Customer Reviews

A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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. The author starts by identifying what is essential to the Left: being on the side of the weak not the powerful. He then goes on to sift through what remains, discarding and assembling ideas based on evolutionary biology not received political theory. By the time Singer, in the last chapter, lists his principles for a new "Darwinian Left" as opposed to the old Left, he has convinced me. However, I was familiar with much of the biology before.

In attempting to cover three areas, Politics, Evolution and Cooperation, the book is uneven. It is particularly interesting and convincing on some of the political and intellectual history of Marx's relationship to Darwinism and Marx's critics. This is also true when it brings evolutionary evidence to bear in arguing against the perfectibility and the "infinite malleability" of human nature.

On the other hand his discussion of altruism and cooperation, a key part of the book, is sketchy and weak. Sketchy is understandable given the size of the book but his paradigm example of altruism, anonymous blood donation, strikes me as particularly weak. Wouldn't adding a pint of blood to the blood supply, increase the probability of me and my genetic offspring getting a needed transfusion, and thus be in my own self-interest and not altruistic? Singer may be correct but a more detailed explanation is needed to be convincing and for this we must go elsewhere.

Overall the value of this book will be found in the application of its principles and methods of analysis to specific problems. Another book in the Darwinism Today series attempts to do this: Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work by Kingsley Browne. I have also reviewed this book.

In Singer's own words, this book is "a sketch of the waysin which a Darwinian left would differ from the traditional left thatwe have come to know over the past two hundred years" [60]. This is a very heavy little book which people who hold the values of the political left will be well advised to read very carefully for it's very constructive and sympathetic criticism.

"The left needs a new paradigm," writes Singer, as he proceeds to argue that the Darwinian theory of evolution should be the basis of that new paradigm [6]. In a nutshell, we should "swap Marx for Darwin."

Singer explains how the left has been all too influenced by Herbert Spencer's arguments that Darwin's principle of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, implies an ethical imperative which justifies laissez-faire capitalism, and the principle of "might makes right." Darwin's principle of natural selection, which says that generally only the strong survive, was transformed by Spencer into a moral principle, "only the strong SHOULD survive," which became popularly known as "Social Darwinism." This Social Darwinism was enthusiastically embraced by the right, in defense of ruthlessly unregulated capitalism as a natural and just eugenics program [10-11].

Spencer's Social Darwinism, Singer points out, is not a necessary implication of Darwinism, and, most importantly, it overlooks the role of cooperative behavior in Darwinian evolution, as if competition is all there is to it [19].

Marx himself embraced Darwinism as an explanation for the origin of the human species and the behavior of nonhuman animals, but drew the line between human and nonhuman behavior, rejecting Darwinian implications regarding human nature. Singer argues that this is most plausibly because of Marx's naive non-Darwinian belief that human vices such as greed were solely the product of social circumstances and his utopian hope of eliminating human vice through changes in social circumstances [24-5].

Singer hopes that, in the light of the tragedies of Stalinism, Pol Pot, etc., the left has abandoned the utopian dream of the perfectibility of humankind, and will look to Darwinism for a deeper understanding of human nature. That dream, the intellectual hold of Marx's theory of history, and the idea of the infinite malleability of human nature are barriers to a Darwinian left. The removal of those barriers and a reexamination of the political goals of the left in the light of Darwinian insights on human nature should enable a Darwinian left to come closer to realizing its values.

Setting out some of the tasks we need to face, Singer suggests that the time is ripe for "the development of a field of social research that shows the way towards a more cooperative society" [47].

In the end, Singer leaves us with some important questions:

* "How can we build a society that is cooperative and offers a strong safety net for those who are unable to provide for their own needs" [46]?

* "What structures can overcome the anonymity of the huge, highly mobile societies that have come into existence in this century and show every sign of increasing in size with the globalization of the world economy" [52]?

* "Can we strengthen concern for others by shifting ideas of status away from conspicuous consumption, in a more socially desirable direction" [59]?

and

* "Can [our moral insight] ever overcome the pull of other elements in our evolved nature that act against the idea of an impartial concern for all of our fellow humans, or, better still, for all sentient beings" [62-3]?

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. This book offers the first new idea in socialism since the start of the Industrial Revolution -- one new idea in 200 years certainly isn't going to overload any socialist's neural circuits.

From Canada to Zambia, and all little lands inbetween, socialism collapsed because it operated on the same basis as unregulated capitalism -- Greed is Enough. Greed is the heart of free enterprise, as Marx said, but it accomplished more in its first century than mankind did in all previous human history. Socialists didn't question this principle; capitalists got rich, socialists wanted the riches of the capitalists. Samuel Gompers summed it up nicely, workers wanted "More, more, more." Leftists spent 200 years trying to get more from the capitalists, and usually failed miserably.

Singer uses the first half of his book to demolish old socialist assumptions, pointing out that even in the 1870's the anarchists (today's Libertarians) proved communism could not work. But, anarchists got a bad name. Instead of heeding their ideas, half of the world experimented with various degrees of socialism while the other half tried naked greed.

The second half calls for altruism to humanize the opportunism of the "Greed is enough" idea. Will it work? Only 6 percent of people donate to blood banks -- a truly altruistic action since donors do not know the recipients -- yet, this is a valuable part of our society. Charitable gifts often go to unknown recipients, such gift s are to "help others" rather than a specific person.

Until now, as Singer writes, "Belief in the malleability of human nature has been important for the Left because it has provided grounds for hoping that a very different kind of human society is possible." His response: Wrong. Instead of trying the change human nature, Singer wants Leftists to accept human nature as it is -- such as the inborn spirit of altruism, the willingness to help others without expecting a reward.

He stands firmly on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed. Instead of handouts or simply taking "more" from the rich, Singer believes, "most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation." Instead of propping up the rich or arbitrarily redistributing wealth, government should "Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends."

What is this in practical terms? For example, celebrate the fact that Amazon dot com is the best idea in selling books since the paperback -- the government shouldn't interfere with Jeff Bezos' brilliance. But, if Bezos' comes up with a new cooperative venture -- suppose he can vastly improve the effectiveness of Habitat for Humanity -- then the government should say "Right On!" and provide whatever help is appropriate. Let's encourage cooperation, as we now subsidize existing businesses.

Singer doesn't suggest anything as specific as this. Instead, he outlines a new idea that celebrates riches and will effectively help the weak, poor and oppressed. In other words, "You can have your cake, and here's how we can get some for others too."

His idea is great. It already works in hundreds of little ways. If adopted, thousands of pages of other books will be written to explore the details. If not . . . well, think of the miserable century the world endured for rejecting anarchist views of the futility of communism. It's the idea that is important, not the personality behind the idea.

Singer's book offers two themes; 30 pages to explain why the old socialism failed, and 33 pages to outline a new altruism. It's a pure idea, unembellished with pages and pages of examples and larded with tedious philosophy. For anyone who can handle ideas, it will make you think.

It's so good, even the editors of The Wall Street Journal may like it.

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 right hold with regard to the use of Darwinism in social science, and to suggest a better uses of evolutionary theory and findings. In it, Singer says that the application of evolutionary theory to the individual person on a micro-economic scale (aka Social Darwinism) is a misreading of the theory of evolution by misguided champions of the right. The survival of the genetic fittest is not equivalent to the survival of the economic fittest. At the micro-level of analysis, cultural evolution and existing economic conditions play a much larger role than genetically heritable traits. The poor aren't poor because they are genetically weak, and the rich aren't rich because they are genetically more fit.

Spencer may not have intentionally created Social Darwinism, but there can be little dispute that this form of "common sense" philosophy has arisen, and that it reflects serious misunderstanding of evolution. And there is also little doubt that this ideological thread--that started with misreadings of Spencer and Darwin--continues to this day, and is especially strong in the most reactionary misuses of evolutionary theory.

First, whether or not Darwin was a social Darwinist is irrelevant to Singer's point. Darwin's theory of evolution is solid science that has potential implications for human natures and human society. Other writers, politicians and economists created social Darwinism from misuse of evolutionary theory. The existence of social Darwinism as an artifact of the political right is asll that is needed to make Singer's point.

Second Darwin's reputed standing as a social Darwinist is not only unsupported by the quote provided by the Australian reviewer below, it is in fact disproven by that quote. Darwin was commenting, quite understandably, on the possible genetic consequences of human medical interventions. When resistance to disease is medically induced, rather than genetically transmitted, the offspring of the survivors will not be "selected" to carry on genetic resistance to the disease. Rather than letting natural selection operate unhindered to continually improve human genetic fitness, cultural intervention creates a bias in the process. It hardly makes Darwin a social Darwinist to have said this, though some of the politically incorrect vocabulary (ie "lower races") he uses may be challenging and alarming to the contemporary reader.

Darwin makes just the opposite point from the one that the Australian reviewer seems to think he is making. He is not saying that the "civilized races" genetically superiority to the "lower races" is causing their triumph of population. Instead he is alarmed that medical intervention may be harming the disease resistance of the species, and that the numerical replacement of the "civilized" over the "lower" may indeed be harmful to overall human genetic fitness.

But back to Singer. Singer is making the point that evolutionary theory was politically hijacked for the purposes of advancing particular economic agendas. He describes the left's unfortunate reaction to this right-wing misreading of evolutionary theory as the rejection of the potential relevance of evolutionary theory to sociology, psychology and ethical theory. This leftist rejection is perhaps at the root of Richard Lewontin's and Steven Jay Gould's backlash against sociobiology that is well documented in other sources. I think it stems from a well-grounded fear that the murky information available about the genetic foundations of behavior will be hijacked by political activists with potentially tragic results. Gould and Lewontin may therefore be attacking sociobiology and evolutionary psychology not primarily as bad science (which they vigorously assert it is) but more out of fear of its misuse in human affairs.

Singer proposes a different approach: we should recognize that human natures are not infinitely malleable; there are tendencies and recurring themes in behavior that play out on a larger historical scale; and the left should strive to understand these undercurrents if it chooses to continue the task of reshaping human culture.

Singer uses the example of Marx's virtual debate with Kropotkin to illustrate the risk of ignoring the bases of human natures in the reshaping of culture. Singer's not ignoring the gulags, the genocides, and other sources of massive suffering in communist regimes, instead he's attempting to show that these are the results, at least in part, of the false utopian sense that human natures are completely malleable, and that they can be systematically changed by altering developmental and material conditions. In counterpoint ot Gould and Lewontin, Singer says that ignorance of evolutionary behaviors is just as risky as ideological misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.

Singer does not say that because evolutionary nature "is" it in turn "ought" be. In fact, he systematically rejects this equation. Instead, he says, if we desire to achieve an ideal "ought" we need first understand the current and histrical "is" and its causes, whether genetic or environmental.

Singer wants the left to be effective. He argues that it cannot be so long as it dogmatically rejects some scientific information, theories and hypotheses as politically dangerous and incorrect simply because they are reminiscent of past ideas that were in fact mistaken and dangerous. Ignorance of the implications of evolutionary science, he shows, can be just as dangerous as its misuse. He argues that the left instead should strive to understand what these evolutionary findings can show us about ourselves, and work to use this information in its agenda to improve the human condition. The book is not a piece of meticulous scientific research, perhaps, but rather a call for a change of attitude among scholars and activists. In the execution of this mission, it is compelling and convincing.

This very short book, or slightly long essay, is an examination of the implications of Darwinian thinking on the Marxist side of the social and political left. Anything Peter Singer writes is worth reading, and this little book takes less than an hour. Singer sort of makes the mistake of saying all leftist thinking is Marxist, even though he starts off with a comparison with the ideas of the anarchists. This small caveat is the reason for 4 stars. This is a good book and if you are interested in Darwinian thinking, ethics, politics, social reform, or whatever, you will enjoy it. Good bibliography as well

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. This book offers the first new idea in socialism since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

From Canada to Zambia, and all little lands inbetween, socialism collapsed because it operated on the same basis as unregulated capitalism -- Greed is Enough. Greed is the heart of free enterprise. But as Marx wrote, capitalism accomplished more in its first century than mankind did in all history. Socialists didn't question this principle; capitalists got rich, socialists wanted those riches. Samuel Gompers summed it up nicely, workers wanted "More, more, more." Leftists spent 200 years trying to get more from the capitalists, and usually failed miserably.

Singer uses the first half of his book to demolish old socialist assumptions, pointing out that even in the 1870's the anarchists (today's Libertarians) proved communism could not work. But, anarchists got a bad name. Instead of heeding their ideas, half of the world experimented with various degrees of socialism while the other half tried naked greed.

The second half calls for altruism to humanize the opportunism of the "Greed is enough" idea. Will it work? Only 6 percent of people donate to blood banks -- a truly altruistic action since donors do not know the recipients -- yet, this is a valuable part of our society. Charitable gifts often go to unknown recipients, such gift s are to "help others" rather than a specific person.

Until now, as Singer writes, "Belief in the malleability of human nature has been important for the Left because it has provided grounds for hoping that a very different kind of human society is possible." His response: Wrong. Instead of trying the change human nature, Singer wants Leftists to accept human nature as it is -- such as the inborn spirit of altruism, the willingness to help others without expecting a reward.

He stands firmly on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed. Instead of handouts or simply taking "more" from the rich, Singer believes, "most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation." Instead of propping up the rich or arbitrarily redistributing wealth, government should "Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends."

What is this in practical terms? For example, celebrate the fact that Amazon dot com is the best idea in selling books since the paperback -- the government shouldn't interfere with Jeff Bezos' brilliance. But, if Bezos' comes up with a new cooperative venture -- suppose he can vastly improve the effectiveness of Habitat for Humanity -- then the government should say "Right On!" and provide whatever help is appropriate. Let's encourage cooperation, as we now subsidize existing businesses.

Singer doesn't suggest anything as specific as this. Instead, he outlines a new idea that celebrates riches and will effectively help the weak, poor and oppressed. In other words, "You can have your cake, and here's how we can get some for others too."

His idea is great. It already works in hundreds of little ways. If adopted, thousands of pages of other books will be written to explore the details. If not . . . well, think of the miserable century the world endured for rejecting anarchist views of the futility of communism. It's the idea that is important, not the personality behind the idea.

Singer's book offers two themes; 30 pages to explain why the old socialism failed, and 33 pages to outline a new altruism. It's a pure idea, unembellished with pages and pages of examples and larded with tedious philosophy. For anyone who can handle ideas, it will make you think.

It's so good, even the editors of The Wall Street Journal may like it.

It was thought not too many years ago that the architects (so to speak) of the modern world were Marx, Darwin, Einstein and Freud. Now that the postmodern era is upon us, a reevaluation has been made and Marxist ideas have been largely discredited. Einstein has suffered a correction (from quantum mechanics), Freud has been reclassified as literature, and it is only Darwin's reputation that has survived unsullied.

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 the 20th century the dream of the perfectibility of humankind turned into the nightmares of Stalinist Russia," Singer writes. In the course of this pamphlet, Singer exhorts the Left to wake up.
Although Social Darwinism survives only as a straw man and despite the attachment of some conservatives to creationism, a Darwinian view of human nature is perceived as more compatible with conservatism than socialism: Women are naturally suited to child-care; men have greater status-orientation; the theory of kin selection reinforces faith in the family; and viewing humans as self-interested confirms the underlying assumptions of classical economics (see Darwinian Conservatism (Societas S.)).
If we are innately predisposed to care more about ourselves and our families than unrelated third-parties, this presents a problem for egalitarian utopianism for 3 reasons:
1) Individuals inevitably strive to promote themselves and their kin above fellow citizens.
2) Only coercive state apparatus can prevent them so doing and the individuals in control of this apparatus will themselves use it corruptly to promote the interests of their own self and kin.
("What egalitarian revolution has not been betrayed by its leaders?" Singer laments. As HL Mencken observed, the "one undoubted effect [of revolutions] is simply to throw out one gang of thieves and put in another".)
3) Egalitarianism would remove the incentive of self-advancement which lies behind the production of goods and services which benefit us all, not to mention of works of art and scientific advances.
(Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher... that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest".)

Animal Liberation
Singer argues our common evolutionary origin precludes a difference in kind between humans and animals (say, in the ability to suffer) sufficient to justify the different treatment accorded to each. "By knocking out the idea that we are a separate creation from the animals," he writes, "Darwinian thinking provded the basis for a revolution in our attitutes to non-human animals". However, he conviently neglects to observe that our evolutionary continuity with non-human species also renders implausible anti-vivisectionists' argument that medical research on non-human subjects has no applicability to humans.
Further, if humans are subject to the same principles of natural selection as other species, this suggests, not the elevation of non-human species to the status of humans, but rather the relegation of humans to that of animals. Finally, acceptance of human nature, entails recognition of carnivory as part of this nature. That meat-eating is natural does not mean it is right. However, given that Singer is an opponent of the distinction between acts and ommissions (see Writings on An Ethical Life (Isnm) xv-xvi), it does presumably mean that, if it is wrong for us to eat animals, we should also take positive steps to prevent lions from eating gazelles.

Reciprocity
Singer observes that financial interest is not synonymous with Darwinian fitness. Indeed, in novel environments, the 2 may not even correlate (Vining 1986). Neither does wealth always lead to greater happiness. "Self-interest" Singer argues "is broader than economic self-interest".
In chapter 4 ("Competition or Cooperation?"), Singer argues that, although both competition and cooperation are natural to humans, it is possible to create a society that focusses more on cooperation and that this is more consistent with the values of the left. However, although it may be true that some societies foster altruism and cooperation more than ours, Singer is short on practical suggestions as to how a culture of altruism is to be created. Changing the values of a culture is not easy, even for a totalitarian government.
Furthermore, Singer is wrong to see competition as in conflict with cooperation. Extreme altruism often occurs in the context extreme competition (e.g. self-sacrifice in war).
Trade (a form of cooperation) is as fundamental to capitalism as competition. In The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation, Ridley advocates unregulated free markets on the ground that reciprocity allows humans, as natural traders, to produce efficient systems of exchange without central planning.
Whereas economic trade is motivated by self-interested calculation, Singer envisages reciprocity mediated by emotions such as compassion and guilt. However, these emotions have evolved through the rational calculation of natural selection (Trivers 1971) and, while open to manipulation, especially in evolutionarily-novel societies, are limited in scope.

Eugenics
In response to the claim that welfare encourages the unemployed to have children and thereby promotes dysgenic fertility patterns (see Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence)), Singer argues, "even if there were a genetic component to something as nebulous as unemployment, to say that these genes are 'deleterious' would involve value judgements that go way beyond what the science alone can tell us". However, although viewing traits as desirable or undesirable certainly does involve extra-scientific value judgements, virtually everyone would accept some traits (e.g. generosity) as more desirable than others (e.g. selfishness).
Furthermore, while it may not be meaningful to talk of unemployment itself as heritable, twin and adoption studies of the sort pioneered by behavioural geneticists have demonstrated a heritable component to personality traits of the sort that may underlie unemployment (e.g. intelligence, conscientiousness). (Actually, for the purposes of deciding whether certain indivuals should be allowed to reproduce, it does not matter whether traits such as unemployment are biologically inherited or whether the correlation between the behaviour of parents and their children results from child-rearing practices because, unless one is to propose taking children from their natural parents on a massive scale, children generally get their genes and their parenting from the same persons.)
Given Singer argues Darwinism can help us how achieve, but not select, social goals, eugenics may provide a useful means of achieving the goal of producing more altruistic people. Given the incompatibility of human nature and egalitarianism, perhaps the only way to rescue the dream of socialism is to genetically-reengineer human nature itself. (It is perhaps no accident that, prior to World War Two, eugenics was typically identified as a 'progressive' cause. Early twentieth century socialist eugenicists such as HG Wells, Sidney Webb, Margeret Sanger and George Bernard Shaw may have tentatively grasped what eludes contemparary leftists: namely that reengineering society requires reengineering man himself.)
At the book's conclusion, Singer follows Dawkins in suggesting our capacity for Reason enables us to revolt against 'selfish genes'. However, Reason (like the desire to revolt) is itself a product of the same genes and evolved to enable us to pass on our 'selfish genes' more efficiently. Reason can enable the development of eugenic technologies allowing the genetic-engineering of altruism. However, the humans controlling eugenic programmes (governments or corporations) will, given human nature, have less than altruistic motivations themselves (see Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals).

What's Left?
Singer defines 'the Left' in unusually broad terms, namely as "on the side of the weak, not the powerful; of the oppressed, not the oppressor". However, few conservatives would admit to being on the side of the oppressor. On the contrary, advocates of the free-market claim that their policies benefit everyone and that socialist reforms naïvely hurt those they aspire to help.
Indeed, many conservatives would share Singer's aspiration to create a more altruistic culture. This aspiration seems more compatible with the libertarian notion of voluntary charitable donations replacing taxation, than with the coercively extracted progressive taxation typically associated with the left.
(This broad conception of the left has also been unpopular with Singer's fellow leftists, both those rejecting evolutionary psychology (The First Darwinian Left: Socialism and Darwinism 1859-1914) and even some of those receptive to the field (As We Know It: Coming to Terms with an Evolved Mind).)
Singer accepts that not "all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning". Wisely avoiding the political quagmire of the innate race diffences, he instead uses the example of sex differences. "If achieving high status increases access to women," Singer observes, "then we can expect men to have a stronger drive for status than women" and that this, rather than any supposed discrimination, may explain the disproportionate number of men in high status positions. (He neglects to mention the related factor that women are also innately programmed to invest more heavily in offspring and that this may also impede their career advancement. For a more detailed discussion of the biological and psychological factors underlying the gender pay gap see Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality (The Rutgers Series in Human Evolution) or the shorter Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work (Darwinism Today series), originally published in the same 'Darwinism Today' series as the work currently under review.) Singer even recognises hierarchy as "a near-universal human tendency" and therefore presumably innate.
This all certainly represents progress in the thought of 'progressives'. However, one wonders whether Singer is on the brink of progressing beyond progressivism altogether. After all, if there is nothing left in Singer's 'Darwinian Left' recognisably of the Left, perhaps the Left is to be left behind altogether.

Trivers, R `The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism' Quarterly Review of Biology 1971

Vining, DR `Social Versus Reproductive Success' Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1986

For the health of any movement, who can argue against a call to reappraise the body of thought that lies behind it? Singer raises legitimate and important questions for Marxists and others of the left.

As singer points out, Marx is essentially quoted as saying that behavior is determined not by nature but by the social relations surrounding the individual: "...the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations." Scholars of Marx will counter that Marx's beliefs about the nature/nurture relationship is far more nuanced than characterized by Singer's quote - and that is true.

But Singer's theme on Marx is solidly supported elsewhere including W. Peter Archibald's "Marx and the Missing Link: Human Nature" where Archibald recommends that even though much guesswork has to be done in order to pinpoint Marx's beliefs about human nature because Marx left that territory largely unclarified, Marx essentially did not acknowledge any impediment to restructuring society (that would not go away after the restructuring) arising out of qualities inherent in human nature.

To suggest, as Singer, does that modern social movements generally share the assumption that humanity is a "blank slate" upon which society and culture may write unimpeded is not without merit and should be acknowledged by the left as a legitimate concern.

The concern is that it seems naive to assume that nature will not impede social restructuring. Additionally, it seems convenient to assume that social ills arose not from nature but from specific groups in power. Both of these assumptions are challenged by modern evolution that demonstrates instinctual behavior and inherent propensities in all species including our own - and social relationships shaped and influenced by inherent conflicts of interest.

Singer's comments indirectly expose a potential flaw in the body of thought of the left: that Marxist, femminist and other perspectives could appeal to disadvantaged individuals (or those who would champion them to gain status) because they give that individual a sense of moral and intellectual superiority over those whom they feel inferior to or exploited by. If this is valid to any degree, then even some of the most scholarly of the left may hastily dismiss ideas that challenge their paradigm because they are not any more neutral about scientific discovery than their opponents.

Singer doesn't resolve the conflict of whether evolution has been hijacked by the right which overemphasizes Hobbsian competition or what evolution truly implies about social relations. But he does accomplish a wake-up call to the left to stop dismissing evolved dispositions/human nature/instinct as a nonfactor in the quest to achieving a better society.

Owing to the further popularization of studies on subjects such as human hierarchies and mate selection, Singer, if heeded by the left, could avert some substantial embarrassments and errors.

A better society might be far more complicated to create than has been suggested. The culprit of social ills may be far more diffused than specific groups in power.

Much of the Left has treated genetics as a right-wing fabrication by those seeking to protect the status quo or, worse yet, attempting to resucitate the notion of a master race. Of course, this statement should be qualified. The Left has no problems with genetics as long as it is applied exclusively to "physical" characteristics. In this last sentence we can begin to already see the cracks: how can there be such a neat division between the physical and the behavioral?

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.