E.O. Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth" is a well-written, engaging, informative book. I can't give it less than 5 stars--highly recommended. Nevertheless I have two bones to pick with it.My first beef is that Wilson's definition of eusociality--at it's core, requiring a "nest"--seems kind of arbitrary, almost as if chosen to provide maximum comparability between ants (what the author knows best) and people (what he wants to write about). It seems to me there are many interesting things to say about social species that don't have communal multi-generational nests, like the many mammals that live in packs. We share with these mammals many of the emotions that underpin our social life, and it seems their consciousness and behavioral patterns reflect many of the same evolutionary forces Wilson discusses in the the case of the nest-building species.Second, in Wilson's eagerness to praise eusociality, and with an evident status quo bias, he skirts over the dysfunctions of Neolithic social life, the misery of the exploitation of man by man. True, he acknowledges that individual selection will occur within groups, and that there will be tension between serving selfish interests and serving group interests, but by selfishness he appears to mostly mean cowardice, refusal to pull one's weight. The much more serious problem of exploitation and self-aggrandizement barely merits a mention. Worse, Wilson's eagerness to draw an analogy with the social life of insects leads him to be complacent about human hierarchy, even to denigrate our egalitarian instincts. (He has some uncharitable things to say about worker ownership, for example.) There is a body of research that he sadly neglects, that compellingly demonstrates that in Paleolithic settings (or more precisely, in societies that don't store surpluses) egalitarianism is universal, enforced by "counter-dominance" mechanisms, the drive for which presumably evolved to counter an even more primordial drive to dominate. The tension between dominance and counter-dominance is one of the most salient features of human nature and social life and history--a pity Wilson does not explore it.As for the controversy (see Richard Dawkins' very hostile review) over Wilson's appeal to group selection as an evolutionary mechanism and rejection of kin selection, to my mind the validity of group selection is undeniable: tribes compete for resources, and if a genetic predisposition contributes to the flourishing of one at the expense of another, it will be propagated. Perhaps Wilson is too strong in his rejection of kin selection. As a theoretical corollary of individual selection it is undoubtedly valid--a gene that promotes the success of offspring and siblings and cousins that also carry it will undoubtedly have an advantage. If the question is whether the principle explains anything beyond parental care and generalized sociality (already a lot), it seems doubtful to me that it would. The idea that an insect or mammal would have the means or opportunity to (say) treat uncles and first cousins and second cousins differently in life-or-death situations, and thus produce truly fine-tuned genetic kin selection in social contexts, strains credibility. A compelling overview of evolution with specific hypotheses about social evolution that are better supported and more logically sound than competing theories such as kin selection. The weakest part of the book is his coverage of religion where he essentially equates religion with imprisonment. Dr. Wilson makes broad generalizations, revealing his shallow understanding of religions and religious beliefs. He is condescending to religion. Still, he's more fair to religion than Dawkins. That being said, Dr. Wilson's points about religion are not without merit, given the variety of religions over the years and the many abuses performed in the name of religion. I think, however, he would be pleasantly surprised if he sat down and had a lot of discussions with well-educated scientist members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons); Mormon theology answers all of his questions regarding religion; maybe not entirely satisfactory to him but in a logically-sound and rational manner.One other criticism, Dr. Wilson is dismissive of the philosophy of science. He believes strongly in biological determinism, reductionism, and empiricism and is quick to dismiss alternative epistemologies.
Do You like book The Social Conquest Of Earth (2012)?
Fascinating book..... Such a respected man who continues to challenge his field into his later years
—kel
Scattered, and full of basic evolutionary beginnings of the planet and life.
—lindaloreneh
Fantastic! Though all the ant bits were harder to grasp than the human ones.
—Vicki
