Why are we the way we are? How did we come to be this way? Will we change in the future?
These are some of philosophical questions that I have pondered since I was old enough to ask them. Though I have never phrased it this way before, for nearly my entire life I have been preoccupied with human nature or the human predicament. Robert Wright, the author of The Moral Animal powerfully writes that: “The human species is the human predicament” (Wright, 11). It is logical then, that I would choose a book about the human species to help answer some of the existential questions that I have been asking for as long as I can remember. The Moral Animal is worth reading because it provides a wonderful introduction to evolutionary psychology, explains human nature in a relatively new way and is backed by substantial evidence.
Robert Wright’s thesis in The Moral Animal is that evolution, and specifically the revolutionary new science of evolutionary psychology will be able to explain the moral characteristics of the human species. He attempts to do this by synthesizing the many disparate aspects of evolutionary psychology. This relatively new field of science holds that not only did humans’ physical organs develop through Darwin’s theory of natural selection, but so did humans’ mental organs. Differences in how humans’ brains perceive, process and react to the word around them either contributed to humans’ survival or died out. These important differences affect social behavior and status, sex, and gender relations. In other words, that elusive thing called human nature has been deeply shaped by natural selection.
Because of this, sexuality, family, friendship, society and ethics are all examined through humans’ genetic legacy. The most unique feature of the book is its organization. Not only does Wright compare humans to other higher primates such as chimpanzees and bonobos, but he compares them Charles Darwin, the man. Wright argues that Darwin’s life within Victorian culture can be interpreted as developing from various genetic impulses. Darwin’s sex life (or lack there of) is used as a vehicle to discuss polygamy and differences between males and females. His family is used to outline the idea of kin selection and later as a transition to compare kin selection to reciprocal altruism.
This book is ultimately worth reading because it explains human nature in a relatively new way. Though it is obviously redundant, there is nothing more elementary to humans existence than human nature. Therefore, humans should be jumping over each other trying to hear any new explanation for what it is or how it came to be. Unfortunately, it seems that the general public is unwilling to try to connect ideas like those espoused in The Moral Animal to their own lives. Because of this, Robert Wright goes to great lengths connecting evolutionary psychology to the everyday lives of humans in all cultures.
Wright shows his readers the relevance of evolutionary psychology to the differences in sex and parenting between males and females. The book is worth reading just for this section! Differences in sexual desires and practices between males and females are well-known to most. Cliché assumptions about men preferring to have more sexual partners than females is very often true. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, there is a time when having more sex just isn’t worth the trouble for the female (Wright, 36). The internal motivation to pass on her genetic material is present (as it is with most humans), but because she is limited to the number of children she can have, it is more worthwhile for her to get some rest or find something to eat. That way, she can be as healthy as possible when she does find a male she would like to mate with.
Wright does a wonderful job of contrasting this with the male situation. Unless the male is on the brink of starvation (and thus facing a situation that could curtail his chance to procreate), the male will be motivated to engage in sex with each new potential partner. He will see it as a chance to pass his genetic material on. Robert Wright cites two other evolutionary psychologists – Martin Daly and Margo Wilson – who wrote that for males “there is always the possibility of doing better” (Wright, 36). Because females carry the offspring and are most likely care for it, they often do not always have the possibility of doing better. This huge difference between males and females in the human species and others provides wonderful insight into why there is so much discrepancy between males and females when it comes to sex. If all Americans understood this, how it would affect society? Perhaps it would not affect it much at all, or perhaps profoundly.
The second reason that The Moral Animal is worth reading is that it does a fantastic job of highlighting the connectedness of all peoples throughout time. According to Wright, the more that evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists study cultures, the more similarities they find. This is reassuring because it shows that differences between peoples should be respected, not seen as something that demands changing. Wright uses credible evidence, citing many anthropologists, psychologists and sociologists to show that all people have a “thirst for social approval” and a “capacity for guilt” (Wright, 9). He ingeniously refers to these as “knobs of human nature”, claiming that the tuning of these knobs differs from person to person (Wright, 90). Using the term “knobs” is a great way to explain this idea because it has such a visual component to it. At no other point in The Moral Animal does Wright’s argument have more clarity.
The only section of the book that lacks enough quality research and evidence deals with a computer simulation program called TIT FOR TAT. This computer program basically simulates what it would be like if everyone treated other individuals the way in which those individuals treated them. Hence the title of the computer program “tit for tat”. Through its simulations, the program found that if the “eye for an eye” belief was used by everyone, more people would tend to treat each other positively. At first, even Wright seemed to be skeptical about it. He poses the question: “Game theory and computer simulation are neat and fun, but how much do they really add up to?” (Wright, 202). What is frustrating is that he answers the aforementioned question with this: “Compared to what?” (Wright, 202). He states that there is not a surplus of rival theories with which to compare and thus it should win by default. While it can explain the most about human nature at the present time because there is a lack of other viable theories, it does not necessarily make it science per se.
---------
The Takeaway: In addition to our physical features, human nature has been largely developed through natural selection.
No comments:
Post a Comment