by Paul R. Ehrlich
|
| List Price: | $17.00 |
| Amazon Price: | $11.56 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. |
| You Save: | $5.44 (32%) |
| Average Rating: |  |
| Lowest New Price: | $6.45 |
| Availablitiy: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
 |
|
Product Description
Why do we behave the way we do? Biologist Paul Ehrlich suggests that although people share a common genetic code, these genes "do not shout commands at us . . . at the very most, they whisper suggestions." He argues that human nature is not so much the result of genetic coding; rather, it is heavily influenced by cultural conditioning and environmental factors. With personal anecdotes, a well-written narrative, and clear examples, Human Natures is a major work of synthesis and scholarship as well as a valuable primer on genetics and evolution that makes complex scientific concepts accessible to lay readers.
"I doubt whether anyone will write as good a book of this sort on [human evolution] for another two or three decades." (Science)
"Ehrlich's book is so well researched and so elegantly presented that it stands as one of the best introductions to human evolution in recent memory." (Publishers Weekly, starred review)
Amazon.com Review
It's common to blame "human nature" for some of the unpleasant facts of life--road rage, say, or murder, or war. The problem with this convenient out, argues the distinguished scientist Paul Ehrlich, is that there really is no single human nature. Humans, it's true, share a common genetic code with remarkably few large-scale differences (if all but native Africans disappeared from the planet, he notes, "humanity would still retain somewhat more than 90 percent of its genetic variability"); and evolution has endowed us with capabilities shared by no other species. But for all that, he adds, our separation into haves and have-nots, weak and strong, and other such categories is more often than not a product of cultural evolution, a process far more complex than the mere mutation and adaptation of a few genes. And, in any event, those genes "do not shout commands to us about our behavior," Ehrlich says. "At the very most, they whisper suggestions." In this wide-ranging survey of what it is that has made and that continues to make us human, Ehrlich touches on a number of themes--among them, his recurrent observation that science has taught us little about how genes influence human behavior. (Instead, he notes wryly, "science tells us that we are creatures of accident clinging to a ball of mud hurtling aimlessly through space. This is not a notion to warm hearts or rouse multitudes.") He urges that scientists take a larger, interdisciplinary view that looks beyond mere genetics to the larger forces that shape our lives, a view for which Human Natures makes a handy, and highly accessible, primer. --Gregory McNamee
Customers who bought this item also bought
Average Customer Review:
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
 Brilliant.., 2008-05-10
One of the best books about how we produced our cultures. Ehrlich is just brilliant..
16 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
 Ehrlich as Sisyphus, 2005-11-24
Ehrlich's central thesis - that there is not just one human nature but many seems eminently reasonable on the surface. But Ehrlich sidesteps the most convincing evidence! His "culture theory" rebuttal of the straw man of "genetic determinism" singularly fails to review the many twin and adoption studies showing that people inherit their behavior as well as their appearance.
Ehrlich becomes especially annoying when he repeats the mantra that human races do not exist and brands the genetic argument over race and sex differences "racist" and "sexist." Consider the following sets of data. If race was an invalid concept and genes had little or no predictive power, the findings I summarize would not be so consistently found.
For example, although IQ tests were invented by Whites and standardized on mainly White populations, dozens of studies now show that East Asians, whether tested in North America or in Pacific Rim countries, typically average higher than Whites, scoring in the range of 101 to 111. Caucasoid populations in North America and in Europe typically average an IQ of 100. African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, and in the Caribbean have mean IQs of from 70 to 90.
Ehrlich also fails to mention that IQ scores are related to brain size and that the races differ in brain size. Over a dozen magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have found a r = 0.40 relation between brain size and IQ. Racial differences in brain size have been established using four quite different procedures: MRI, autopsies, endocranial volume, and external head measures. The brains of East Asians (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) and their descendants consistently average a larger volume (about 17 cm3) than those of Europeans and their descendants, and 97 cm3 larger than those of Africans and their descendants.
Changes in brain size have cascading effects on other traits, including athletic ability. Blacks have narrower hips than Whites or East Asians which gives them a more efficient stride and enables them to run and jump better. The reason why Blacks have narrower hips, however, is because they give birth to smaller brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis.
Why did Ehrlich neglect to mention all these data if he's interested in the truth about human natures (in the plural)? Wouldn't we expect the evolutionary process to have different effects in different environments? In the wake of the success of The Bell Curve and other recent books about race by Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, and me (Race, Evolution, and Behavior) that provide race-realist answers to the question of differential group achievement, there has been an intense effort to get the 'race genie' back in the bottle. Its sad when a scientist with so many accomplishments and so Herculean a reputation as Ehrlich takes it upon himself to assume so Sisyphean a task.
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
 Once more into the breach . . ., 2004-09-27
Paul Ehrlich enters the lists of "nature vs nurture" by fulminating against the straw-man of "genetic determinism". One would have thought this joust would have been called for "time" by now. In his attempt to triumph over this rather ephemeral opponent, Ehrlich has performed a prodigious task. This well-written and comprehensive view of human evolution is a valuable resource. A massive footnotes and references collection grants this book value far above the narrative itself. Ehrlich, a practiced writer and researcher, brings many years of work and observations of the human condition to this massive overview. He strives to explain who we are and how we arrived at our current stature. He further warns that our lack of understanding of our backgrounds may threaten our future.
"Human nature" is often cited as a foundation for many behavioural traits. The fallacy of that moral expression is revealed in the variety of our habits. Ehrlich recognises that variation in his title and goes on to explain it in this book. While the genetic foundation of our behaviour is being solidly established by much field research, he ultimately concludes much of that basis is overriden by our cultural influences. Much of our confusion about "nature versus nurture", he contends, lies in the rapid pace of humanity. Compared to most other species, our mental development raced past the other animals - with language as the accelerator pedal. Since the genetic base for most traits is so slow and nearly muted, our development agriculture, religion and urban society virtually overwhelmed our "animal instincts". The prime example, of course, is the massive impact we have on our environment.
Ehrlich's key in assessing genetic versus cultural input lies [logically!] in the structure of the brain. When he wrote this book, the human genome was thought to be comprised of 100 000 genes. With that figure halved, he concludes the genome hasn't the power to command the billions of neurons with their trillions of connections that comprise the human brain. This "gene" shortage, he avers, suggests the genome hasn't the capacity to drive human behaviour to any significant degree. This rather simplisitic enumeration ignores the fact that the entire genome, whatever the number of genes, must be highly interactive in many areas of the body - the brain is simply another part of the mechanism. He is apparently unaware of the brain research showing how similar interactions have been mapped within the brain. Genes merely kickstart the process, they don't need to "control" our behaviour.
Ehrlich takes the usual swipes at Richard Dawkins as he builds his narrative. Like so many others, Ehrlich's reading of "The Selfish Gene" appears to have ceased at the title. To him, the "Great Leap Forward" of some fifty thousand years ago emancipated us from the shackles of our genetic heritage. With the development of language [which wouldn't have happened without a biologically endowed "voice box"], human cognition, hence behaviour, launched on a new course. Ehrlich asserts we've never looked back, but also warns our capabilities should be adapted to now look forward. Our abilities threaten the biosphere with an intensity and scope no other species possessed.
In his conclusion, the author nearly reverses all his prior narrative. He urges humanity to develop a better understanding of its place within nature. That, of course, means a full programme of understanding animal behaviour and the mechanisms animals and plants use to stay alive and reproduce. Our evolution, particularly the cultural input, has led us to believe we are distinct from Nature. Ehrlich recognises the dangers of such an attitude and urges us to overcome it. Although an excellent synthesis and supremely comprehensive, it's unfortunate that Ehrlich's prejudices blinded him to create a problem that doesn't exist. Nobody argues for "biological determinism" in an absolute sense - certainly not Dawkins. Where Ehrlich is correct is that we must increase our knowledge of how nature works and undertake the tasks needed to stop and reverse the spoilage under way.
[stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
51 of 75 people found the following review helpful:
A weak intro and polemic, 2002-10-21
Paul Erlich is usually introduced as the author of "The Population Bomb", so it's not unreasonable to look back for a moment at that book- and Erlich's intellectual history- in considering this new book. Back in the 1960s Erlich was a mainstay of the popular media- sort of a Carl Sagan of population- and a regular guest on the Tonight Show, where he spelled out his apocalyptic vision."The Population Bomb" was a polemic that dictated a series of prescriptions for society, without which we were racing headlong to all sorts of disasters, notable shrtages of all strategic resources, massive starvation involving millions of people, food riots that destroyed governments and the downfall of western society as we knew it. This was prophisized to happen in the 1970s, and as most of us recall, none of it happened. He went on to predict that *billions* would die of starvation in the 1980s. Erlich also made a famous bet with economist Julian Simon,in which Simon challanged Erlich to pick 5 commodities that he felt would go up in price because of shortages. Erlich took the bet, and all five fell drastically in price. In fact, nothing that Erlich prophasized ever happened. Erlich's predictions had little to do with science and much do do with ad-hoc justifications for his political prescriptions. Now Erlich has jumped onto the nature/nurture bandwagon, which has generated a lot of renewed interest in recent years owing to some major breakthroughs in the understanding of, and potential control over, the genetic makeup of humans. And once again, Erlich sees a lot of reasons we should follow his particular social agenda. There's nothing particularly new or original in the discussion of nature and nurture in this book, which isn't surprising as Erlich has never done any research in this area. Most of the book is a fairly elementary rehash of the last twenty years of genetic research. Unfortunately it's not a terribly good one. His understanding of issues like human language is elementary at best. Even as science continues to discover just how much of our nature and our biology is, in fact, genetically determined, Erlich's position is that the contribution of genes to behavior is all but trivial, and that leads into the real intent of this book, which is to say his prescription for how society should be run. And not surprisingly, it's the same prescription he was making in the 1960s. Erlich's problem is that he wants to be a social philosopher. He longs to dictate his notion of an ideal society- but he doesn't have any good social arguments. Instead he gives us specious arguments rooted in questionable scientific interpretations. The result is a poor introduction to either the nature-nurture debate or social philosophy.
2 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Excellent reading for both the scientist and lay person, 2002-06-15
Ehrlich has added to a number of good inter-disciplinary books that have been published in the last few years that all bring together the social and hard sciences. This is a well written and brilliantly engaging work. Few readers will fail to come away after reading this without some sort of intellectual reward. Culture as a model of human evolution is emphasised, not to overtake genetics, but to add another dimension. The implications of this effect many fields, including biology, genetics, psychology, history and anthropology. Ehrlichs intelligent and clear writing, persuasive analysis and excellent footnotes make reading "Human Natures" a worthwhile effort. A joy to read.
Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.
|
Store Categories
|