Customer Reviews

The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The altruism equation relates to a very simple equation explaining altruism among kin in terms of costs, benefits, and the degree of relatedness. The equation does not have the generality of Newton's Third Law or Einstein's mass-energy equation, but it may well be the most important quantitative relationship in biology.

But, this book is more about people than about equations. It consists of a beautiful set of cameos of some the the greatest biologists who have worked on the issue of altruism, including Darwin, Huxley, Kropotkin, Hamilton, Dawkins, and Price. It is an easy read and very elegant and exciting. There is some mention of results beyond 1970, but they are very, very sparse. Perhaps an historical narrative is warranted only when all the principals are dead. At any rate, for a discussion of the modern theory human altruism, together with spandrels, sociobiology, a scientific approach to morality and the social emotions, you will have to look elsewhere.

A beautiful gem. Short, passionate, lucid, and entertaining.
This book does more than explain the history of proposed solutions to an important question. It details the personalities behind this history. One gains insights into the character of luminaries such as Huxley, Kropotkin, Price, and many others.

What was the question, or puzzle?

How could natural selection produce altruism in nature? It just does not seem to make sense. Intelligent Design loons are always saying as much.

Fortunately, the answer has been known since 1964. The key is in William Hamilton's 'simple' equation RxB-C>O.
Dugatkin admirably discusses the history behind the equation and speculates as to why earlier theorists like Fisher, Haldane, or Wright did not think of it.

For readers who love books like The Selfish Gene, Good Natured, or Moral Minds, this book makes a nice compliment. For those who hate math (myself!!) and want a gentle introduction to Hamilton's rule, it is essential.

If I may make one last point, I have to express some concern with the excessive obsession with quantification in some quarters. I really have not seen a difficult quantitative theory of human behavior that allowed any insights that could not be expressed in clear english. I might be wrong here, but I think the obsession with mathematical jargon keeps theorists from testing (or taking seriously) verbal arguments. Zahavi's handicap principle is a great case in point. Nobody really put that much stock into it until Grafen mathematized the theory. Unfortunately, nobody, save a few, could understand his formulas. Well, it turns out that Grafen's math may not be the best way to look at the problem (see Thomas Getty). So I think it wise that Dugatkin sticks to verbal exposition, and I encourage fledglings to think through their ideas with clear verbal logic before using esoteric math. If Dugatkin's book showed me anything, it was that complex phenomena often have simple explanations. No need to make things more difficult than they need to be. (yes, I know it makes you look smart and cool to use differential equations and bayesian statistics, but cool does not mean correct.)

I enjoyed this delightfully written book of "science history". "The Altruism Equation" tells the story of the seven scientists - from Darwin, Huxley and Kropotkin up through WD Hamilton - and their quest to understand the evolution of altruism. In addition to being very well-written, this book demonstrates the power of natural selection to shape the world we live in. It should help quiet the ID crowd (although it is hard to quiet people that aren't listening to anything that they don't want to hear).

For someone like me who has a tendency towards idealism this book was an important read. I began to learn of the significant contribution of kinship in altruism - Hamilton's Rule. The writer presents an excellent historical overview and background to this mathematical formula It rooted altruism in Darwin's theory of Natural Selection i.e. Evolution. I held the view that humans were predominantly social with only some influence from hereditary factors. The writer presents clearly and concretely the importance of genetic factors in the development of altruism. I did momentarily despair for those of us who have been adopted, abandoned, and/or are stepchildren. This book has wetted my apetite to find out more about this subject with its excellent references and bibliography. I will be examing works by Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), Robert Axelrod (The Evolution of Cooperation)and revisiting Sigmund Freud. Maybe now I can begin to be more realistic about human beings and still retain some of my idealism - that is my challenge after reading this book. I would strongly recommend it for those idealists who grapple with the painful reality of the repetition of history.

I read this book to learn about altruism, but I think I actually learned more about the seven scientists who studied this concept. I learned some interesting facts about evolutionary theory's treatment of altruism for a paper I am writing for school, but I think I enjoyed reading about the personal lives of the scientists even more. I would recommend this easy to read, relatively short, book to anyone interested in the history of scientific ideas.

If you've ever wondered why parents do stuff for their children or why you feel responsible for people who you don't know that well or just wonder why humanity in general works so damn well interacting with each other, then this is the book for you!
It is very scientific and the stories and biographies that are told are interesting.

An interesting collection of short related stories, but scarcely a mention of the actual equation, which is really trivial, or its development. Pity - a lost opportunity.

A future edition could usefully include a few math appendices so the average scientist can see what all the fuss is about.

This is a useful and interesting account of the kin selection problem in biology from the time of Darwin onward. It is interesting how Darwinists tend to avoid public discussion of this question because it shows the agenda of Darwinists and the plain fact that the phenomenon of altruism falsifies the generalizations about natural selection. If people were more generally aware of this side of the question a reaction as common sense might help to put the evolution debate in perspective. At first sight the progression of trick arguments designed to save Darwinism, from Darwin himself to Hamilton, seem to come to the rescue, at least to positivistic scientists, but in fact these arguments are a front for the great void in Darwin's theory. Part of the problem is that not enough people can handle the math for the equations produced by Hamilton and that makes the snowjob of the experts fairly easy to bring off. But the problem remains and is direct, a point sensed immediately by Kropotkin, who is discussed in the book. The problem is that you must explain altruism! And not explain it away. To explain altruism you must explain the evolution of consciousness, and an ethical consciousness, primitive to complex,able to make branching decisions based on issues of values. Darwinism is totally unable to even define this kind of explanation and sticks its head in the sand, content to brandish this ridiculous line of argument where selfishness is made to explain its opposite. Armed with this deuce Darwinists wish to take on the entire spiritual tradition of mankind. Small wonder they become a bit timid. Don't be intimidated by this superficial appearance of scientific rigor. The whole argument is speculative and completely unverified in the evolution of man. In fact, we see the ideology of classical liberalism at work here in direct and naked clarity.
The human psychological apparatus is a complex and subtle instrument with many dimensions of consciousness. Don't let Darwinists get away with this kind of simplistic reductionism that refuses to even attempt a real understanding of evolution.
The rating given represents a challenge to this kind of thinking while the book itself as such is a useful, if perverse, addition to the literature and the debate (and a long time coming).