Author: Edward O. Wilson
Title: “The Social
Conquest of Earth”
Publication: 2012, Liveright (WW Norton), ISBN
978-0-87140-413-8, hardcover, 330 pages, indexed, 6 Parts, 27 Chapters
Wilson’s book is a scientific discussion of the way social
structures among animals work, with some pointing toward the moral and
implications for individuals. The author is now age 82.
The most comprehensive form of animal socialization is
called “eusociality”, where there is great division of labor among the
individuals, where not all reproduce, and a great amount of “altruism”. The main example is that of social insects:
bees, ants, termites, and the like. The term can be applied to other animal
social structures, as with birds and mammals, especially wolves and lions. But some biologists, because the suppression
of the individual animal is less extreme, call mammalian socialization
“presociality”.
Wilson traces the way social structures in animals evolved
genetically, and points out that while infrequent, they can make a species
dominant when successful. The basic idea
genetically is somewhat similar to that of any multi-celled organism: different cells evolve to do different jobs,
so that the organism as a whole is competitive. The same can be true of an
entire hive, colony, pack, pride or (in human beings), extended family or
tribe. He talks about “group selection” and “inclusive fitness”.
His most arresting statement appears on p. 243. “…an iron
rule exists in genetic social evolution. It is that selfish individuals beat
altruistic individuals, whereas groups of altruists beat groups of selfish
individuals.” Up to a point, that’s
pretty familiar. What are team sports
all about? Remember the sacrifice bunt
in baseball?
“Altruistic” and “selfish” can overlap (objectivists talk of
“enlightened self-interest) and certainly can depend on circumstance,
particularly in modern society. The
notions of “sin” and “virtue” become comingled.
I talked about this on my main blog April 27.
But generally, Wilson means, by altruistic, behavior which
benefits the tribe or extended family with some risk or loss incurred by the
self. That’s a familiar part of
upbringing, for earlier generations.
Boys have been taught to become “brave” and learn to protect (and
sometimes sacrifice themselves) for women and children. Groups naturally compete, and Wilson says
that tribalism and war are inevitable as civilization evolves. Some must sacrifice so that others do
reproduce and continue the family and tribe and make it “politically” stronger
for its members. With women, there have
always been “girls” who didn’t marry (the cardgame “old maids” of “Gone with
the Wind” who feared they weren’t competitive enough – remember Miss Scarlet
scored twice!); in past generations, they were expected to stay home and take
care of the elders and of OPC, “other people’s children”. Today we have a somewhat pejorative term for
this status, “family slaves”.
Wilson
points out that differences (or “diversity”) in reproduction activity is
inevitable in larger groups and probably good for the long term viability of
the family. Certainly, Wilson’s idea of
human “eusociality” fits in with some other ideas today about the “common
good”, “social capital”, and especially “the natural family”.
Wilson does have a chapter on “The Origins of Morality and
Honor”. Ethics becomes a two-edged
sword, sometimes requiring sacrifice of the individual for the group, as in war
(remember military conscription?) and
sometimes (in more recent decades) honoring the individual who challenges
corrupt authority (look at the debates over Internet free speech, especially in
China). Moral training early in life
usually demands loyalty to the group, and willingness to accept the moral
stance of the group if ambiguous from a broader view. Imagine growing up in a crime family, or, for
that matter, in a kibbutz on the West Bank.
When individuals (in the modern world) are freed from such illogical
shackles, they can, on their own, achieve spectacular things (like Mark
Zuckerberg and Facebook). I used to
complain that some of the demands made of me, to compete riskily in team sports
and do things a certain way, were “irrational”.
At my own individual level, I was right. But I was being taught that, as
a primary moral principle, I must start out in adult life by honoring my debt
to the “group” (family or country) and take the same chances as a man as
everyone else. (Remember how, in an early episode of NBC’s “The Apprentice”,
candidate Troy McClain let his legs get waxed “for the team”? Donald Trump even mentioned that in his book,
“How to Get Rich”. Back in the early
1960s, colleges called these rites of passage “tribunals”.)
In fact, because it is, in a eusocial society, impossible to
be “right” all the time, we do need faith, and an idea of grace. Wilson discusses the “Origins or Religion”
near the end. On p. 258, Wilson writes,
“Every religion teaches its adherents that they are a special fellowship and
that their creations story, moral precepts and privilege from divine power are
superior to those claimed in other religions. Their charity and other acts of
altruism are concentrated on their coreligionists; when extended to outsiders,
it is usually to proselytize and thereby strengthen the size of the tribe and
its allies.” Look at the Mormon
Church!... The illogic of religions is not a weakness in them, but their
essential strength.” No wonder Pastor
Rick Warren writes, in “The Purpose-Driven Life”, “It’s not about you.” At the end of his chapter on religion, Wilson
writes that man deserves better from faith than he (or she) gets.
One of the biggest places where eusociality could seem to
complicate moral debate would be sexuality.
In fact (as I pointed out on my GLBT blog April 22), Wilson points out
that nature really didn’t intend that all sex in human beings be just for
procreation, in contradiction to Vatican teaching. Continued pleasure in marriage is necessary to
keep men interested in staying with their young as fathers, since human beings
have long childhoods. But what about
“outside of marriage”? After all,
society’s historic rejection of homosexuality has nothing to do with cheating
on spouses or single parenthood. Wilson
says that homosexuality is probably a “side effect” of other (heritable) cognitive abilities that any
larger group needs to have a portion of its members nurture for the good of
everyone. (Truth seeking, in the world
of Rosenfels?) What, an esoteric, cognitive
“priesthood”? In purely moral terms, he
hasn’t necessarily proven that societies may not constrain the behaviors of
individual variations. We have decided
to do that, by and large, in modern western culture because of the premium we
now place on individual rights. It’s
always seemed to me we have to be rich enough (and sustainably so enough) to
afford it. In ancient times (like in
Leviticus), tribes probably often placed a premium on reproductive numbers, and
might have viewed a man’s submission to another as reflecting badly on the
whole tribe’s ability to defend itself.
In their world, an “offense” against the tribe or group as a whole could
be graver than a crime with individual victims.
Hopefully, we’re beyond that today.
There's no question, that Wilson believes (and general experience suggests) that kinship generally demands the capacity for "sacrifice" and for personal attention from others in the "clan" besides those who have "chosen" to become parents (by having heterosexual intercourse). That expectation became problematic for me during my own experience with eldercare. This expectation may be increasing with medical technology, which increases the likelihood that organ and marrow transplants will be requested from other, even somewhat distant, family members.
The book is heavily illustrated with drawings, diagrams,
graphs and photos, all black and white.
When he is discussing how color vision works, color pictures would have
been helpful. Explain color-blindness!
