- Save 15% on all books purchases. Enter code PROMO15 at checkout. Here's how (restrictions apply)
A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation Hardcover – Mar 11 2000
|New from||Used from|
Back to University 2016
Save on College Prep Essentials on Amazon.ca. Shop now
Special Offers and Product Promotions
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Philosophers don't have to be arcane and out of touch. Princeton's Peter Singer gives 21st-century liberals and radicals something to think about with the slim but powerful volume of Darwinism Today titled A Darwinian Left. Long noted for holding controversial bioethical beliefs related to animal rights, abortion, and euthanasia, Singer tends to quickly polarize his readers. This time, he chooses to antagonize those most sympathetic with his positions, arguing that the political left should re-evaluate its dependence on Marxism and its shunning of Darwinism. His writing is lucid and pulls no punches in examining the consequences of 20th-century answers to poverty; fans of the welfare state are in for some discomfort.
But Singer sees making a few liberals squirm as crucial to stealing Darwinism from the right and combining the noble desire to help the helpless with a realistic view of human nature and evolution. He builds a compelling line of thought, peppered with examples, that shows how our competitive "survival of the fittest" conception of evolution falls far short of modern scientific thinking. Instead, Singer suggests we incorporate a Darwinian ethic of cooperation into our political thought and reflect carefully on the consequences of our remedies for the evils of the world. --Rob Lightner
About the Author
Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. He first became well known internationally in 1975 with the publication of "Animal Liberation". His other books include "How Are We to Live?", "The Ethics of What We Eat" (with Jim Mason), and "The Most Good You Can Do". He divides his time between Princeton and Melbourne.
Top Customer Reviews
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!Read more ›
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?Read more ›
Most recent customer reviews
It becomes more difficult every day to competently use the writings of Marx or Darwin as guideposts for human social life. Read morePublished on June 16 2001 by Lee Hall
All these critics giving one-star mark to Singer's text, should be laugh at for their uninformed but obstinate attempt to explain something that lies beyond ther mental capacities. Read morePublished on May 13 2001
Darwin has confused more philosophers, beginning with Nietzsche, than any other scientist. It is time the game stopped. Read morePublished on Dec 14 2000 by John C. Landon
I give it two stars only because I can give this book to people who do not really understand what the left is all about, on to the review. Read morePublished on Nov. 6 2000 by Enigma
The purpose of this little book (I read it while walking the distance of 22 city blocks on a pleasant late summer day) is to counter some of the fallacies of both the left and the... Read morePublished on Oct. 25 2000 by Howard A. Smith
Another reviewer has already pointed out that, contra Singer, Darwin himself was a "Social Darwinist. Read morePublished on Aug. 31 2000
This is a difficult book to rate in a five star system. Very short (63 pages) it is essentially a political pamphlet or manifesto. To this reader it does this job well. Read morePublished on July 12 2000
After reading this book, it's easy to see why some editors of The Wall Street Journal detest Peter Singer. He's a bold new thinker who is not afraid of new ideas. Read morePublished on May 1 2000 by Theodore A. Rushton
After reading this book, it's easy to see why Wall Street Journal editors detest Peter Singer. He's a bold new thinker who is not afraid of new ideas. Read morePublished on April 28 2000 by Theodore A. Rushton