
Edward O. Wilson: Marx was right, he had the wrong species - bootload
http://www.froes.dds.nl/WILSON.htm
======
antiform
That was a remarkably well-reasoned and plainspoken summary of some cool facts
and trends in "sociobiology." I remember seeing a talk about evolutionary
psychology early in my college career and dismissing it as imprecise,
speculatory nonsense, but perhaps I judged too quickly. It seems more
interesting and credible when the person talking about it doesn't seem like a
crackpot. I'll take another look when I get the chance.

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.

~~~
wheels
The worst is mathematicians only seem to have about 20 words, they just
constantly redefine them in context. ;-)

~~~
eru
You're so normal!

------
gojomo
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."

------
helveticaman
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.

~~~
eru
Nice definition. Only works in a context of evolutionary stable strategies,
though

------
andrewbaron
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.

------
nirmal
Great interview with him from RadioLab

<http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/09/23/chasing-bugs/>

------
ced
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.

~~~
nostrademons
I read Consilience and had a similar impression. Useful for entomologists, not
a terribly great read otherwise.

------
manny
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.aspx)

~~~
Prrometheus
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.

~~~
eru
How about Adam Smith's works? They are very readable.

------
muriithi
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.

------
lst
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?

~~~
a-priori
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.

~~~
lst
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.)

~~~
a-priori
And the point of this comment is... what, exactly?

------
njharman
> 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"

~~~
mseebach
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.

~~~
netcan
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.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
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.

~~~
eru
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.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
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.

