hannah_fox's review against another edition
2.0
This book is very interesting and makes many good points about nature. But it tends to err toward rambling and the author makes many mistakes. It should be noted that Joseph Wood-Krutch is not a scientist, but a writer and philosopher, a point he makes himself several times. Often he goes back and forth between two extreme theories, for example mechanism and vitalism, without acknowledging the possibility of a middle ground or even a different theory all together. In making the point that Darwin’s theory of natural selection doesn’t account for everything, it sometimes feels as if he thinks Darwin’s theory can’t account for anything. He’s determined, desperate even, to find absolute answers to questions, rather than recognizing grey areas that most scientists would be happy to recognize – although he seems to think that scientists always fall on one end of the spectrum or another.
He makes sweeping generalizations about biological scientists, assuming that they are only interested in lab work and that they have no sense of wonder or appreciation when it comes to life. He seems to think that they are obsessed with physical properties and scientific explanations, implying that there is no science to emotions or awareness, which of course is not true. I agree with him that scientists need to go out into the world and observe nature as it is. I am no fan of laboratory experiments. And many, many scientists would agree, making his statements about scientists, particularly biological scientists, incorrect. Perhaps at the time he wrote this book there was a rise in laboratory work, and perhaps the argument between mechanism and vitalism was prominent. But generalizations are never helpful. There are always exceptions.
The epilogue to the book is a complete disaster. He seems to have suddenly decided that birds are the greatest of all creatures. He says that in the way individual men can be spokesman for their race or nation, birds are the spokesmen for all animals. Aside from the implication that humans aren’t animals, this also implies that there aren’t distinct species within the animal world that deserve recognition each on their own, but rather that any animal could represent the whole of the animal kingdom. He uses a quote that says birds are “alive more intensely” than any other creature, including humans. So now instead of placing humans at the top of the hierarchy of living things, it will be birds? That’s equally absurd. And then he states that despite the monkey being more intelligent than the bird, “it is difficult to believe that even in liberty a monkey is as joyous as a bird or that he has the bird’s special gift for gladness.” Has he ever observed a monkey, in captivity or the wild? If we’re using the same traits as basis for assuming happiness, then monkeys are just as, if not more so, vocal and playful as birds, therefore one would suppose they are just as joyful. Of course, we have no way of knowing for sure whether animals are happy or not, but why anthropomorphize one creature and not another? Monkeys are far more similar to humans than birds, but he seems convinced that because birds sing, they are more similar. Yet humans (and monkeys) have completely different anatomical vocal systems than birds! Another error can be found in this statement: “Even today [birds] are less persecuted than any other small creature. Fewer people who see a bird say of it – as they tend to say of any other small animal they happen upon – ‘Here is a little creature who is alive and wants to live. Therefore let us kill it at once.’” This is completely contradictory to a previous chapter about hunting for sport that primarily focuses on the shooting of birds for pleasure.
But really, there’s no reason to be surprised at this placement of some species over others in terms of perceived “human” traits. Earlier on, despite making excellent points about the development of civilization, communication, and agriculture in insects long before man even existed, he still seems convinced that insects are nothing but machines operating on pure instinct. He seems ready to acknowledge any animal having awareness and consciousness except insects. This is upsetting to me because insects are already the most undervalued animals. Many people don’t even see them as animals, despite their clear taxonomic placement within the animal kingdom. It seems at first that Joseph Wood-Krutch has set out to show that even single-celled organisms are more complex than we imagine and that all living things deserve equal recognition. But I should have know by the title of the book, “The Great Chain of Life”, that he is still set in the typical way of thinking, that there is a hierarchy among living things. But in reality, that “Great Chain” is actually a web. No animal is better than any other in any way. Every species has evolved to fit its own needs. In his most out-of-place chapter, titled “Devolution”, which is not even a scientific term, he speculates that because dandelions are sexless, that one day all living things will be sexless. He has fallen into the assumption that “survival of the fittest” means one species over another. Of course, competition between species is a real thing, but natural selection does not have some sort of end-goal for one master way of life. The fact that some plants are asexual does not mean one day all organisms will be, just because this seems to be a more effective way of survival. All organisms have developed in different ways and natural selection occurs within a population. Since there are no, say, monkeys that are asexually reproductive, monkeys will never suddenly develop that trait. And there’s no logic to support the idea that dandelions will out-compete monkeys. And even if dandelions outcompete other plants, particularly flowers, a change in the appearance and functions of plants does not equal “de-evolution.”
The questions I found myself asking when I finished this book were probably not the sort of questions Joseph Wood-Krutch imagined his readers would come away with, but here they are: Did anyone read this before it was published? Did he consult a single scientist? Were his editors only focused on grammatical errors and not on readability and consistency? If you read this book, and I’m not trying to discourage anyone from doing so, you must remember, as previously mentioned, this writer is not an expert. Use it as a starting point to think about life and evolution, but do not take everything written is true. Of course, one could argue that it is an outdated book, but I’m certain there are scientific books from the same time period that are better written and researched. Your best bet is to read something modern, but even modern writers could make similar mistakes to Wood-Krutch. If you want philosophy, read Wood-Krutch or others like him, but if you want facts, seek out something from a scientist with good standing in the particular field you’re reading about.
He makes sweeping generalizations about biological scientists, assuming that they are only interested in lab work and that they have no sense of wonder or appreciation when it comes to life. He seems to think that they are obsessed with physical properties and scientific explanations, implying that there is no science to emotions or awareness, which of course is not true. I agree with him that scientists need to go out into the world and observe nature as it is. I am no fan of laboratory experiments. And many, many scientists would agree, making his statements about scientists, particularly biological scientists, incorrect. Perhaps at the time he wrote this book there was a rise in laboratory work, and perhaps the argument between mechanism and vitalism was prominent. But generalizations are never helpful. There are always exceptions.
The epilogue to the book is a complete disaster. He seems to have suddenly decided that birds are the greatest of all creatures. He says that in the way individual men can be spokesman for their race or nation, birds are the spokesmen for all animals. Aside from the implication that humans aren’t animals, this also implies that there aren’t distinct species within the animal world that deserve recognition each on their own, but rather that any animal could represent the whole of the animal kingdom. He uses a quote that says birds are “alive more intensely” than any other creature, including humans. So now instead of placing humans at the top of the hierarchy of living things, it will be birds? That’s equally absurd. And then he states that despite the monkey being more intelligent than the bird, “it is difficult to believe that even in liberty a monkey is as joyous as a bird or that he has the bird’s special gift for gladness.” Has he ever observed a monkey, in captivity or the wild? If we’re using the same traits as basis for assuming happiness, then monkeys are just as, if not more so, vocal and playful as birds, therefore one would suppose they are just as joyful. Of course, we have no way of knowing for sure whether animals are happy or not, but why anthropomorphize one creature and not another? Monkeys are far more similar to humans than birds, but he seems convinced that because birds sing, they are more similar. Yet humans (and monkeys) have completely different anatomical vocal systems than birds! Another error can be found in this statement: “Even today [birds] are less persecuted than any other small creature. Fewer people who see a bird say of it – as they tend to say of any other small animal they happen upon – ‘Here is a little creature who is alive and wants to live. Therefore let us kill it at once.’” This is completely contradictory to a previous chapter about hunting for sport that primarily focuses on the shooting of birds for pleasure.
But really, there’s no reason to be surprised at this placement of some species over others in terms of perceived “human” traits. Earlier on, despite making excellent points about the development of civilization, communication, and agriculture in insects long before man even existed, he still seems convinced that insects are nothing but machines operating on pure instinct. He seems ready to acknowledge any animal having awareness and consciousness except insects. This is upsetting to me because insects are already the most undervalued animals. Many people don’t even see them as animals, despite their clear taxonomic placement within the animal kingdom. It seems at first that Joseph Wood-Krutch has set out to show that even single-celled organisms are more complex than we imagine and that all living things deserve equal recognition. But I should have know by the title of the book, “The Great Chain of Life”, that he is still set in the typical way of thinking, that there is a hierarchy among living things. But in reality, that “Great Chain” is actually a web. No animal is better than any other in any way. Every species has evolved to fit its own needs. In his most out-of-place chapter, titled “Devolution”, which is not even a scientific term, he speculates that because dandelions are sexless, that one day all living things will be sexless. He has fallen into the assumption that “survival of the fittest” means one species over another. Of course, competition between species is a real thing, but natural selection does not have some sort of end-goal for one master way of life. The fact that some plants are asexual does not mean one day all organisms will be, just because this seems to be a more effective way of survival. All organisms have developed in different ways and natural selection occurs within a population. Since there are no, say, monkeys that are asexually reproductive, monkeys will never suddenly develop that trait. And there’s no logic to support the idea that dandelions will out-compete monkeys. And even if dandelions outcompete other plants, particularly flowers, a change in the appearance and functions of plants does not equal “de-evolution.”
The questions I found myself asking when I finished this book were probably not the sort of questions Joseph Wood-Krutch imagined his readers would come away with, but here they are: Did anyone read this before it was published? Did he consult a single scientist? Were his editors only focused on grammatical errors and not on readability and consistency? If you read this book, and I’m not trying to discourage anyone from doing so, you must remember, as previously mentioned, this writer is not an expert. Use it as a starting point to think about life and evolution, but do not take everything written is true. Of course, one could argue that it is an outdated book, but I’m certain there are scientific books from the same time period that are better written and researched. Your best bet is to read something modern, but even modern writers could make similar mistakes to Wood-Krutch. If you want philosophy, read Wood-Krutch or others like him, but if you want facts, seek out something from a scientist with good standing in the particular field you’re reading about.
More...