What do you think?
Rate this book
Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies
Forming a twenty-first-century statement on Darwinian evolution, one shorn of “religious and political dogma,” Edward O. Wilson offers a bold work of scientific thought and synthesis. Asserting that religious creeds and philosophical questions can be reduced to purely genetic and evolutionary components, and that the human body and mind have a physical base obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry, Genesis demonstrates that the only way for us to fully understand human behavior is to study the evolutionary histories of nonhuman species. Of these, Wilson demonstrates that at least seventeen―among them the African naked mole rat and the sponge- dwelling shrimp―have been found to have advanced societies based on altruism and cooperation. Whether writing about midges who “dance about like acrobats” or schools of anchovies who protectively huddle “to appear like a gigantic fish,” or proposing that human society owes a debt of gratitude to “postmenopausal grandmothers” and “childless homosexuals,” Genesis is a pithy yet path-breaking work of evolutionary theory, braiding twenty-first-century scientific theory with the lyrical biological and humanistic observations for which Wilson is known. 10 line drawings
160 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2019
219 people are currently reading
1862 people want to read
About the author
Edward O. Wilson
201 books2,497 followersEdward 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 172 reviews
January 6, 2024
Within groups, selfish individuals win against altruists, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.What we understand about the mechanisms of evolution has to do mostly with competition, one-on-one, or one-on-many dueling, whether in actual combat, which leads to bigger, tougher, stronger, faster characteristics, or sexual selection, which gets pretty extreme in other ways. But it was not so obvious, even to folks like Darwin, how it was possible for altruism to evolve. Where is the gain for a worker ant that does not reproduce? How are there still any worker ants at all? This is the focus of Edward Osborne (aka E.O.) Wilson’s latest book, Genesis. In case you have been living inside a termite mound for the last 60 years or so, Wilson is the world’s greatest expert on ants.
So when Benjen Stark throws a defeated Jon Snow onto his horse and sacrifices himself to an onslaught by a crazed zombie horde, it is an action that is advantageous to House Stark. Uncle Ben will not be making any little Bennies, but his sacrifice helps allow at least the possibility that his nephew might generate little Jon-Snow-flakes someday, thus keeping the Stark gene machine rolling along, the Red-Wedding be damned.
Image from Mashable.com
Marvel’s Ant-Man - image from movieweb.com
He is a biologist, naturalist, theorist and author. He is also an authority on and originator of the theory of sociobiology, which looks at the genetic basis for social behavior of all animals, including you, me, and our peeps. ( From an early age I was fascinated by the parallels between the worlds of insects and humans. We seem to have so much in common.) He originated the theory of “character displacement”
a process in which populations of two closely related species, after first coming into contact with each other, undergo rapid evolutionary differentiation in order to minimize the chances of both competition and hybridization between them. – from the Britannica profileHe has been a proponent of theories that have drawn considerable criticism. In 1990 Wilson was awarded the Crafoord Prize. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences offers this award to support areas of science the Nobel Prizes do not recognize. He has won two Pulitzers for his writings. I leave it to Wikipedia to list his publications, far too many to show here. Wilson is, arguably, the closest living person we have to Charles Darwin, in terms of his impact on his field(s) during his lifetime.
Edward O. Wilson- the real Ant-Man, shown with some of his closest associates - image from Cosmos Magazine
He begins at the beginning, noting the first appearance of life on Earth, probably somewhere near an oceanic vent. Step 2 was invention of complex (“eukaryotic”) cells about 1.5 billion years ago. (bya) The division of labor within cells allowed for more and more complexity. Step 3 was the arrival of sexual reproduction, leading to a controlled system of DNA exchange and the multiplication of species. (and discos) Lots more potential for adaptation to get supercharged. Next up was when organisms began being made up of multiple cells, about 600 mya. Now we begin to get to specialized organs within a larger critter and lots of variety in size and shape of movable beasts. Almost there, just a couple more, hang on. From multiple organs we move up to multiple critters forming what are called “eusocial” groups. This is where we begin to get “altruism,” the origin of societies. The termites were the first that we know of, about 200 mya, ants had such groups at 40 mya, and hominids (not all, but beginning with Homo habilis) about 2 mya. The strangeness here being that some members of society behaved in socially cooperative ways that did not always leave them with baby antlings, tiny termites or babies, but which promoted the well-being of the nest, with a bit of extra attention to helping out close family members. And finally, ta-da, comes, well, for us anyway, speech and then literacy, which makes every thought potentially global. (not saying that many of those thoughts should go global, but the potential exists.)
In looking at how we (homo sap) have evolved to be what we are today, (insert snide comment here) it is instructive to look at other creatures to see how they evolved. Individual genetic selection will not keep producing non-reproductive creatures. By definition biological entities that do not reproduce offer only a dead-end for their DNA. So how do worker ants keep getting made? Is there a unit of the reproductive mechanism that exists at a higher level than the individual, maybe at, say, a group level? Wilson argues that this is indeed the case. Not all societal creatures are “eusocial.” (pronounced you-SO-shul, although I can imagine rugged individualist sorts pronouncing it EWWW, SO-shul) In fact, only about two percent of social groups develop this capacity.
Not all shirkers get off easily. Some non-contributors are killed and eaten by the colony (By the way, how much tax has Trump paid in the last twenty years?) – Image from Coffee Table Science
The key here being that there has to be a large enough gene pool in the group to provide a sufficient base of reproducing DNA that the needed traits (in this case the altruism element) will keep coming along even if the worker ants are not making more worker ants. Overall, if the group, taken as a unit, is successful, the favored altruism genes will keep generating worker ants, but if the group is producing say, lazy bum ants who do no work and just feed off the labor of the others, the group as a whole will be less able to survive in the world. And therein lies the Darwinian selection. Voila! Darwin had also alluded to such a solution in the 19th century.
There is plenty more in here, of course, interesting bits on the growth in hominid brain size, our changing posture and diet, the impact of grassland vs forest/jungle living. Considering how slender this volume is, it is quite packed with information. Wilson is a good writer (two Pulitzers), so this is readable pop science. It did seem to get a bit thick here and there, enough that it might put off some casual readers. The main audience for Genesis would be anyone interested in the science and theories of biological and social evolution, and people with an interest in the mechanisms of nature. Definite brain candy.
E. O. Wilson has not only studied nature, and been a leading scientific theorist, he has become a champion for biodiversity, urging that half of our planet be set aside to save a majority of plant and wildlife species from extinction. He has changed how we see the world, changed how we see ourselves. At 90 years of age, it remains to be seen how much more we can hope for in Wilson’s contributions, but I expect we will be carrying the fruits of his labor back to our nests for as long as people keep making more people. If you are new to Wilson’s work, Genesis would be a great place to begin learning from one of the great minds of our time.
Review first posted – April 12, 2019
Publication
-----March 19, 2019 - hardcover
-----March 17, 2020 - trade paperback
=============================EXTRA STUFF
Wilson’s foundation and FB page
Profiles
-----The Academy of Achievement
-----Wikipedia
-----Britannica
-----PBS - a beautiful, feature-length biography- video - worth the time – check this out
-----Scientific American
TED Talks
-----My Wish: Build the Encyclopedia of Life - 22:21
-----Advice to a Young Scientist
Items of Interest
-----Colbert Report
-----Smithsonian – April 2012 - Edward O. Wilson’s New Take on Human Nature by Natalie Anger
March 15, 2019
There exists within evolutionary theory a deep contradiction, one that Charles Darwin noticed back in the nineteenth century. The problem is this: how can evolution by natural selection account for altruistic behavior that benefits the group at the expense of the individual?
The standard view of natural selection, operating at the level of the gene, goes as follows: genetic mutation results in variation in form and function in the individual, which either confers an advantage or disadvantage (or is neutral) in relation to other individuals. If the mutation enhances survival and reproduction in a particular environment, then that individual will flourish and the frequency of those genes will increase within the population.
The problem is in explaining altruistic behavior that decreases individual fitness and yet persists, as when insects in a colony forgo reproduction in service of the few members that can reproduce. Standard explanations of natural selection would predict that this behavior would be quickly extinguished.
The answer to the paradox of altruism—one thought of by Darwin himself—is the concept of group selection (facilitated by cooperation among group members), which is the running theme throughout Edward O. Wilson’s latest book, Genesis, used to explain the altruistic behavior found in both insect colonies and other social animals, including humans.
But isn’t group selection a misleading and false way to think about evolution? Doesn’t evolution happen at the level of the gene? And aren’t bodies and groups simply vehicles for the transmission of genes? I used to think so, but after reading this book, along with David Sloan Wilson’s book This View of Life, I now see the inescapable logic of group selection. Here’s Wilson describing the concept:
Let’s unpack this for a minute. Wilson is not denying that genes are the only true replicators; he’s simply pointing out the fact that selection can occur at multiple levels, each of which impact the transmission of genes.
Genes build bodies as vehicles, but it’s the interaction of the vehicle with the environment that is ultimately the target of selection. Individual bodies that have survival and reproductive advantages outcompete other individual bodies and increase the frequency of their genes within the population.
You can take this logic one step further by considering extended phenotypes. A phenotype is “the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.” The phenotype is simply the physical expression of a trait. An extended phenotype is the genetic expression of a trait outside the body, for example a spider's web. Spiders that weave better webs have an evolutionary advantage and so the genes for the better webs increase their frequency within the population.
Now, just think of groups as a type of extended phenotype. Individuals with cooperative traits, if they allow the group (a kind of superorganism) to function better and beat out other groups, will transmit their cooperative genes by virtue of group survival (and that otherwise would have died out without the group, in the same way a spider will die out without its web).
There are several examples of this in nature, which Wilson recounts in the book. For example, the cells of our body carry out programmed cell death for the benefit of our bodies, and worker ants forgo their own reproduction to serve the reproduction of the queen, leading to a stronger colony that can outcompete other groups. The worker ants are analogous to the individual cells of our body when they sacrifice themselves for the greater good.
The bottom line is this: if trait X persists in a population but would not otherwise persist outside of the group, then trait X has been selected for at the group level, even though it's still the genes prescribing the trait.
This adequately resolves the paradox of altruism, and explains altruistic behavior in all eusocial insects and mammals, including humans. Wilson further explains, in detail and throughout the book, how this came about in biological terms and the evidence for the genetic mutations that can result in the creation of eusocial or cooperative societies of altruists. It’s in these various real-world examples and experiments that the ideas really come to life—and are difficult to argue against.
My only complaint is that book ends rather abruptly. The final chapter on the human story could have been expanded, and the final paragraph ended as if the author ran out of time during a proctored exam. The book could have greatly benefited from a concluding chapter that brought all of the ideas together.
Nonetheless, if you’re looking for a quick read that synthesizes the best evidence for the origin of social, cooperative species, one devoid of myth and superstition and based on the best available scientific evidence, then you won’t be disappointed. I think you’ll also come to see the logic of group selection as the solution to the paradox of altruism, and, in fact, as the only possible solution.
The standard view of natural selection, operating at the level of the gene, goes as follows: genetic mutation results in variation in form and function in the individual, which either confers an advantage or disadvantage (or is neutral) in relation to other individuals. If the mutation enhances survival and reproduction in a particular environment, then that individual will flourish and the frequency of those genes will increase within the population.
The problem is in explaining altruistic behavior that decreases individual fitness and yet persists, as when insects in a colony forgo reproduction in service of the few members that can reproduce. Standard explanations of natural selection would predict that this behavior would be quickly extinguished.
The answer to the paradox of altruism—one thought of by Darwin himself—is the concept of group selection (facilitated by cooperation among group members), which is the running theme throughout Edward O. Wilson’s latest book, Genesis, used to explain the altruistic behavior found in both insect colonies and other social animals, including humans.
But isn’t group selection a misleading and false way to think about evolution? Doesn’t evolution happen at the level of the gene? And aren’t bodies and groups simply vehicles for the transmission of genes? I used to think so, but after reading this book, along with David Sloan Wilson’s book This View of Life, I now see the inescapable logic of group selection. Here’s Wilson describing the concept:
“For group-level traits as for individuals, the unit of selection is the gene that prescribes the trait. The targets of natural selection, which determine whether genes do either well or poorly, are the traits prescribed by the genes. An individual in a group that competes with other members for food, mates, and status is engaged in natural selection at the individual level. Individuals that interact with other group members in ways that create superior organization through hierarchies, leadership, and cooperation, are engaged in natural selection at the group level. The greater the price extracted by altruism and the resulting loss to the individual’s survival and reproduction, the larger must be the benefit to the group as a whole. The evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson (no relation) has nicely expressed the rule for the two levels of selection as follows: within groups, selfish individuals win against altruists, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.”
Let’s unpack this for a minute. Wilson is not denying that genes are the only true replicators; he’s simply pointing out the fact that selection can occur at multiple levels, each of which impact the transmission of genes.
Genes build bodies as vehicles, but it’s the interaction of the vehicle with the environment that is ultimately the target of selection. Individual bodies that have survival and reproductive advantages outcompete other individual bodies and increase the frequency of their genes within the population.
You can take this logic one step further by considering extended phenotypes. A phenotype is “the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.” The phenotype is simply the physical expression of a trait. An extended phenotype is the genetic expression of a trait outside the body, for example a spider's web. Spiders that weave better webs have an evolutionary advantage and so the genes for the better webs increase their frequency within the population.
Now, just think of groups as a type of extended phenotype. Individuals with cooperative traits, if they allow the group (a kind of superorganism) to function better and beat out other groups, will transmit their cooperative genes by virtue of group survival (and that otherwise would have died out without the group, in the same way a spider will die out without its web).
There are several examples of this in nature, which Wilson recounts in the book. For example, the cells of our body carry out programmed cell death for the benefit of our bodies, and worker ants forgo their own reproduction to serve the reproduction of the queen, leading to a stronger colony that can outcompete other groups. The worker ants are analogous to the individual cells of our body when they sacrifice themselves for the greater good.
The bottom line is this: if trait X persists in a population but would not otherwise persist outside of the group, then trait X has been selected for at the group level, even though it's still the genes prescribing the trait.
This adequately resolves the paradox of altruism, and explains altruistic behavior in all eusocial insects and mammals, including humans. Wilson further explains, in detail and throughout the book, how this came about in biological terms and the evidence for the genetic mutations that can result in the creation of eusocial or cooperative societies of altruists. It’s in these various real-world examples and experiments that the ideas really come to life—and are difficult to argue against.
My only complaint is that book ends rather abruptly. The final chapter on the human story could have been expanded, and the final paragraph ended as if the author ran out of time during a proctored exam. The book could have greatly benefited from a concluding chapter that brought all of the ideas together.
Nonetheless, if you’re looking for a quick read that synthesizes the best evidence for the origin of social, cooperative species, one devoid of myth and superstition and based on the best available scientific evidence, then you won’t be disappointed. I think you’ll also come to see the logic of group selection as the solution to the paradox of altruism, and, in fact, as the only possible solution.
September 15, 2019
Interesting, but he uses a lot of technical jargon without needing to & often uses citations in a way that confused matters for me. His phrasing is often awkward & he's trying to fit too much information into this short of a book. His first chapter, "The Search For Genesis" was very thin, but he really shined later when it came to detailing insects - his specialty.
I wondered about his refutation of Hamilton's Rule of kin selection which Richard Dawkins showed works out very well mathematically in a couple of his books. This led me to read that section of this book in text & do some research. I found out that it's an area where Wilson & Dawkins disagree vehemently. Here's a good article about that:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-dis...
Here's Dawkin's review of The Social Conquest of Earth in which Wilson more fully explains his theories:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/sci...
I'm not a scientist nor do I think myself truly educated in this field so I'll pass on a formal opinion, but I didn't find Wilson's side nearly as convincing.
The worst part of this book was the narration. The narrator's monotone was positively soporific.
I'll give this book 3 stars for the interesting facts about insects, but I won't recommend it. I'd like to read some other books by the author, but only in his area of expertise - insects.
I wondered about his refutation of Hamilton's Rule of kin selection which Richard Dawkins showed works out very well mathematically in a couple of his books. This led me to read that section of this book in text & do some research. I found out that it's an area where Wilson & Dawkins disagree vehemently. Here's a good article about that:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-dis...
Here's Dawkin's review of The Social Conquest of Earth in which Wilson more fully explains his theories:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/sci...
I'm not a scientist nor do I think myself truly educated in this field so I'll pass on a formal opinion, but I didn't find Wilson's side nearly as convincing.
The worst part of this book was the narration. The narrator's monotone was positively soporific.
I'll give this book 3 stars for the interesting facts about insects, but I won't recommend it. I'd like to read some other books by the author, but only in his area of expertise - insects.
May 20, 2019
There is no reason at all this book should have been written. Everything in here is already in his other books. It's just a very quick recap of eusociality, which he explains at length and better in his earlier books. I think he fails to even make the case about deep origins of human societies, which is the subtitle. He says humans are eusocial, but just leaves it there as a statement without much proof. I believe him but only because I read his other book with all the supporting data.
January 30, 2020
First, let me say that I am a great fan of E.O.Wilson. I think he's not only a great scientist, but also a deep thinker, whose influence (rightly) extends far beyond his particular field of expertise (which is ants). I wonder if there was perhaps not a bigger, more ambitious book that he envisioned, which got trimmed down to this because, you know, he was not a young man 20 years ago, and this was published in 2019. Or perhaps he felt that several of the many books he has previously written were the big ambitious ones, and it was time for him to write a smaller, introductory one. In which case, maybe this book is successful, because it is not long, it doesn't require a lot of background, and it introduces his basic ideas.
But, if you're an E.O.Wilson fan, looking for the newest intellectual fireworks from a great thinker, well this isn't it. I do like what he says just fine, and by the way I also really like his drawings. But, it sort of felt like the book I maybe should have read 20 years ago, when I didn't know anything about E.O.Wilson or his work. If you are looking for something weighty, that will expand your mind and give you much to think on for years to come, then, this is not your book (although his earlier "The Social Conquest of Earth" is).
But, you know, if you're not sure you're wanting something that heavy just now, then maybe this is fine.
But, if you're an E.O.Wilson fan, looking for the newest intellectual fireworks from a great thinker, well this isn't it. I do like what he says just fine, and by the way I also really like his drawings. But, it sort of felt like the book I maybe should have read 20 years ago, when I didn't know anything about E.O.Wilson or his work. If you are looking for something weighty, that will expand your mind and give you much to think on for years to come, then, this is not your book (although his earlier "The Social Conquest of Earth" is).
But, you know, if you're not sure you're wanting something that heavy just now, then maybe this is fine.
September 16, 2024
There is a rather difficult problem to solve within the evolutionary theory and that is: how did the altruistic trait become dominant in individuals and thus making it a dead end for the genes of those individuals to pass on? How can natural selection explain this?
Well, Wilson, thinks it's group selection that is responsible for this. This is best explained by the following quote:
"...within groups, selfish individuals win against altruists, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."
So you have genes, that run the entire show, which give each organism different traits, which modify through random mutations, and when one of those modified traits provides the organism a better chance at survival, those genes live on within that organism's offsprings.
Now, if you look at groups as "superorganisms" you can understand how the gene that gives an altruistic behaviour becomes dominant, how a superorganism, or a group of individuals that consists of individuals that are ready to forego their reproductive instincts for the survival of the group, is better suited for survival in a competition with lonely individuals, or just social individuals that are not ready to die to assure the survival of the, let's say, pack.
This trait is called eusociality and has evolved first in termites, then ants and lastly humans (also in some crustaceans, bees, wasps, etc.).
And through this trait you can explain how human societies were born and why we act like we do, for example you can deduct this is the reason why young individuals with no children will go to war and die for the survival of their tribe or nation. The gene pool within that group is more important than the survival of one individual.
Some interesting examples of eusociality in humans, given by Wilson, are: the caste of helper-grandmas, the monastic orders of organized religions throughout the world, the berdache system of early american indians and so on.
Wilson also thinks homosexuality is such an example because it's uniquely valuable in a lot of societies and he argues that the frequency of the genes which determine this inclination in human populations are far superior to the level you would expect just from mutations, a sign that this predisposition was favoured by natural selection.
Still, I'm giving this only 3 stars because it seems incomplete, it lacks a conclusion, I would've liked some chapters extended and explained more thoroughly and this makes it seem more like an article, rather than a book.
Well, Wilson, thinks it's group selection that is responsible for this. This is best explained by the following quote:
"...within groups, selfish individuals win against altruists, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."
So you have genes, that run the entire show, which give each organism different traits, which modify through random mutations, and when one of those modified traits provides the organism a better chance at survival, those genes live on within that organism's offsprings.
Now, if you look at groups as "superorganisms" you can understand how the gene that gives an altruistic behaviour becomes dominant, how a superorganism, or a group of individuals that consists of individuals that are ready to forego their reproductive instincts for the survival of the group, is better suited for survival in a competition with lonely individuals, or just social individuals that are not ready to die to assure the survival of the, let's say, pack.
This trait is called eusociality and has evolved first in termites, then ants and lastly humans (also in some crustaceans, bees, wasps, etc.).
And through this trait you can explain how human societies were born and why we act like we do, for example you can deduct this is the reason why young individuals with no children will go to war and die for the survival of their tribe or nation. The gene pool within that group is more important than the survival of one individual.
Some interesting examples of eusociality in humans, given by Wilson, are: the caste of helper-grandmas, the monastic orders of organized religions throughout the world, the berdache system of early american indians and so on.
Wilson also thinks homosexuality is such an example because it's uniquely valuable in a lot of societies and he argues that the frequency of the genes which determine this inclination in human populations are far superior to the level you would expect just from mutations, a sign that this predisposition was favoured by natural selection.
Still, I'm giving this only 3 stars because it seems incomplete, it lacks a conclusion, I would've liked some chapters extended and explained more thoroughly and this makes it seem more like an article, rather than a book.
August 8, 2021
Edward O. Wilson’s Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies ostensibly presents an evolutionary understanding of society, but it is a subtextual call for class revolution.
That people appear to value groups is a problem for biologists, excepting sociobiologists like Wilson, because, from an evolutionary point of view, individuals (and couples) exist to pass along their genes. In making smart choices, people individually prove their genes fit and attract mates to will pass them on. There is little incentive to cooperate as people must outcompete rivals, so groups are strange.
Or is there pressure to cooperate? Wilson, citing Darwin as a predecessor, wonders if insect populations might prove group selection is real. Some castes of insects do not procreate, but they serve the hive. This eusociality suggests group evolution is real and that it is the "deep origin of society." When some people risk procreating to fight for their country, Wilson sees eusocial behaviour. We see the two orders, human and insect, combined again when Wilson writes:
While Wilson mostly resists direct cultural commentary, it is all but impossible to resist reading Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies as a Straussian condemnation of today’s elites, who have betrayed the group’s longterm ability to pass on its genes in order to maximize their own family’s profits. In Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss argues authors veil their true message when their topic is uncomfortable or a threat to those in power, and Genesis obviously qualifies for both criteria. Wilson further tips his hand by organizing Genesis around insects, creatures with strong castes and classes.
In the liberal democracies, our "campfire story" or national narrative proclaims that all are created equal and that we cherish equal opportunity within a meritocratic society. Society rewards some more than others, but these classes are OK because merit. Further, because society is safe and orderly, people can successfully raise their offspring relative to rivals in other societies. Win win win.
Economists have reached a similar conclusion Both Ha-Joon Chang's 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism and Tyler Cowen’s Big Business: A Love Letter to An American Underdog argue that a society's elites matter. The queens of our hive earn more than the lower castes, but they add so much value for their hives relative to rival ones. Chang points out that a taxi driver in Switzerland can earn 50 times more than a taxi driver in India because the Swiss driver’s elites produce so much more value. In Big Busienss, Cowen calls on his readers to express more gratitude to their elites and he further points out that the elites' exorbitant wealth has grown in concert with the economy's growth.
Although working wages have not grown, for Cowen, that’s the working class’s problem. However, if the elites are such great providers of value for the society, as fans of hierarchical and meritocratic societies believe, it’s actually the failure of the queens to run a productive hive. From an evolutionary perspective, the elites are weakening the society's ability to pass on any but the elite genes.
What motivated Genesis: The Deep Origin of Society? Given that this book was written in 2019, I suspect Wilson is thinking of the elites who bribe their children into Ivy League universities. Don't forget that in The Years That Matter Most, Paul Tough documents that these Ivy League universities can spend up to a $100K per year more on their students than state universities and that these students stand a great shot at becoming 1 percenters. And there are those elites funnelling their wealth into foreign tax shelters at the expense of the well being of their hive. It’s difficult not to take Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate as a condemnation of the elites who have betrayed the society not only in the present but also in the longterm future; evolutionarily speaking, one way to attract mates is wealth and a strong defence against catastrophic climate change is also wealth.
In Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies, Edward O. Wilson presents the evolutionary case for anti-elite populism and, ultimately, social revolution. For how much longer should that Swiss taxi driver call it a bargain if he also buys into the campfire story that he is part of a meritocratic society that values human dignity? From an evolutionary point of view, the lower castes are fighting and dying, serving and sacrificing, in order to advance the society's genes while the elites advance their own genes at the expense of the community. Wilson's call to action is carefully hidden within the body of text: “within groups, selfish individuals win against altruists, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.”
That people appear to value groups is a problem for biologists, excepting sociobiologists like Wilson, because, from an evolutionary point of view, individuals (and couples) exist to pass along their genes. In making smart choices, people individually prove their genes fit and attract mates to will pass them on. There is little incentive to cooperate as people must outcompete rivals, so groups are strange.
Or is there pressure to cooperate? Wilson, citing Darwin as a predecessor, wonders if insect populations might prove group selection is real. Some castes of insects do not procreate, but they serve the hive. This eusociality suggests group evolution is real and that it is the "deep origin of society." When some people risk procreating to fight for their country, Wilson sees eusocial behaviour. We see the two orders, human and insect, combined again when Wilson writes:
“During the origin of advanced social organization, the added subcastes require not only one or two additional decision points in development of the larvae, but a regulation of their relative members in different stages of colony growth. The regulation is the equivalent of the division of labor in humans based on different occupations plus cultural regulations on the number trained in each occupation. Thus have emerged the empires of ants and man.”Wilson points to evidence of campfires as a source of cooked meat but also as a source of community building through stories. Putting this together, campfires and their stories, exist in an evolutionary way in order to form eusocial groups.
While Wilson mostly resists direct cultural commentary, it is all but impossible to resist reading Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies as a Straussian condemnation of today’s elites, who have betrayed the group’s longterm ability to pass on its genes in order to maximize their own family’s profits. In Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss argues authors veil their true message when their topic is uncomfortable or a threat to those in power, and Genesis obviously qualifies for both criteria. Wilson further tips his hand by organizing Genesis around insects, creatures with strong castes and classes.
In the liberal democracies, our "campfire story" or national narrative proclaims that all are created equal and that we cherish equal opportunity within a meritocratic society. Society rewards some more than others, but these classes are OK because merit. Further, because society is safe and orderly, people can successfully raise their offspring relative to rivals in other societies. Win win win.
Economists have reached a similar conclusion Both Ha-Joon Chang's 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism and Tyler Cowen’s Big Business: A Love Letter to An American Underdog argue that a society's elites matter. The queens of our hive earn more than the lower castes, but they add so much value for their hives relative to rival ones. Chang points out that a taxi driver in Switzerland can earn 50 times more than a taxi driver in India because the Swiss driver’s elites produce so much more value. In Big Busienss, Cowen calls on his readers to express more gratitude to their elites and he further points out that the elites' exorbitant wealth has grown in concert with the economy's growth.
Although working wages have not grown, for Cowen, that’s the working class’s problem. However, if the elites are such great providers of value for the society, as fans of hierarchical and meritocratic societies believe, it’s actually the failure of the queens to run a productive hive. From an evolutionary perspective, the elites are weakening the society's ability to pass on any but the elite genes.
What motivated Genesis: The Deep Origin of Society? Given that this book was written in 2019, I suspect Wilson is thinking of the elites who bribe their children into Ivy League universities. Don't forget that in The Years That Matter Most, Paul Tough documents that these Ivy League universities can spend up to a $100K per year more on their students than state universities and that these students stand a great shot at becoming 1 percenters. And there are those elites funnelling their wealth into foreign tax shelters at the expense of the well being of their hive. It’s difficult not to take Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate as a condemnation of the elites who have betrayed the society not only in the present but also in the longterm future; evolutionarily speaking, one way to attract mates is wealth and a strong defence against catastrophic climate change is also wealth.
In Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies, Edward O. Wilson presents the evolutionary case for anti-elite populism and, ultimately, social revolution. For how much longer should that Swiss taxi driver call it a bargain if he also buys into the campfire story that he is part of a meritocratic society that values human dignity? From an evolutionary point of view, the lower castes are fighting and dying, serving and sacrificing, in order to advance the society's genes while the elites advance their own genes at the expense of the community. Wilson's call to action is carefully hidden within the body of text: “within groups, selfish individuals win against altruists, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.”
October 21, 2021
Génesis, publicado em 2019 por Edward O Wilson aborda-nos as origens biológicas do homem. Escrito mais sob a forma de ensaio, E. O. Wilson descreve-nos de uma forma sumária mas muito rica em exemplos, de que forma algumas espécies evoluíram e de que forma algumas se tornaram “Eussociais”. Apesar desta profunda mudança organizacional nunca perderam capacidade adaptativa, tendo inclusivamente as sociedades mais altruístas acabado por ter vantagem sobre as restantes e os indivíduos isoladamente.
Sendo entomólogo por diferenciação, E. Wilson maravilha-nos com a forma como descreve o Eussocial e a forma como esta evoluiu nos insectos. Esta característica teve provavelmente origem na forma como alguns insectos preparavam o ninho, cuidavam dele e das suas crias. Esta diferenciação terá levado a que alguns grupos e espécies a assumir a tarefa de cuidar da descendência como uma diferenciação. Com esta outras tarefas surgem como as de construir o ninho, as obreiras, as com funções reprodutoras e outras com funções de defesa. Este tipo de diferenciação social surgiu entre as térmitas há cerca de 200 milhões de anos, e foi em biologia um marco simbólico na evolução e que permitiu o que o autor caracteriza o altruísmo, ou seja um comportamento em que por oposição ao egoísmo os indivíduos sacrificam a capacidade reprodutora ou a longevidade em benefício do grupo. Indivíduos egoístas têm vantagem sobre os altruístas, mas os grupos altruísta têm vantagem sobre os outros.
Em termos de grupo o altruísmo tende a vingar porque um grupo com predomínio de egotistas é menos eficaz, é mais anárquico e tem menos hipótese de sucesso.
O gene de altruísmo manifesta-se na diferenciação de tarefas e de capacidade de reprodução. E. O. Wilson sugere-nos que esta aptidão possa ser transmitida geneticamente, mas tenho muitas dúvidas pois a altruísmo ao manifestar-se como diminuição da capacidade de reprodução ou de encurtamento da vida diminui por definição a sua capacidade de se propagar. Outros mecanismos terão seguramente que estar implicados.
Termina o autor fazendo-nos uma transposição do eussocial para a evolução humana que têm alicerces em mecanismos semelhantes, como a proteção aos recém-nascidos, a divisão de tarefas, a partilha de alimentos, e mais tarde a comunicação e a construção de toda uma cadeia de compromissos, responsabilidades e dependências que culminaram com uma civilização que tem em alguns dos seus aspectos mais negativos, como racismo, xenofobia, nacionalismo, violência e guerras alicerces num “eussocial” surgido há 200 milhões de anos.
Sendo entomólogo por diferenciação, E. Wilson maravilha-nos com a forma como descreve o Eussocial e a forma como esta evoluiu nos insectos. Esta característica teve provavelmente origem na forma como alguns insectos preparavam o ninho, cuidavam dele e das suas crias. Esta diferenciação terá levado a que alguns grupos e espécies a assumir a tarefa de cuidar da descendência como uma diferenciação. Com esta outras tarefas surgem como as de construir o ninho, as obreiras, as com funções reprodutoras e outras com funções de defesa. Este tipo de diferenciação social surgiu entre as térmitas há cerca de 200 milhões de anos, e foi em biologia um marco simbólico na evolução e que permitiu o que o autor caracteriza o altruísmo, ou seja um comportamento em que por oposição ao egoísmo os indivíduos sacrificam a capacidade reprodutora ou a longevidade em benefício do grupo. Indivíduos egoístas têm vantagem sobre os altruístas, mas os grupos altruísta têm vantagem sobre os outros.
Em termos de grupo o altruísmo tende a vingar porque um grupo com predomínio de egotistas é menos eficaz, é mais anárquico e tem menos hipótese de sucesso.
O gene de altruísmo manifesta-se na diferenciação de tarefas e de capacidade de reprodução. E. O. Wilson sugere-nos que esta aptidão possa ser transmitida geneticamente, mas tenho muitas dúvidas pois a altruísmo ao manifestar-se como diminuição da capacidade de reprodução ou de encurtamento da vida diminui por definição a sua capacidade de se propagar. Outros mecanismos terão seguramente que estar implicados.
Termina o autor fazendo-nos uma transposição do eussocial para a evolução humana que têm alicerces em mecanismos semelhantes, como a proteção aos recém-nascidos, a divisão de tarefas, a partilha de alimentos, e mais tarde a comunicação e a construção de toda uma cadeia de compromissos, responsabilidades e dependências que culminaram com uma civilização que tem em alguns dos seus aspectos mais negativos, como racismo, xenofobia, nacionalismo, violência e guerras alicerces num “eussocial” surgido há 200 milhões de anos.
March 19, 2021
Pequeño librito donde el autor, Edward, O. Wilson, nos habla del tema que siempre le ha apasionad: ¿de dónde surgió el altruismo? ¿de dónde surgió la selección social? Obviamente, algo genético debe haber.
Para ello, recorre la historia de las especies eusociales centrándose, sobre todo, en las de los insectos, de las que él es un auténtico especialista.
Es un librito divulgativo, apto para todos los públicos, sin entrar en demasiada profundidad, pero muy informativo.
Para ello, recorre la historia de las especies eusociales centrándose, sobre todo, en las de los insectos, de las que él es un auténtico especialista.
Es un librito divulgativo, apto para todos los públicos, sin entrar en demasiada profundidad, pero muy informativo.
December 24, 2021
Estamos ante un valioso viaje divulgativo sobre como las clásicas preguntas filosóficas sobre lo que somos, nuestro motivo vital y nuestra dirección como grupo, pueden recibir importantes aportes, lo más empíricamente cercanos a una "respuesta" de nuestro pasado evolutivo, a la luz de los registros fósiles e hipótesis comparativas con ejemplos actuales Edward O. Wilson hace un apasionante recorrido por las distintas etapas de la vida terrestre y sus múltiples de niveles de cooperación, así como las posibles elucubraciones manejadas hoy día sobre como se armo paulatinamente el rompecabezas de la vida y posteriormente la poco probable, aunque fascinante, eusocialidad de la vida animal (siendo esta una característica reproducible y estudiada en laboratorio) . Desde las "alfombras vivientes" de frenesí sexual que forman las cigarras, pasando por las rígidas castas reproductivas de las colonias de abejas o las violentas anexiones territoriales entre chimpancés. Parece haber una conmovedora respuesta para los humanos en las sutiles pinceladas de la naturaleza y sus mecanismos creadores.
Si tuviera que reparar algún "pero" , este sería la jerga un tanto especializada que llega a usar y la enormidad de temas que intenta abarcar en una muy corta extensión, así como el , a mi parecer, excesivo énfasis que pone en el precedente evolutivo que significaron los insectos dejando aún menos espacio para desarrollar y analizar aún más a los humanos y las cooperaciones/conflictos políticos entre nuestros primos evolutivos actuales: bonobos y chimpancés. Aún así es una constructiva experiencia y un buen repaso de conceptos clave de la biología tales como la flexibilidad genética, la selección natural individual y multinivel (y porque esta última contradice el reduccionismo de "la supervivencia del más apto" aplicado a especies eusociales). Un bello recordatorio de lo improbablemente interesante que significa ser miembro de la especie humana.
Si tuviera que reparar algún "pero" , este sería la jerga un tanto especializada que llega a usar y la enormidad de temas que intenta abarcar en una muy corta extensión, así como el , a mi parecer, excesivo énfasis que pone en el precedente evolutivo que significaron los insectos dejando aún menos espacio para desarrollar y analizar aún más a los humanos y las cooperaciones/conflictos políticos entre nuestros primos evolutivos actuales: bonobos y chimpancés. Aún así es una constructiva experiencia y un buen repaso de conceptos clave de la biología tales como la flexibilidad genética, la selección natural individual y multinivel (y porque esta última contradice el reduccionismo de "la supervivencia del más apto" aplicado a especies eusociales). Un bello recordatorio de lo improbablemente interesante que significa ser miembro de la especie humana.
April 19, 2019
This is a great little book by the esteemed Harvard University biologist about genetic bases for the formation of societies across different species. Not just humans, but complex social organizations within chimpanzees, ants, wasps, bees, spiders, termites, shrimp, naked mole rats, and various bird groups are also discussed. Wilson seems to adhere to the assumption that evolution progressions are inherently "better" than previous iterations, so he sees eusocial communities as the highest form of social communities. I tend to see eusocial behavior as being more of a niche formation when those species compete against non-eusocial species for similar resources, rather than eusociality as a preferred state in itself.
Wilson's descriptions are excellent, and I want to learn more from his other writings. These topics of ecology, evolution, kin selection, group selection, eusocial communities, and society formation are also especially fascinating. I recommend this to anyone studying these areas or interested in these fields; this would be a great discussion starting point at the very least.
While I wish the last table was explained a bit more, the sketches throughout are beautiful and well placed. This is a short book, so I would recommend renting a library copy instead of paying the $25+ wholesale price (unless you are a contemporary peer of Wilson's and know you'll be referencing this again and again when formulating your own research). And from someone who used to work in publishing, I was impressed with the production value of my edition and could not find one typo.
While I may not agree with some of Wilson's assumptions and subsequent conclusions here, I respect the quality writing, loved the subject matter, and look forward to how reading other ecology and evolution books will help formulate my stance on these issues more completely. This isn't perfect, but it is really good! I'll definitely be keeping Wilson on my radar.
Wilson's descriptions are excellent, and I want to learn more from his other writings. These topics of ecology, evolution, kin selection, group selection, eusocial communities, and society formation are also especially fascinating. I recommend this to anyone studying these areas or interested in these fields; this would be a great discussion starting point at the very least.
While I wish the last table was explained a bit more, the sketches throughout are beautiful and well placed. This is a short book, so I would recommend renting a library copy instead of paying the $25+ wholesale price (unless you are a contemporary peer of Wilson's and know you'll be referencing this again and again when formulating your own research). And from someone who used to work in publishing, I was impressed with the production value of my edition and could not find one typo.
While I may not agree with some of Wilson's assumptions and subsequent conclusions here, I respect the quality writing, loved the subject matter, and look forward to how reading other ecology and evolution books will help formulate my stance on these issues more completely. This isn't perfect, but it is really good! I'll definitely be keeping Wilson on my radar.
January 5, 2021
Gosto muito do que Wilson escreve sobre organismos e ele sem dúvida é A pessoa para escrever sobre a evolução da socialidade. Mas é uma obra curta demais e com pouca informação nova que não me compensou a leitura. Algumas semanas depois de terminar e não lembro do que fixei do livro ou qualquer lição importante.
April 28, 2022
The dawn of human nature
The emergence of human social organization in the evolutionary biology appears to be a unique phenomenon. Societies existed among numerous species and humans, but the capability of communication with spoken language is unique to Homo Sapiens. The author observes that in each individual, altruism (the belief and practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others) was needed at a lower level of biological organization to re go one step ahead in generations. He refers to a group selection in which evolution acts on a whole group rather than on individuals, and in particular the concept of eusociality, which he calls that the highest level of organization of sociality that is characterized by cooperative brood care (including care of offspring from other individuals), overlapping generations within a colony of adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups. The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society which are referred to as 'castes'. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste. The author provides examples like grandmother helpers, gay people, and monastics, he suggests that human society owes a debt of gratitude to “postmenopausal grandmothers” and “childless homosexuals” for societal organization or eusociality. His theory is purely speculative that suggest a single gene is responsible for altruism, and advanced social behavior is due to complexity of the human gene networks. The author provides little biological basis for his speculation.
The emergence of human social organization in the evolutionary biology appears to be a unique phenomenon. Societies existed among numerous species and humans, but the capability of communication with spoken language is unique to Homo Sapiens. The author observes that in each individual, altruism (the belief and practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others) was needed at a lower level of biological organization to re go one step ahead in generations. He refers to a group selection in which evolution acts on a whole group rather than on individuals, and in particular the concept of eusociality, which he calls that the highest level of organization of sociality that is characterized by cooperative brood care (including care of offspring from other individuals), overlapping generations within a colony of adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups. The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society which are referred to as 'castes'. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste. The author provides examples like grandmother helpers, gay people, and monastics, he suggests that human society owes a debt of gratitude to “postmenopausal grandmothers” and “childless homosexuals” for societal organization or eusociality. His theory is purely speculative that suggest a single gene is responsible for altruism, and advanced social behavior is due to complexity of the human gene networks. The author provides little biological basis for his speculation.
January 29, 2020
This book accomplishes what it set out to explain, at least on a surface level. I think that it’s approachable to a wide audience and length isn’t intimidating like some non-fiction works. He makes his argument concisely and his examples are mostly straight forward and explained clearly. The downside of this book is that many of the examples and ideas presented here have been in his previous books. That being said, the examples are still fantastic and I think this is a perfect book to give someone interested in an overview of the evolution of eusocial behavior, anthropology, biology, or social behavior. 3.5 out of 5.
March 4, 2020
Super interesting book about how societies originated.
The basics of evolution in the first couple of chapters is a must read for everybody.
The insect evolution chapters gets wildly specific and will be a tough read if you aren’t familiar with a lot of the jargon.
It’s Short and a quick read- but you’ll want no distractions as you digest some of the chapters. I fully engaged my brain 😂.
The basics of evolution in the first couple of chapters is a must read for everybody.
The insect evolution chapters gets wildly specific and will be a tough read if you aren’t familiar with a lot of the jargon.
It’s Short and a quick read- but you’ll want no distractions as you digest some of the chapters. I fully engaged my brain 😂.
July 25, 2020
Genesis purports, in 125 generously margined pages of text, to depict in broad strokes the major evolutionary "transitions" in the history of life. There are five (not counting the origin of life itself), the first being the invention of eukaryotic cells and the last the invention of language. As the subtitle indicates, the majority of the book focuses on the penultimate step, the origin of society, and in particular of eusocial societies built by ants, termites, and, Wilson says, people.
Eusocial societies are societies organized into a hierarchy of castes, some of which reproduce, and some of which do not, and which exhibit biological features particular to specific castes. For example, the worker ants of the colonies of certain ant species are sterile females, and these ants have anatomically reduced reproductive organs that make them identifiable as belonging to the worker caste. Similar anatomical differences among castes are found in termites.
Ants and termites with eusocial societies utterly dominate the insect world in terms of population. Two questions thus emerge:
(1) How do eusocial societies emerge to begin with, given the stark reproductive cost they pose to their non-reproductive members, who, defying the expectations of natural selection on the individual level, "altruistically" sacrifice their genes to the collective?
(2) Given that eusocial societies clearly do somehow emerge, and given their enormous success for the organisms that adopt them, why do eusocial societies make up only a sliver of all social structures in the animal world?
The answer to (2) involves the difficulty Wilson perceives in sustaining the conditions required for eusociality to form. Eusociality is thought to first emerge from nests inhabited by parents (or single mothers) and their adult offspring, who for one reason or another--chance genetic mutation?--have failed to leave the nest. The offspring form a de facto non-reproductive caste, by dint of having nobody to reproduce with, while the parents form the smaller reproductive caste (which, extrapolated to the level of an ant society, would be the queen and her harem of five or six males).
This would seem a proto-eusocial situation that could easily slip into eusociality, but the problem is that in all other respects the offspring are still programmed for "solitary living"--they should be off finding mates of their own, not crammed together in a claustrophobic state of arrested development. As a result, the nest as a whole fails to divide labor efficiently and thus cannot compete with other nests, making the continuation of the proto-eusocial structure through future generations unlikely.
The answer to (1) is found in Wilson's evolutionary specialty, group selection. Groups that contain at least one member with strong altruistic tendencies are more likely to survive than groups without them. This means that the relatives of animal altruists--who carry the altruist gene cluster even if they themselves are not altruists--are more likely to survive and reproduce.
For me, the most stunning part of the book is Wilson's observation that at the moment of each transition to a higher order of life, "altruistic" behavior is required of the order which is being superseded. This is true even at the cellular level, and for this reason the first emergence of multi-cellular life forms remains "clouded in mystery":
"Some of the cells [in an organism], for example epidermal cells, red corpuscles, and lymphocytes, are programmed to die at a specified time in order to keep the other cells alive. Failure to do so precisely on time and in the right place can cause a disease that puts all the cells at risk. Suppose that just one of the many kinds of cells chooses to reproduce selfishly. Then, acting like a bacterium dropped into a large pot of nutrients, it multiplies out of turn to produce a mass of daughter cells. In other words, it turns into a cancer. Why should any one or all of your other trillions of cells not follow suit?"
Wilson admits that the problem of altruism at the cellular level remains "clouded in controversy," but I found his explanation of altruism at the level of the organism--powered in part by group selection--to be compelling as a non-expert. That is, I was compelled despite the fact that a quick check of Wikipedia (spurred by a hunch and what little I know about contemporary debates within evolutionary biology) revealed that Wilson's model of multi-level selection (the levels being individual and group) is more controversial than Wilson would have us believe. Fellow biologist and science popularizer Richard Dawkins is an example of someone who emphatically places primacy on individual selection for the continuation of that individual's genes (whence his book The Selfish Gene), and who indeed has written harshly negative reviews of other books of Wilson's arguing for a multi-level model.
Likewise, Wilson's characterization of Hamilton's rule--a formula that aims to predict an animal's performance or non-performance of altruistic behavior on the basis of that animal's relatedness to an animal in need of help, as well as the risk to itself and the benefit to the animal in need of help--seems misleading. Wilson claims that "inclusive fitness", a generalization of Hamilton's rule, is only advocated by a "small school of dedicated [...] theorists" (here "dedicated" reads awfully like a euphemism for "crackpot"), and yet trusty Wikipedia again informs me that in 2010, upon Wilson's attempted demolition of inclusive fitness theory in the journal Nature (along with two co-authors), more than one hundred biologists signed a rebuttal rejecting Wilson and co.'s conclusions. Who's the "small school" again?
My biggest gripe with the book, though, is its failure to convincingly argue for eusociality in humans. The book's reason for being is to demonstrate how social evolution across species can inform us about our own nature, and it wants to do so chiefly through a focus on the eusociality of ants and termites. And yet, the actual argument for human eusociality--which is required for the insect-speak to be of any relevance--is confined to a single paragraph! And not a convincing paragraph, at that. Here it is in full:
"Finally, a plausible case can be made for eusociality in human beings. The strongest evidence is the postmenopausal 'caste' of grandmother helpers. In addition there is the readiness with which individuals join professions and callings useful to society but counter to their own reproduction. Given that homosexuality is uniquely valuable to so many societies, it is not unreasonable to view homosexuals as a eusocial caste, and in the highest possible sense. In further witness is the prevalence of monastic orders in organized religions around the world. In yet another venue must be included the formally established and respected berdache system of the early Plains Indians, in which males dressed and performed as females. It should be kept in mind that the propensity toward homosexuality has a partly genetic basis, and further appears to benefit relatives and larger groups, making its genes more likely to survive. The evidence is indirect but strong: the frequency of homosexual-propensity genes in human populations is above the expected level from mutation alone, a sign that the propensity has been favored by natural selection. The level, in other words, is too high to be explained solely by random changes in genes that affect sexual behavior."
As a paragraph on which to hinge an entire book, this seems pretty weak. When we were defining eusociality earlier on, we made clear that biological differences between castes are a key component of eusociality. What is biologically different about monks that causes them to take vows? Any answer would seem to stretch the definition of "biological" to breaking, conflating sociobiology with plain old sociology. Are grandmothers really a "non-reproductive" caste if, by definition, they reproduced at some point earlier in their lives? And are they a "caste" if they spend their lives doing a great deal of other activities when the grandkids aren't visiting? And what about, as my friend Amanda pointed out to me, the homosexuals of all species (but especially humans!) who have children? Wilson writes as though the eusociality of humans were an interesting footnote to his argument, when it is in fact the main subject.
I am not an entomologist (insect specialist), or an evolutionary biologist, or a scientist of any sort. I therefore risk coming across as arrogant by wagging my finger at Wilson, among the most respected scientist-writers alive, and who is respected as both a scientist and a writer, having more or less founded the (controversial) discipline of sociobiology and written a shelf full of (controversial) books on everything from the complex, "super-organismic" structure of ant societies to a proposed "consilience" between science and the humanities. He's even got a book award named after him, the PEN E.O. Wilson Award for Literary Science Writing--which, again according to Wikipedia, he co-founded with Harrison Ford.
But I will risk the perception of arrogance, because this is just not a very good book. On a sentence level the writing is soporific and technical. It is haphazardly and misleadingly argued, and it is poorly sourced. There are no endnotes, just a set of references for each chapter, which judging by their titles do not evidence all of the claims made in each chapter. And, as other reviewers have informed me, Wilson has covered all of these subjects in more adequate detail (and, one assumes, with greater panache) in the many other books he has written. At the age of ninety, there was no reason for him to write this one. He would have better spent the time with his grandkids, as a member of the elderly helper caste.
Eusocial societies are societies organized into a hierarchy of castes, some of which reproduce, and some of which do not, and which exhibit biological features particular to specific castes. For example, the worker ants of the colonies of certain ant species are sterile females, and these ants have anatomically reduced reproductive organs that make them identifiable as belonging to the worker caste. Similar anatomical differences among castes are found in termites.
Ants and termites with eusocial societies utterly dominate the insect world in terms of population. Two questions thus emerge:
(1) How do eusocial societies emerge to begin with, given the stark reproductive cost they pose to their non-reproductive members, who, defying the expectations of natural selection on the individual level, "altruistically" sacrifice their genes to the collective?
(2) Given that eusocial societies clearly do somehow emerge, and given their enormous success for the organisms that adopt them, why do eusocial societies make up only a sliver of all social structures in the animal world?
The answer to (2) involves the difficulty Wilson perceives in sustaining the conditions required for eusociality to form. Eusociality is thought to first emerge from nests inhabited by parents (or single mothers) and their adult offspring, who for one reason or another--chance genetic mutation?--have failed to leave the nest. The offspring form a de facto non-reproductive caste, by dint of having nobody to reproduce with, while the parents form the smaller reproductive caste (which, extrapolated to the level of an ant society, would be the queen and her harem of five or six males).
This would seem a proto-eusocial situation that could easily slip into eusociality, but the problem is that in all other respects the offspring are still programmed for "solitary living"--they should be off finding mates of their own, not crammed together in a claustrophobic state of arrested development. As a result, the nest as a whole fails to divide labor efficiently and thus cannot compete with other nests, making the continuation of the proto-eusocial structure through future generations unlikely.
The answer to (1) is found in Wilson's evolutionary specialty, group selection. Groups that contain at least one member with strong altruistic tendencies are more likely to survive than groups without them. This means that the relatives of animal altruists--who carry the altruist gene cluster even if they themselves are not altruists--are more likely to survive and reproduce.
For me, the most stunning part of the book is Wilson's observation that at the moment of each transition to a higher order of life, "altruistic" behavior is required of the order which is being superseded. This is true even at the cellular level, and for this reason the first emergence of multi-cellular life forms remains "clouded in mystery":
"Some of the cells [in an organism], for example epidermal cells, red corpuscles, and lymphocytes, are programmed to die at a specified time in order to keep the other cells alive. Failure to do so precisely on time and in the right place can cause a disease that puts all the cells at risk. Suppose that just one of the many kinds of cells chooses to reproduce selfishly. Then, acting like a bacterium dropped into a large pot of nutrients, it multiplies out of turn to produce a mass of daughter cells. In other words, it turns into a cancer. Why should any one or all of your other trillions of cells not follow suit?"
Wilson admits that the problem of altruism at the cellular level remains "clouded in controversy," but I found his explanation of altruism at the level of the organism--powered in part by group selection--to be compelling as a non-expert. That is, I was compelled despite the fact that a quick check of Wikipedia (spurred by a hunch and what little I know about contemporary debates within evolutionary biology) revealed that Wilson's model of multi-level selection (the levels being individual and group) is more controversial than Wilson would have us believe. Fellow biologist and science popularizer Richard Dawkins is an example of someone who emphatically places primacy on individual selection for the continuation of that individual's genes (whence his book The Selfish Gene), and who indeed has written harshly negative reviews of other books of Wilson's arguing for a multi-level model.
Likewise, Wilson's characterization of Hamilton's rule--a formula that aims to predict an animal's performance or non-performance of altruistic behavior on the basis of that animal's relatedness to an animal in need of help, as well as the risk to itself and the benefit to the animal in need of help--seems misleading. Wilson claims that "inclusive fitness", a generalization of Hamilton's rule, is only advocated by a "small school of dedicated [...] theorists" (here "dedicated" reads awfully like a euphemism for "crackpot"), and yet trusty Wikipedia again informs me that in 2010, upon Wilson's attempted demolition of inclusive fitness theory in the journal Nature (along with two co-authors), more than one hundred biologists signed a rebuttal rejecting Wilson and co.'s conclusions. Who's the "small school" again?
My biggest gripe with the book, though, is its failure to convincingly argue for eusociality in humans. The book's reason for being is to demonstrate how social evolution across species can inform us about our own nature, and it wants to do so chiefly through a focus on the eusociality of ants and termites. And yet, the actual argument for human eusociality--which is required for the insect-speak to be of any relevance--is confined to a single paragraph! And not a convincing paragraph, at that. Here it is in full:
"Finally, a plausible case can be made for eusociality in human beings. The strongest evidence is the postmenopausal 'caste' of grandmother helpers. In addition there is the readiness with which individuals join professions and callings useful to society but counter to their own reproduction. Given that homosexuality is uniquely valuable to so many societies, it is not unreasonable to view homosexuals as a eusocial caste, and in the highest possible sense. In further witness is the prevalence of monastic orders in organized religions around the world. In yet another venue must be included the formally established and respected berdache system of the early Plains Indians, in which males dressed and performed as females. It should be kept in mind that the propensity toward homosexuality has a partly genetic basis, and further appears to benefit relatives and larger groups, making its genes more likely to survive. The evidence is indirect but strong: the frequency of homosexual-propensity genes in human populations is above the expected level from mutation alone, a sign that the propensity has been favored by natural selection. The level, in other words, is too high to be explained solely by random changes in genes that affect sexual behavior."
As a paragraph on which to hinge an entire book, this seems pretty weak. When we were defining eusociality earlier on, we made clear that biological differences between castes are a key component of eusociality. What is biologically different about monks that causes them to take vows? Any answer would seem to stretch the definition of "biological" to breaking, conflating sociobiology with plain old sociology. Are grandmothers really a "non-reproductive" caste if, by definition, they reproduced at some point earlier in their lives? And are they a "caste" if they spend their lives doing a great deal of other activities when the grandkids aren't visiting? And what about, as my friend Amanda pointed out to me, the homosexuals of all species (but especially humans!) who have children? Wilson writes as though the eusociality of humans were an interesting footnote to his argument, when it is in fact the main subject.
I am not an entomologist (insect specialist), or an evolutionary biologist, or a scientist of any sort. I therefore risk coming across as arrogant by wagging my finger at Wilson, among the most respected scientist-writers alive, and who is respected as both a scientist and a writer, having more or less founded the (controversial) discipline of sociobiology and written a shelf full of (controversial) books on everything from the complex, "super-organismic" structure of ant societies to a proposed "consilience" between science and the humanities. He's even got a book award named after him, the PEN E.O. Wilson Award for Literary Science Writing--which, again according to Wikipedia, he co-founded with Harrison Ford.
But I will risk the perception of arrogance, because this is just not a very good book. On a sentence level the writing is soporific and technical. It is haphazardly and misleadingly argued, and it is poorly sourced. There are no endnotes, just a set of references for each chapter, which judging by their titles do not evidence all of the claims made in each chapter. And, as other reviewers have informed me, Wilson has covered all of these subjects in more adequate detail (and, one assumes, with greater panache) in the many other books he has written. At the age of ninety, there was no reason for him to write this one. He would have better spent the time with his grandkids, as a member of the elderly helper caste.
August 21, 2023
Testo che fa ampio uso di biologia, sociobiologia ed entomologia. Molto esempi, spiegazioni e dimostrazione vengono date rifacendosi a studi sul mondo animale e degli insetti in particolare.
L’autore ci parla di eusocialità, ossia di gruppi della stessa specie organizzati gerarchicamente e che cooperano per il bene del gruppo stesso, dove l’individualismo lascia spazio all’altruismo.
La domanda di fondo è come sia possibile che l’evoluzione che premia l’individuo più forte abbia forme in cui premia l’altruismo? Ebbene, ci sono due tipi di evoluzione una individuale ed una di gruppo. I caratteri più forti dominano nel gruppo, mentre i gruppi più forti in cui vige l’altruismo dominano i più deboli. L’umanità insieme e poche altre specie, tra cui molti insetti, hanno caratteristica di eusocialità.
Il testo è un mix di divulgazione e dimostrazione, per fortuna è breve ed a leggerlo potete estrapolare quello che vi serve. Il risultato delle ricerche mi interessava. Mi scuso se sono stato poco preciso ma non è proprio il mio campo!
L’autore ci parla di eusocialità, ossia di gruppi della stessa specie organizzati gerarchicamente e che cooperano per il bene del gruppo stesso, dove l’individualismo lascia spazio all’altruismo.
La domanda di fondo è come sia possibile che l’evoluzione che premia l’individuo più forte abbia forme in cui premia l’altruismo? Ebbene, ci sono due tipi di evoluzione una individuale ed una di gruppo. I caratteri più forti dominano nel gruppo, mentre i gruppi più forti in cui vige l’altruismo dominano i più deboli. L’umanità insieme e poche altre specie, tra cui molti insetti, hanno caratteristica di eusocialità.
Il testo è un mix di divulgazione e dimostrazione, per fortuna è breve ed a leggerlo potete estrapolare quello che vi serve. Il risultato delle ricerche mi interessava. Mi scuso se sono stato poco preciso ma non è proprio il mio campo!
March 7, 2022
"Genesis" is essentially a short intro to evolutionary biology, but not a very good one. Wilson gives us a quick rundown of how evolution works and draws parallels between how humans and other animals work out the society bit in the world. Arguing that a lot of our philosophical and religious tendencies are natural evolutionary developments; that society is an evolutionary adaptation.
Honestly, I was underwhelmed - and I'm sure that's affecting my reviewing as it did my experience of the book. The best parts were the shorter deep-dives (a bit of an oxymoron I grant, but you get my meaning) into various insect biology and societies - Wilson's etymological/myrmecological specialty really shines through. The book does the bare minimum to even warrant its own existence, and everything Wilson covers has been covered better by someone else - or let's be honest here, by a lot of someone elses - previously.
I guess there's little harm in reading this book if the topic tickles your fancy, but that's about as warm of a recommendation that this book will get from me...
Honestly, I was underwhelmed - and I'm sure that's affecting my reviewing as it did my experience of the book. The best parts were the shorter deep-dives (a bit of an oxymoron I grant, but you get my meaning) into various insect biology and societies - Wilson's etymological/myrmecological specialty really shines through. The book does the bare minimum to even warrant its own existence, and everything Wilson covers has been covered better by someone else - or let's be honest here, by a lot of someone elses - previously.
I guess there's little harm in reading this book if the topic tickles your fancy, but that's about as warm of a recommendation that this book will get from me...
February 6, 2022
Read this book if you like bugs and big words 👍👍
I’d give “genesis” 3.5 termites
I’d give “genesis” 3.5 termites
October 2, 2024
Mostly this book was dry science. Not a bad thing, just didn’t keep my attention. Notes: evolutionarily speaking, selfishness benefits the individual in an altruistic society. Altruistic societies tend to win out over non-altruistic societies. Trouble. Also Wilson makes a brief statement as an aside that homosexuality seems to be an evolutionary benefit to society despite the lack of genetic reproduction from these individuals. Parallel to sterile worker ants? That topic could make a good book…
May 30, 2019
This very short book--I more or less think of it as an essay which designed to explain Wilson's deeper research and field observations over a lifetime--allows Wilson to present one part of his scientific conclusions arising over a lifetime of field and other research and observations about the origins of communities, especially human communities (or tribes and tribalism). This is how the work begins:
"All questions of philosophy that address the human condition come down to three: what are we, what created us, and what do we ultimately want to become. The all-important answer to the third question, the destiny we seek, requires an accurate answer to the first two."
That sentence sums up the question for knowledge for all of human history. Wilson delves into the answers in a short 125 page essay, an undertaking that, to my small mind at least, is significant for its ambition.
The ideas are complex, and, as someone who pays homage to the scientific method but is not schooled deeply in the sciences, the book at times is difficult and required a re-reading. However, as I progressed, I began to understand the points he was making about our human origins which he dates, more or less, to 2B years before the present time and the origins of life itself 3.8B years ago, and in particular to the origin and development of 'eusocial' groups which stressed cooperation, division of labor, and reciprocity resulting in altruism, the hallmarks of today's the human species. The ability to communicate with each other by means of spoken language distinguishes human beings from the birds in the trees and animals in the forest as a means of signaling to each other. Ultimately, literacy became a useful and familiar form of communication, and the building blocks of community were set. Overcoming "the regency of organism and the seeming absolute priority of selfish personal success" as the "powerful counterforce of natural selection."
In the final chapter, he summarizes his conclusions about how we got here, and surprisingly, his own conclusions about the significance of cooked meat, storytelling, and how bonobos wage war to protect their territory and acquire new territory--they eat infant chimps but spare the females while killing every male soldier.
Wilson probably is among the ranks of the great thinkers of civilization--Einstein, Aquinas, Darwin, Socrates and Aristotle, Copernicus, and those others whose contributions persist over the ages. This tiny book is a gift to all who read it.
"All questions of philosophy that address the human condition come down to three: what are we, what created us, and what do we ultimately want to become. The all-important answer to the third question, the destiny we seek, requires an accurate answer to the first two."
That sentence sums up the question for knowledge for all of human history. Wilson delves into the answers in a short 125 page essay, an undertaking that, to my small mind at least, is significant for its ambition.
The ideas are complex, and, as someone who pays homage to the scientific method but is not schooled deeply in the sciences, the book at times is difficult and required a re-reading. However, as I progressed, I began to understand the points he was making about our human origins which he dates, more or less, to 2B years before the present time and the origins of life itself 3.8B years ago, and in particular to the origin and development of 'eusocial' groups which stressed cooperation, division of labor, and reciprocity resulting in altruism, the hallmarks of today's the human species. The ability to communicate with each other by means of spoken language distinguishes human beings from the birds in the trees and animals in the forest as a means of signaling to each other. Ultimately, literacy became a useful and familiar form of communication, and the building blocks of community were set. Overcoming "the regency of organism and the seeming absolute priority of selfish personal success" as the "powerful counterforce of natural selection."
In the final chapter, he summarizes his conclusions about how we got here, and surprisingly, his own conclusions about the significance of cooked meat, storytelling, and how bonobos wage war to protect their territory and acquire new territory--they eat infant chimps but spare the females while killing every male soldier.
Wilson probably is among the ranks of the great thinkers of civilization--Einstein, Aquinas, Darwin, Socrates and Aristotle, Copernicus, and those others whose contributions persist over the ages. This tiny book is a gift to all who read it.
March 31, 2019
The author is one of the most prominent thinkers of our time who also is an engaging writer. This is a short-book essay on the author's thoughts about three eternal questions. He states in the beginning:
What are we?
What created us?
What do we ultimately wish to become?
Not wanting to leave these existential issues to political dogmas or religious superstitions he takes a naturalistic and evolutionary perspective. He assumes our minds and bodies evolved and are sufficiently understood by applying the known principles of chemistry and physics. His evolutionary analysis using "group selection," "phenotypic plasticity," and "controlled flexibility" as the key conceptions for explaining the origin of complex societies which besides human beings there are many, particularly in the insect world.
My favorite quote: "The spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa and around the habitable world was somewhat preordained. Its was meant to establish our rule of the planet with the inalienable right to treat it as we please. That mistake, I suggest, is the true human condition (p. 33)."
Most of the book, however, is focused on insect social evolution while saving humanity's story for the last chapter. Only then does he begin answering those initial questions.
His earlier book "The Meaning of Human Existence" (2014) directly covered the dilemma of human society; cooperation allowed humanity survive but tribalism is leading to our extinction. I recommend that reading.
What are we?
What created us?
What do we ultimately wish to become?
Not wanting to leave these existential issues to political dogmas or religious superstitions he takes a naturalistic and evolutionary perspective. He assumes our minds and bodies evolved and are sufficiently understood by applying the known principles of chemistry and physics. His evolutionary analysis using "group selection," "phenotypic plasticity," and "controlled flexibility" as the key conceptions for explaining the origin of complex societies which besides human beings there are many, particularly in the insect world.
My favorite quote: "The spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa and around the habitable world was somewhat preordained. Its was meant to establish our rule of the planet with the inalienable right to treat it as we please. That mistake, I suggest, is the true human condition (p. 33)."
Most of the book, however, is focused on insect social evolution while saving humanity's story for the last chapter. Only then does he begin answering those initial questions.
His earlier book "The Meaning of Human Existence" (2014) directly covered the dilemma of human society; cooperation allowed humanity survive but tribalism is leading to our extinction. I recommend that reading.
March 29, 2019
Consistent with his other books - Wilson writes as if his audience is quite uninformed by taking time to define simple concepts such as genes and in this case group selection continuously throughout the book. However, he will only touch upon more complicated processes as if you are already well informed in a more detailed field. If I wasn't studying entomology, it might frustrate me to the point where I stop reading - but I am lucky and think I have a solidified background to comprehend what he is trying to explain. I love how he always brings in Hymenoptera stories to pair with these more complicated ideas.
The best part of the book is the last chapter. It is in his discussion of eusociality in humans that really tied this book together. Plus, it takes a relatively different approach than the other chapters. I read Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, and I think it is interesting how both hypotheses on human evolution compare and contrast. Multiple times did I think Wilson would say something, only for him to surprise me with a different point of view. I was content with this quick read until the last line of the book. This book wins. As of now, this is my favorite ending line of anything I have ever read. Makes me want to go conversate to people about this book. You should read this book. Its fast, and the last chapter is worth it (but to have the most impact on you, you need to read the whole thing.) :)
The best part of the book is the last chapter. It is in his discussion of eusociality in humans that really tied this book together. Plus, it takes a relatively different approach than the other chapters. I read Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, and I think it is interesting how both hypotheses on human evolution compare and contrast. Multiple times did I think Wilson would say something, only for him to surprise me with a different point of view. I was content with this quick read until the last line of the book. This book wins. As of now, this is my favorite ending line of anything I have ever read. Makes me want to go conversate to people about this book. You should read this book. Its fast, and the last chapter is worth it (but to have the most impact on you, you need to read the whole thing.) :)
August 29, 2019
A quick read, this is more an extended essay than a full book and is immensely accessible to lay readers who are familiar with the rudiments of biological concepts such as taxonomy, evolution, genetics (as much as you remember from h.s. Biology class). Wilson discusses eusociality, the altruistic, cooperative bent of the most complex societies, of which humans are one of 17 species to have evolved to the highest level. The book weaves prehistoric evolution with insights derived from studying eusocial insects to offer keen perspectives on human behavior. I appreciate the extensive reading list at the end, with relevant resources divided by chapter. Wilson is pre-eminent biologist and naturalist with sufficient knowledge of anthropology to present a riveting story of humanity’s [group] development into present-day form.
January 25, 2020
A short but brief sketch of the origin of societies and evolution of various species. Edward Wilson describes how human societies began to evolve in their early stages. But the interesting fact is that he takes species other than human beings as focal point of his study and biologically explains how animals, reptiles and insects make societies like those of humans and thus build an eusocial structure.
August 17, 2020
This can get pretty niche for a layperson, with all the eusociality and what exactly happened to cockroaches in Middle Triassic. But let me say that it’s refreshing to read an actual evolutionary biologist, rather than those young men who finish their history course, read some books and suddenly know everything about the human nature. Yes, I’m looking at you, Harari and Bregman.
January 27, 2021
Certainly not the easiest read, I had to go back over paragraphs quite often to fully understand what was being delivered. But an informative take on society building, eusocial relationships and the importance of kinship amongst animals.
December 14, 2022
Someone who is not a believer in evolution would hate Edward O. Wilson's Genesis because he writes that the beginning of the world is purely natural processes and not God as the first cause. The book is an eloquent dissertation of how societies were formed by the evolutionary need to form groups to ensure survival in this harsh world. Elizabeth Gilbert's Signature of All Things had a main character pondering why someone would disregard their own survival for the sake of someone else and Wilson answers that question. Altruism is a function of an individual who sees survival as more than just their own selfish needs. Edward O. Wilson uses evolutionary theory to answer the big questions too: What are we? and what created us? A Creationist would burn this book but I found it to be a good read.
March 21, 2021
Well, I surely expected more from this book and I was a little disappointed.
Although the scientific theories are clearly interesting, I find the book too short and the explanations are exposed way too briefly. And it is more difficult to read than his previous writings, as he uses a very technical language.
Also, it didn't bring anything new, it is just a summary of Wilson's well-known theories that are discussed in other works.
I think Wilson's "The Social Conquest of the Earth" is far better because it offers more explanations so it makes his theories easier to understand. Maybe "Genesis" can be a helpful book for someone who wants to get familiar with the basic concepts of eusociality, but all in all for a real understanding I recommend "The Social Conquest of the Earth".
Although the scientific theories are clearly interesting, I find the book too short and the explanations are exposed way too briefly. And it is more difficult to read than his previous writings, as he uses a very technical language.
Also, it didn't bring anything new, it is just a summary of Wilson's well-known theories that are discussed in other works.
I think Wilson's "The Social Conquest of the Earth" is far better because it offers more explanations so it makes his theories easier to understand. Maybe "Genesis" can be a helpful book for someone who wants to get familiar with the basic concepts of eusociality, but all in all for a real understanding I recommend "The Social Conquest of the Earth".
May 29, 2024
This book feels more introductory than advanced but still relates a ton of information. The main point is eusociality, or why do social organisms display altruistic behavior if it decreases the individual's freedoms? Some definitions of eusociality claim it is the highest form of group organization: think about bees, ants, or the naked mole rat. Or about the people who sacrifice themselves for their country, cause, or idealogy. Why do groups like these exist? They are rare indeed when considering all the organisms that exist. Why does evolution allow these groups to exist? Is there something about altruism that allows these groups to continue passing that trait along to future generations? It's fascinating to think about considering evolution doesn't 'choose', it just allows certain traits to continue on because they allow individuals or groups to procreate and survive.
I'm not entirely sold on this notion by Wilson. Humans are a different organism. While there might be examples in history where societies have thrived being altruistic, they are exceedingly rare and have not survived to fully blossom. Of course, there are always alturistic examples one can find but it is not consistent throughout society. In fact, we have to teach people to be altruistic and compassionate because I don't believe it is inherent in group dynamics. I think the only way to achieve true eusociality is despotism, authoritarianism, and dictatorships. You have to force people into it because the default mode of humans is to think of oneself first, not the group. We all have an ego that tells us constantly to watch out for oneself first. And while being in a group has benefits in the beginning, it eventually fails because of individualism, freedom, and just wanting to be left alone sometimes! Groups are stifling, have rules and regulations, people don't pull their weight, others are just selfish, etc. While humans can share some qualities with other organisms, we are not ants. Fun to think about but not settled science yet.
I'm not entirely sold on this notion by Wilson. Humans are a different organism. While there might be examples in history where societies have thrived being altruistic, they are exceedingly rare and have not survived to fully blossom. Of course, there are always alturistic examples one can find but it is not consistent throughout society. In fact, we have to teach people to be altruistic and compassionate because I don't believe it is inherent in group dynamics. I think the only way to achieve true eusociality is despotism, authoritarianism, and dictatorships. You have to force people into it because the default mode of humans is to think of oneself first, not the group. We all have an ego that tells us constantly to watch out for oneself first. And while being in a group has benefits in the beginning, it eventually fails because of individualism, freedom, and just wanting to be left alone sometimes! Groups are stifling, have rules and regulations, people don't pull their weight, others are just selfish, etc. While humans can share some qualities with other organisms, we are not ants. Fun to think about but not settled science yet.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 172 reviews