WHY GENES ARE NOT SELFISH AND PEOPLE ARE NICE: A CHALLENGE TO THE DANGEROUS IDEAS THAT DOMINATE OUR LIVES

At the heart of Colin Tudge's new book (title here abbreviated to Not Selfish), is the notion that a paradigm shift in scientific and economic thinking is long overdue if we are to better realise our potential. [This shift is happening, as the book testifies]. The thesis is that we are conditioned to think competitively and selfishly, even though we have the capacity and perhaps an intuitive longing to build a society that is not selfish. Put another way the book is a call to be cooperative rather than competitive. The book is rather unequally divided into two parts. The first, on The Nature of Nature, goes into rather lengthy detail about mainstream and alternative paradigms on evolution, ecology, resource use and the human condition. The second on The Big Questions is, for me at least, the more cogent part of the book, in which workable solutions are proposed. I suspect that many SMN readers will find Part I very familiar. Tudge reviews evolutionary theory in detail, including standard treatments of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, the latter characterised as having had two phases: the genetic (Mark I) and the DNA-oriented (Mark II). He also speaks of Ultra Darwinism, which is represented by Richard Dawkins and his Selfish Gene paradigm which, as we all know, has received increased doses of bad press from many quarters, not least for extreme metaphors that characterise us as lumbering robots controlled and manipulated by selfish molecules. Dawkins bashing gets a bit old, perhaps, but then again he asks for it with his extremist views and poorly-informed forays into theology and metaphysics. One has to chuckle at Dawkins' characterisation of his Ultra-Darwinian followers as "brights," implying the rest of us are dim. I doubt history will see his crowd as representative of a new " enbrightenment." Just to be clear, it is this brand of Darwinism that Tudge objects too most strenuously, and for good reason. Tudge says he sees "Darwin as one of the great nineteenth century romantics," characterising his Tennysonian "nature red in tooth and claw" writing as "pure gothic." This is rather surprising since it is usually Goethe who is seen as the great romantic "nature philosopher" biologist, with the term "romantic" being used both positively by his supporters and disparagingly by his detractors. In as much as Darwin was a serious thinker, famously prone to see a "grandeur" in his evolutionary view of life, Tudge makes a fair point, which I might express simply by pointing out that we must see Darwin's sensibilities, and his uncertainties in the context of the consciousness of the man and his times, and not in the context of the narrower dogma of Natural Selection that subsequent biologists have too-rigidly imposed. In short Natural Selection was just part of Darwin's original thesis, and was no dogma at the time it was proposed. Dean Farrar who read Darwin's funeral speech at Westminster Abbey in 1882 said there was not one trace of "materialism in all his writings."

Tudge likes to use the term "punch up" for the competitive "fight for survival" notion which is so prevalent as a tooth and claw explanation for evolution. This notion has unfortunately become so ingrained that "life's fundamental competitiveness is taken to be self evident" whereas "life's obvious collaborativeness is taken to be merely an epiphenomenon." He reminds us of the tautology that all survival of the fittest means is that survivors survive, and points out that in reality "the best survival tactic is to cooperate." Throughout Part I of the book the message of the subtitle is ever present as a subliminal theme: avoid "dangerous" overly materialistic ideas. We are reminded, as we have been in so many similar expositions, that behaviourism was a reductionist school of psychology that wreaked more havoc than any other. In a more holistic vein we are asked to consider whether intelligence is "simply something that arises when nervous systems (or computers) grow sufficiently complex? Or is it a general quality of the universe which all creatures may evolve to partake of…" like a response to the presence of light? In a similar vein we are reminded that Rene Dubos pointed out that "Life is a property of the universe." Although I found Part I of the book a little drawn out, I can't fault the message which, among other things, reviews the Gaia principles of the wisdom or homeostasis, or as Alexander Dumas put it "All for one and one for all." In a rather dark version of this sentiment Bertold Brecht said that the rich need the poor more than the poor need the rich even if the poor don't yet realise it. [I might draw on Alan Watts who said much the same thing: you can't enjoy being part of an "in group" without an "out group" to help define your position]. Certainly it is cool to be progressive, holistic and enlightened (even smug!) but we only define such positions by recognising what we consider to be un-cool, detrimental and "dangerous" to our collective well-being. With this lengthy preamble we come to Part II of the book, the more interesting part for me, where Tudge addresses The Great Questions in chapters on "What the Universe is really like, What's true? What's good?, Metaphysics, Science and Religion, and Renaissance." Given the scope of these great questions, Tudge does a good job in making relatively succinct and practical suggestions on how we might take action to find alternative solutions that help challenge " the dangerous ideas that dominate our lives." I found much of what Tudge has to say convergent with the ideas of Mary Midgley, especially when it comes to the question of understanding the broader meaning of science as a pursuit that requires wisdom, philosophical perspective and a degree of humility, self-knowledge and even reverence. Surely we can see, after all the new physics has taught us, and as Dr. Goswami puts it, that "the reality of matter is secondary to that of consciousness"? Science is largely our creation, made up of shifting paradigms, formulated by our consciousness, and so more than what Joseph Needham described as "the ruthless mathemetisation of ideas." As Kurt Godel has pointed out all mathematics contains "at least one assumption that cannot itself be proven" and so it must be understood as "a human invention." It is not a God-given method or yardstick by which all can be measured objectively and unequivocally. We need to recognise that we are both "Apollonic" rationalists and "Dionysiacs" prone to following our feelings and intuition, and able to manifest both masculine and feminine sensibilities. The world contains both those who have a feeling for transcendence and those that reject all such intuitive notions. These divides are part of diversely complex consciousness and the collective human condition. Therefore, echoing a previous point about intelligence "if we perceive consciousness to be a universal property" of which we partake, then we can have a "different view of intuition" as "the mind's attempt to gear itself to the universal consciousness; in effect to read the mind of the universe." Einstein and others of many stripes wished to do just this. Thus, by implication, we may avoid the trap of "dangerous ideas" which we already intuitively know to be driven, in many cases, by greed and selfishness rather than common sense and common interest. If we cultivate self-awareness and that which helps build community, this makes us "nice" (or nicer) and gives us every reason "to suppose that there is an intelligence behind the universe" that we can partake of, collaborate with, and a tap into as a source of wisdom. If one thinks this far, one can put newer and "nicer" paradigms into practice from the bottom-up. On a firm foundation of a broad, scientifically philosophical metaphysic we can build a social infrastructure based on sound economic and political theory, which will in turn make day-to-day realities of life more cooperative, healthy and meaningful. This one might call a new theology of collaboration, based, as Tudge defines it, on "transcendence, oneness, compassion and humility." Competitive cynics and skeptics might argue that human nature is not there yet, but Tudge is one of many voices calling for just such a "nice," kindly, new theology. And one might well ask: "ain't that nice enough for starters? What's not to like?"