A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation (Hardcover)

For one, Singer misrepresents some of Marx's ideas. Marx clearly *did* have a concept of a fixed human nature, albeit that interacted dialectically with its social surroundings. For more on this view, see Marx's Concept of Man by Erich Fromm and The Dialectical Biologist by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin.

Also, Singer relies to heavily on the discredited reductionist approach to biology championed by Dawkins and company.
There is no "nature vs. nurture". There is no linear relationship between genotype and phenotype. Almost everything results from nature *and* nurture. Take, for example, even a simple thing like height: we all have different genetic potentials for growth, but only with proper nutrition can those potentials by fully realized. And today, there are even limb lengthening operations, allowing for the phenotype to be further altered -- without genetic manipulation. One can only imagine the multitude of ways in which environment must, then, impact social and psychological development.

Similarly, Singer uncritically accepts Derek Freeman's attack on Margaret Mead. But, as Martin Orans argues convincingly in his Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans, there's ample reason to doubt Freeman's thesis.

But read it, and make up your own mind.

Furthermore during this period the right has taken Darwin as its own, believing that the competitive biological nature of human beings as revealed by evolutionary biology is what leads to the inequalities that exist in human societies while justifying the war of one against all, etc.

But what Peter Singer is crowing about (and is the occasion for this lengthy essay/short book) is that the "red in tooth and claw" (Tennyson) interpretation of biological evolution that prevailed throughout the modern era is now coming under fire. No longer can biological evolution be seen as simply the strong taking advantage of the weak (a notion understandably obnoxious to the left). The larger truth now emerging from biology is that cooperation plays an important role in being fit and has, especially for humans, great adaptive value. It is becoming clear that Richard Dawkins's idea of the "selfish gene" is only part of the understanding, and that natural selection operates on groups through the individual, leading to an understanding that one (more cooperative) tribe may be selected over another, and that it is through cooperation within the tribe that Darwinian fittest may be most strongly expressed.

Now this is an idea that the left can appreciate. Consequently Singer's enthusiasm. Marx is dead, long live Darwin!

My problem with this intellectual enterprise is one that Singer points to on page 38, namely that we cannot form an argument from what IS to what SHOULD BE. Singer opines that we can instead through an appreciation of evolution gain "a better understanding of what it may take to achieve the goals we seek."

Beginning on page 31 with his second chapter, Singer compares behaviors across societies. This allows him to note which practices are universal or nearly so and which are highly diverse. The conclusion is that the more universal the behavior, the more it is a product of our biological nature and not a construct of society. To the extent that this process is valid, the information gotten is valuable. This is indeed one of the tools of evolutionary psychology that some people on the Darwinian left would like to discredit. They fear that an emphasis on our genetic endowment will work against our ability to nurture positive values and behaviors. They want nurture trumping nature.

However, in my opinion, the entire argument is passé and invalid. It is now generally understood in biology that nature gives us a predisposition to certain behaviors that develop in concert with our environmental experience so that our behaviors are an intimate product of both our nature and our nurture and cannot in any way be separated. The old "nature vs. nurture" debate is now seen as based on a false dilemma.

Also, it should be appreciated that today's scientific understanding of human nature as derived from biology, genetics and kindred disciplines, is just that, today's understanding, and as such is tentative. Consequently any oughts, shoulds, etc. drawn from such an understanding--even if such a practice were logically valid--would also be of a provisional nature.

Having said all this, I want to note that Singer's argument is well presented and his prescription for a Darwinian left in Chapter 5 well worth reading. If adopted it would work toward relieving the left from its fear of what evolutionary psychology is discovering about human beings. As Steven Pinker (not exactly a leftist) cheerfully notes, "Singer challenges the conventional wisdom that a recognition of human nature is incompatible with progressive ideals..."

He does, and indeed Singer demonstrates that the discoveries of evolutionary biology can be completely compatible with the traditional values of the left. This is an important understanding, since evolutionary biology is not going to go away, nor are its discoveries. We must learn to live with who and what we are without necessarily condoning our less attractive tendencies or attempting to sweep them under the rug.

Bottom line: the opening chapter which concentrates too much on the well-known Marxist delusions and the Soviet doublethink might well be skipped. The meat of Singer's essay begins with Chapter 2, and works very well by itself.

In this IMPORTANT essay, Professor Peter Singer calls on the Left to reconsider its position. Certainly there have been those on the Right who have misinterpreted genetics in order to defend the status quo, defend racism, imperialism, etc; however, it is not reasonable to condemn genetics and the scientists working in that area just because the Right has attempted to appropriate the field for its ideological purposes. That is tantamount, in my opinion, to condemning physics just because some have applied it to militaristic purposes.

It is sad to report, but there are a lot of people on the Left- and I am myself a Leftist- who thrive on tired bromides and have little tolerance for complexity. Of course the system, culture, and class that we are born into are important. Very few would deny that. However, these cultural phenomena arise from, conflate with, express and sometimes frustrate certain genetic constants of human nature.

Denial of this has already had dire consequences for the Left.
Where has there been a Party or government -Left or Right- that has not been rife with power-seeking, self-interested people?
If aggression were supposed to disappear with socialism, then why
did the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia? Why did China then pillage Tibet, attack India and even make incursions into Vietnam? And for that matter, why were the Chinese and Soviets at each others throats after the early 60s?

We on The Left can continue to put our head in the sand and deny the existence of human nature; in the end this will only turn into cynicism or lead others to neoconservatism (the ranks of which are filled with former trotskyists...in the US anyhow).
The wiser choice, as Singer states, would be to take into account this phenomena and reconcile it with our aims of creating a more just society.
Sure, this means admitting that people often act out of narrow self-interest. However genetics reveals another side of human nature also: the cooperative side of human nature. On this theme I would advise a close reading of the works by the biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, especially their "Acquiring Genomes".

Singer does not propose a program, but his work does challenge us to begin thinking about this important topic and formulating our tasks accordingly.