because any sort of material, sociological or biological account of human society runs into a wall of Enlightenment-era type individualism and people don't like that.
I mean in terms of people using it to advance some kind of racial politics it's actually obvious why it's offensive but one of the funnier E.O. Wilson moments I recall is a Youtube video where one commenter accused him of promoting communism by means of teaching about eusociality in ants.
People like Wilson are a rare breed. He stuck to his guns despite the huge backlash around Sociobiology. From my vantage point, it seems everyone else is coming around to eventually admitting he was basically right all along, begrudgingly of course.
Legend. Ants. Bees. Learning. The essence of science.
He came up in casual conversation yesterday, re science and learning math, as well as how tough learning math can be once you're older. (He famously attempted to learn calculus in his 30s, and had a struggle, despite already being a Harvard professor, and world-class scientist)
It is remarkable, and wholly admirable, that he tried to learn calc later in life; it is even more remarkable that he admitted his struggle! His genuine humility and curiosity came across in spades in his wonderful little book "Consilience", so this anecdote doesn't surprise me.
Math is a struggle for everyone. When the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy I asked whether geometry could not be made easier, Euclid is said to have replied: 'There is no royal road to geometry'.
Never heard of E.O. Wilson before now, but his work sounds fascinating. Anyone have any suggestions on how to break into his stuff? Sounds like he has 30 or so books, is "On Human Nature" a good start?
Ants, sosiobiology and biodiversity conservation. I have only read "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" (1975).
Be aware that Wilson's group selection theory is not generally accepted by other evolutionary biologists.
Read about Wilsion-Dawkins kin selection vs. group arguments and debates.
ps. There are two Wilson's in the group selection side (David Sloan Wilson and E. O. Wilson) it's easy to mix them if you don't read carefully.
His autobiography Naturalist (1994) is a very readable introduction to his life and work -- and to his personality. He writes there about the controversies in his life, including his disputes at Harvard with his nemesis James Watson, and the Sociobiology controversy in the 1970s.
I'm just finishing Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life a 2016 book in which he proposes that half of the Earth's surface should be designated a human-free natural reserve to preserve biodiversity.
E.g., Barbara Streisand lives on a mansion on the coast. And she also supports an NGO that is focused on preventing any new construction on the coast. For the environment.
"[The successful scientist] is sometimes driven, I will dare to suggest, by a passive-aggressive nature, and sometimes an anger against some part of society or problem in the world. There is also an introversion in the innovator that keeps him from team sports and social events. He dislikes authority, or at least being told what to do. He is not a leader in high school or college, nor is he likely to be pledged by social clubs. From an early age he is a dreamer, not a doer. His attention wanders easily. He likes to probe, to collect, to tinker. He is prone to fantasize. He is not inclined to focus. He will not be voted by his classmates most likely to succeed."
I know the man just died, but this is such a limited and damaging understanding of what science is and who can be a scientist. You don't need any of those traits to be a successful scientist. Science is a method. This is just feeding into the "jocks vs nerds" mentality.
...and the quote is likely because Wilson is of the era where those tropes were hardcoded into social status/cliques. Its an accurate perception of an era somewhat gone.
And know that method by the fruits it produces, the replication crisis, and more broadly an overwhelming number of papers that are not wrong but totally pointless. I'm not saying the quote is totally right but there is something about that temperament that produces researchers who are less inclined to publish things that they know are wrong/meaningless, just to get ahead in the publish or perish paradigm.
Science has its methods, but I think that saying "science is a method" is too reductive.
Much like visual artists need to master the brush or the pencil, but this technical mastery isn't enough to produce lasting Art, the method itself does not produce good Science.
Maybe the long list given by Wilson is too long (there are definitely extroverted scientists out there), but at the very least, a good scientist needs to be curious.
I was just listening to an interview with him on Vox Conversations yesterday, that's so sad to hear. "EO Wilson's Plan to Save the World" is well worth listening to. RSS: http://feeds.megaphone.fm/theezrakleinshow
One of the great writers on science. This is from ‘The Diversity of Life’: “In the Amazon Basin the greatest violence sometimes begins as a flicker of light beyond the horizon. There in the perfect bowl of the night sky, untouched by light from any human source, a thunderstorm sends its premonitory signal and begins a slow journey to the observer, who thinks: the world is about to change.”
The cyberpunks were by far the most prophetic of all science fiction writers, and I feel like this kind of insight is what drove that. They put forward a future where they were optimistic about technology and neutral to pessimistic about human beings.
I can vouch for the audiobook of the biography. It is a lovely read, although I would have liked for it to be longer and have more detail. Some of the technical biology explanations could have been done better, so that could be a barrier to those less well versed in biology.
"If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos."
Mankind is one species with about 7 billion specimen. Insects an entire class with in the million species and 10 quintillion specimen. Not really a fair comparison. If all mammals would dissapear there'd also be chaos. Even just whale poop has a big impact.
The living world is not currently in a state of equilibrium. The populations of humans and the animals and plants we keep are growing extremely quickly; almost every other population of living thing is shrinking quickly.
“Rich” refers to the variety and abundance of living things. The total biomass of living things has declined (there’s less overall) and what is left is concentrated into far fewer species than previously.
Just taken as a store of information, the loss is staggering. But from a practical perspective we are less rich; it’s far harder today to catch fish than it used to be, for example.
He means something that would be interesting for a biologist like him to hang out in and observe.
I know some biologists, and they often wish that the world should be "rich" from a biologist's perspective even if the biologist isn't there to observe it.
It's a curious perspective to me. If you don't exist, why would it matter whether the world is (a) green and buzzing with insects, or (b) reduced to grey goo or strange matter? Why would your aesthetic preferences be relevant in a world that you don't exist in? It's not like you're going to get to watch this universe through a viewport.
Aesthetic preferences exist in our minds independent of our direct experience. That’s why people can have aesthetic opinions of things the instant they experience them.
An aesthetic preference is essentially an ideal against which we compare our experience. Whether we expect to meet that ideal does not diminish its power. In fact if it was easily met, it would not be much of an ideal.
A modern day equivalent of this rich state of equilibrium can be observed in Chernobyl. The place was decimated by nuclear radiation a few decades ago. Initially it was believed that the place never support any large life forms for many centuries. However wild life is currently thriving in Chernobyl including large mammals and birds [0].
The notion of equilibrium is something I always disagree with when I read environmentalists. The ecosystem is never in equilibrium. If it were it would be dead. If it reached a meta-stable state evolutionary change would halt.
An icy comet circling way out beyond Neptune is an example of a system somewhat near equilibrium.
Evolutionary biologists are divided on his work. His own research and published works have been used by racists for example to readily explain the social origins of intelligence, poverty, crime, and violence regarding POC. He never actively fought against such tendencies, even though he was aware that he had become the darling of white nationalists, and even fascists globally. I believe that ALL "traits" can be explained by social environment rather than by biology. I respectfully refer you to many of Gould's work on sociobiology. We are not insects we are human beings.
While Wilson's extreme position on nature over nurture is certainly open to question, Gould is not a good source to be referencing (and the extreme position of nurture over nature you describe is at least as much open to question). Evolutionary biologists may be "divided" about Wilson, but they're pretty firmly negative about Gould's work in that field. See, for example, here:
Gould said that one faction of evolutionary biologists were mostly wasting their time, it's not a surprise that they would be firmly negative about that.
The letter signers you posted say they are from the center for evolutionary psychology, departments of anthropology and psychology. This is the whole problem, they have one foot (if not both feet) outside of science and in social science.
> Gould said that one faction of evolutionary biologists were mostly wasting their time
Yes, he said that, but he said it in the context of giving descriptions of what those evolutionary biologists were doing that were completely disconnected from reality.
> The letter signers you posted
Are an anthropologist and a psychologist, yes. But the criticisms of Gould that they describe are by no means limited to those fields. The names they list in footnote 2, for example, are a roll call of major evolutionary biologists of the 20th century. Those people are not "outside of science"; they are right in the middle of the scientific field that Gould portrayed himself as an expert on, and they all say Gould's claims are nonsense.
Gould himself provides good reason to believe his ideas are nonsense. He began with the result he wanted, and then unsurprisingly got it.
My original reasons for writing The Mismeasure of Man mixed the personal with the professional. I confess, first of all, to strong feelings on this particular issue. I grew up in a family with a tradition of participation in campaigns for social justice, and I was active, as a student, in the civil rights movement at a time of great excitement and success in the early 1960s. (p. 36)
Not surprisingly Wilson's comment of "Great idea, wrong species." was about communism for which it was very apt (communism doesn't scale for humans), not socialism. Socialism works well in more than a few very successful countries around the world.
> Not surprisingly Wilson's comment of "Great idea, wrong species." was about communism for which it was very apt (communism doesn't scale for humans), not socialism.
Wilson specifically used the term "socialism". The full quote is given here:
"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species"
It seems that what Marx called socialism is basically communism.
By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism as the latter had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for socialism. It was not until after the Bolshevik Revolution that socialism was appropriated by Vladimir Lenin to mean a stage between capitalism and communism.
> It seems that what Marx called socialism is basically communism.
Many people (including me) would say that there isn't any meaningful difference between the two, whether we are talking about Marx's time or any time since. I don't know whether Wilson thought there was any meaningful difference between the two; as far as I know nobody asked him.
The quote is,"Wilson said in reference to ants "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species". Which seems a bit odd as Karl Marx was a communist and not a socialist, as far as I know. It's unlikely that Wilson was confused about this two terms so I expect it's just and honest mistake that's been continually repeated with out any one going back to the origininal sources.
> Which seems a bit odd as Karl Marx was a communist and not a socialist, as far as I know.
The two terms were more or less synonymous when Marx wrote. Later ideologues have attempted to differentiate them; whether or not they have succeeded is a matter of opinion.
I have a sense this is not actually true, but we want it to be true because it aligns with our modern day morality and ethical code. If we accept the premise that all traits are a result of a social environment rather than a genetic basis, does this only apply to human beings? Other mammals which are not particularly social end up exhibiting traits they never seem to have learned. Both humans and animals exhibit some traits with near universal consistency. How would we explain such a dramatic difference between how species express traits?
>Among Wilson's most controversial works was 1975's "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" in which he wrote that all human behavior was a product of genetic predetermination, not learned experiences. By coming out in favor of human nature over nurture, he set off a firestorm of criticism, with his harshest opponents accusing him of being racist and sexist.
>"I believe that ALL "traits" can be explained by social environment rather than by biology."
Now I can definitely understand the controversy of taking the position that all human behavior is a product of genetic determination, but the polar opposite that all human behavior is explained socially/with learned behavior to be just as wrong. I know it's not particularly insightful to admit that it is a combination of both, though.
Please don't post unsubstantive dismissals, no matter how wrong another comment is or you feel it is. Responding this way just leads to flamewars. We don't want those here because they dumb the forum down and then destroy it.
>“A colony of ants is more than just an aggregate of insects that are living together. One ant is no ant.”
Many publications and articles on the topic of actors reference it at some point.
- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model