4 ms·

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 d

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.

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.