Scan barcode
nujibuji's review against another edition
2.0
The book was a lot more about insects than I expected. I'm not sure what I actually expected this book to be about, but the theories of human evolution presented did not seem so innovative or interesting to me.
The most memorable takeaway for me was that the entire human population, current and in all of history, would barely fill a small corner of the Grand Canyon floor. And if you were to stack up all humans living today into one rectangle, the entire living ants population would fill the same size rectangle. Mind blowing and really puts our existence into perspective!
The most memorable takeaway for me was that the entire human population, current and in all of history, would barely fill a small corner of the Grand Canyon floor. And if you were to stack up all humans living today into one rectangle, the entire living ants population would fill the same size rectangle. Mind blowing and really puts our existence into perspective!
fairchildone's review against another edition
3.0
I have mixed feelings about this book, but the main motivation behind the three stars is that Mr. Wilson does not deliver on his promise. What Mr. Wilson promises is to explain society and culture from an evolutionary perspective. What he does is explain and argue in favor of his group selection theory (as against inclusive fitness theory).
The structure of the book itself betrays Mr. Wilson's intentions. A full two-thirds of the book are spent exclusively on where we come from. While this is important, he spends a scant chapter on where we're going, and the chapters on what we are tend to fall into an unfortunate pattern--he begins with a study or two showing how language or the arts are connected to evolution and biology, but then extends far beyond the scope of those studies. For example, his chapter on the visual arts talks about our sensory limitations and the evolutionary origins of visual aesthetics, but then rambles on about the connection between science and the humanities. Even worse, his chapter on the origins of religion contains almost no research or foundation, yet he makes sweeping assumptions about how and why religion is an evolutionary construct. He blithely adds paternalistic caveats to his arguments, which while not based in evidence are not unsound, but seems to rehash a lot of the anti-religious arguments without the zealotry that typically accompanies them.
I was hoping for more of why other forms of culture exists, why we cling to organized sports, and why we segment into groups, but he tends to give spare mention to these concepts before quickly moving on to his personal opinions.
That said, I learned a great deal about evolution and found his group selection theories compelling, although I am admittedly a newcomer to the subject matter. Some of the first chapters are absolutely fascinating, as is his theory that society evolved primarily from the defense of a common nest.
One last critique: while all of his material is understandable, not all of the material is readily understandable. The middle of the book got especially bogged down in scientific jargon and theories that he did not make as understandable as I was hoping. He occasionally has a real knack for analogy, but he doesn't use that knack as extensively as he should have.
The structure of the book itself betrays Mr. Wilson's intentions. A full two-thirds of the book are spent exclusively on where we come from. While this is important, he spends a scant chapter on where we're going, and the chapters on what we are tend to fall into an unfortunate pattern--he begins with a study or two showing how language or the arts are connected to evolution and biology, but then extends far beyond the scope of those studies. For example, his chapter on the visual arts talks about our sensory limitations and the evolutionary origins of visual aesthetics, but then rambles on about the connection between science and the humanities. Even worse, his chapter on the origins of religion contains almost no research or foundation, yet he makes sweeping assumptions about how and why religion is an evolutionary construct. He blithely adds paternalistic caveats to his arguments, which while not based in evidence are not unsound, but seems to rehash a lot of the anti-religious arguments without the zealotry that typically accompanies them.
I was hoping for more of why other forms of culture exists, why we cling to organized sports, and why we segment into groups, but he tends to give spare mention to these concepts before quickly moving on to his personal opinions.
That said, I learned a great deal about evolution and found his group selection theories compelling, although I am admittedly a newcomer to the subject matter. Some of the first chapters are absolutely fascinating, as is his theory that society evolved primarily from the defense of a common nest.
One last critique: while all of his material is understandable, not all of the material is readily understandable. The middle of the book got especially bogged down in scientific jargon and theories that he did not make as understandable as I was hoping. He occasionally has a real knack for analogy, but he doesn't use that knack as extensively as he should have.
lexish00's review against another edition
3.0
If only I could give the first two parts of this book a 5, and the second two parts a 3. Yes, that should average to a 4, but the end was too much of a let down IMO.
The good: Comparing human societies to insect societies? Explaining how eusociality might come to exist among different species? The competition between group-level evolutionary selection and individual? AWESOME. All great! Really I think most non-fiction authors should stick to what they study; in this case, the chapters on insects and comparing their societies to human ones were the strongest.
The bad: When we venture into other fields AND start postulating. Look, I get wanting interdisciplinary research, that is great. I love hearing about how things are connected. But why does the author have to speculate? You know a lot about insects and evolution, stick to those, don't tell me much more than the undisputed theories when it comes to the origins of language because I know you aren't an expert there.
I really appreciated the beginning of the book where Wilson said that science and religion are irreconcilable when trying to explain the origins of life and evolutionary processes. It seemed like he was going to leave it at that and stick to science-based discussion. But nooooo, at the end he had to dedicate the last couple of chapters to going back to this discussion. I love hearing about the origins of religion as much as anyone, but you are not the expert on that. Get back to eusociality and ant mounds and bee dances and termite nests!
So, in sum: Read the first two parts, enjoy. Read the second two parts with a grain of salt.
The good: Comparing human societies to insect societies? Explaining how eusociality might come to exist among different species? The competition between group-level evolutionary selection and individual? AWESOME. All great! Really I think most non-fiction authors should stick to what they study; in this case, the chapters on insects and comparing their societies to human ones were the strongest.
The bad: When we venture into other fields AND start postulating. Look, I get wanting interdisciplinary research, that is great. I love hearing about how things are connected. But why does the author have to speculate? You know a lot about insects and evolution, stick to those, don't tell me much more than the undisputed theories when it comes to the origins of language because I know you aren't an expert there.
I really appreciated the beginning of the book where Wilson said that science and religion are irreconcilable when trying to explain the origins of life and evolutionary processes. It seemed like he was going to leave it at that and stick to science-based discussion. But nooooo, at the end he had to dedicate the last couple of chapters to going back to this discussion. I love hearing about the origins of religion as much as anyone, but you are not the expert on that. Get back to eusociality and ant mounds and bee dances and termite nests!
So, in sum: Read the first two parts, enjoy. Read the second two parts with a grain of salt.
gegnew's review against another edition
5.0
The philosophical pretext for this book is lofty. Wilson uses the most difficult questions humanity poses to itself – Where to we come from? What are we? and Where are we going? – to set his impeccable science in a frame that the layman can understand, the scientist can appreciate, and the philosopher can relate to. Astonishingly, he seems to achieve his goal of doing a better job in answering these questions than science or religion ever have. In this single book lies humanity. It is the ur-text for human existence.
maximz's review against another edition
4.0
I learned a lot about ants... And of course other stuff :)
shaunireads1's review against another edition
4.0
This book is all over the place. I guess that's almost inevitable when the author's stated purpose is to provide answers to the questions "Where did we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" However, even though the book as a whole lacks a truly unifying focus, each individual chapter is incredibly fascinating in its own right. The topics range from ants to group selection to religion and art.
If there is one quote that ties all of the individual chapters, it would have to be this:
If there is one quote that ties all of the individual chapters, it would have to be this:
Humanity today is like a waking dreamer, caught between the fantasies of sleep and the chaos of the real world. The mind seeks but cannot find the precise place and hour. We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. We thrash about. We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of life.
laurinda's review against another edition
5.0
Ideea principală pe care o dezvoltă biologul este că forma cea mai avansată de organizare socială din lumea naturală este eusocialitatea, o formă de organizare în care „membrii unui grup care conține mai multe generații sunt predispuși să comită acte altruiste, ce fac parte din diviziunea muncii lor” și care se regăsește atât în societățile de furnici, cât și în cele umane. Următorul nivel de complexitate biologică după apariția organismelor, eusocialitatea este responsabilă pentru crearea „supraorganismelor”, organizări sociale în care indivizii cooperează, printr-o diviziune altruistă a muncii, în vederea supraviețuirii și dezvoltării grupului. Coloniile de furnici și de termite, roiurile de albine și așezările umane fac parte din acest sistem de organizare socială, din punctul de vedere al lui Wilson, stadiul cel mai avansat de comportament social. Alături de talia mare (dintre cele 25 de specii eusociale, majoritatea sunt insecte), eusocialitatea a stat la baza dezvoltării omului ca specie, dar și la baza „succesului” său.
http://lauracaltea.ro/articlesite/cucerirea-sociala-a-pamantului-recenzie
http://lauracaltea.ro/articlesite/cucerirea-sociala-a-pamantului-recenzie