• BookTalk.org News will soon go out via email in HTML format. The goal will be to keep people posted on our current book discussions and other relevant news items.
• Contest #2: "On The Importance of Reading" has started. Visit the Contests forum - the very top thread.
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you!
Just started to read the book and was struck by the paragraph at the bottom of page 1. It starts and ends:
Quote:
This opinion is still very much with us.....We are born with impulses that draw us to others and that later in life make us care about them.
I can't agree more with the opening ideas in this book. I think that when people think about and write about human nature the focus tends to be on the negative, i.e. the selfish genes and aggression. Rarely is there any real weight given to the qualities that pull us together and keep us interdependent. I believe these are the stronger more important behaviors/qualities of human beings.
You're right Saffron. de Waal is very critical of what he calls "veneer theory" - the idea that we are really nasty to the core and this nastiness is covered by a thin veneer of altruism. This seems very popular in evolutionary circles, and I agree it's wrong. I think we have the capacity to be both good and bad, to state the bleeding obvious.
On page 2 the author asks, "But if all that people care about is their own good, why does a day-old baby cry when it hears another baby cry?"
As much as I'd like to reject Richard Dawkins gene-centered view of biological evolution I'm more inclined to say that Frans de Waal might be taking the "selfish gene" concept out of context.
So why do they cry? How about "they just do." Babies do what nature has selected them to do. Empathy is a trait natural selection ensures we all possess. We're all born with it because without it our forebears would have perished. The genes that control empathetic responses are passed along from one generation to the next.
Babies are cute for the same reason....kinda. Ugly babies don't get the same level of attention, support, security and love that cute babies do. Oh, I know. You and I are different. We'd love even the most grotesquely deformed mutant baby...because we've risen above our animal origins. I'm more taking about those other people out there who can't control their primal instincts.
The story of Kuni trying to help the injured starling is very touching but I don't think it contradicts Dawkins selfish gene view. The empathy Kuni felt and displayed was probably very genuine AND a product of natural selection.
Yeah, De Waal mentions The Selfish Gene no less than three times in this first chapter, I believe! He really has a problem with that book and/or Dawkins. The Selfish Gene is one of my favorite books and one that made me look at evolution in a different way. I wonder how Dawkins would respond to De Waal's criticism.
I'd be happy to call or email Dawkins for a response. Let's get further into this discussion period and see if we're understanding Frans de Waal. It could be our misunderstanding.
Just started to read the book and was struck by the paragraph at the bottom of page 1. It starts and ends:
Quote:
This opinion is still very much with us.....We are born with impulses that draw us to others and that later in life make us care about them.
I can't agree more with the opening ideas in this book. I think that when people think about and write about human nature the focus tends to be on the negative, i.e. the selfish genes and aggression. Rarely is there any real weight given to the qualities that pull us together and keep us interdependent. I believe these are the stronger more important behaviors/qualities of human beings.
The clash between Christianity and Darwinism is to some extent encapsulated in this theme – 19th century approaches used ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ to suggest a military model of adaptation – that the technologically superior culture was more competitive – an outlook that served the colonial imperial enterprise. However, in the longer term perspective of civility, the factors of interdependence are more important. There are strong grounds now to critique imperialism due to its negative ecological and social impact. Interestingly, Christian ideas such as love, mercy, forgiveness, justice and grace are precisely the impulses that draw us to others and make us care. In care, we project into the future, acknowledging the past, to influence the present. Such a temporal approach suggests an adaptive evolutionary trait. Using our minds to understand time is a central ability of human life, an adaptive trait that opens us to deep resonant concepts such as truth and beauty.
Christian ideas such as love, mercy, forgiveness, justice and grace are precisely the impulses that draw us to others and make us care.
How are these Christian ideas? Weren't they around long before Christianity arived on the scene? These concepts don't owe their origins to Christianity. Seeing as chimps and bonobos display all of the above tendencies or behaviors, AND few chimps or bonobos regularly attend any sort of Christian religious service I'd be hesitant to say these are "Christian ideas."
If you want to give Christianity credit for love, mercy, forgiveness, justice and grace you also must link it with hate, cruelty, condemnation, unfairness, and good old evil. And you probably would rather seperate Christianity from it's dark and disgusting history.
I'm more taking about those 
