Books do Furnish a Life: An electrifying celebration of science writing
By Richard Dawkins
II: Worlds Beyond Words: Celebrating Nature
In conversation with Adam Hart-Davis
In conversation with Adam Hart-Davis
In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
Always good to check our privilege, but the regret is real. The key to the privilege is to use it at our cost, rather than berating others to bear the cost. If this means buying up the Amazon forest to preserve it, well, that tells us something about the costs that we might otherwise be pressuring others to bear.DWill wrote: Where Dawkins goes toward the end of the essay is how, and even whether, to express regret over the loss of species diversity we're seeing now as humans continue their advance. He knows, for one thing, that when you make human beings, they must eat to survive, and they may find their food in ways that are harmful to species diversity. But what business do we well-fed, satisfied earthlings have in telling these people to stop? We're more moral only because of our full bellies.
But the dispassionate view is only so helpful. Yes, if we end civilization with a nuclear winter or some such catastrophe, nature will recover. That doesn't change the regretability of a world we have made fit primarily for cockroaches and the things that feed on them.DWill wrote:This culling of species will open up new niches to be filled by other species, restoring diversity eventually, presumably, but humans may need to exit for that to happen. In a natural history view, what's happening isn't particularly unusual, just give it a few thousand years for adjustments to occur. Humans are a natural force, so we're not really doing anything to nature; we are nature itself in action.
There is more kinship between esthetic considerations and ethical considerations than we usually acknowledge. In the sense that Haidt investigates, our "raw" ethical judgments are very like our esthetic judgments. We also tend to process them through reason and the criterion of reciprocity, but those involve different brain functions: the rider is not the elephant.DWill wrote:Dawkins doesn't succeed in taking this cold. pitiless view, though. He does regret the loss of any species, since it contains a unique evolutionary record. He mentions instrumental reasons for preserving species--because they may harbor secrets that will improve our own welfare--but calls this motive "crass." It is really, he says, the esthetic sense that rebels at the disappearance of organisms.
I would agree with that. As we reflect on who we want to be, we do not usually arrive at "spendthrift" or "vandal" as our goal. We aspire to be more than that.DWill wrote:It isn't that we can truly mourn over the deaths of unknown organisms, so maybe Dawkins is right. Is esthetics really the issue, though? Is this a place where 'spiritual' might be applied? We feel a spiritual injury when we witness the destruction of all the individuals of a type of organism, and think we have caused it. We feel diminished ourselves.
This book is something of a hodgepodge. It could easily be called Random Selections by Dawkins (except that there are also conversations with other authors). But there are some real gems here, including this one, "Conserving Communities." Dawkins returns to the idea of cooperative genes (which is also discussed at some length in his new foreward for the 30 year anniversary of The Selfish Gene). You get a good sense of Dawkins' Sagan-like sense of wonder with what he calls the "layer of life" on the planet earth. And contrary to his cantankerous reputation, I’d say he comes across as sympathetic and understanding of our tendency to see design in the world. This gentle side of Dawkins will of course not be noted by those who still refute evolution. And to Dawkins’ credit (as Mr. P has noted) this collection of writings seems not to descend to the condescending tone in say the title of The God Delusion.DWill wrote:I hope it's ok with you all to skip ahead to the essay "Conserving Communities." Dawkins has a lot to say about communities, the most important of which play out in "the organs, the cells, the molecules, of individual creatures." But the organism also participates in a community, though it isn't so tight a one as the internal community.
Dawkins’ ability to see different levels of organization of life is rather illuminating for the layperson who wants to understand biology and evolution. Much like the rowers’ analogy he used in The Selfish Gene, he explains how cooperation (not selfishness) is really what makes life tick—these communities at the cell level, gene, and individual level and even in the ecosystem niches of our environment, in which life constantly shuffles and reorganizes itself.Dawkins wrote:The illusion of design is at its strongest in the tissues and organs, the cells and molecules, of individual creatures. The individuals of every species, without exception, show it powerfully, and it springs forth from every picture in this book.
This is fascinating stuff. The chapter “Life Within Life” is a great primer to understanding what Dawkins calls The Extended Phenotype.Dawkins wrote:Most animal cells are communities of hundreds or thousands of bacteria, which have become so comprehensively integrated into the smooth working of the cell that their bacterial origins have only recently become understood. Mitochondria, once free-living bacteria, are as essential to the workings of our cells as our cells are to them. Their genes have flourished in the presence of ours as ours have flourished in the presence of theirs.
He's had a long public career and prides himself on being outspoken, so I think naturally he's left a variety of impressions with people. To demand consistency over that length of time seems unreasonable--and that would even be boring, one thing he's definitely not. But many people, having formed an impression of him as intolerant and dogmatic, won't be swayed by the contrary evidence you mention. In this book, right from the start, he showed his different side. Tyson outshined him in that opening conversation, and Tyson even poked fun at his reputation as a misanthrope, but Dawkins still chose to include the exchange in the book. He's able to lay his ego aside.geo wrote: You get a good sense of Dawkins' Sagan-like sense of wonder with what he calls the "layer of life" on the planet earth. And contrary to his cantankerous reputation, I’d say he comes across as sympathetic and understanding of our tendency to see design in the world. This gentle side of Dawkins will of course not be noted by those who still refute evolution. And to Dawkins’ credit (as Mr. P has noted) this collection of writings seems not to descend to the condescending tone in say the title of The God Delusion.
Living in fear of spirits can be a good thing. In Africa a person who blatantly abuses others may have a curse put on them (children are punished severely for cursing someone, to train them not to abuse this practice). The result is that most people have more self-discipline about not running roughshod over their neighbors. You could think of it as "small claims court." Of course there are those who defy the power of others to curse them. Often those are either modern sector elites or dabblers in black magic.DWill wrote:We do not have to live in fear of demons, spirits, or a vengeful God (although Dawkins says many still are in thrall to the last). We often debate whether, on balance, modernity has improved human life, and often the matter hinges on material advances or longer lives. But the mental freedom Dawkins identifies has to be a huge part of why we are better off, and I simply had not thought of it that way.
The first is inevitably capricious, at least in practical terms, because good and bad events arrive without regard to good and bad behavior. Some people believe in a secret "plan", somehow too complex for mere mortals to understand, and thereby make room for a benevolent controller that we can trust to have some good purpose even if we can't see or understand it. Apparently capricious, but not really. I am pretty put off by the sociology which results, in which those who have had mostly good luck in life are therefore considered to have essentially deserved it, by having a lot of faith or some such.DWill wrote:A good summary of the role of agency, explained in the terms of evolutionary psychology. The discussion led me to think about God-belief as now existing in two broad categories: God as having created the world, doing things in the human world, making things happen; and God as existing in some way, but not having made the world or changing things around in human affairs.
But you're right that the reason spirits and gods were/are said to exist goes beyond needs to explain causation, e.g., that thunder isn't Odin shaking the ramparts of Valhalla. Dawkins and others use that simplified view, along with the view that religion only persuades us that we don't really die. It does more than that, and some of what it did in the very early days was transferred to the realm of civil authority, law, and culture. Santal Claus works with kids, a well-developed sense of guilt does it for adults. The superego was a fine substitute for God.Harry Marks wrote:Living in fear of spirits can be a good thing. In Africa a person who blatantly abuses others may have a curse put on them (children are punished severely for cursing someone, to train them not to abuse this practice). The result is that most people have more self-discipline about not running roughshod over their neighbors. You could think of it as "small claims court." Of course there are those who defy the power of others to curse them. Often those are either modern sector elites or dabblers in black magic.DWill wrote:We do not have to live in fear of demons, spirits, or a vengeful God (although Dawkins says many still are in thrall to the last). We often debate whether, on balance, modernity has improved human life, and often the matter hinges on material advances or longer lives. But the mental freedom Dawkins identifies has to be a huge part of why we are better off, and I simply had not thought of it that way.
Of course I do think it is better not to think about things in those terms. A more realistic appraisal says that a person should discipline their aggressive urges out of simple decency, and that "Karens" like the lady who threatened a man with calling the police because he was a person of color, over his request that she leash her dog, are "punished" by the arm's length distance other people keep them at. I sometimes lament the loss of ordinary politeness skills in our society, but I don't really think we are better off if obnoxious people are kept in check by unseen forces.
And if their luck changes and they fall from grace, they may have no trouble blaming someone else's sinning for that fall. They also may instead learn something about how luck works.Harry Marks wrote:The first is inevitably capricious, at least in practical terms, because good and bad events arrive without regard to good and bad behavior. Some people believe in a secret "plan", somehow too complex for mere mortals to understand, and thereby make room for a benevolent controller that we can trust to have some good purpose even if we can't see or understand it. Apparently capricious, but not really. I am pretty put off by the sociology which results, in which those who have had mostly good luck in life are therefore considered to have essentially deserved it, by having a lot of faith or some such.DWill wrote:A good summary of the role of agency, explained in the terms of evolutionary psychology. The discussion led me to think about God-belief as now existing in two broad categories: God as having created the world, doing things in the human world, making things happen; and God as existing in some way, but not having made the world or changing things around in human affairs.
Do you think this theology can be viewed as a means of preserving some of the valued heritage that went along with the older, externalized God, and perhaps, too, of avoiding the solipsism that might result if we denied anything was going on other than people finding it better to be nice to one another? Or maybe such a theology is simply a good thing to have around because we can't trust people to act for the overall welfare guided by their own lights. They do best with deep-seated, inculcated ideas in place about what the good life is. Law alone doesn't have the needed reach into minds.The second is the locus of the modernist theologian's god. Godly actions are some actions perceived to be such (i.e. we can recognize godliness in them) in real events, rather than interventions claimed from some "other realm." God acts "in" events, not "between" events, as Bultmann put it. Process theology sees this as a process in which the possibilities for a better life or better society exert a pull on people, leading them to be "co-creators" with the divine (and the divine is, essentially, the pull of those possibilities). In that sense God does "change things around."
I think that Erikson's idea of generativity comes close to the spirit of what you so well said. Erikson thought of generativity as a stage older people reach (which I find to be true), but it can be taught to those of all ages. And maybe "taught" is the key word in all of this discussion. Yes, people have the capacity to be nice to one another "naturally," but a force multiplier is needed to keep more selfish and atavistic urges at bay. As a teacher, you wouldn't find that surprising, I'd guess.I tend to think the operation of divine agency, the effect of the Spirit of Caring, is through a "pay it forward" type process of grace. The reason for doing good is neither divine reward (in this world or the next) nor expectation of recompense from others, but rather to have a beneficent effect on the flow of causality. In an odd sense, this amounts to saying one should do good "because you can," but that is actually about right.
I consider the "causation myth" version of critiquing religion to be rather silly. Even if ancients believed those myths, the belief was likely to fall away quickly when they encountered the myths of other cultures. Rather we should recognize the values embodied in the stories.DWill wrote:But you're right that the reason spirits and gods were/are said to exist goes beyond needs to explain causation, e.g., that thunder isn't Odin shaking the ramparts of Valhalla. Dawkins and others use that simplified view, along with the view that religion only persuades us that we don't really die. It does more than that, and some of what it did in the very early days was transferred to the realm of civil authority, law, and culture. Santal Claus works with kids, a well-developed sense of guilt does it for adults. The superego was a fine substitute for God.
Good observation. This is actually a vital bit of anthropology. A minority of religious people will experience this disappointment as a call to be more serious about their ideas of God (not just their ideas about luck). David Brooks is treading close to this observation when he argues that most people who have found a calling to help others reach it (the "Second Mountain") after going through some kind of serious devastation, such as cancer or the loss of a child ("the valley"). I will trust him on that point - others have made similar claims.And if their luck changes and they fall from grace, they may have no trouble blaming someone else's sinning for that fall. They also may instead learn something about how luck works.
There's a lot going on in those questions. I think the modern theology is Truth, (about values, not about factual issues,) and as such represents the kernel that was embodied in the primitive versions.DWill wrote:Do you think this theology can be viewed as a means of preserving some of the valued heritage that went along with the older, externalized God, and perhaps, too, of avoiding the solipsism that might result if we denied anything was going on other than people finding it better to be nice to one another? Or maybe such a theology is simply a good thing to have around because we can't trust people to act for the overall welfare guided by their own lights. They do best with deep-seated, inculcated ideas in place about what the good life is. Law alone doesn't have the needed reach into minds.Harry Marks wrote:The second is the locus of the modernist theologian's god. Godly actions are some actions perceived to be such (i.e. we can recognize godliness in them) in real events, rather than interventions claimed from some "other realm." God acts "in" events, not "between" events, as Bultmann put it. Process theology sees this as a process in which the possibilities for a better life or better society exert a pull on people, leading them to be "co-creators" with the divine (and the divine is, essentially, the pull of those possibilities). In that sense God does "change things around."
It's been a long time since I learned a bit about Erikson's ideas, but I have found myself referring to his generativity, and the requirement (sort of) that the person go through more primitive stages first, many times in my life. I'm not sure I believe in the role of the force multiplier - if not for the need to safeguard other people's access to education I believe I would reject the use of manipulation to develop student work ethic. Learning has its own rewards, and the experience of mastery is one of the strongest motivators that teachers have in their repertoire.DWill wrote:I think that Erikson's idea of generativity comes close to the spirit of what you so well said. Erikson thought of generativity as a stage older people reach (which I find to be true), but it can be taught to those of all ages. And maybe "taught" is the key word in all of this discussion. Yes, people have the capacity to be nice to one another "naturally," but a force multiplier is needed to keep more selfish and atavistic urges at bay. As a teacher, you wouldn't find that surprising, I'd guess.Harry Marks wrote:I tend to think the operation of divine agency, the effect of the Spirit of Caring, is through a "pay it forward" type process of grace. The reason for doing good is neither divine reward (in this world or the next) nor expectation of recompense from others, but rather to have a beneficent effect on the flow of causality. In an odd sense, this amounts to saying one should do good "because you can," but that is actually about right.
Really? All these pantheon judgments are subjective, but I suspect that most of the great social science insights would have been inevitable observations on their way to practical understanding. Perhaps Marx's great observations could have been produced by conservative thinkers, maybe several of them, and perhaps Freud's insights could have come from a Nietzsche type or a Max Weber type, but I can't convince myself that those towering insights were parochial or limited in relevance. They may have been superseded by more complex and nuanced versions, but, in some sense, so has Darwin.DWill wrote:He is a great champion of Darwin, telling us that Darwin's shortcomings detract only a very little from his revolutionary brilliance. Always somewhat combative, Dawkins opines that two other 19th-Century giants that often join Darwin in a troika, don't belong. Marx's and Freud's contributions were parochial in comparison. A visitor from another civilization would have no reason to say 'aha!' to the theories of either of those figures important only to one species at one point in its history.