Scan barcode
branch_c's review
4.0
Having read this some years ago, I was surprised to notice that I hadn't rated it, nor did I remember enough about it to just assign a rating to it now. But since evolutionary psychology has become one of my favorite subjects, it was worth another read anyway.
There is a lot of excellent material here, from the origination of the crucial concept of reciprocal altruism through genetics and animal behavior, all the way up to the importance of private property rights to a functional society. All of the lower level material is based on solid principles of evolutionary biology, and Ridley does an excellent job explaining things from this point of view. The discussion of the higher level ideas such as groupishness and cooperation among coalitions build on those biological foundations, and again, these are presented with writing that's entertaining, clear, and logical.
Coincidentally during this re-read, I became aware of a recent piece by Ridley in which he expresses the opinion that the now generally accepted climate change data and predictions are overly pessimistic. This is clearly a minority opinion among scientists and science writers, and while that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, I am more convinced by the majority opinion in this case.
So maybe it was with this on my mind that I read the closing chapters in which Ridley builds an argument against "big government" and takes a couple of shots against the "modern environmental movement" based on the science that he's laid out previously. While it wouldn't be fair to simply dismiss his points, to me, this might be a step too far.
In any case I'm glad to have revisited this book; much of it is a top notch discussion of fascinating subject matter.
There is a lot of excellent material here, from the origination of the crucial concept of reciprocal altruism through genetics and animal behavior, all the way up to the importance of private property rights to a functional society. All of the lower level material is based on solid principles of evolutionary biology, and Ridley does an excellent job explaining things from this point of view. The discussion of the higher level ideas such as groupishness and cooperation among coalitions build on those biological foundations, and again, these are presented with writing that's entertaining, clear, and logical.
Coincidentally during this re-read, I became aware of a recent piece by Ridley in which he expresses the opinion that the now generally accepted climate change data and predictions are overly pessimistic. This is clearly a minority opinion among scientists and science writers, and while that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, I am more convinced by the majority opinion in this case.
So maybe it was with this on my mind that I read the closing chapters in which Ridley builds an argument against "big government" and takes a couple of shots against the "modern environmental movement" based on the science that he's laid out previously. While it wouldn't be fair to simply dismiss his points, to me, this might be a step too far.
In any case I'm glad to have revisited this book; much of it is a top notch discussion of fascinating subject matter.
beejai's review against another edition
4.0
This book sets out to demonstrate that "there was morality before the church, trade before the state, exchange before money, social contracts before Hobbes, welfare before the Rights of Man, culture before Babylon, society before Greece, self-interest before Adam Smith, and greed before capitalism." By the title, you would think this is a book about the origins of virtue, but really the primary focus is on only two virtues he focuses on are altruism and cooperation.
When he is doing so, Matt Ridley is excellent. He pieces together the fields of biology, game theory, the animal kingdom, and some history and sociology to demonstrate why and how from a behavioral evolutionary standpoint, we act the way we do. I understand that such a large task there is no way to include all the facts, details and theories that are out there, but Ridley does tend to use a selective inclusion of facts that make his case seem much stronger than it really is. For example, he demonstrates how and why fashions and fads can come into being, but by his logic, there would be no reason for those fads to ever change. I wonder what Malcolm Gladwell would have to say to that. Things are a bit more complicated than Ridley would like.
Another example that jumped right out at me because theology is my strong point was when he was talking about how early Judaism was an exclusive religion. He states that "The Ten Commandments apply to the Israelites but not to heathen people." He then gives an example of Joshua winning a battle in Ai and celebrating by making a stone copy of the Ten Commandments that include "Thou shalt not kill." Matt Ridley should have read to the end of the chapter before trying to paint Judaism as an affair exclusively of adult Hebrew men. In Joshua 8:35 it specifically says that all the women, children, and foreigners were included in this celebratory reading of the Law.
A few different times, I caught subtle hints at racism or, at least, an air of Western superiority. One such example I noted was: "A South African crowd making a political demonstration and jogging in place is much closer to its evolutionary roots than a ballroom of Viennese waltzing the night away." No explanation or reason is given. It is simply assumed his readers will immediately, unquestioningly agree. The same idea also comes out when talking about cultures and people groups that have only recently come into contact with the West. It is assumed that they have not evolved or changed in any way for thousands, or tens of thousands of years and that we can understand from their 19th or 20th-century behavior how Homo Erectus must have acted.
Anyways, I am still giving this book four stars because there is a lot of great information here and this would be a good introductory book on behavioral evolution. I would just strongly recommend that you read it with both eyes open.
When he is doing so, Matt Ridley is excellent. He pieces together the fields of biology, game theory, the animal kingdom, and some history and sociology to demonstrate why and how from a behavioral evolutionary standpoint, we act the way we do. I understand that such a large task there is no way to include all the facts, details and theories that are out there, but Ridley does tend to use a selective inclusion of facts that make his case seem much stronger than it really is. For example, he demonstrates how and why fashions and fads can come into being, but by his logic, there would be no reason for those fads to ever change. I wonder what Malcolm Gladwell would have to say to that. Things are a bit more complicated than Ridley would like.
Another example that jumped right out at me because theology is my strong point was when he was talking about how early Judaism was an exclusive religion. He states that "The Ten Commandments apply to the Israelites but not to heathen people." He then gives an example of Joshua winning a battle in Ai and celebrating by making a stone copy of the Ten Commandments that include "Thou shalt not kill." Matt Ridley should have read to the end of the chapter before trying to paint Judaism as an affair exclusively of adult Hebrew men. In Joshua 8:35 it specifically says that all the women, children, and foreigners were included in this celebratory reading of the Law.
A few different times, I caught subtle hints at racism or, at least, an air of Western superiority. One such example I noted was: "A South African crowd making a political demonstration and jogging in place is much closer to its evolutionary roots than a ballroom of Viennese waltzing the night away." No explanation or reason is given. It is simply assumed his readers will immediately, unquestioningly agree. The same idea also comes out when talking about cultures and people groups that have only recently come into contact with the West. It is assumed that they have not evolved or changed in any way for thousands, or tens of thousands of years and that we can understand from their 19th or 20th-century behavior how Homo Erectus must have acted.
Anyways, I am still giving this book four stars because there is a lot of great information here and this would be a good introductory book on behavioral evolution. I would just strongly recommend that you read it with both eyes open.
More...