Sociobiology was not a cultural invention to prop up social and political policies of the late 1970's - rather, the social and political forces already present chose how to read the findings of sociobiologists. The whole point of sociobiology was to look with a critical eye at our desires, behaviors, and moral structures. That much of our behavior is rooted in ancient, indifferent and remorseless instinctual responses is not an argument for giving in to those impulses. The Selfish Gene, and books following, all put a strong focus on the need to rein in these behaviors; that what our selfish genes desire is not only bad for others, but even for ourselves. Sociobiology takes the individual OUT of the center of history, and points out the fundamental role of inherited behaviors, and the conflict genetic urges have with the individuals housing them.

To say "If all that matters are the genes, then what's wrong with one person exploiting another?" is to entirely misunderstand the entire science. A quick study of sociobiology will quickly tell you that genes are only rarely our friends, and then only by chance. The desires of genes are selfish, shortsighted, amoral and profoundly stupid. To know these weaknesses it to be able to combat them, not to celebrate them.

The problem with EO Wilson's current book is not that it does not suit the human desire for a more affirming biology (what we would like does not influence reality over much), but simply that he does not marshal his evidence or arguments well enough. He may be on to something, but nothing so elegant or so well researched as the premise of "The Selfish Gene" is to be found in his newest book.

As to nature, it is not be "red in tooth and claw", as the central debate here (why do individuals risk themselves for others?) shows everyone is well aware. But SELECTION is red in tooth and claw. Genes succeed when others die out. Wilson is right in that any explanation of selection at a level above the gene must rest upon a selective force above the gene, well, selecting - war in this case kills off the less successful, genes and all. That is not a arbitrary choice; it is fundamental to how biology and inheritance work.

Genes do not have "desires" and so anything that comes after that assumption is irrelevant (i.e. everything Wilson says).

You cannot make anything said by Wilson irrelevant by pointing out the weakness of the language we are tied to.

Obviously genes are not conscious and have no intentions. But like all physical things, genes interact with their environment in set ways - water "wants" to flow downhill, fire "wants" oxygen, genes "want" to reproduce copies of themselves. There is no controversy regarding this - genes that fall within certain parameters succeed and outcompete genes falling within other parameters. Genes that succeed stick around, genes that fail do not. When we talk about the desires of genes, we are simply using a clumsy language to talk about a known fact - the inheritance of genes IS directed towards certain ends.

@3- Epigenetics and the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study square pretty well with Wilson. If it helps you to think of gene "expression" and influence on selective pressures rather than "desire," you go right ahead and make that switch.

Thanks for the review. In general good account of sociobiology (though it seems -it's hard to tell- that you've misread The Selfish Gene).

One quibble, though (it's kind of a telling one too). You write; "that rejects kin selection (which means evolution only acts at the level of the individual) as the cornerstone of sociobiology. He has gone to the other side, group selection (evolution only acts on the group)."

(emphasis added)

Evolution does not act on individuals. You have conflated o of the mechanisms for evolution (selection) with evolution itself. Populations evolve NOT individuals.

Thanks for the review. In general good account of sociobiology (though it seems -it's hard to tell- that you've misread The Selfish Gene).

One quibble, though (it's kind of a telling one too). You write;

"....that rejects kin selection (which means evolution only acts at the level of the individual) as the cornerstone of sociobiology. He has gone to the other side, group selection (evolution only acts on the group)."

(emphasis added)

Evolution does not act on individuals. Populations evolve NOT individuals. I know it may seem a small thing, but the distinction is critical to understanding evolution. You have conflated one of the mechanisms for evolution (selection) with evolution itself.

And isn't group selection an extension of kin selection? Isn't the "group" made up of kin and those not directly kin, but more related to kin than the "outside" group? So can't you say that group selection and war against the outside group is an extension of the selfish gene doctrine? This question may be making it obvious, but I haven't read the new book. Just the selfish gene, which was mandatory in genetics when I went to school.

Sociobiology is similar to the discipline of evolutionary psychology in trying to explain human culture by putative evolutionary events....rather than by culture, history, and individual human interaction itself. The idea of trying to picture how we behave now by inventing fictional cave men and women who existed in a time long long ago is a farce if you look at what sociology brings to the table. However, sociology doesn't have the pseudo-scientific appeal of sociobiology, meaning that it's less sexy. I suspect that in the future there'll be a book like Stephen J. Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" about the Sociobiologists.

I see what you did there, Mudede. I'm as much a constructivist as you are, but it seems you are recycling ideas here to propose the creation of the capitalist subject precisely in the 80s. Doesn't that sound a bit late to you?

Reviewer seems to have one complaint, which is that it does not conclude what he would like it to conclude. I am all for world peace too. But if he wants to reach a conclusion that groups do not inevitably go to war with other groups, he can write his own book. This guy is a world renowned expert. if he concludes something, it may be wrong, but I can not fault him for concluding something I don't like or even something that does not seem quite accurate to me. i have to consider that maybe he 9is right and I am wrong.

What exactly does sociology bring to the table? Sociology is, at root, just observation without any coherent/agreed upon organizing principle or theoretical framework. Culture, history, and individual human interaction obviously play a huge and important role, but sociology really does not understand why or how. Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have been far more successful working out the why and how on their side of things (the inherited side) than sociology proper has been with the cultural side. The role of hypothetical cavemen is fairly limited in either practice, for the record.

Also, "The Mismeasure of Man" WAS Gould's attack on sociobiology. Lacking suitable boogeymen in current research, he pulled up research from the past to indicate the study of human biology often leads to racism... as if the study of sociology, politics, psychology and history were not also prone to wildly racist positions in the same time frame he looked at.

Once again, Mudede, you try and cram everything through the filter of your pre-baked politics. Sociobiology isn't really about 1970s trends in economic policy; beleive it or not, it's a family of hypothosis based on observations in nature that may reflect some light on very basic human instinct, if not complex behavior. You always remind me so much of the religious fundamentalists of my youth; I'm sure Wilson, raised himself southern baptist, would also recognize the type.

Dear Charles,
I am an evolutionary biologist.
You have clearly never read The Selfish Gene or you would not have written this review. You particularly wouldn't have written this line:
"Why, if we are such selfish individuals, does altruism exist in the animal world?"

The Selfish Gene is about gene's that are "selfish" not individuals who are selfish and still is the theoretical basis of most behavioral biology.

There are lots of other science problems with your review. Read an intro to animal behavior.