Edward O. Wilson: Marx was right, he had the wrong species(froes.dds.nl)
froes.dds.nl
Edward O. Wilson: Marx was right, he had the wrong species
http://www.froes.dds.nl/WILSON.htm
45 comments
Reminds me of a great quote Len Sassaman has in his Orkut profile:
"Some day, I will invent a machine that turns all marxists into ants. Then, we will all be happy."
"Some day, I will invent a machine that turns all marxists into ants. Then, we will all be happy."
Sure, ants can work harmoniously because of genetic incentives, but how is that really different from the way cells work together in a human body? Selfishness is inescapable and constant, like the speed of light. Justice and individuality are illusions, like time and space, that become meaningful when determined in terms of selfishness. That which is selfish is an individual; that which is an altruist member of a greater being is like a cell in an individual.
Speaking on behalf of empirical data, many humans are not content to have just enough. They always want more. Give someone a million dollars and they want more. Give them a comfortable house, and they will dream of having a better one. It's all relative, but by nature, I think humans will never be content with what they have or know. They will always seek out something more. To elaborate on the comment above about greed, agreed: This is why Communism, one form of Marxism, in favor of a single class, will never work.
Great interview with him from RadioLab
http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/09/23/chasing-bugs/
http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/09/23/chasing-bugs/
Has anyone read the books by E.O. Wilson? Any good ones?
I read The Insect Societies, and while I'm sure it was very useful for biologists, the ratio of detail to intellectual insight was much too large for me. I didn't dare to tackle the other ones.
I read The Insect Societies, and while I'm sure it was very useful for biologists, the ratio of detail to intellectual insight was much too large for me. I didn't dare to tackle the other ones.
I read Consilience and had a similar impression. Useful for entomologists, not a terribly great read otherwise.
I remember loving On Human Nature when I read it, but I can't respond to your specific question.
[deleted]
For all those who are hating on the free-market and greed and selfishness, I advise you to check out Ayn Rand's collection of essays compiled into a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.
http://www.atlassociety.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness....
http://www.atlassociety.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness....
[deleted]
The very article you link to carefully distinguishes Rand's definition of selfishness from the common understanding of the word. Rand was herself against the base selfishness that most people are against.
The problem is that pure free markets allow those operating from base selfishness to prosper. You need a credible threat to keep these people in line. Rand perhaps hoped that an Atlas Shrugged style revolt of "prime movers" could provide that threat, but (1) it's much too blunt, (2) relies on Rand's simplistic view that humans are either ethical and productive or looters (which allows her to justify the consequences of that revolt), and (3) has very little chance of actually happening. Which means turning to the state to provide the necessary threat, compromising the cherished ideal of completely free markets. The state may operate imperfectly, and require an ever-vigilant electorate to ensure that it does not overstep its bounds and is constantly improving its methods in accordance with a well-specified set of metrics (which is true of just about any government function), but it's better than letting businesspeople run amok in the name of purity.
The problem is that pure free markets allow those operating from base selfishness to prosper. You need a credible threat to keep these people in line. Rand perhaps hoped that an Atlas Shrugged style revolt of "prime movers" could provide that threat, but (1) it's much too blunt, (2) relies on Rand's simplistic view that humans are either ethical and productive or looters (which allows her to justify the consequences of that revolt), and (3) has very little chance of actually happening. Which means turning to the state to provide the necessary threat, compromising the cherished ideal of completely free markets. The state may operate imperfectly, and require an ever-vigilant electorate to ensure that it does not overstep its bounds and is constantly improving its methods in accordance with a well-specified set of metrics (which is true of just about any government function), but it's better than letting businesspeople run amok in the name of purity.
Rand's fiction is better than her non-fiction. She makes a good artistic case that selfishness is not a priori evil and is often good. However, if you are looking for rigorous philosophy or social analysis to support such viewpoints, then I would suggest one look elsewhere.
How about Adam Smith's works? They are very readable.
[deleted]
This article debunks the myth that us humans are a "unique" species far removed from "other" animals. Plus now I know who a myrmecologist is! Thanks Google.
99.99% of humanity has been religious so far (from its early beginnings until now, being atheism a very rare phenomenon in the past).
If you want to really understand humans, why ignore that fact?
If you want to really understand humans, why ignore that fact?
Don't forget that persecution of a thing tends to drive it underground but not eliminate it. There is no way of knowing how many people in centuries past were non-religious because they would have hidden this fact to avoid persecution.
And if we substitute religion with faith?
We all know (from daily experience) that we need to trust / have faith / etc. in someone or something. No single human is able to start from 0 and to do it all by himself.
Now, the current faith of 'modern' (non religious) people seems to be one of: Science, Politics, Evolution (in the sense of: Nature will solve it all for us).
But: if the solution to a human problem can't really be found inside himself, that fact already excludes any possibility of being the human itself something similar to God (Batteries AKA All Solutions To All Problems Already Included).
Concluding: it's much more reasonable to actually believe in some God than the opposite. (And I really appreciate the intelligence/knowledge/wisdom of past generations.)
We all know (from daily experience) that we need to trust / have faith / etc. in someone or something. No single human is able to start from 0 and to do it all by himself.
Now, the current faith of 'modern' (non religious) people seems to be one of: Science, Politics, Evolution (in the sense of: Nature will solve it all for us).
But: if the solution to a human problem can't really be found inside himself, that fact already excludes any possibility of being the human itself something similar to God (Batteries AKA All Solutions To All Problems Already Included).
Concluding: it's much more reasonable to actually believe in some God than the opposite. (And I really appreciate the intelligence/knowledge/wisdom of past generations.)
> Because we have reproductive independence, and we get maximum Darwinian fitness by looking after our own survival and having our own offspring.
i.e. we are selfish and greedy.
If everyone recognized and accepted this we'd be able to move past fantasies like the free-market and "our leaders have our best interests in mind"
i.e. we are selfish and greedy.
If everyone recognized and accepted this we'd be able to move past fantasies like the free-market and "our leaders have our best interests in mind"
Selfish, greedy, unrelated, and fertile.
E.O. Wilson's point was that since each worker ant is closely related to the rest of the colony, and they can't reproduce themselves, it's in the best interest of their genes to look out for the colony. We could get a similar effect by sterilizing humans (perhaps this is why monarchies have used eunuchs as their closest advisors and attendants), but I don't think it'd go over well.
Ants are selfish and greedy too, when it comes to warfare between colonies.
E.O. Wilson's point was that since each worker ant is closely related to the rest of the colony, and they can't reproduce themselves, it's in the best interest of their genes to look out for the colony. We could get a similar effect by sterilizing humans (perhaps this is why monarchies have used eunuchs as their closest advisors and attendants), but I don't think it'd go over well.
Ants are selfish and greedy too, when it comes to warfare between colonies.
Unfortunately for your eunuch idea, the part of your anatomy that makes you think and act like a genetically independent agent is much more problematic to cut off.
The flip side is that human reason and imagination are powerful enough to be able to model socialist societies fairly well. You can actually build an army, or a Shaker community, out of genetically unrelated humans, which is more than you can say for, e.g., cats. But human large-scale social altruism is dependent on culture, law, ethics, and reason, which makes it much more unstable than the ant version.
The flip side is that human reason and imagination are powerful enough to be able to model socialist societies fairly well. You can actually build an army, or a Shaker community, out of genetically unrelated humans, which is more than you can say for, e.g., cats. But human large-scale social altruism is dependent on culture, law, ethics, and reason, which makes it much more unstable than the ant version.
Not necessarily. Most of the aggression centers in the brain are triggered by testosterone. Cut off the testes, and testosterone levels drop dramatically.
Similarly, experiments that injected testosterone found that they could "manufacture" aggression in normally mild-mannered men (and women! that's one of the side-effects of steroid use in female athtletes).
Also, Shakers were celibate, which is perhaps more evidence for a connection between reproduction and aggression.
Similarly, experiments that injected testosterone found that they could "manufacture" aggression in normally mild-mannered men (and women! that's one of the side-effects of steroid use in female athtletes).
Also, Shakers were celibate, which is perhaps more evidence for a connection between reproduction and aggression.
The facts are against you, dude. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#China
> At the end of the Ming Dynasty there were about 70,000 eunuchs ... Certain eunuchs gained immense power that occasionally superseded that of prime ministers.
The Wikipedia article goes on to make a few mistakes by suggesting that Eunuchs were the Emperors' henchmen, and doesn't mention the fact that several of the Ming emperors were in fact deposed, and more were politically neutered (hur hur) by palace eunuchs.
In other words, despite a total lack of testosterone, the eunuchs' behavior was still generally aggressive and status-seeking.
That makes a certain amount of sense, given the prevailing "design philosophy" [1] of evolved systems. Natural selection only produces incremental improvements, which means there are lots of little widgets doing similar things that are glued on in a half-random way. Self-interest and aggression are central to human behavior, so it seems silly to think --like alchemists who wanted to bottle essences like "heat" or "perfection"-- that all aggressive and self-interested behavior would disappear in the absence of one hormone.
[1] Creationism is bad, but sometimes its terms are handy.
> At the end of the Ming Dynasty there were about 70,000 eunuchs ... Certain eunuchs gained immense power that occasionally superseded that of prime ministers.
The Wikipedia article goes on to make a few mistakes by suggesting that Eunuchs were the Emperors' henchmen, and doesn't mention the fact that several of the Ming emperors were in fact deposed, and more were politically neutered (hur hur) by palace eunuchs.
In other words, despite a total lack of testosterone, the eunuchs' behavior was still generally aggressive and status-seeking.
That makes a certain amount of sense, given the prevailing "design philosophy" [1] of evolved systems. Natural selection only produces incremental improvements, which means there are lots of little widgets doing similar things that are glued on in a half-random way. Self-interest and aggression are central to human behavior, so it seems silly to think --like alchemists who wanted to bottle essences like "heat" or "perfection"-- that all aggressive and self-interested behavior would disappear in the absence of one hormone.
[1] Creationism is bad, but sometimes its terms are handy.
I think you were being sarcastic. But I think you put your finger on a fundamental mistake people seem to instintively make when drawing conclusions from any evolutionary concepts. Jumping from 'do' to 'should do', 'will do', etc.
For castration to have an effect on genetics, you'd need it'd need to be universal for hundreds, thousands or preferably, millions of generations. To affect memes it could happen within a few generations, but the science on that is a lot weaker.
For castration to have an effect on genetics, you'd need it'd need to be universal for hundreds, thousands or preferably, millions of generations. To affect memes it could happen within a few generations, but the science on that is a lot weaker.
The free market is modelled around the fact that we are greedy. Communism assumes that we are (or can be made) purely altruistic ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" collapses if there is just a single selfish, greedy actor present).
That's why free markets work remarkably better than communism.
That's why free markets work remarkably better than communism.
You know, I never thought that free markets vs Communism made very good polar opposites. They don't cover the same sort of ground. They clash terribly over invisible hand vs command but Communism also covers a 17th- 18th centuryish theory of history at its core. What do free marketeers have to say to that?
The command vs freee hand, particularly for physical goods production has been largely decided. I think very few politicians left that would directly control production in a red sort of a way. They might for micro political reasons, but probably wouldn't try to control the economy some other way.
Marx got moulded into a religious figure. But read in a similar context as Kant, Bentham, or even Ayn Rand, it's definitely interesting.
The command vs freee hand, particularly for physical goods production has been largely decided. I think very few politicians left that would directly control production in a red sort of a way. They might for micro political reasons, but probably wouldn't try to control the economy some other way.
Marx got moulded into a religious figure. But read in a similar context as Kant, Bentham, or even Ayn Rand, it's definitely interesting.
you're right. marxism is intertwined with the idea of a class struggle throughout history. I would say the free market version would be considered aristocratic: that it has been a small handful of entrepreneurs in each age that has advanced things. This in spite of the petty concerns of the proles, not because of them.
No, elitism and free market do not have to go hand in hand.
For example look at the "I, Pencil" essay (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html) that argues that no single person knows how to make a pencil, at least not effectively. People of all walks of live contribute to our economy in varying degrees.
The history of science and technology is still told as the history of great men. Just look at the wealth of independent re-inventions, to see that seldom does progress hinge on individuals.
I still admire entrepeneurs and great scientists as great role models.
For example look at the "I, Pencil" essay (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html) that argues that no single person knows how to make a pencil, at least not effectively. People of all walks of live contribute to our economy in varying degrees.
The history of science and technology is still told as the history of great men. Just look at the wealth of independent re-inventions, to see that seldom does progress hinge on individuals.
I still admire entrepeneurs and great scientists as great role models.
wait what? what do you call the CEO of the pencil company? none of those individual workers would have jobs if the need for pencils didn't exist and there wasn't someone who was capitalizing on that need. That fact that the most efficient way of doing business in modern times involves shipping materials from many parts of the world is a testament to the efficiency of the market.
The idea of class struggle & the idea that history is a process with a beginning & an end.
Thankfully, however, we're not actually forced to choose between laissez-faire capitalism and communism.
Yeah. I know neither side thinks compromise is a good solution, but: considering that each extreme is half the world's nightmare, being somewhere in between is a good way of giving everybody a chance to alter things.
I think that being black-and-white in terms of your personal self is always a good way to be: if you always try to do the right thing for yourself regardless of what other people choose, then you're to be completely respected. But people who take that attitude and then try to cast it over an entire society (like Ron Paul, or Ayn Rand - though I think that the latter didn't actually think an entire society could work like that) ignore how incredibly complex any collection of people becomes, and how disastrous a black-and-white worldview would become.
I think that being black-and-white in terms of your personal self is always a good way to be: if you always try to do the right thing for yourself regardless of what other people choose, then you're to be completely respected. But people who take that attitude and then try to cast it over an entire society (like Ron Paul, or Ayn Rand - though I think that the latter didn't actually think an entire society could work like that) ignore how incredibly complex any collection of people becomes, and how disastrous a black-and-white worldview would become.
There is a considerable span between free markets and laissez-faire capitalism. Most modern "left" political movements accept free markets as a good thing, and mainly differ with the right on the level of regulation.
I mainly read Ayn Rand as a criticism of the "truths" of the left wing, not as a very useful proponent of a laissez-faire society.
Anyway, free markets "punish" greed, by forcing those who want material wealth to work for it, instead of leeching of others. The reason taxation and politicians is a problem in free markets is exactly greed: anybody on the receiving end of public funds have little rational motive to seek to end that stream.
I mainly read Ayn Rand as a criticism of the "truths" of the left wing, not as a very useful proponent of a laissez-faire society.
Anyway, free markets "punish" greed, by forcing those who want material wealth to work for it, instead of leeching of others. The reason taxation and politicians is a problem in free markets is exactly greed: anybody on the receiving end of public funds have little rational motive to seek to end that stream.
She's not somebody to be taken entirely practically, no. However, she's invaluable in that she teaches that man should exist for the sake of himself, and in that she writes in a captivating manner that has drawn millions of people in.
I would never call myself Republican (I hate social conservativism with a passion) nor libertarian (I hate that they've made such a mockery of themselves), but Rand certainly showed me that the far left was as crazy as the far right.
I think that free markets go too far in their "punishment" when they start punishing companies who ARE working for their wealth. As things stand right now, one side isn't being punished enough, while the other site is being punished too much.
I would never call myself Republican (I hate social conservativism with a passion) nor libertarian (I hate that they've made such a mockery of themselves), but Rand certainly showed me that the far left was as crazy as the far right.
I think that free markets go too far in their "punishment" when they start punishing companies who ARE working for their wealth. As things stand right now, one side isn't being punished enough, while the other site is being punished too much.
"Free markets" are a disaster; without protectionist measures the United States would still be pursuing its comparative advantage against Great Britian--we'd be selling them beaver skins and acorns in exchange for their manufactured goods. All of the protectionist Asian countries have done gangbusters in the last half-decade or so; meanwhile all of the countries that have had "free markets" forced on them (which certainly does NOT include the United States) have in comparison done terrible (think Africa, Latin America).
Boiling down a complex and varied set of ideologies into one oversimplified exaggerated statement FTW!
ya except moving past something like free-markets is a fantasy in itself; power begets greed. imho, given the 2% that control 1/2 the worlds wealth it is that 98% moral objective to destroy that 2% and redistribute the wealth accordingly via the battleground known as the free-market.
Also, on "A scientist would rather use another scientist's toothbrush than his terminology," I think that goes double for mathematicians. For instance, in complex analysis, "analytic," "holomorphic," "regular," "differentiable," and "complex differentiable" all mean the same thing in the context of functions/maps, with various subfields of mathematics adopting one or the other at various times.