Animals and Evolution Books

William Calvin is one of my favorite writers and thinkers on the brain. I don't always agree with his ideas, but he's creative in a way I enjoy and his ideas are always provocative and even pathbreaking in the way he integrates diverse areas--from linguistics to climatology--with the evolution and development of the brain.

This books brings together some of his best essays, covering a diverse array of topics. For those of you who aren't familiar with Calvin, this is an excellent introduction to his thought, which I can highly recommend.

Since we're on the subject, I thought I'd make a few comments on one of Calvin's interesting ideas--which is the proposition that spear-throwing was specifically the motor action that provided the stimulus for the subsequent evolution of the cerebral cortex and greater encephalization of the human brain. While I like this idea, and also am excited by the possbility of pinpointing such an important causative agent in our evolution, I also feel it's very difficult to isolate or pinpoint a specific action that could be responsible, but I'd like to consider it nevertheless in the light of what we do know about the development and nature of motor control in the human brain.

If you look at the pyramidal cortex, which has the most complex motor capabilities, we see that it's mainly specialized for fine hand movements and coordination. For example, typing or playing the piano or a musical instrument gets mediated by this area--or the fine control required by a surgeon's hand.

Rhythmic movements, even very fast ones, oddly enough, are not necessarily a highly evolved capability and in fact, if I remember right, are mediated by the cerebellar vermis, a structure in the cerebellum, or at least some portion of the cerebellum. We know from brain damage studies that people lose this ability from damage to the cerebellum. It has the tongue-twisting name of dysdiadocochinesia.

But getting back to the spear throwing capability, much of the eye-hand coordination for this sort of thing is in fact still mediated by the cerebellum. For example, it is known that scale transformation of muscle movements and velocity prediction occurs in the cerebellum in hard-wired circuits that are basically using tensor matrix multiplication to handle the scaling issues and mapping issues between sensory and motor control functions.

Speaking of "hard-wired" capabilities, I recall from my own studies of synaptic connectivity that the pyramidal cortex neurons have an average of about 3000 synapses with other neurons. Contrast this with those of the cerebellum, which are thought to have 100,000 connections, a truly staggering number. But this makes sense when you consider that it controls so many functions that have to be very quick and essentially automatic with very low time latencies and time constants.

And if you've ever seen the mathematical studies in the area of occulomotor control theory, which mostly looks at the optic tectum and superior colliculus areas, you know how complex that can get even though it's technically not a cortical area. Mathematically, it is using Voltera-kernel based integro-differential equations for predictive target tracking and so on.

So if you consider how advanced even the more primitive motor areas of the brain are, you have to find something pretty complex to require the intervention of the cerebral cortex.

And we haven't even talked about the last major motor area, the basal ganglia yet, which are just below the cortex, the putamen, caudate nucleus, and the globus pallidus. These structures are mainly responsible for the dynamic regulation of muscle tension through various neural pathways and feedback systems, mainly the gamma motor efferent system to the golgi tendon organs in the muscle fibers and the alpha motor pathways going to the intrafusal fibers of the annulospiral endings of the neuromuscular spindles.

Well, I didn't mean to wax so nerdy but anyway, that's about all the motor physiology I remember. :-) That wasn't my strongest area, exactly, being basically a sensory neurophysiologist and limbic system guy.

But anyway, to sum up, from what I recall, much of the coordination in throwing a spear would still be mediated by many of these more primitive areas below the cortex. It was the fine hand and finger manipulation movements and requirements that seem to me to have been responsible for the evolution of the more advanced pyramidal motor cortex.

However, all that having been said, Calvin could be right if the spear-throwing thing first got the evolution of the cortex going, and the pyramidal area then evolved later--which is basically what he's saying. My only problem with that is whether that ability requires the sort of control required by increasing encephalization. My understanding is that chimps don't have a pyramidal area, or at least a very highly developed one, and they can throw things just fine, but they couldn't play the piano, so that's another thing that sets us apart in addition to the language areas like Broca's and Wernicke's areas and so on, which they don't have to the same extent either.

I had one other topic I thought I'd comment on, which is a little off topic, but it pertains to the present sorry state of humanity and to the relationship between our current lifestyle and what we are basically evolved for, which, especially in the case of advanced western countries, with our sedentary jobs and lifestyle, is very different our evolution.

If you consider that chimps survive quite well with a brain of about 400-500 cubic centimeters, and the human average is almost four times that, all that extra brain power has just enabled us to get into more trouble. It seems clear to me that homo sapiens has evolved a brain much bigger than he needs and that accounts for his current sorry and unhappy state. :-)

To elaborate a bit, consider the difference between a typical Homo sapiens and a typical Neanderthal. Homo sapiens is a more "gracile" species, with longer, slighter, straighter bones, lighter musculature, but faster, more agile, and more active. The difference is much like that between a runner and a wrestler. Of course, there are groups that are somewhat more naturally heavier boned and heavily muscled, such as certain northern European groups, but they're the exception to the rule.

Basically, we're supposed to be chasing woolly rhinos and mammoths through the brush with fire-hardened and flint tipped spears rather than sitting at a computer screen all day totally sedentary, eating Pringles and drinking Cokes and not geting any exercise and getting fat. We're clearly evolved for a more active lifestyle and yet most of us, at least in the west, have jobs and lifestyles that are sendentary and relatively inactive.

All this leads to lifestyle-related diseases like high blood pressure, diabetes, atherosclerosis, and so on, notwithstanding the fact that psychologically we're not suited to just being that sendentary either and I think that contributes to a lot of individual and social malaise and unhappiness, especially if you consider that, according to health statistics, 50% of Americans over the age of 40 are overweight.

Anyway, just a few thoughts on one of Calvin's interesting recent ideas.

THis is a great book, indeed a brilliant introduction on the issue of managing our biological resources in a global economy. WTA is a lucid writer and original thinker, far better - and far more realistica and moderate - about these issues than the more well known activists like Rifkin. Indeed, this book was so interesting for me that it re-oriented my interests to the environement, the uses of biotech, and biodiversity. This is a masterpiece of synthesis and sensible advice, made palpable by clear writing.

Warmly recommended.

This book offers a thrilling, roller-coaster ride from start to finish - I couldn't put it down! Essential!!!

JB

I read this book in 1976, just after it was published in paperback, and it helped me to make sense of the 60s landslide in my own life. Re-reading it many times over the years, together with Roszak's other very insightful work (Person/Planet, 1978) is always an inspiring reminder of the counterculture's deep potential for cultural renewal. Forty years after the Summer of Love, Roszak's insights are still right on.

Roszak eloquently details the evolution of consciousness and calls for an "evolution we deserve" to counter the mindless surfeit of modernity masquerading as self-fulfillment.

This book gathers scientific publications, both on ecological, biochemical or biological fields of herpetology. It is written for professional consumers. Anyone who works with snakes at professed level will enjoy that book as I do.

I came upon this book and it is very interesting and informative. It talks about how zoos were and how they are and even how they might become. It is a little outdated and a little hard to find be it is a little teasure of a book.

Pollan presents this discussion in an easy-to-read format and gives the reader a well-rounded story. I highly recommend this book and hope that more agriculture schools and nutrition classes use it in the classroom.

This book contains a clear accounting of the farming of corn and the use
of corn to make corn syrup and other corn products used in human foods,
and the problem with the destruction of farming soil and pollution of
the environment with fertilizers used to increase the yield per acre of
corn. The Author does not address the problem with adding corn by-products to our dog and cat foods, among which are the basic indigestibility of corn in these animals, and the problem of pet illness that results from the feeding of pet foods with corn products in them.
This is a great book. To learn more about pet nutrition please
go to www.amiespetcuisine.com, and see HOW TO COOK FOR YOUR PET.

I am going to write a review here that I am sure that will get pummeled and give me nothing but nasty comments and a billion negative votes. So let me say some good things first. Pollan is a gifted writer, is engaging and entertaining to read. The book and it's premises though are a sure recipe for global disaster. Pollan is more even-handed and fair than most of the books trumpeting the perils of industrial farming, but let me please try to explain why these arguments are dangerously flawed. I will try and give and intelligent and considered response and those of you who must blast back at me, I only ask that your comments are equally considered.

Many people are scared of industrial farming, the inputs that are used, and the genetic engineering that is advancing farm science. Most of these fears are based upon "frankenscience" designed delilberately to be scary. Scary and sensational sells books, magazines, and newsprint. The "organic" label has been profitable to the tune of billions of dollars and will continue to be so. There is so much momentum in the press about the dangers of industrial farming and too much money to be made for it to stop. On the other hand industrial farming is not going to stop either. We have to eat.

In our society the best way to control how people think is to control the questions posed. When industrial farming is discussed it is presumed to be bad because it is "industrial" and there are chemicals involved. Ergo we have the slew of reporting biased against industrial farming. All of these books may even be right and everything they maintain may prove to be true. I doubt it, but even if it so we have a problem that is ignored by the media when experts pontificate about agricultural issues. The question isn't whether industrial farming is good or bad. The real question is, "there are over 6 billion people on the planet, and the population will grow to be over 9 billion. How are we going to feed everybody?"

The prescription of this book, more local farming and more organic food, is simply a recipe for billions of deaths through starvation. Many people hate it when facts don't fit their preconceived notions or agendas. In fact, I never seen a political party that doesn't suffer from this flaw. My response is neither political nor do I have an agenda. Although you may not listen to what I have to say, I feel compelled to try and point out the simple holes in the logic of this book. You may not thank me for it, but at least I will have tried. This book is irrational because it refuses to face the real question of how to feed everyone. A rationalist is a person who plays the hand of cards they are dealt, not the hand of cards they wish they had. They solutions offered in this book amount to playing the cards we wish to have rather than the ones we do have.

Here are the cards. Land can either be good farmland, tolerable farmland, ranch land, or non-arable. All of the good farmland and tolerable farmland in the world is already being farmed. There are no reserves of land in this world that would make good farmland. You can try to farm ranch ground, or poor farm ground, and you can pursue slash and burn farming in rainforests, but the problem is that the land will only be productive for a few years. After that it is uneconomical to farm it. By that I mean you will put more calories into the farming than you can withdraw. Moreover this land then is subject to erosion and other environmental problems. The simple math is this: there are roughly one billion arable hectares in the world and there are just over 6 billion people. Those are the cards we hold. Can we feed everyone? Yes, for now.

Here are the problems with local production and organic food: local production is fabulous when you can do it, but many people do not live where food is produced. Think of New York City. Obviously NYC cannot grow all the food it needs for its population. They need to import food. This is not a new problem. Ancient Rome was entirely dependent upon food produced in Egypt and other provinces. When people choose to live where the food isn't, there is a cost associated with getting the food to those people. There always has been. However, you also can't wish those people to move to where the food is, because their housing would take up all the farmground. So local markets theoretically work great for certain groups, but it is simply not rational to suggest local production as a solution to world food shortages. There is also a reason why the world looks like it does with densely populated non-agricultural areas and thinly populated agricultural ones. People can't live on the good farmground. Plants have to live there. Therefore, when you really think about it, suggesting local production as a solution is just a preconceived bias that in practical application would cause a lot of people to starve. Sure, some people get to live near the food, and it would be more efficient if they would eat the food produced right next to them rather than food that is shipped halfway round the world. Getting people to do so would make the system slightly more efficient, but it is not going to be the solution. It would be a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. Moreover, it wouldn't work anyway....people don't want it. They like eating bananas from central America, grapes from Chile, lamb from New Zealand, cashews from Vietnam, and cornflakes from Michigan. A diet of only local foods would be very bland compared to the diet to which we have become accustomed. So, you can wish for local production all you want, but those pesky humans are going to mess you up every time. They will pay lots of good money to have tasty foods imported from far distant places.

Local production means local foods only. You won't get others to agree to that after they've tasted the goodies of the rest of the world. I sincererly doubt that most readers of this book are actually willing to eat only on what can be organically grown within 20 miles of their residence. If they are not, then they are just chanting, "do as I say, not as I do", which is the fault I find with this book and the author.

Suggesting organic farming as a solution though is frightening. Let's do that simple math again.....one billion hectares and six billion people. Right now, with incredible amounts of oil-based fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, chemical inputs, and, whoa, even scarier, genetic technology, we are just managing to basically keep those six billion people fed. Organic farming does without those inputs....and produces about 1/4 the equivalent yield. If the world switched to organic farming then 4.5 bilion people would have to starve to death. Even if you are willing to become the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world, people are not just going to sit there and slowly starve to death for you. No, they will fight for food for themselves and their children. When you do the math you will realize that organic farming is much more harmful than the "bad meat" chant (I'll get to that in a second). Organic farming simply equates into less food output. Less food = less people. Westerners, in a shocking display of hypocrisy, can extoll the virtues of organic farming, decry the use of chemical inputs, suggest local production, etc., while they are chewing on their bananas, dining in expensive restaurants, wearing their leather shoes, burning their oil in their luxury SUV. But we can't have it both ways. To the third world we appear as insufferable, arrogant, self-righteous, and astoundingly stupid hypocrites. Imagine yourself in a west African village explaining organic food and local market approaches. I've been there....they've done it that way for thousands of years. They'd think you were retarded for suggesting back-breaking labor and risk of starvation to have organic food. They have organic food, and they would love to swap places with you. After trying to grow your own food there for a year, organically, you'd want out too. Those villagers would love the chance to use modern inputs to increase their yields, and a trip to a US grocery store would seem like something out of a fairy tale to them. Before espousing organic farming and local production imagine yourself as the person who had to do the labor, moreover you life depends upon your success, and, additionally, say goodbye to anything more intersting than gruel to eat. This book offers answers that sound great in theory, but in real practice you'd find absolutely horrifying.

There are real problems with industrial agriculture, primarily its dependency on oil, but I'd prefer to see the author looking at the real problems and trying to craft solutions that can actually be made to work. Solutions that the other 6 billion people on the planet can live with and you can live with too.

Complaining about the $75 billion that the feds plug into American agriculture is not very well thought out. I'm not going to defend a single thing the USDA does.....but I am going to defend the reason why it started and why it has to stay. Despite being a capitalist country, we can't not have a safety net in regards to food. If we don't produce enough food in this country then people will DIE. Get it? It's a concept called food security because food is the most important thing in a society. If you don't believe that, just don't eat for two weeks. You can go without gasoline for two weeks, you can sleep outside if you have too, you can live without your DVDs....but try living without food. Since it is the one necessary item before all others, for thousands of years nations have had food security policies and practices. The people in power have to keep the people fed. If they don't, they won't be in power long. The United States is no different and never has been. We have been so blessed with good farmland and good practices that it has been 80 years since we had food shortages. Starvation is not a place any person or any country wants to be. Ergo, governments spend money on agriculture. Yes, sometimes they do stupid things, but food security can't be left to chance. The US Govt is not going to stop, nor should it, implementing policies for our food security. They may not get it right, there may be incompetence and corruption, but it is up to us to do something about it when they get it wrong. We should be deeply thankful that they don't leave food security to the "Free Market".

Another problem overlooked in this book is one of labor. Before the green revolution about 90% of the world population had to work in agriculture. In America today less than 1% of our population has to do so. That frees up the other 99 of us to build cars and houses, write novels, practice medicine, run utilities, make movies and clothing....to do everything that brings us to the level of technology, wealth, and health we enjoy today. Without industrial farming we can't have those 99 people creating and sustaining our level of technology.

One last point. The whole "meat is bad because it takes eight pounds of grain to make one pound of meat". That's just embarassingly wrong, pure proganda, and thankfully Mr. Pollan doesn't fall into this particular trap. What that argument is really saying is that midwestern style feedlots that feed corn to cows are inefficient and oh my gosh! People could eat that corn instead! Then no one would have to starve. I've heard this argument meaning times before, from many likable people. The problem is that it's not true; moreover it is obviously not true if you think about it. It's an argument that serves the agenda of people who don't like people eating meat. It's an effectively convincing lie apparently, but it is misinformation serving to score political points. I don't care if people eat meat or not, but I do care when deliberate misinformation is used to create a public opinion. Well let me point out the glaringly obvious. Most of the livestock in this world, well over 98%, will never see a feedlot and they will never get to eat anything a person would eat. Hunh? What? By using a small fact, that to fatten a cow in a Kansas feedlot can take eight pounds of corn to creat one pound of gain, and shouting that to the world, you're left to assume that all meat takes eight pounds of grain to create. Not so. No, most of the cows, goats, sheep, chicken, and other beasties in the world that are slated to be our dinners eat things like grass, insects and weeds. Things we can't eat. In fact, I could make a perfectly good argument that based upon on the meat produced for consumption in the world, against all the grain used to create that meat, that it only take 2 ounces of grain to make one pound of meat! Therefore by not eating meat we're going to cause everyone to starve. As Mark Twain once said, "there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics". Watch out for the lies and the damn liles, but never believe a statistic. Not even mine. Also be careful of believing what others tell you without thinking it through. If you think about it yourself you will realize that most livestock in the world forage for their food. They're not eating anything a human would eat. The "meat is inefficient" argument is only true if applied to an American feedlot and even then it is still specious (a damn lie) for two reasons. Here is the first reason: even those 2% of animals who get to spend a few weeks eating corn and millet in a Kansas feedlot, so that they wind up tasting better to us, still aren't eating human food. Pollan points out they are eating corn that humans can't eat and wouldn't want to eat. Therefore it is a damn lie that what the feedlot cow ate can have been equivalent to 8 times more food for the starving whomever. Now, the anti-meat group's rejoinder is going to be, "yeah, but the land that grows that non-human corn could have been used to grow real human food." Not really. Anti-meat people, because of their bias, tend not to really undrestand much about agriculture as a science. Yes, some of that land used to produce corn to feed cows could be put into human food production; and I guarantee once the need for it is there it will be put into human food production. Farmers make a lot more money on human food than they do on animal feed (humans have more disposable income than cows). So again, the implication of the anti-meat crowd is that we lost 8 times the calories we could have had....not true. If we needed those calories then humans would have gotten them and the pro-meat crowd would have to eat veal rather than steak. Humans are going to get fed before cows do. But the real problem with the "that land could have grown human food" argument is that it is wrong. Those people, because they don't know even the basics about agriculture, conveniently leave out the need for a little thing called crop rotation. It means you don't keep planting the exact same crop over and over again in the same place. You have to rotate crops. Some of our major crops, such as millet, sorghum, and corn, are grown for reasons other than direct human consumption. That turns out to be handy because it means we can rotate crops and keep yields up year after year. Let me try to explain. I could plant wheat five times in a row, but my yields will fall if I do. If I rotate millet into the cycle then maybe I only grow wheat three years and millet one year and sunflower seeds one year during a five year cycle. However, I'll have as much wheat out of my farm as you will have on yours if you tried growing wheat five times in a row. So it turns out the the millet I feed to my dairy or beef cows didn't really cost the world any extra food, did it? Indeed, now I get to eat milk, cheese and ice cream, maybe even a steak once in a while....

Most arguments about food production can be picked apart like I tried to do in the above. The arguments are created to support someone's idea of how they think things should be. They have an agenda, and then they seek facts to support their agenda. I don't have an agenda, but I do see that we have problems. An increasing world population, decreasing genetic variety, soil getting tired, erosion, lack of technology, experience, and inputs for Africa and much of the rest of the third world, depleting phospate reserves, depleting oil reserves, and inconstant weather are all going to be challenges as we go forward. I'd love to see a well-reasoned and rationally sound blueprint that, politics and agendas aside, considers how we are really going to feed 6 billion people now, 9 billion people in 30 years, and how to do it consistently for the next thousand years. This is the real question, and billions of people are relying on us to provide real solutions, ones that everyone can live with. This book unfortunately doesn't do that.

This is a non-fiction account of the history behind the food we eat. This book describes the great industrial food complex and advocates local, organic foods. Extremely well-researched and well-presented. This was a compelling book and will likely convince you to change your eating habits.

I read this book a little while ago and didn't have time to review it, but the essential messages keep popping into my consciousness as I go about my day-to-day life. Before reading this book, for example, I had never realized that Corn has cunningly taken over the world and turned us all into "Corn People." Pollan's simple plan - to make three meals - turns into an exploration of all things wrong with the modern industrial food production and delivery system. Pollan's prose is wonderful and his thinking nothing short of brilliant. Even if some of his ideas are not completely original, as some critical reviews argue, this is still a remarkable book that will enrich your life - and the world, if enough people read it.

Dado que mi "review" de este libro no es nada original comparado con las que ya se han escrito, la escribo en español. Este libro también se ha traducido en Español, aunque la que yo compré es la edición del trigésimo aniversario en inglés. La edición a la que aquí se hace referencia. El libro de Dawkings escrito hace ya 30 años, es vigente y creo que es un libro indispensable en la biblioteca personal. Un best seller en su lenguaje de origen me parece que es poco conocido en países hispanoparlantes, he visto pocas referencias a él, sin embargo creo que será más conocido en los próximos años, por sus implicaciones, su lenguaje, su sencillez y la complejidad de sus ideas. Es un libro que recomiendo ampliamente a estudiantes de biología, biólogos y público en general. La idea de "memes" creo que también es muy importante sobretodo en el siglo XXI donde la información se replica a gran velocidad. También es un libro que se lo recomendaría a las personas que tienen un interés por la filosofía y las ciencias sociales, dos disciplinas que aún se comportan como si Darwin jamás hubiera existido. Así pueden imaginarse a este libro como una versión del "Origen de las Especies y la Selección _Natural" (sobre todo de la Selección Natural) de Darwin RELOADED.

Why should we care about Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Is it a bad thing that around half of the American population doesn't accept it?

Simply put, evolution is arguably the greatest attempt to answer some of the eternal epistemological questions such as why are we, the nature of morality, and what we are. From a biological perspective, it actually answers what we are and explains how all this beautiful and complex life arouse in a very simple and gradual process.

The Selfish Gene is a work of popular science written in the mid 70's that flips the basic understanding of evolution. The paradigm shift the reader goes through is important: Understanding evolution from the eye of the gene instead of an organism or a group of organisms. Dawkins uses metaphors to describe DNA as replicators and organisms as a type of vehicle for them. This language makes it stimulating and easy to read. In the final chapter it mentions that replicators (DNA) can reach beyond their "own" organism (vehicle) and affect the outside world with everything from a Beaver Dam to parasites. This last idea also provides the basis for The Extended Phenotype, a direct sequel.

When the Selfish Gene was first published it received criticism on the grounds that it promoted selfishness and social Darwinism....these critics did not read the book (or at least not thoroughly) and seemed to have confused Richard Dawkins with Ayn Rand. The "selfishness" of the gene is a metaphor used to explain that genes, from the very first replicator in the primeval soup, exist solely to copy themselves. This could lead to a confusion and tempt people to look at evolution from the view of the individual organism and justify the idea that it's all about personal survival. But as Dawkins reminds us, we need to look at it down to the gene. From the eye of the gene, altruism makes a lot of sense. The altruism displayed in kin, for example, is the product of a genetic greater good because the genes are focused on the gene pool rather than their personal "survival machine."

God is an unanswerable question but religion and theology really need to be put under the microscope today. Evolution completely undermines the big three monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) because it replaces the talking snake and metaphors of Adam and Eve with the eloquence and proof of hard science. People who believe in evolution and Christianity confuse me because what they're essentially saying is that Christ died to atone for a mere story.

People who argue against evolution either don't know the facts or they are intellectually dishonest. Lee Strobel, Kent Hovind, and Ben Stein are some of the bigger names trying to get creationism in the classroom under the guise of "Intelligent Design." They argue for "micro-evolution" (a pseudo-scientific term for eugenic breeding) but don't believe in speciation, natural selection, and as they put it, "macro-evolution". They make arguments about the world being "perfect for life." Well the world is "beautiful" and its conditions "perfect" because we have adapted to meet its settings as evolution shows, it's NOT the other away around. The glove didn't come before the hand.

Neil DeGrasse, an astrophysicist, does a good job at exposing Intelligent Design for how ridiculous it really is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPLn9nv26NM

Religion tells us that we're wretched because of two people eating from a tree of knowledge, (because learning is of the Devil apparently.) Science provides us with a much more realistic sense of humility based on facts: We are not above the food chain, we're just on top of it. Our memory is not perfect. We're designed to pass on genes. Consciousness has yet to be fully understood. Our emotions are chemical mechanisms, our language and literature invaluable tools. We have the extreme privilege of deepening our understanding of these things and it would be such a waste to not even try!

In a TV series called Cosmos, Carl Sagan once said that if we condense time starting with the Big Bang to the present into the scale of a year, it shows that humans have been around for roughly seven seconds. We've come a long way in those seven seconds and the journey may never end. From the water in our bodies to the calcium in our bones, we are as Sagan would put it, "Made of star stuff. And a way for the universe to know itself."

Biology is a great place to start on our journey for knowledge and Richard Dawkins has provided what could be an exciting first step with The Selfish Gene.

Read it and enjoy it.

Very well written book. Anyone with no background in Biology will be able to understand this book without any trouble. Richard Dawkins also provides good evidences and detailed explanations throughout the book. If you are a religious person, beware that this book might shock you in several ways.

If you want to learn about evolution, this is the first book you should read. If you think you know evolution, this is the book you need to read.

Perhaps when this book first dropped 30 years ago as the blueprint for evolution it was considered radical. Today it's taken as a given that the primary motivating force for behavior has a genetic basis. This shift in attitude may be a direct result of the widespread influence of The Selfish Gene, but I wouldn't know. I wasn't around then. But this is a fine work to help everyone understand the core essence of human nature, and how we can use our superior capacity for reason to create a society of compassion that compliments our biological imperative.

With the existence of such formidable works as this, it remains positively astounding that any debate should remain on the matter of Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever transparent euphemism is currently fashionable amongst the fundamentalists so populous in rural regions.

Of particularly acute interest to those seeking a slight edge in the competition of the fit should be chapter 9. This is something I most certainly will be passing on to those with whose success I have a genetic interest. Most, however, will never find their way to it, which suits me just fine. The less you know, the better it is for me. Hahahahaha!

One thing I admire about Jared Diamond is his ability (like Carl Sagan) to take complex issues and scientific concepts then molding them into comprehensive bites that the average reader can swallow. The Third Chimpanzee a book that Diamond had published in 1992 has come back into print because of the success of Collapse and Germs, Guns & Steel which is terrific since it tackles a very different series of subjects from the ability of animals to communicate with each other, natural selection and why homosapiens managed to come out on the top of the heap, how/why we find certain people attractive and select our mates to whether or not aliens are listening for our radio signals (and why we might be in big trouble because we gave them our address IF they were listening).

All of this falls under the general theme of the book which focuses on the nature and future of humanity. Diamond has a breezy, enjoyable style that most readers will find inviting and that makes the more complex scientific ideas that much easier to swallow (whether it be how scientist calculate how often we go through evolutionary change or which theory about why men have bigger...you know what than our nearest relatives).

Diamond's book is over 15 years old so things have changed a bit since he first wrote it although interestingly the very things that he suggested could happen do appear to be coming true in many cases so he's added a post script discussing some of these new ideas, etc. that weren't available when the book was written.

As with Diamond's other books he is very upfront about his thoughtful opinions on the subject he focuses on. Whether or not you enjoy the book will probably depend on whether or not you like to have your preconceptions challenged, you agree with him or both.

I thought this book made many interesting and intellectual connections between human nature and the evolution of primates. The author does an excellent job of substantiating his hypthesis with scientific and established facts. His predictions for the future of humans are logically explained.

That being said, some topics are over explained and repetitious.

Overall I think this book is very much worth reading.

I took away the following:

1. Humans are descended from animals. Diamond shows that the things we think distinguish humans from animals - art, language, lifecyle (long child rearing period, menopause, long lives) - have strong roots in our biological history. There is a TON of fascinating detail covering a wide range of topics, and is essentially an articulate reinforcement of the latest science showing the truth behind Darwin's theories.

2. Language is the key to rise of humanity. It's obvious, though, that humans are somehow unique, and the book postulates that language is the key. If humans are 98% the same genetically as chimpanzees, what small thing could make the huge evolutionary difference? The voice box and ability to form languages allow humans to cooperate, form more complex social organizations, and advance knowledge from one generation to the next. Language is the foundation of innovation, which has been essential to our rise. As someone who enjoys languages and can speak a few, I really liked this idea.

3. All humans are equal. Differences among humans in Africa, Europe, Middle East, Asia, the Artic, and so on are not based on genetic selection but rather sexual selection. I've read Stanford research that tracks maternal genes through the millenia and shows that humans spread from Africa to all corners of the world. Diamond postulates that the reason people look different is perhaps due to genetic adaptations to local environments (fairer skin in colder climates, etc), but more likely due to random changes reinforced by our predilection for choosing mates who look most like our own families. My favorite detail: people are more likely to choose mates with similar index finger length (0.6 correlation coefficient) than economic background (only 0.2).

4. Random distribution of geographic resources makes some cultures and societies more successful. From #3, Diamond goes on to say that the reason European culture has come to be pre-eminent in today's world is not because of genetic superiority. Rather, it is simply due to the fact that Europe (and its culture progenitors Greece and Rome) happened to be lucky enough to have the best natural resources. If you've played Risk, Civilization or World of Warcraft, this is pretty obvious. You want to found your cities or capture the areas where there are the most resources that allow you to build the biggest and most advanced armies (Diamond expanded this theory in his more famous book Germs, Guns and Steel, which I haven't read yet). But, I don't know. Though this theory is interesting and powerful, it sparked the biggest reaction in me. I found it somehow...Marxist, stating that all human history can be reduced to economic drivers. While I know resource advantages are helpful to some degree, my humanist side rejects this as the primary driver of history. Where is the role of the individual, of the struggle to grow and learn? Could it really be that Western culture produced Plato, Newton and Churchill simply because it happened to have plentiful deer, while other places didn't? Do I go to work everyday, invest time into my children and bust my tail without a single ounce of impact on the fate of my culture? Of course not, so though Diamond postulates this as a strong theory it gives only a partial explanation of history.

5. The end is near: beware of nuclear weapons and environmental catastrophy. In this area Diamond seemed to leave the field of science and enter that of personal political view. Most of the book felt deeply analytical and data driven, the last sections felt light on science in comparison. That said, I don't disagree with the point. It's just hard to accept when his argument for protecting endangered species is "you never know which one matters."

Overall, an enjoyable and thought-provoking read.

The only way to describe this book is 'excellent.' Starting with our evolutionary origins, Jared Diamond examines possible reasons for many uniquely human (or so you'd think) behaviors and oddities, ranging from art to relative penis size (after reading this book you will be able to say that you're better hung than a gorilla). Next, Diamond turns his focus to some of the nastier behaviors of human societies - genocide, racism, etc - and explores what recent findings mean to us as a species. Finally, in the last few chapters, Diamond goes on a conservation crusade, convincingly arguing the case for working toward a sustainable future. Read it - it will change the way you think of yourself and others in relation to the world.

Hey, my review is going to be broken down in to four sections, the introduction, the information that you can retain from this book, the interest level of this book, and the age group I recommend this to. This book (The Third Chimpanzee) talks about how us humans are what we are today and what came in the process of it. This is an interesting topic to speak about because it is a surprise to know what we came from and how our great ancestors chose the "right" mates for them, which eventually created us in the end.
I will be talking about a few of the subjects Jared Diamond covers in his book, the evolution of human sexuality is a very important subject, you will learn about how your ancestors chose their mates and what made them do it. You will learn about male jealousy over a female and the evolution of extra-marital sex. The chapter on how we pick our mates and sex partners will make you want to read even more, Diamond talks about the scientific studies about this subject and how we subconsciously become turned on by different characteristics in a male or female without even realizing it, as example the temperature of their hands or as funny as it sounds the way they give you a hug may allow you to make a subconscious decision for mating. The information you retain from this book is amazing, if you are looking to find as much information as possible about human evolution, this book is for you. Now, how interesting this book is to me, I do not know, even though this books hold a lifetime worth of information, there is also a lot of ranting and raving, so many people might become very bored with this type of writing. This book is just a very hard read, to get into it you MUST give it your full attention or else you wont really learn anything about. I found part three to be one of the most interesting subjects because it spoke about the origins of art and how some societies elaborated on it and how some did not. The reason this book is a crucial read is because Jared Diamond does not just question the reader he also provides them with answers that have been long awaited. I recommend this book to a 16+ age group, not necessarily because younger children could not understand the book, but it is long and tiresome and certain points, so they may lose interest. This book is excellent for any information seekers, that are looking for theories and scientific studies to back a book or essay they are writing about, yet I would not really recommend this to someone who just wants to read for fun. Jared Diamond also covers an interesting topic which might spark an interest in high school readers which talks about why people smoke, drink and use dangerous drugs. This book is full of fun and interesting information so you kids who are in high school or you students who are in college, I recommend you read this for it will benefit you in the future.