Good Enough: The Tolerance for Mediocrity in Nature and Society

by Daniel S. Milo

In this spirited and irreverent critique of Darwin’s long hold over our imagination, a distinguished philosopher of science makes the case that, in culture as well as nature, not only the fittest the world is full of the “good enough” that persist too.

Why is the genome of a salamander forty times larger than that of a human? Why does the avocado tree produce a million flowers and only a hundred fruits? Why, in short, is there so much waste in nature? In this lively and wide-ranging meditation on the curious accidents and unexpected detours on the path of life, Daniel Milo argues that we ask these questions because we’ve embraced a faulty conception of how evolution―and human society―really works.

Good Enough offers a vigorous critique of the quasi-monopoly that Darwin’s concept of natural selection has on our idea of the natural world. Darwinism excels in accounting for the evolution of traits, but it does not explain their excess in size and number. Many traits far exceed the optimal configuration to do the job, and yet the maintenance of this extra baggage does not prevent species from thriving for millions of years. Milo aims to give the messy side of nature its due―to stand up for the wasteful and inefficient organisms that nevertheless survive and multiply.

But he does not stop at the border between evolutionary theory and its social consequences. He argues provocatively that the theory of evolution through natural selection has acquired the trappings of an ethical system. Optimization, competitiveness, and innovation have become the watchwords of Western societies, yet their role in human lives―as in the rest of nature―is dangerously overrated. Imperfection is not just good it may at times be essential to survival.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Nature, Audiobook, Self Help, Biology

320 pages, Hardcover

Published June 18, 2019

About the author

I am a natural philosopher at the School for the Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, Paris. I published seven non-fiction books, one novel, and one play, as well as thirty-five papers. I wrote and directed three plays and created three video-arts. All my works turn around one theme: Excess.
What is excess? When you can do with less. We could do with so much less! There is too much of everything, from surgical specialties and breeds of dog to varieties of breakfast cereal and synonyms for “wonderful.”
During the first phase of my work I studied excess in Man. The culprit is the future: the faculty to imagine alternative scenarios to the here & now and the means to realize some and to regret others.
Then I focused on excess in Nature, a phenomena that natural selection is supposed to eliminate but doesn't. Nonhuman life if full of nonsense, inefficiency, uselessness, noise, redundancy.
My last book, Good Enough: The Tolerance for Mediocrity in Nature and Society, proposes a synthesis of these two phases and a new theory of the sustainability of excess--and its beauty too.

Reviews

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good Enough by natural philosopher Daniel Milo is a more fascinating, wide-ranging, and potentially paradigm-shifting book than you might otherwise think from a quick glance at the title alone. The book is nothing short of an all-out attack on the more radical versions of Darwinism in both nature and society, arguing instead for a more nuanced and accurate “theory of the good enough.”

To begin with, it’s important to understand exactly what Milo is attacking and what he’s not. Milo is not denying evolution in the sense of “descent with modification,” or that all species are related and descended from a common ancestor. That much is beyond doubt, in case any creationists out there are thinking of using this book as support for their cause. (In fact, as Milo notes, his theory does more damage to the creationist view, in that it brings into sharper relief the paradox of a perfect being creating life that is, in many regards, wasteful and mediocre, compared to the view of natural selection that says every species is perfectly adapted to their environment.)

Further, Milo is not denying that natural selection exists, in that some traits are selected by the environment based on their fitness (adaptation) relative to other traits in a continual struggle for survival.

What Milo is arguing is that natural selection is not the only mechanism, and not even the most common one, in evolution, and that other mechanisms that have nothing to do with optimality or the “struggle for survival” play a larger role. Life is filled with useless, neutral traits, and with excesses, waste, and mediocrity due to the non-selective forces of genetic drift (random genetic mutation), geographical isolation, and the founder effect (when a species establishes a niche and survives, not because it is optimally adapted but because it is good enough to not die.)

Milo begins by questioning the analogy between artificial selection and natural selection, an analogy that represents the cornerstone of Darwinian thinking.

Artificial selection is best demonstrated by the diversity of dog breeds, and by the relative ease in which plant and animal breeders can select for desired traits in a relatively short period of time. Many biologists hold that natural selection is analogous to artificial selection, but that it simply operates over longer periods of time.

But, as Milo points out, this is precisely not how nature works. Unlike artificial selection, nature does not have an agent or force guiding life toward a predetermined goal or collection of traits. Nature, as a subject, agent, or force, doesn’t consciously do anything at all. Further, nature “prefers” stasis, not in terms of “desire,” but in terms of the tendency of genes to copy themselves with high degrees of accuracy. The mutations that do occur are infrequent and random and create variation and diversity that nature then (sometimes) selects for. But natural selection is not constantly in operation concerning every trait because, among other reasons, if it were, the incipient stages of eventually useful traits would be eliminated.

Milo marshalls several lines of evidence and argument in support of the idea that nature tolerates more mediocrity than natural selection can account for, from functionless genes to the giraffe’s unnecessarily long neck to vestigial organs to wide-ranges in organ function.

For example, 80 percent of human DNA is useless, nonfunctional “junk,” and there is no correlation between the size of an organism's genome and its complexity (the genome of a Japanese flower named Paris japonica is 50 times larger than a human genome).

Another example is the insects known as treehoppers. Treehoppers don elaborate and energy-consuming “helmets” that serve no discernable biological function. However, despite the uselessness and disadvantage of the “helmets,” treehoppers survive because of other traits that, while not optimal, function within an acceptable range conducive to survival.

Further, where natural selection is clearly demonstrated, it is not representative. The famous beak shapes of Darwin’s finches exemplify natural selection, but the conditions under which they evolved were not representative of even the other animals on the Galapagos Islands, let alone the rest of the world, as detailed in the book.

Faced with an overwhelming number of examples of useless or excessive traits, the Darwinian must either invent unproven “just-so” adaptation stories or else propose that apparently useless traits are useful in a way we have yet to discover. But this type of thinking is, as must be admitted, not very scientific. Science must begin with the null hypothesis, or the presumption of chance, and must prove significance, not demand that others prove insignificance.

The argument is, as far as I can tell, quite persuasive, and Milo dives deeper into the science and provides several fascinating examples throughout the book. I was left with the impression that the burden of proof has been shifted inappropriately and that Darwinians that rely on natural selection to explain all traits are overstretching the usefulness of their own theory. It’s far more likely that natural selection has produced the foundations of life common to all species (DNA, cells, metabolism, bilateral body plans, etc.), but that the diversity and variation among and within species is suboptimal, and allowed by nature to remain so, so long as the mediocrity is not so disadvatageous as to result in death or infertility (natural elimination versus natural selection).

Milo is ultimately advocating for a view that assumes the neutrality of biological traits except in cases where natural selection is clearly demonstrated. This leaves room for the mediocrity we encounter all throughout nature, and doesn’t require that we bend over backwards to explain the adaptive utility of clearly useless or excessive traits. This, to me, seems like the more reasonable (and scientific) approach.

Milo ends the book by discussing the political ramifications of adopting natural selection versus the theory of the good enough. It must be admitted, however, that, regardless of how nature operates biologically speaking, it can never fully justify human behavior. Even if natural selection is responsible for all biological traits, this doesn’t mean we should organize society according to the principle of the survival of the fittest. To do so would be to commit the fallacy of assuming that everything that is found within nature is good or worth emulating.

Nevertheless, natural selection has in fact influenced political thinking, and according to Milo, is largely responsible for the capitalist ethics and “excellence conspiracy” we currently embrace. The argument is essentially that, for humans, natural selection has nothing left to do. Survival is easy and reproduction all but ensured. Against the boredom of this safety net we invent conflict (hot dog eating contests) and pursue excellence for excellence's sake, all to stimulate our “fight or flight” neurons that would otherwise lay idle.

Some readers may find this part of the book a bit pessimistic. While there’s much truth to the argument, it can be argued that the pursuit of excellence is the reason we have a robust safety net in the first place, and our escape from the struggle for basic survival has produced the great works in science, literature, and art—the things that make life worth living. Further, the pursuit of excellence for the purpose of achieving worthwhile goals is itself a source of great satisfaction for many people, even if excellence is never truly attained.

While capitalist excess is hard to argue against, the case can be made that capitalism is responsible for the safety net we all enjoy in the first place. And the diversity of goods and experiences it produces gives people the opportunity to pursue a range of passions and experiences in a context of unprecedented safety and security. If there is more to life than survival and reproduction, then the “excellence conspiracy” is actually preferable (notwithstanding the impending ecological disasters we must confront).

That said, Milo is correct that the pursuit of excellence and excess in the capitalist framework should be tempered. As Milo wrote, “The pursuit of excellence is an admirable calling for some, but it is just one among many, including truth, faith, work, family, serenity, love, peace, pleasure, health, thrill, and fun.” It remains the case that excellence for its own sake for all people all of the time, based on misconceptions about how natural selection operates, is the primary social and political delusion of our times.

[Udit Nair · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this book since it was suggested by a professor of my university. The idea laid out by the author is actually challenging some of the core principles of evolutionary thinking and paradigms of current times. The fundamental premise of this book is that natural selection tolerates a great deal of mediocrity. The author contends that it is a mistaken view that nature selects and that it selects only the best.

The author proposes the theory of good enough and argues in support of the idea that nature tolerates more mediocrity than natural selection can account for. The theory of good enough proposes that the neutral theory of molecular evolution by Kimura should be extended to all levels of life. To prove this point the author has outlined several examples.

It is not to say that evolution does not occur. Ofcourse it occurs. Every organ, every process, descends from copy errors. But it does not imply any values. The survivor is merely the lucky one and no one is better off for the extinction of unlucky. There is no purpose or improvement in their replacement, no logic of the new.

The author is advocating that evolutionary sciences should assume the neutrality of biological traits except in cases where natural selection is clearly demonstrated. If we hail the wisdom of nature, then we must recognize that the tolerance for mediocrity is a constitutive aspect of its genius.

[Aviram Rasouly · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you liked “Sapiens” by Yuval Noah-Harari, you will love “Good enough” by Daniel Milo.

Are we really doomed to perpetually compete with each other? Why do we insist on grading students in schools and colleges? What prevent so many people from acknowledging the importance of diversity in human society? What were the false scientific foundations of the Eugenic movement? In “Good enough” Milo argues that misinterpretation of Darwinism accounts for many flaws in our social and scientific thinking.

For most of us, the gist of Darwinism is survival of the fittest. In other words, in a process of natural selection, changing environmental conditions drive selection of the fittest members from a diverse flora and fauna, within and across species. Therefore, the evolutionary playground is made of winners and losers with no tolerance to the latter. Per Milo, human society sadly adopted this limited scope of evolutionary theory and the consequences are evidently dire.

Milo takes the reader to sir Darwin’s masterpiece “On the origin of species” and finds evidence for natural selection in two places, and two places only: the farm (ironically) and the Galapagos islands. In both instances, a strong selective pressure drives evolution. While Milo commends the theory of natural selection and its central role in evolution of life, he concludes that strong selective pressure is not as common as one might think.

In the absence of strong selective pressure, what alternative forces shape evolution then? Here Milo is making the uncomfortable introduction between the reader and the concept of neutrality. Neutrality assumes that some evolutionary trajectories are a matter of chance, randomness, rather than the result of some invisible hand choosing the pick of the litter. In this case, there are no winners and losers, just lucky ones.

Reading this book, one finds himself asking why our evolution literacy readily adopts natural selection but not neutrality? Is it because we are hardwired to find a reason for everything? A simple explanation to help us justify the prevalent state and order? One can only wonder…

The book provides intriguing evidence of tolerance in nature for variation and even excess. Maybe the most surprising example is the human brain. Milo provocatively hints that the most sophisticated faculties of the human brain are not the product of natural selection but of runaway or uninterrupted excess.

A great book often has a self-scrutinizing effect on the reader. Good enough certainly does the trick.

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book mainly because I support its basic premise. The idea is that not every feature has actually been selected for and that often nature can be static. I think it’s an excellent point to bring up that to believe every anatomical feature is a result of natural selection is a bias that hardly accepts the null as a default and it’s been twisted to absurdity.

However, this book, while I greatly enjoyed and devoured it quickly, lacks some follow through. Part 1 on natural selection and its limitations was super strong, particularly the anguished attempts at explaining the giraffe.

Part 2 shows the authors lack of scientific knowledge as the attempts to explain neutral changes seem to lack depth particularly in hammering underlying mechanisms. He does bring in a few good points and examples of wastefulness, but it could have been embellished by deeper science.

Part 3 is the implications for society. That bit is perhaps longer than needed. I liked the last chapter but this felt like the weakest section of the book. It would have been stronger had the author delved deeper into negative consequences of adhering to a natural selection ethic like runaway capitalism and a deeper look at eugenics.

Also occasionally the author made claims about the difference between animals and humans that demarcated the line between the two a bit too definitively for some species.

I still quite enjoyed the book, think it makes some points quite well, and is an important one for evolutionary biology fans to have on their bookcases or ereaders.

[Maher Razouk · Rating 5 out of 5]

لطالما جذبت الزرافة الاهتمام. لآلاف السنين قبل أنصار التطور ، ألهمت الزرافة الحيرة والتساؤل. كان هذا المخلوق مذهلاً للغاية لدرجة أن الأمراء المسلمين قدموه - لعدة قرون - لقادة أجانب كهدايا دبلوماسية. من جانبه ، كان الشاعر اللاتيني هوراس متشككًا في مظهرها المزخرف ، والذي يبدو على ما يبدو نتاجًا للخيال وليس الطبيعة. كان حاشية مينج في القرن الخامس عشر على يقين من أن الزرافة كانت التجسد الأرضي للكيلين الأسطوري : "وحيد القرن الصيني".

حددها المؤرخون الفرنسيون في العصور الوسطى بأنها مجرد وهم . تقول إحدى الأساطير بين المتحدثين بلغة الشونا ، وهي لغة من لغات البانتو ، أنه عندما أجرى الخالق مقابلة مع الزرافة (تويغا) بخصوص هدفها على الأرض ، امتدت لتسمع الاستفسار بشكل أكثر وضوحًا. فرِحاً بجهودها ، منحها الإله رقبة طويلة وأنيقة. منذ ذلك الحين ، تمكنت من الوصول إلى أوراق الأشجار الأطول ، وبالتالي كان ذلك تذكيراً الحيوانات الأخرى بأن العزيمة تكافئ.
.
Daniel S. Milo
Good Enough
Translated By #Maher_Razouk

[Craig Becker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good Enough: The Tolerance for Mediocrity in Nature and Society

Daniel S. Milo’s Good Enough: The Tolerance of Mediocrity in Nature and Society presents a provocative challenge to conventional evolutionary theory and societal notions of excellence. Milo argues that natural selection, commonly seen as an optimizing force, is better understood as a process of mere elimination—favoring traits that are “good enough” rather than the best. He critiques the widespread belief that nature, like human society, rewards only the fittest, instead asserting that evolution and civilization thrive on excess, waste, and randomness.

Milo builds his argument by revisiting foundational evolutionary concepts, questioning the dominance of natural selection in shaping life. He highlights the roles of chance, genetic drift, and redundancy, showing that many traits persist not because they are beneficial but because they are not harmful enough to be eliminated. He suggests that “natural selection” should be reframed as “natural elimination” or “natural probability,” shifting the focus from active selection to passive survival. His discussion of the giraffe’s long neck, often cited as an example of adaptive evolution, is particularly compelling. He argues that this trait may not result from selective advantage but rather an incidental characteristic that was never disadvantageous enough to be phased out.

Milo extends his analysis beyond biology to critique human society’s obsession with competition, optimization, and excellence. He argues that nature is not inherently competitive but is tolerant mainly of inertia and inefficiency. Contrary to economic and social Darwinist theories, human civilization is not a struggle for supremacy but a system accommodating mediocrity. He connects this to modern economic structures, suggesting that capitalism’s drive for optimization is an artificial construct rather than a natural law. While natural selection eliminates severe disadvantages, it does not actively sculpt perfection—just as human systems do not require relentless competition to function.

A key strength of Good Enough is its interdisciplinary approach, blending evolutionary biology with sociology, history, and economics. For example, Milo’s analysis of the brain’s evolution challenges the assumption that increased encephalization (brain growth) necessarily conferred an evolutionary advantage. He notes that large-brained species, including many hominids, often struggled to survive, raising questions about the supposed linearity of evolutionary progress. His discussion of human foresight and planning as an evolutionary safety net is another fascinating insight. However, it raises questions about whether this future-oriented thinking truly distinguishes humans from other animals in the way he suggests.

However, the book leaves some critical questions open. Milo critiques the assumption that nature is optimizing but does not fully explain why certain modifications persist if they confer no adaptive advantage. While he introduces concepts like genetic hitchhiking and leakage to account for excess traits, more rigorous definitions and examples would strengthen his case. Similarly, his critique of Darwinian explanations for species diversification challenges existing models but does not present a fully developed alternative framework.

Despite these gaps, Good Enough offers a refreshing perspective that counters the idealized notion of evolution as a relentless march toward improvement. Milo’s critique of the “excellence conspiracy” in evolutionary ethics and neoliberal economics is timely, questioning society’s fixation on competition and optimization. The book challenges readers to reconsider the forces shaping biological and societal evolution, emphasizing that adequacy, rather than perfection, is often the actual driver of survival.

Milo’s work is a necessary correction to Darwinism's oversimplifications, though it may require more empirical backing to upend entrenched perspectives entirely. For those interested in evolutionary biology, philosophy, and social theory, Good Enough is a thought-provoking read that invites deeper inquiry into the nature of selection, survival, and success.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a great read, one I'd like to read again to absorb it better (my absorption of non-fiction is kind of mediocre - it's not the book's fault).

Milo, a self-described natural philosopher, much as Darwin was, makes a compelling argument that descent with modification is the primary mechanism of evolution rather than natural selection. He points out the troubling tendency we humans have, particularly under neoliberalism, of justifying a perpetual and ruthless drive to excellence as modelled on nature. After all, that's how it works in nature, yes? Survival of the fittest and all. Milo says no, nature has no investment in a species becoming the best that it can be. It just has to become good enough - to survive to reproduce. He points out the many ways evolutionary theory has cherry picked its examples to shore up this idea even while the evidence was far from conclusive. To be clear, he is 100% NOT saying that evolution isn't real. He's just questioning that natural selection, as it has often been described as a drive for excellence, is the primary mechanism of evolution. He gives all sorts of compelling examples, including showing that many of the traits species evolve have in fact very little discernible use... we have all sorts of excess that just is by virtue of a variety of mechanisms that aren't selected at all.

That's the gist of it... lots I probably don't remember, but it was really well written and quite fascinating, so I'd like to return to it.

[Miran Marie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Daniel S. Milo's Good Enough is a one-of-a-kind must-read book, the fruit of a lifetime of reflection straddling the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. Milo's broad ranging approach to philosophy and biology is resonant of Enlightenment erudition in a time when the compartmentalization of knowledge has become intellectually fashionable. Good Enough revisits the breakthroughs and, more significantly, the stalemates of Darwinism. It explores the excess, wasteful and sub-optimal “messy side” of nature, which Milo places under the label “good enough”, meaning good enough to survive and reproduce. Chapter 4 develops novel views on how Homo sapiens was for very long weakened by its excessively large and energy-demanding brain, a counterpoint to the view that the natural selection of our brain was responsible for our extraordinary Darwinian success. Chapter 8 then proposes that “the invention of tomorrow” was the outstanding invention of Homo sapiens’ brain (coextensive with its migration out of Africa) and is responsible for humanity’s singular standing on earth. Milo also studies how Darwinism was translated in Western societies into an ethical system that praised optimization and excellence. In a provocative fashion, he demonstrates the dangers of such excessive ethical systems and advocates room for less competition and more tolerance for imperfection, in tune with humanity’s talent for cooperation. The book is written in a rigorous but elegant and accessible style and is beautifully illustrated, making it enjoyable to academics and the general public alike. A tour de force, not to be missed.

[Rotem Bar-Or · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant.

A refreshing overview on fundamental issues in biology, igniting the readers curiosity and challenging stagnant concepts in commonly accepted evolution theories. The author gently (yet bravely) leads the readers through intriguing cases, discussing a variety of examples that demonstrate the vast range of optimization and competition features in nature. Brilliantly written, with an accurate touch of humor and criticism, Prof. Milo explains where scientists may have over-considered classical Darwinism.

Great reading for anyone who likes to explore nature, natural philosophy, and the nature of scientists :)

[Dylan · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5

Exceptionally persuasive in the demolition of competition related tropes in evolutionary thought, though it was preaching to the choir here. It is dense in ideas, though the prose is clear. Unfortunate that this appears to be Milo's only book in English. I am not enough of a subject matter expert to say this for certain, but it *felt* strikingly original to me and for that I'm rounding up to five stars despite flaws.

As many reviews note, his speculative conclusion about futurity is argued in a style that deeply clashes with the rigor he applied to the previous chapters. I think this was intentional but it just doesn't work. It is an unfortunate sour ending to an otherwise very strong book.

[Alexis Latner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Carefully reasoned, bold, and thought-provoking, this book is well worth reading.

[Sean Kottke · Rating 5 out of 5]

"School is an assembly line of the overqualified." (p. 246)

Absolutely fascinating counter-theory to the prevailing notion that Darwin's theory of natural selection can explain everything in nature (and the pernicious notion that it's the natural state of social organization). The theory of "the good enough" posits that neutrality, excess and mediocrity are more salient forces than merit, excellence and innovation in the evolution of life on earth. Chapter 4 has the potential to make the childless (and maybe the sleep deprived parent) hate the idea of child raising.

[Shawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

A worthy and convincing argument, but spends far more time than needed to make the point -- that natural selection is undoubtedly responsible for the origin of new species, but that once a new species appears it will always diversify in numerous ways, producing endless examples of organisms which, though they may not be the "fittest", are good enough to survive and reproduce.

Particularly important is his emphasis on the fact that evolution (unlike the breeding of domesticated organisms) has no direction and no goal, and is dependent on chance. One hopes that this part of the book will persuade some who labor under the mistaken impression that evolution operates rather like dog breeding to abandon that idea!

The sections on how the idea of "survival of the fittest" continues to plague our societies is more interesting, but here, too, he goes on too long. (And I was perplexed by his spending time on the Old Testament story of the Jews fleeing Egypt for the promised land -- which, as he says, most likely never happened! -- as an example of how humans' sense of the future sometimes leads to their emigrating from their home places in hope of a better future even when they are not forced to do so.)

[Michelle Bizzell · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'll give this book credit, I will never accept the phrase "survival of the fittest" without argument again. That will probably satisfy the author. About half of this book is spent ripping to shreds our unquestioning acceptance that natural selection is basically the only thing that changes living things by ruthlessly weeding out any "less desirable" traits. Therefore, everything must have an adaptive purpose. The second half of the book is the author's own theory on how modification through descent works while allowing for natural selection and also traits that just are. It was very interesting, but I would like to see more perspectives on it. The author is notably less critical of himself than of others. But I am glad I read this as it opened my mind to new ideas.

[Andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I listened and re-listened to this audiobook over the course of six months. I enjoyed it but it was just detailed enough that I had to either fully listen or listen while doing something that took very little attention – not quite the sort of book I usually select to consume as audio. As for the book itself – WOW! Some really big ideas and good arguments here that essentially boil down to “Look, we’ve taken Darwin’s ideas somewhat out of context and thrown a lot of causation on correlations and managed to end up at ideas like eugenics”. We’ve generalized survival of the fittest into a mantra behind not only how nature works (which might not be so true, actually) but into the driving force behind what businesses make it, what nations and national ideas prevail and even what individuals succeed or struggle. Somewhere in here, we’ve adopted the belief that all traits have a purpose because all have been specifically “selected” by nature. Overall, this book is one big argument that nature doesn’t work like that and didn’t even work like that in Darwin’s day. Darwin drew on a lot of evidence and ideas from domesticated nature, which turns out to have almost no relation to its wild cousins. In a sentence, nature is a fan of the “good enough”. The world we see around us, including our fellow humans, are a messy, disorganized collection of species with a lot of useless or wasteful traits that were good enough to allow them to keep surviving or not sufficiently bad enough to get them killed. Why have we been so suckered into the grand cosmic plan, everything for a reason, and ever upward progress idea of the world? Turns out that would be due to one of the biggest messy traits nature has ever seen – our brains, giant energy sucking organs that make birth perilous, require a ridiculously long period of helplessness and post-womb development and organs that are allergic to not seeing patterns and connections, often where there are none. Milo calls our brains “significance generators” and I feel like he’s really boiled down the entirety of behavioral economics and the cognitive/neuroscience studies of why we make the thought errors we make. This was a really great read and I don’t regret the time I needed to sit with the ideas and examples here to really have them sink in. This feels like one of those books that is going to stay with me for a long long time.

[Cody Moser · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay book, find some of the details and reasoning laborious to get through, but overall basic ideas are:

- Natural elimination should be used rather than natural selection. Selective processes are really just changes in frequencies, rather than perfect/imperfect cutoffs
- This process creates a series of ranges which end up with an excess of variation. This excess, rather than constraint, is driven by a process similar to the geometric mean of creating something "good enough" to survive, rather than optimized
- Two forms of evolution: diachronic (an optimizing process) and synchronic (a process of excess). Evolution is built by the first, through the development of conserved core components and processes (CCCPs), everything thereafter is subject to ranges
- There is a speculative chapter on human foresight that I'm not sure how I feel about
- The idea that the drive for excellence is due to a separation of competitive processes from sexual selection is rather interesting

I agree with much of this, particularly this view of "good enough" evolution rather than optimizing evolution, but was sort of lost in Gell-Mann moments during the parts on human evolution. Overall okay, reinforced my priors on this point about ranges.

[ReadingMama · Rating 3 out of 5]

Power of imagination: Out of all creation, only human are capable to move forward to the unknown charter and to dream the impossibility. What motivates human to challenge and to test our limits and to dare to explore? Of course, not everyone is adventurous; and 20/80 rule still applicable to many occasions. Still 20% of people produce and 80% receive, while 20% venture out while 80% remain. I certainly want to be the 20% of minority that change the world~

This book defies the natural selection's assumption of only the fittest survival. Instead it suggests the tolerance of mediocrity in natural order. In a sense, it sends the message of that you do not have to be #1, instead being an average is acceptable and quite alright :-)

사람은 혼자서 걷지 않는다. 함께행동한다. 뇌는 문제의 해결책을 공급한다. 새로운 도전 과제를 공급한다. 사람은 가치성을 부여한다. 아무것도 하지않을때 절망, 우울에 빠지게 되어있다. 충족시켜야할 새로운 특기를 발견해야한다. 수단이 목적으로 변화면 그건 게임이다. 상상한고 추측하는것은 오로지 인간만이 할수있다.

[Tomas Chaigneau · Rating 3 out of 5]

A rather different take on the theory of natural selection and new-darwinism. I found the argument very convincing, and a very different style of argumentation to usual, less about empirics, but more about reason, logic and case studies.
Nevertheless, i like the argyument that ecologists, biologists and those focusing on evolution tend to simply accept Darwin's work as fact, rather than apply the null hypothesis. They then try to argue why certain traits have evolved to fit the theory of evolution rather than consider other options.
Essentially, this book is not about Darwin being wrong, but that there are other explanations as to why certain non-competitive traits have evolved, and that is simply that they are good enough to survive, especially in situations that are not too stressful or competitive.

[N Rizkalla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Occasionally you stumble into a book that will challenge your maxims.

The Darwinian principles of evolution based on natural selection and the survival of the fittest (or the most fit) is one theory that migrated from biology to society.

This book argues that natural selection is the only pathway in nature for species to preserve its survival. Nature preserves traits which are “good enough” for survival even if mediocre or apparently without a great utility!

So survival is not always not for the fittest but for everyone who is good enough to survive.

Difficult book to read but so much enjoyable and thought provoking!

[Shawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

this was a extremely enjoyable read. has alot of very interesting information about biological adaptation. and about how stress triggers mutation/dormant phenotypes( but sometimes cancer) and how after a stress period, it will seek equalibrium. the CCCP (hahahha) in cells is the mechanism to trigger decline and fall of organism and thus prevent over population, etc. small area for competition sometimes trigger alot of variations, but also, extravagant variations might be a bubble caused by a robust safety net.

[Menahem · Rating 3 out of 5]

THIS IS ASTONISHING.
I couldn't for the life of me believe that on the pages of this book, I would ever hear the mention of the filthy, rotten, no-good book called "Child No.44".
What the author imagines Soviet life is now out of the question, however I most certainly would suggest his next book's topic be none other than meditations on the nature of communism as a society based on the scientific method, how what we know about the nature of man would serve as obstacles on the way there - euthanasia, childbirth, cerebral sorting, AI gosplan, inner evil and so on.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this book up in the hope that it might provide some scientific or philosophical backing for my inherent laziness.
It did that, and much more.
I now see all of human culture (not just housework) as excess and surplus.
Looking at humanity like this, through the enormous time frame of our entire evolutionary development, is like looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It's a way of becoming detached. Or possibly a way of cultivating a position of neutrality?

[The Inquisitive Biologist · Rating 5 out of 5]

Iconoclastic in its outlook, but gentle and respectful in its approach, Good Enough is a mightily interesting and thought-provoking critique of adaptationist storytelling in evolutionary biology. See my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2019...

[Kayson Fakhar · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really wanted to give this a solid 4 it started with great things and ended like, ironically, a mediocre book. I still think it's a good read, easy to understand, a nice viewpoint that is absolutely required for anyone interested in evolution. So it gives you those and some weird things that you just need to filter out!

[Annie Wilson · Rating 1 out of 5]

My fault for not realizing, but it’s more of a thesis/hypothesis than an informative book, and I don’t know enough of the science to be able to refute or accept arguments properly or disentangle supposition from fact. Also, it’s written like a textbook - terribly dry.

[altesse sérénissime]

« And in society » MYTHO j’ai ouvert le livre en pensant naïvement qu’on discuterait de social-darwinisme et de méritocratie mais non en fait deux lignes y sont consacrées et pour le reste on s’épanche vingt ans sur les idiosyncrasies anatomiques des girafes #jem’enfous

[Heidi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting boo. I really enjoyed listening to it and thinking about the theories.

[Forked Radish]

Not good enough.

[Josh · Rating 1 out of 5]

There is probably a good idea in this book, but it's buried under so much filler and repetitive arguments that it becomes muddled and almost incomprehensible.

[György · Rating 1 out of 5]

Mr. Milo is like a magician, but not good enough one.