Nature and Man's Fate

by Garrett Hardin

A renowned biologist illuminates the evolution debate from Darwin's time to the present and surveys man's future in the light of present-day knowledge of the laws of heredity.

320 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1960

About the author

Garrett James Hardin was a leading and controversial ecologist from Dallas, Texas, who was most well known for his 1968 paper, The Tragedy of the Commons. He is also known for Hardin's First Law of Ecology, which states "You cannot do only one thing", and used the familiar phrase "Nice guys finish last" to sum up the "selfish gene" concept of life and evolution.

Reviews

[Jean-françois Virey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even though it contains much that is out of date, this is a very interesting book. It is not about Darwin specifically, but mostly about genetics, though it does not use the word DNA once, which is strange because it was published seven years after the 1953 discovery of the molecule.

There are several highlights in the book: the discussion of Soviet Russia's persecution of its geneticists, the Marxist take-over of the science and the Lysenko affair; the biographical sketch of Gregor Mendel; the explanation of what was wrong about Darwin's understanding of genetics (and his consequent Lamarckianism); and of course, Hardin's always bold and idiosyncratic comments about everything under the sun.

I did notice once factual oversight, though. Hardin believed that Erasmus Darwin's influence on Charles was virtually non-existent because the man would have been a dirty secret in the family and hardly ever discussed. But we have copies of two of Erasmus's book annotated by his grandson, so that settles it.

Hardin also seems to contradict himself on one point. On page 277, he writes: "If there are separate communities, there will surely be competition between them. But of what sort? Plainly, there must be ground rules to prevent the use of any competitive device that could permit one community to eliminate all others, thus instituting One World. This means, of course, the successful outlawing of atomic bombs and, indeed, of all international warfare as we now know it. But it means something else as well: the elimination of one of the most potent means of warfare known, though one not often recognized as such. [...] The elimination of warfare by military means is tolerable only in a world that has outlawed reproductive warfare. The competitive use of human gonads in a pacifistic world is every bit as vicious and productive of suffering as is the militaristic use of atomic bombs."

But on the next page, he says: "A community must... enjoy the freedom to breed itself into a state of starvation, if it so wishes, without a finger being lifted elsewhere to interfere with its stupidity. To interfere, to save it from the consequences of its own immorality is but to postpone and aggravate the problem, and to spread the moral infection."

So which is it? Are communities to be free to reproduce as much as they want or not? Or does he mean that a pacifistic world is just an impossible dream and a world with both military and reproductive warfare is all we can hope for?

The second quote also reveals one limit of Hardin's moral thinking. He seems to have a collective notion of moral responsibility: if "a community" breeds itself into starvation, it is immoral and must pay the price. But what of all the individuals in the community who have played no part in its overbreeding, and are the victims of other people's inconsiderate behaviour, beginning with those who are too young to have yet made reproductive choices, i.e. children? (Not to mention that overpopulation in one country is bound to affect other countries as well, through atmospheric pollution, global warming, overfishing, refugees, etc.)

[Tyler Born · Rating 5 out of 5]

I now have a more clear perception of reality.