5 ms·
I mean apparently Wilson suggested at one point that because eusocial insects exist where some insects serve others, slavery among humans is natural? Which ign
by WesternWind 5y ago
I mean apparently Wilson suggested at one point that because eusocial insects exist where some insects serve others, slavery among humans is natural?
Which ignores a huge amount of differences. To pick one eusocial insects of the same species are closely related to the ones they serve, and how slavery is not universal. Family and kinship groups are probably a way better metaphor than slavery. Occasionally some insects use other insects of a different species like aphid farming ants, but that's more like having livestock.
Ultimately by suggesting that genetics causes behavior but also being inconsistent about how that works, Wilson at times reinforced the status quo in problematic and mistaken ways, without looking at cross cultural studies, anthropology, or other fields that might have given him a broader view.
Anyway the idea that criticizing Wilson is somehow immoral because he is dead seems silly. It's not like many of the same criticisms weren't offered when he was alive, for example this 1975 review of his book. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/11/13/against-sociobiology/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/11/13/against-sociobio...
Many people who did great things also said some shitty ones, And some shitty people like Nixon did some good ones. Quite a few people are dead and canonizing them after death as somehow saintly for their good deads and ignoring anything problematic they did rather than challenging their mistaken beliefs where they contradict facts is against the spirit of scientific inquiry.
As an aside, my understanding is that while conservatives continue to try to make "woke" into a state of being or a quality of character, as if folks can achieve it, the original usage was stay woke, IE to remain vigilant and observant of what's going on so you can adapt and learn. As far as I'm concerned we all should be doing that, changing our beliefs as we learn, rather than wrapping ourselves too much up in what we currently think to be true. If Wilson's ideas are worthy they will be born out by current and future inquiry into our nature as human beings.
Though challenging the status quo might require you to go against your sociobiology.
- technothrasher 5y ago> I mean apparently Wilson suggested at one point that because eusocial insects exist where some insects serve others, slavery among humans is natural? Even if you granted him for the sake of argument that slavery among humans is "natural", so what? That in no way answers the is-ought problem.
- merpnderp 5y agoSlavery is a scourge on humanity. But it was a scourge on humanity for 99.999% of our existence. I’d sure like to think it wasn’t our natural state, but it sure feels like if society broke down, that’s what we’d default to.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- justicezyx 5y agoDeleted Was ranting, not good for this forum. Apologize for people who read it.
- merpnderp 5y agoI’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but keep in mind that most slaves in human history looked exactly like those enslaving them.
- TulliusCicero 5y agoPlenty of things are natural that are considered immoral.
- tzs 5y agoI think one can make a reasonable case that foregoing doing some natural things, and trying to force others to also forego them, on the grounds that they are immoral is the only thing that really is fundamentally different between humans and other animals. The things that are usually cited as the fundamental differences, such as our intelligence, language, culture, etc I would argue are just differences in degree.