3 ms·

A Conversation with E.O. Wilson

57 points by amadeuspagel 5y ago

epivosism 5y ago
"What we have in human nature is our inheritance from a prehistoric past going back millions of years. We do have strong predispositions—you can call them instincts—that become dangerous in modern society. So, what we should do is conduct the best research we can, in biology and the social sciences, and find out what it is to be human. And then recognize that these are particular flaws in our nature in a modern techno-scientific world, and work with that knowledge to pull us on through. This is not unlike, say, trying to find the basis for genetic disease, to look for things that make people sick because of mutated genes or pathogens, to find out what causes sickness. Would you then say this sickness is the way things should be, because “is” is “ought”? That is crazy. But the naturalistic fallacy is equally crazy in terms of human nature."
photochemsyn 5y ago
E.O. Wilson's work on ants is fascinating stuff, and his Pulitzer-prize winning text co-authored with Bert Hölldobler is well worth reading [1]. Similarly he did a lot to bring the issue of collapsing biodiversity at a global scale to public attention [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ants [2] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/989/biodiversity https://www.nap.edu/catalog/989/biodiversity That said, his notion that a very large fraction of human behavior is genetically determined, rather than being the product of early childhood influences, i.e. the whole sociobiology business... is highly questionable at best. Humans are not ants, and claims that genetic determinism is the basis of human social structures don't hold up under scrutiny.
- epivosism 5y ago
  I've read alternative accounts of the debate which relate that he basically won, and sociobiology is the default viewpoint of science now. Could you share some hard science evidence leading you to describe his views as questionable at best? I wonder if it's because your description of his beliefs is quite strong - i.e. you say "a very large fraction of human behavior is genetically determined" when another might say "most human behavior is heavily influenced by evolutionary instincts", which seems more more palatable? i.e. the quote I linked above - that we should strive to spite and overcome our incorrect, evolutionarily engineered instincts?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Humans are social animals. Probably the majority of our inherent behaviors are not recognized as genetically determined just because most of us have not even noticed they are behaviors at all; we can barely imagine a way of life without them. One thing I am certain of: you eat when you are hungry, and drink when you are thirsty, and breathe all the damn time, and not because you are so rationally aware that not doing those enough would make you die.

57 points by amadeuspagel 5y ago

"What we have in human nature is our inheritance from a prehistoric past going back millions of years. We do have strong predispositions—you can call them instincts—that become dangerous in modern society. So, what we should do is conduct the best research we can, in biology and the social sciences, and find out what it is to be human. And then recognize that these are particular flaws in our nature in a modern techno-scientific world, and work with that knowledge to pull us on through. This is not unlike, say, trying to find the basis for genetic disease, to look for things that make people sick because of mutated genes or pathogens, to find out what causes sickness. Would you then say this sickness is the way things should be, because “is” is “ought”? That is crazy. But the naturalistic fallacy is equally crazy in terms of human nature."

photochemsyn 5y ago

E.O. Wilson's work on ants is fascinating stuff, and his Pulitzer-prize winning text co-authored with Bert Hölldobler is well worth reading [1]. Similarly he did a lot to bring the issue of collapsing biodiversity at a global scale to public attention [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ants [2] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/989/biodiversity https://www.nap.edu/catalog/989/biodiversity That said, his notion that a very large fraction of human behavior is genetically determined, rather than being the product of early childhood influences, i.e. the whole sociobiology business... is highly questionable at best. Humans are not ants, and claims that genetic determinism is the basis of human social structures don't hold up under scrutiny.

epivosism 5y ago
I've read alternative accounts of the debate which relate that he basically won, and sociobiology is the default viewpoint of science now. Could you share some hard science evidence leading you to describe his views as questionable at best? I wonder if it's because your description of his beliefs is quite strong - i.e. you say "a very large fraction of human behavior is genetically determined" when another might say "most human behavior is heavily influenced by evolutionary instincts", which seems more more palatable? i.e. the quote I linked above - that we should strive to spite and overcome our incorrect, evolutionarily engineered instincts?
ncmncm 5y ago
Humans are social animals. Probably the majority of our inherent behaviors are not recognized as genetically determined just because most of us have not even noticed they are behaviors at all; we can barely imagine a way of life without them. One thing I am certain of: you eat when you are hungry, and drink when you are thirsty, and breathe all the damn time, and not because you are so rationally aware that not doing those enough would make you die.