We are really a symbiotic amalgamation of millions of different organisms coexisting with relative equilibrium. With this in mind, we can see that our evolution and our hope of future survival is predicated upon coexistence and cooperation and not upon competition and war.
This is a magnificent book. Not only because it is written by one of my favourite artists (Greg Graffin is the lead singer of punk band Bad Religion as well as being a professor of evolutionary biology). Not only because it is a science book written in a style that is easily accessible for scientific fledglings like me. It is a great book because it has something important to say about the future of our species and it is ultimately optimistic. We have the opportunity to replace our untenable ideologies and replace them with a unifying ethic that we can all understand. An ethic based on coexistence and knowledge of what we really are.
November 4, 2015
I wanted to love this book. I really did. How can you not like a punk rocker-turned-scientist-turned-author? I support any science writer who wants to overturn the current trend of naturalizing everything from poverty to sexism. But this book failed on every level. It is dreadful. Utterly dreadful.
I suspect that a number of positive reviews are the result of general support for the book's thesis, or for Graffin himself, because I have a hard time believing that anyone can view this book as well-written or insightful.
It is meandering, poorly structured, and sloppily written. It's also sorely lacking in science. Let's take just one example, in the form of an oft-quoted passage from the book:
"War, when viewed through the lens of populations coming in contact with one another, is an elemental component of humankind."
What does that even mean? He certainly does not mean that war is elemental in the literal, scientific sense. Which leaves us to guess what he does mean. He doesn't tell us. And this phenomenon of loose assertions, undefined terms, and general sloppiness pervades the entire book. Never mind the fact that he provides no scientific support for many of his assertions--including the one that "war is elemental."
His history is weak, too, and similarly filled with empty and unsupported assertions, like that the Native Americans saw themselves as "closer to nature," whatever that means. Come on. Let's talk facts, not general notions.
Of course, this sort of intellectual laziness is common in pop sci, and probably a necessary prerequisite to getting published. When you're trying to upend the standard paradigm, though, there is little excuse for it.
I suspect that a number of positive reviews are the result of general support for the book's thesis, or for Graffin himself, because I have a hard time believing that anyone can view this book as well-written or insightful.
It is meandering, poorly structured, and sloppily written. It's also sorely lacking in science. Let's take just one example, in the form of an oft-quoted passage from the book:
"War, when viewed through the lens of populations coming in contact with one another, is an elemental component of humankind."
What does that even mean? He certainly does not mean that war is elemental in the literal, scientific sense. Which leaves us to guess what he does mean. He doesn't tell us. And this phenomenon of loose assertions, undefined terms, and general sloppiness pervades the entire book. Never mind the fact that he provides no scientific support for many of his assertions--including the one that "war is elemental."
His history is weak, too, and similarly filled with empty and unsupported assertions, like that the Native Americans saw themselves as "closer to nature," whatever that means. Come on. Let's talk facts, not general notions.
Of course, this sort of intellectual laziness is common in pop sci, and probably a necessary prerequisite to getting published. When you're trying to upend the standard paradigm, though, there is little excuse for it.
February 22, 2019
The subtitle of this book, "A New Perspective on Competition and Coexistence", is a fair characterization, and the author raises some interesting points, particularly regarding humanity's coexistence with lower and less charismatic forms of life like bacteria, viruses, mold, etc. However, it's an ordeal trying to pick out and appreciate these points, given the editorial disorder and lack of focus with which they are presented. The author seemingly never met an anecdote of any level of (in)signficance that he didn't want to cram into this book, ranging from bacteria in his house's plumbing to British-Iroquois diplomatic relations in 18th Century New York to the field fauna living in his property's back yard. These analogies are frequently developed for several pages before the author makes clear what significance they hold for the larger subject under discussion. As such, the reader has to put far too much energy into sifting for the kernels of wisdom on offer, and although I "finished" the book, I more skimmed than read the last few chapters because my appetite for further historical and evolutionary minutiae was completely spent at that point.
This book also earns additional demerits for turning what should have been one of its most interesting features into one of its most annoying bugs. The author, in addition to being a professor of life science, evolution, and paleontology who might write a pop-scientific book like this, happens to be the lead singer and songwriter of the punk band Bad Religion. I hoped that the convergence of these two identities might inform the book's "new perspective", but as it turns out, Graffin's Bad Religion alter ego barely surfaces except to humblebrag once every chapter or so and remind the reader that he is, indeed, the lead singer of a rock band who gets to fly around the world playing for adoring fans. ("And also, I'm a farmer!") Bleh.
This book also earns additional demerits for turning what should have been one of its most interesting features into one of its most annoying bugs. The author, in addition to being a professor of life science, evolution, and paleontology who might write a pop-scientific book like this, happens to be the lead singer and songwriter of the punk band Bad Religion. I hoped that the convergence of these two identities might inform the book's "new perspective", but as it turns out, Graffin's Bad Religion alter ego barely surfaces except to humblebrag once every chapter or so and remind the reader that he is, indeed, the lead singer of a rock band who gets to fly around the world playing for adoring fans. ("And also, I'm a farmer!") Bleh.
January 27, 2016
What I really want to read is a book where Greg Graffin takes the subject matter from one song from each Bad Religion album and each one a chapter. I did like this book (3.5) although it did meander at times. My favorite line was,
"It may sound peculiar coming from an old punk rocker, but I strongly believe that governmental policies are the only viable way to administer our long-term success as a species. I guess you could say that my attitude of “fuck the government” is still intact. But it’s more a criticism of lousy government than a statement of nihilism."
"It may sound peculiar coming from an old punk rocker, but I strongly believe that governmental policies are the only viable way to administer our long-term success as a species. I guess you could say that my attitude of “fuck the government” is still intact. But it’s more a criticism of lousy government than a statement of nihilism."
September 23, 2015
From my Bookshots review at LitReactor.com:
Population Wars offers a fascinating perspective on the age-old idea of Survival of the Fittest. Graffin explains why coexistence—not competition—is what drives evolution, citing biological, economic, and environmental examples, from pipe-dwelling bacteria to Native American populations during the revolutionary war. He posits that the more science learns of life's shared ancestry, the more connected we become, and the less conflict makes sense. Homo sapiens are a product of everything that came before them, and are a symbiotic ecosystem, down to the microbes in our guts and the viruses hidden in our DNA. No population is ever truly eradicated, it is assimilated, which is why long term competition is untenable, and no war can ever truly be won.
But I'm no scientist, and Graffin speaks to the topic with much more eloquence:
As populations grow, the amount of conflict and suffering is inevitable...The narrative of war, justified by the improper characterization of populations, must be changed...War follows logically only from a notion of distinctness. If lines of distinction are blurred, whom (or what) are we fighting?
Anyone who is a fan of Graffin's band, Bad Religion, and is familiar with his lyrics, knows what an intelligent conveyer of ideas he is. Some might find the melody-less presentation of the subject matter dry, but Population Wars is an engrossing bit of science writing. It is socially astute, forward-thinking, and comes from a place of legitimate concern. Graffin makes a strong case for change, one that isn't necessarily the most popular. If humanity is to avoid extinction and forge a sustainable future, we must cease competing for resources and become stewards of the environment instead.
Population Wars offers a fascinating perspective on the age-old idea of Survival of the Fittest. Graffin explains why coexistence—not competition—is what drives evolution, citing biological, economic, and environmental examples, from pipe-dwelling bacteria to Native American populations during the revolutionary war. He posits that the more science learns of life's shared ancestry, the more connected we become, and the less conflict makes sense. Homo sapiens are a product of everything that came before them, and are a symbiotic ecosystem, down to the microbes in our guts and the viruses hidden in our DNA. No population is ever truly eradicated, it is assimilated, which is why long term competition is untenable, and no war can ever truly be won.
But I'm no scientist, and Graffin speaks to the topic with much more eloquence:
As populations grow, the amount of conflict and suffering is inevitable...The narrative of war, justified by the improper characterization of populations, must be changed...War follows logically only from a notion of distinctness. If lines of distinction are blurred, whom (or what) are we fighting?
Anyone who is a fan of Graffin's band, Bad Religion, and is familiar with his lyrics, knows what an intelligent conveyer of ideas he is. Some might find the melody-less presentation of the subject matter dry, but Population Wars is an engrossing bit of science writing. It is socially astute, forward-thinking, and comes from a place of legitimate concern. Graffin makes a strong case for change, one that isn't necessarily the most popular. If humanity is to avoid extinction and forge a sustainable future, we must cease competing for resources and become stewards of the environment instead.
October 12, 2020
2.5 I didn't enjoy reading the book, but I learned quite a bit of random information. Graffin, my punk rock hero, brings together a love of history and science to argue that we should all forget about competition (except for within sports) and realize that we must become stewards of our environment and each other to coexist and save our species. He admits that we do have "some control" (as opposed to the "no control" he introduced me to in his song lyrics as a teen) over the future of our species and others.
The book is dense, heavily scientific, mired in details, and poorly organized. He provides maybe 500 very detailed scientific and historical examples to prove that populations are always at "war" with each other and that everything in our lives is an expression or result of such wars, whether it be the legacy of our ancestors or the microbes interacting with each other in our bodies. I would have preferred an essay on the topic, with perhaps one example from each: humans, other species, microbes. And I would have loved for it to be well-organized and written for the lay person to easily understand it. Anyone lacking a great college education would really struggle to get much of anything out of this book, but perhaps he can achieve his goal of getting all humans and especially all governments to understand and adopt his worldview by influencing, by way of this book, people who are more effective at presenting material in a way that would educate the masses from all backgrounds.
Things I learned:
-a very detailed history of upstate New York, particularly the conflicts between native human populations and European settlers.
-a ton of details about evolution, multiple theories of evolution, and how "survival of the fittest" has been misunderstood/misinterpreted, and has been used to shape social policy and societal norms to adverse effect
-a lot of science about how our bodies work on a microbial level
-how much of an environmentalist Greg is but how he is not a bleeding heart, sentimental one (the type of evironmentalists whom he feels are misguided). You can't save/preserve everything.
-that there is no such thing as free will
-that he wants all humans to learn Science way better, for it to be a priority, so that we can all get on the same page and desire to work together to save our species. He wants government policy and public awareness campaigns to shape the attitudes and practices of people, but that starts with ALL OF US totally understanding the science and reason to do so. We also need to shift our attentions away from our selfish personal needs to the environment and other people (duh...there just aren't that many of us. Good luck. The recent mask fail during the Covid pandemic is one glaring example).
-Greg is hopeful and not nihilistic
-we probably have to give up religion to get to this point (fat chance)
-that eugenics is BAD. I have a much clearer understanding of why
I didn't hate it, and I did finish it, so there's that. And I learned the above stuff, but it will not have a substantial impact on my life, as I'm already an advocate for working to save our environment. I have new appreciation for certain aspects of life and perhaps will have a bit more empathy for humans, but I was already on board, even with my insufficient science and history education (compared to him).
The book is dense, heavily scientific, mired in details, and poorly organized. He provides maybe 500 very detailed scientific and historical examples to prove that populations are always at "war" with each other and that everything in our lives is an expression or result of such wars, whether it be the legacy of our ancestors or the microbes interacting with each other in our bodies. I would have preferred an essay on the topic, with perhaps one example from each: humans, other species, microbes. And I would have loved for it to be well-organized and written for the lay person to easily understand it. Anyone lacking a great college education would really struggle to get much of anything out of this book, but perhaps he can achieve his goal of getting all humans and especially all governments to understand and adopt his worldview by influencing, by way of this book, people who are more effective at presenting material in a way that would educate the masses from all backgrounds.
Things I learned:
-a very detailed history of upstate New York, particularly the conflicts between native human populations and European settlers.
-a ton of details about evolution, multiple theories of evolution, and how "survival of the fittest" has been misunderstood/misinterpreted, and has been used to shape social policy and societal norms to adverse effect
-a lot of science about how our bodies work on a microbial level
-how much of an environmentalist Greg is but how he is not a bleeding heart, sentimental one (the type of evironmentalists whom he feels are misguided). You can't save/preserve everything.
-that there is no such thing as free will
-that he wants all humans to learn Science way better, for it to be a priority, so that we can all get on the same page and desire to work together to save our species. He wants government policy and public awareness campaigns to shape the attitudes and practices of people, but that starts with ALL OF US totally understanding the science and reason to do so. We also need to shift our attentions away from our selfish personal needs to the environment and other people (duh...there just aren't that many of us. Good luck. The recent mask fail during the Covid pandemic is one glaring example).
-Greg is hopeful and not nihilistic
-we probably have to give up religion to get to this point (fat chance)
-that eugenics is BAD. I have a much clearer understanding of why
I didn't hate it, and I did finish it, so there's that. And I learned the above stuff, but it will not have a substantial impact on my life, as I'm already an advocate for working to save our environment. I have new appreciation for certain aspects of life and perhaps will have a bit more empathy for humans, but I was already on board, even with my insufficient science and history education (compared to him).
November 24, 2022
Loved reading a science-based book from a GOAT punk rocker. However, I found the structure of the ideas presented to be more meandering than I would have liked. Sad to say that I’m not sure I’d recommend this one.
December 28, 2016
The main theme of this tome is that populations--as defined scientifically not generally--have always come into contact with each other throughout earth's history and this contact has always bred conflict, then compromise and assimilation. The secondary theme is that evolution/natural selection does not rest on a bloody foundation of competition but on symbiosis, compromise, and adaptation.
Based on these themes, Graffin argues that humans are not only capable of managing their environments and negotiating conflicts between populations, but that we must in order to stave off extinction events like the ones that have wiped out 99.9% of the species in the past.
I'm down with viewing ourselves in the context of billions of years of evolution and that evolution isn't based on competition. I love the idea that cooperating and compromising to co-exist is not only necessary but evolutionary viable. I was fascinated by the chapters on bacteria and viruses and their symbiotic existence within us.
But, where I had trouble was in going from bacteria and viruses to discuss how population wars resolve to talking about Europeans coming to what is now the U.S. His argument is that human wars and conflicts fit into the population wars he describes for other organisms. All populations seek to live, expand, and reproduce, sure, but equating people with viruses undermines one of his main arguments: that people have a consciousness and can think about their actions and whether they will lead to evolutionary success. Either we're just another biological population seeking advantage or we're stewards capable of rational thought. Of course, we're a mix of those things, but I can't look at European conquest and genocide with the dispassionate lack of sentimentality that Graffin argues for as a scientist.
There's a lot more to this but I try not to turn reviews into essays. This is well worth reading for multiple reasons and I'd be curios what others think.
I'd also like to mention that he includes talking about his own life which I find preferable in scientific texts written for the general public because it gives us a sense where the writer is coming from, their context. What makes this especially cool in this case is Graffin's other job in Bad Religion. It was awesome to read a scientific book--hell, any nonfiction book--that takes punk rock as a given, as something real and important and not some cartoonish caricature.
Based on these themes, Graffin argues that humans are not only capable of managing their environments and negotiating conflicts between populations, but that we must in order to stave off extinction events like the ones that have wiped out 99.9% of the species in the past.
I'm down with viewing ourselves in the context of billions of years of evolution and that evolution isn't based on competition. I love the idea that cooperating and compromising to co-exist is not only necessary but evolutionary viable. I was fascinated by the chapters on bacteria and viruses and their symbiotic existence within us.
But, where I had trouble was in going from bacteria and viruses to discuss how population wars resolve to talking about Europeans coming to what is now the U.S. His argument is that human wars and conflicts fit into the population wars he describes for other organisms. All populations seek to live, expand, and reproduce, sure, but equating people with viruses undermines one of his main arguments: that people have a consciousness and can think about their actions and whether they will lead to evolutionary success. Either we're just another biological population seeking advantage or we're stewards capable of rational thought. Of course, we're a mix of those things, but I can't look at European conquest and genocide with the dispassionate lack of sentimentality that Graffin argues for as a scientist.
There's a lot more to this but I try not to turn reviews into essays. This is well worth reading for multiple reasons and I'd be curios what others think.
I'd also like to mention that he includes talking about his own life which I find preferable in scientific texts written for the general public because it gives us a sense where the writer is coming from, their context. What makes this especially cool in this case is Graffin's other job in Bad Religion. It was awesome to read a scientific book--hell, any nonfiction book--that takes punk rock as a given, as something real and important and not some cartoonish caricature.
May 20, 2018
Interesting read, but I think he tried to cover through too many things at once and some of the transitions or connections he was making would lose some readers, for example, he was looking at humanity from a molecular level in terms of populations of bacteria and then talked at great length about the population wars between the Native Americans and the European settlers. As he jumped from topic to topic it seemed to lack balance and you could tell what he enjoyed writing about and what he just thought he should put in there because it makes sense.
Not my favourite, but contained a few tidbits of trivia and knowledge to go in the memory bank. Also, the guy is a university professor who fronts an awesome punk rock band, what a combo.
Not my favourite, but contained a few tidbits of trivia and knowledge to go in the memory bank. Also, the guy is a university professor who fronts an awesome punk rock band, what a combo.
February 5, 2016
Insightful book by an extremely intelligent author.
Greg Graffin, vocalist of Bad Religion, shares his vast knowledge in a sort of call-to-arms--- hoping that the people of this world will finally WAKE UP.
Rather than focusing on hating each other, hating neighboring countries, and trying to win hopeless 'wars' of every shape and size, let us instead work together so the human race isn't just a species of the past.
Greg Graffin, vocalist of Bad Religion, shares his vast knowledge in a sort of call-to-arms--- hoping that the people of this world will finally WAKE UP.
Rather than focusing on hating each other, hating neighboring countries, and trying to win hopeless 'wars' of every shape and size, let us instead work together so the human race isn't just a species of the past.
January 14, 2016
Solid work by Graffin here!
This book puts a spin on evolution that focuses on assimilation of populations- and draws interesting parallels with life at all levels from microbial to human - from extinct to existing.
Graffin makes it clear indeed- that we are a confused and misled species that needs to change before we self destruct.
Yet he seems hopeful-
"we can shift our ethical focus to managing the most fundamental factor in our evolution, the environment."
Truly a good read.
This book puts a spin on evolution that focuses on assimilation of populations- and draws interesting parallels with life at all levels from microbial to human - from extinct to existing.
Graffin makes it clear indeed- that we are a confused and misled species that needs to change before we self destruct.
Yet he seems hopeful-
"we can shift our ethical focus to managing the most fundamental factor in our evolution, the environment."
Truly a good read.
July 6, 2019
For a book whose thesis is that war is an inevitable constant at every level of life on earth, there is a welcome amount of hope here. In full disclosure, Graffin has been a personal, lifelong hero of mine, which means I don’t find much fault in his thesis, but it also means I wasn’t very surprised by the ideas found within as I am well versed in his ways of thinking. It is an absolute must-read for anyone curious about evolution or environmental stewardship.
September 27, 2020
Was I the only person who thought this was going to be more of a sociology book than biology? The title had me confused. I do have an environmental science background. The book took me back to some of my high school science electives.
As far as the writing I felt there was a lot of jumping around. Almost as if he is just thinking aloud. A text book crossed with a journal entry. Like so many others have stated in their reviews, I too skimmed the last chapter.
As far as the writing I felt there was a lot of jumping around. Almost as if he is just thinking aloud. A text book crossed with a journal entry. Like so many others have stated in their reviews, I too skimmed the last chapter.
September 18, 2015
What a fantastic read! The theory and calls to action posed by the author in this book are truly thought provoking. He does a masterful job of highlighting the need for coexistence and peace, and the true origins and meaning behind conflict. Highly recommend this book!
March 11, 2022
The line under the title on my edition adds “A New Perspective on Competition and Coexistence,” and I know this book looks like a third rail of frustration and misery - the kind that comes with any book that talks about our current world where everything’s super divisive and incendiary. You can just FEEL the left versus right arguments coming.
I was ready for them. Graffin is, without a moment’s doubt or hesitation, the first guy I would listen to when it came to talking about these things because he’s not a knee-jerk kind of guy. Everything is well thought-out and his opinions take everything into account. I think he’s not only the smartest guy in punk rock, but one of the smartest guys period.
But this book is not that. This book touches briefly on human culture, but almost all of the things about our current state of affairs is inferred by the reader because Graffin is using science and evolutionary biology to illustrate his points.
And, honestly, this might be the best way to tackle it. Rather than framing competition and coexistence at the human level where everything is so… triggering, he gets WAY smaller and the distance lets everyone be a little more objective and a little cooler if they wanted to talk about it.
It’s like when your mom doesn’t tell you she’s disappointed in YOU for doing something you thought she didn’t know about, but that her friend is disappointed in HER kid for doing that thing and you two can talk about it by proxy (more or less) and there’s a lower risk of yelling.
It’s also more focused on the mechanics of evolution than anything else so when Graffin goes into the second and third-order effects of a particular action, I was expecting more psychology (which was silly on my part and was probably just me being eager to understand what went so wrong and how to fix it).
That said, it’s definitely a science book and, while I will read anything that Greg Graffin writes, it’s a little dry - and understandably so. That separation that cools emotions, also makes it less of a page-turner because you’re not as passionate.
But I think the trade-off has a good balance.
I was ready for them. Graffin is, without a moment’s doubt or hesitation, the first guy I would listen to when it came to talking about these things because he’s not a knee-jerk kind of guy. Everything is well thought-out and his opinions take everything into account. I think he’s not only the smartest guy in punk rock, but one of the smartest guys period.
But this book is not that. This book touches briefly on human culture, but almost all of the things about our current state of affairs is inferred by the reader because Graffin is using science and evolutionary biology to illustrate his points.
And, honestly, this might be the best way to tackle it. Rather than framing competition and coexistence at the human level where everything is so… triggering, he gets WAY smaller and the distance lets everyone be a little more objective and a little cooler if they wanted to talk about it.
It’s like when your mom doesn’t tell you she’s disappointed in YOU for doing something you thought she didn’t know about, but that her friend is disappointed in HER kid for doing that thing and you two can talk about it by proxy (more or less) and there’s a lower risk of yelling.
It’s also more focused on the mechanics of evolution than anything else so when Graffin goes into the second and third-order effects of a particular action, I was expecting more psychology (which was silly on my part and was probably just me being eager to understand what went so wrong and how to fix it).
That said, it’s definitely a science book and, while I will read anything that Greg Graffin writes, it’s a little dry - and understandably so. That separation that cools emotions, also makes it less of a page-turner because you’re not as passionate.
But I think the trade-off has a good balance.
January 24, 2025
“An act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.”
-Carl con Clausewitz, 1827, on war, trans J.J. Graham
“Rather than annihilation, it is tolerance and stewardship—providing resources and allowing some degree of freedom—that are required to coexist with other populations through time.”
I admit, I love Bad Religion and think Greg Graffin is great. I liked Population Wars and do think people should read it. Considering we can’t seem to learn from history, maybe science could teach us a thing or two.
Lyn Margulis emphasized the ubiquity of symbiosis, and pointed to the fact that all familiar organisms are amalgamations of genomes from different organisms. This implies a biosphere of interconnected populations and networks of organisms rather than one of constant warfare and self interested individuals.
In other words, perhaps if we take care of our environment and each other we will survive. (It’s nice to hope, but the realist in me sees the powerful fueled by hate and greed and knows it won’t happen in my lifetime.)
I found myself pondering evolution and war (and the microbes in my gut, hi existential crisis) long after I closed this book. If nothing else, you will learn a lot about a lot (honestly the point could get a bit lost between the microbes, history, our immune system, sediment, etc., at times).
-Carl con Clausewitz, 1827, on war, trans J.J. Graham
“Rather than annihilation, it is tolerance and stewardship—providing resources and allowing some degree of freedom—that are required to coexist with other populations through time.”
I admit, I love Bad Religion and think Greg Graffin is great. I liked Population Wars and do think people should read it. Considering we can’t seem to learn from history, maybe science could teach us a thing or two.
Lyn Margulis emphasized the ubiquity of symbiosis, and pointed to the fact that all familiar organisms are amalgamations of genomes from different organisms. This implies a biosphere of interconnected populations and networks of organisms rather than one of constant warfare and self interested individuals.
In other words, perhaps if we take care of our environment and each other we will survive. (It’s nice to hope, but the realist in me sees the powerful fueled by hate and greed and knows it won’t happen in my lifetime.)
I found myself pondering evolution and war (and the microbes in my gut, hi existential crisis) long after I closed this book. If nothing else, you will learn a lot about a lot (honestly the point could get a bit lost between the microbes, history, our immune system, sediment, etc., at times).
October 19, 2015
Population Wars subtitle suggests that the book would provide a new perspective on competition and coexistence. The writer, frontman and songwriter for a band called Bad Religion as well as holder of degrees in Zoology, Anthropology, and Geology, attempts to provide a new perspective on in about 250 or so pages.
I enjoyed most of the book that was focused on leading theories put forth from Darwin’s Origin of Species: survival of the fittest and natural selection. Survival of the fittest was an idea that gave him the desire to write about coexisting. In a world of only the fit surviving many crimes against man have been committed. In looking through the competitive lens at the work place, when only the strong companies survive many workers are put out of work (manufacturing boom and decline in America leaving many cities and towns essentially dead, many people out of homes from bad mortgages of the 2007 era). As an idea it is one that could work in science in some cases but not always. Populations of organisms survived the big five extinction events (the extinctions happened due to them not changing fast enough to extreme changes), and in general many populations are resilient even if there are more fit organisms around (Elms and American Chestnut ravaged by fungus went from a population of millions to now a few thousands, but still survive). Though the main point was this science concept is not one that is fit for applying to a non-biological setting. Natural selection was spoke of in a way to say that it is not really that important for populations of organisms, though it may seem that it selects some traits there is often no explanation for why or how it determines which are better. An example given was a ladybug that has various levels of spots, it didn’t appear that having more spots or less spots gave a competitive advantage to the ladybug. Other trivial characteristics to other organisms were given which are difficult to explain using competition and natural selection. Furthermore it appears that it is difficult or even impossible to use a natural selection and competition based mindset to explain how mitochondrion and other endosymbiotic events were able to get into the animal and plant genomes. Analysis of the human genome appears to show there are many parts of the genome which appear to have no aspects under selection.
I did take two issues with two things the writer said:
Humans have no purpose in life
Free will doesn’t exist
Humans have no purpose in life: Coming from a teleological standpoint, I like to be of the opinion that there is a purpose for the existence of everything in life. Though I may not be able to see or identify what the purpose is I think there is a purpose for everything. This could be traced back to early earth to present. There is an abundance of oxygen, so then organisms that use oxygen develop. Organisms develop on sea, so more sea creatures are developed. Organisms develop on land since there are plants on land that want to have their seed spread across the Earth. Etc. Saying that humans have no purpose just sits odd with me as it kind of gives humans no meaning, nothing to live or strive for. Though I also take the viewpoint that humans are not more special than other organisms. He does imply that humans should be stewards of the Earth and to be happy (so not to cause unhappiness to others), however he additionally takes a pro-human standpoint at the end of the day. The reason for this is if humans are not stewards and continue to pollute the earth or not protect species things will be worst for us.
Free will doesn’t exist: I found this point most interesting but also the most open ended. This kind of idea seems like the thing that would be resolved if a gene for it existed. I would think free will existed since each one of can do what each one of us wants to do. Instead the writer is of the viewpoint that humans are automata that simply respond to stimuli, these responses are dictated by decisions made by our ancestors and social milieu. He reached this belief based on the inability to determine where free will came from. If we take free will as any other trait, and traits arise through heredity, then which ancestor of humans, apes, four legged creatures, did it arise in and pass on in? I think it is an excellent discussion and deserved a bit more time but I also had to disagree with the viewpoint. I believe that free will does exist because I do not think our genes would dictate our whole lives in a cause and effect manner. New things arise when things work in concert with one another so perhaps free will arose due to the way our genes and their products have come together. Just because one does something yesterday or similar to the history doesn’t imply they would do that again tomorrow. Consciousness was proposed as an explanation that he was willing to entertain but then immediately went to saying that animals display varying levels of consciousness, but we currently have no way to determine if they have free will.
Overall this was a pretty intriguing book. There were many more things covered in the book such as early Earth history in more detail. Translations of science concepts to explaining political was covered in a few paragraphs. A bit of detail was covered on natural disasters and some extinction stories. And lastly there was a very intriguing chapter on the human immune system (Bubonic Plague and Ebola).
Science wise it did require a bit of background knowledge on a few concepts but could have gone deeper and used higher terminology on others. There was quite a bit watered down in the molecular biology aspects. Though perhaps it was made to be easier and more accessible but when this stuff was watered down I found myself pretty bored at some of the science discussions. Additionally for anyone in the life sciences many of the experiments mentioned are pretty well know (penicilum, amino acids from inorganic compounds after being sparked, industrial melanism in the peppered moth, etc), I believe I only came across two I never encountered before. More NEW knowledge could have been used. And on this front, I would have liked more of an overview of research rather than Bad Religion and traveling stories.
I enjoyed most of the book that was focused on leading theories put forth from Darwin’s Origin of Species: survival of the fittest and natural selection. Survival of the fittest was an idea that gave him the desire to write about coexisting. In a world of only the fit surviving many crimes against man have been committed. In looking through the competitive lens at the work place, when only the strong companies survive many workers are put out of work (manufacturing boom and decline in America leaving many cities and towns essentially dead, many people out of homes from bad mortgages of the 2007 era). As an idea it is one that could work in science in some cases but not always. Populations of organisms survived the big five extinction events (the extinctions happened due to them not changing fast enough to extreme changes), and in general many populations are resilient even if there are more fit organisms around (Elms and American Chestnut ravaged by fungus went from a population of millions to now a few thousands, but still survive). Though the main point was this science concept is not one that is fit for applying to a non-biological setting. Natural selection was spoke of in a way to say that it is not really that important for populations of organisms, though it may seem that it selects some traits there is often no explanation for why or how it determines which are better. An example given was a ladybug that has various levels of spots, it didn’t appear that having more spots or less spots gave a competitive advantage to the ladybug. Other trivial characteristics to other organisms were given which are difficult to explain using competition and natural selection. Furthermore it appears that it is difficult or even impossible to use a natural selection and competition based mindset to explain how mitochondrion and other endosymbiotic events were able to get into the animal and plant genomes. Analysis of the human genome appears to show there are many parts of the genome which appear to have no aspects under selection.
I did take two issues with two things the writer said:
Humans have no purpose in life
Free will doesn’t exist
Humans have no purpose in life: Coming from a teleological standpoint, I like to be of the opinion that there is a purpose for the existence of everything in life. Though I may not be able to see or identify what the purpose is I think there is a purpose for everything. This could be traced back to early earth to present. There is an abundance of oxygen, so then organisms that use oxygen develop. Organisms develop on sea, so more sea creatures are developed. Organisms develop on land since there are plants on land that want to have their seed spread across the Earth. Etc. Saying that humans have no purpose just sits odd with me as it kind of gives humans no meaning, nothing to live or strive for. Though I also take the viewpoint that humans are not more special than other organisms. He does imply that humans should be stewards of the Earth and to be happy (so not to cause unhappiness to others), however he additionally takes a pro-human standpoint at the end of the day. The reason for this is if humans are not stewards and continue to pollute the earth or not protect species things will be worst for us.
Free will doesn’t exist: I found this point most interesting but also the most open ended. This kind of idea seems like the thing that would be resolved if a gene for it existed. I would think free will existed since each one of can do what each one of us wants to do. Instead the writer is of the viewpoint that humans are automata that simply respond to stimuli, these responses are dictated by decisions made by our ancestors and social milieu. He reached this belief based on the inability to determine where free will came from. If we take free will as any other trait, and traits arise through heredity, then which ancestor of humans, apes, four legged creatures, did it arise in and pass on in? I think it is an excellent discussion and deserved a bit more time but I also had to disagree with the viewpoint. I believe that free will does exist because I do not think our genes would dictate our whole lives in a cause and effect manner. New things arise when things work in concert with one another so perhaps free will arose due to the way our genes and their products have come together. Just because one does something yesterday or similar to the history doesn’t imply they would do that again tomorrow. Consciousness was proposed as an explanation that he was willing to entertain but then immediately went to saying that animals display varying levels of consciousness, but we currently have no way to determine if they have free will.
Overall this was a pretty intriguing book. There were many more things covered in the book such as early Earth history in more detail. Translations of science concepts to explaining political was covered in a few paragraphs. A bit of detail was covered on natural disasters and some extinction stories. And lastly there was a very intriguing chapter on the human immune system (Bubonic Plague and Ebola).
Science wise it did require a bit of background knowledge on a few concepts but could have gone deeper and used higher terminology on others. There was quite a bit watered down in the molecular biology aspects. Though perhaps it was made to be easier and more accessible but when this stuff was watered down I found myself pretty bored at some of the science discussions. Additionally for anyone in the life sciences many of the experiments mentioned are pretty well know (penicilum, amino acids from inorganic compounds after being sparked, industrial melanism in the peppered moth, etc), I believe I only came across two I never encountered before. More NEW knowledge could have been used. And on this front, I would have liked more of an overview of research rather than Bad Religion and traveling stories.
January 19, 2022
I've been listening to Bad Religion since I was about 17. I love punk music but the writing in music is what draws me in. Unbenknownst to me, the frontman of the band and author of this book, Doctor Greg Graffin, lived about an hour away from my home in the finger lakes the whole time I was growing up. The result was that his descriptions of upstate New York initially brought me around to where I was living and what I am doing.
Reading Dr. Graffin's book on our archaic views of competition as well as our own relationship with our environment was a relief. I felt relief that someone seemed to care enough to suggest a way forward. There's a common problem in the punk scene where we want to lash out but don't know how to do it in a way that actually feels significant. I think Dr. Graffin's approach is fantastic. Stewardship. Taking care of our environment and the range of life in it. That feels right. That rationally seems right. It's not a full answer. No one can tell you how to live your life the right way, but this book inspired me to do something I want to do. I can't recommend it enough.
Reading Dr. Graffin's book on our archaic views of competition as well as our own relationship with our environment was a relief. I felt relief that someone seemed to care enough to suggest a way forward. There's a common problem in the punk scene where we want to lash out but don't know how to do it in a way that actually feels significant. I think Dr. Graffin's approach is fantastic. Stewardship. Taking care of our environment and the range of life in it. That feels right. That rationally seems right. It's not a full answer. No one can tell you how to live your life the right way, but this book inspired me to do something I want to do. I can't recommend it enough.
October 29, 2019
2.5 stars. A great overall thesis about moving from the war/competition metaphor of nature towards one of coexistence, of looking at the planets in terms of overlapping populations, with some nice stories and illustrations from history and the author’s own life. Accessibly covers a lot of fundamental biology and evolutionary theory, history of science. Particularly enjoyed and was enlightened by the description of interactions between native Americans, settlers and European colonists in pre-revolutionary New York (chapter 7).
The rejection of free will in favor of determinism, though noble in intent—i.e., as a way to from moral absolutism to relativism—doesn’t stand up (or at least is too confident) in light of recent developments in quantum theory. The use of the “keep America beautiful” as an example of a successful campaign to change human behavior ignores its origins as a lobbying campaign by industry to shift the responsibility for harmful waste and litter from the industries that produce it to consumers.
The rejection of free will in favor of determinism, though noble in intent—i.e., as a way to from moral absolutism to relativism—doesn’t stand up (or at least is too confident) in light of recent developments in quantum theory. The use of the “keep America beautiful” as an example of a successful campaign to change human behavior ignores its origins as a lobbying campaign by industry to shift the responsibility for harmful waste and litter from the industries that produce it to consumers.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 26, 2020
There is only so much information a person can take in. This book spends so much time conveying information in the build-up to making a point that the reader is exhausted when they arrive. Some parts are impenetrable. In amongst the long and sometimes irrelevant detours, complex matters were oversimplified and generic statements were made with little supporting evidence. Points made by the author also contradicted others, adding to the confusion of the argument being made. Finally, when the term ‘storm surge’ was used interchangeably with tidal wave and tsunami, it highlighted at best laziness or at worst, a lack of respect for scientific detail you’d expect from a scientist. This was a hard book to get through and the latter chapters had to be skimmed to finish. A real shame, as there are some good messages in the book. A missed opportunity to provoke thought about human interactions with each other and the environment, and to convey some simple messages of hope with a digestible amount of science and history.
August 22, 2022
After finally reading "Anarchy Evolution" earlier this year I was sure that the next book of my not-only-punk-rock hero Greg Graffin must be on the way as well. One thing is sure - you can always learn something new from this guy - either from his songs, books and I'm sure from his lectures as a professor too - and sometimes maybe even stuff you haven't expected or didn't desire as much :)
I have to say that some of the chapters/passages were really hard to comprehend for me; in elaborated descriptions of life of the viruses, bacteria or fossils I was really getting lost for several pages. But this book had the similar effect as the previous one - it makes the one thinking about time. When you read about ages where millions of years is the basic measure of the talking period, it is forcing you think how "small" our modern civilized world is (yet).
I believe the point about Population Wars was taken - not the annihilation of any civilization is the solution, but coexistence in best possible level, best suited for every involved side of the clash.
I have to say that some of the chapters/passages were really hard to comprehend for me; in elaborated descriptions of life of the viruses, bacteria or fossils I was really getting lost for several pages. But this book had the similar effect as the previous one - it makes the one thinking about time. When you read about ages where millions of years is the basic measure of the talking period, it is forcing you think how "small" our modern civilized world is (yet).
I believe the point about Population Wars was taken - not the annihilation of any civilization is the solution, but coexistence in best possible level, best suited for every involved side of the clash.
June 14, 2020
I'll admit that I've been a fan of Graffin's for decades, so my review will be biased. HOWEVER, I will be honest. The book did ramble a bit. It often felt like he was jumping from topic to topic. The thing that saved the book for me; though, was that it was all interesting. It reminds me of a Bill Bryson book where you just have so much interesting information thrown at you, that you struggle to retain it all. It's good, though. It's information that is intriguing and educational. I imagine that reading this book may be similar to sitting through a Graffin lecture at college.
If you want to cram a ton of information in your head from all sorts of fields, this is a good book for it.
If you want to cram a ton of information in your head from all sorts of fields, this is a good book for it.
January 18, 2025
DNF- I may pick it back up but for now I’m dropping it. I really wanted to finish this! I agree with some of Graffin’s opinions and I think the marriage of biology and political reform is an extremely valuable perspective, but this book completely lacks focus. Often times I felt like Graffin forgot what the point of his book within the pages upon pages of surface level explanations of geology, microbiology, and virology, punctuated rarely with how it all connects to his population wars theory. I really hope Graffin continues to write on this subject, ideally with a few more rounds of editing.
May 18, 2017
Although, I enjoyed parts of this book, it did take me a while to finish. Not because it is a tough read, I just kept getting distracted by other books. Graffin's viewpoint of coexistence driving survival of populations is an interesting take on "survival of the fittest" and one I found myself agreeing with. Fitting his stance on war into the framework of this book's science based arguments gave more weight to it.
October 1, 2017
Fascinating exploration of history, microbiology, evolution, geology and personal stories. The diverse topics are well integrated and the book has a good flow that keeps you engaged. Definitely recommend. I was tickled anytime I saw Bad Religion lyrics...global citizen...human interest stories...
December 12, 2017
Leftover from Book Riot Challenge 2016: "A book about politics"
I couldn't be happier to have finished this one. Not only because it has taken me far too long, but because it has a great message and contains a whole hell of a lot of learnin'. There were parts where it felt a little too dense, it ended marvelously and is very impactful. I highly recommend it.
I couldn't be happier to have finished this one. Not only because it has taken me far too long, but because it has a great message and contains a whole hell of a lot of learnin'. There were parts where it felt a little too dense, it ended marvelously and is very impactful. I highly recommend it.
October 26, 2019
From the inside cover"Population Wars is a paradigm-shifting book about why humans behave the way they do & the ancient history that explains that behavior. In reading it you'll see why we need to rethink the reasons for war, not only the human military kind but also Darwin's "war of nature," & find hope for a less violent future for humankind.
September 22, 2025
Not gonna lie, I came into this thinking it was gonna be strictly about animals cause it came up when I did a search for books about wildlife, so safe to say I was disappointed. However, the information is good and all, but even though biology isn’t really my thing, I can tell that this was all over the place in so many areas, hence the 3 stars.
May 5, 2024
I highly recommend this book to anyone because it gives a perspective one would never think about, and you let us understand where we are as a society within a larger living organism, that is to say, the Earth.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews