Customer Reviews

The Fair Society: The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a powerful book. It answers the critical and timely question: what should replace the shambles of pure socialism and unfettered free market capitalism? So many books that fall into the same category are utopian and myopic rather than grounded/policy driven and thus fall short on many counts. The Fair Society was obviously instructed by robust thinking on many aspects of human society and does not strive to attain some fixed and abstract ideal. Instead, Corning's ideal of fairness aims to mitigate the mundane suffering of the masses through social justice (rather than 'liberate' them). It focuses on improving what he calls the "collective survival enterprise," a kind of "we're all in this together" view of human society grounded in basic needs such as food and shelter. I agree this view is a more accurate reflection of the realities of highly interdependent post-modern societies than the "stay off my lawn" worldview of libertarianism, a favorite target throughout the book.

The thing that impressed me most about the book, aside from the prolific citations and references, was Corning's thorough contemplation and rejection of both idealized capitalism and socialism: "Neither the rational, calculating, egoistic Homo economics nor the cooperative, caring, altruistic 'socialist man' can encompass the dualities and the diversity of human-kind. All the evidence suggests that a more nuanced and complex view of human nature is essential" (143). While the book treads ancient paths by looking for a political and economic philosophy to manage increasingly large and complex human communities by looking towards human nature, it treads new ground by rejecting this dichotomy (and thus the tired conclusions engendered by it). This is extremely welcome, especially in a time of hyper-partisan, historically untethered news cycle mumbo jumbo and truly incredible public ignorance about the nature of economic behavior.

I could write considerably more, especially after just having finished it, but will end by wholeheartedly recommending a book that delivers in breadth, depth and sheer force of argument timely conclusions on subjects of high importance.

This is a spectacular book, but the best aspect of this book is that Professor Corning begins his argument at exactly the right place: "We have been witnessing the emergence of a full-blown "science of human nature," a diverse effort involving many disciplines, including evolutionary biology, neurobiology, behavioral genetics, human ethology, several branches of psychology, anthropology, economics, sociology, political science, and even the study of animal behavior. This broad, multidisciplinary effort is providing us with new insights and new perspectives on some ancient questions, and (I will argue) definitive resolutions to some long-standing philosophical and ideological debates. In a nutshell, we are beginning to get a fix on the deep structure of human nature." Indeed, Corning goes on to call this new social contract a "biosocial contract" and, as he states, "To summarize this new vision very briefly, the ground-zero premise (so to speak) of the biological sciences is that survival and reproduction constitute the basic, continuing, inescapable problem for all living organisms: life is at bottom a "survival enterprise." (Darwin characterized it as the "struggle for existence.") Furthermore, the problem of survival and reproduction is multifaceted and relentless; it is a problem that can never be permanently solved. Thus an organized, interdependent society is quintessentially a "collective survival enterprise." To borrow a term from sociobiology, it's a "superorganism." This taproot assumption about the human condition is hardly news, but we very often deny it, or downgrade it, or simply lose touch with it."

Despite coming in at just under two-hundred pages, Professor Corning's book reads like a veritable who's who of the scientific and economic community. The following individuals are mentioned at least once, if not more: Abraham Maslow, Stanley Milgram, Ernst Mayr, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond [Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies], Garrett Hardin [Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos], Malcolm Gladwell, Steven Pinker [The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature], Michael Gazzaniga [Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain Unique], John Tooby, Leda Cosmides, Barbara Ehrenreich [Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America], James K. Galbraith [The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too], and Paul Krugman [The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008]. Furthermore, there is a great discussion of ideas descended from Plato and Aristotle, the Harappan/ Indus civilization and ancient Athens, as well as the political beliefs of such notables as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Rand. Also, there is brief mention of the multiple disciplines from which Corning draws his insights. They are Animal Behavior, Anthropology, Behavioral Genetics, The Brain Sciences, Evolutionary Psychology, Experimental and Behavioral Economics. I especially appreciated his discussion of the research conducted by Herbert Simon, Eric Beinhocker, George Akerlof, Robert Shiller, Herbert Gintis, Ernst Fehr, Robert Axelrod, Samuel Bowles and Ken Binmore. Corning certainly did a fine job of explaining the divide between Homo Economicus and Homo Reciprocans.

Without a doubt, Peter Corning is one of the most well read individuals in academia; and one would need a great deal of evidence to overturn his fundamental arguments. Here are just a few of the more insightful quotes in the book: "A sense of fairness is a personality trait that is evidently not equally distributed, which is one reason there are so many fairness issues surrounding us."..."Human nature is rooted in our prehistory as a species: we were shaped in the pressure cooker of human evolution...Our ancestors, like ourselves, benefited from close cooperation with others in providing for their basic survival needs."..."All the evidence we have about human nature indicates that reordering society without regard to the competitive aspect of our evolutionary heritage is biologically unsound."..."It's also important to remember that every new generation needs to learn tolerance and civility, because the evidence shows that we are born with socially polarizing predispositions."..."The task that now lies before us, therefore, is to move beyond the clichés about capitalism and socialism and reboot the public philosophy with a better grounded vision of human nature and the underlying purpose of a human society."

In conclusion, this is a great book with wide appeal and application. Most importantly, I feel like Professor Corning has made an airtight case that is empirically indisputable: "Nobody can say we haven't been warned. From Plato and Aristotle to the latest game theory models, it should be clear by now that a harmonious society depends, absolutely, on fairness and social justice." I enjoyed this book so much I am going to go back and read Corning's previous book, which he touches upon briefly, Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution. I think another good book that really delves into the perils of extreme inequality is The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality, which would help the interested reader in seeing further many of the issues the Professor Corning discusses (especially in detailing the shortcomings of capitalism and socialism).

This is a VERY dissapointing book. The author makes a series of extremely basic mistakes in his understanding of economics and Darwinian evolution. He makes the classic naturalistic fallacy (I think that's the word; sorry, my English is sometimes a bit shaky). He has no consideration for emergent charcteristics. As a result, the analysis is bland. Because of his weak logic, he has to rely on "Big shots said so" quotes, which makes the book boring. And the reccomendation is truely childish.

FYI, I answered "No" to most of the questions at the end of Chapter 2. According to the author, this should mean that I have a quite accute sense of fairness, and that I should agree to everything the author says. Too bad, I didn't.

The author starts with the argument that the world today is too unfair and unequal. This is true. Although he adds nothing new to the argument, his points are valid. And he says that we should go for a more fair and equal society. Great. His points are well taken.

But after that, his arguments become completely unconvincing.

His first argument is that people are naturally hard-wired to favor fairness and equality. So, he says that we should go for a fairer society.

But this is a classic example of naturalistic fallacy. Just because people have a natural tendency to do something doesn't make it right, or desirable. Also, it begs the question; if people like equality and fairness so much, why isn't the world already so?

His answers are murky. He says that in order to survive, people had to be selfish at times. Oh. so I guess the fairness instinct isn't too strong after all.

He quotes game theory, like the ultimatum game, to show that poeple naturally LIKES cooperation and reciprocity. Yes, but then the question arises again. If they like it so much, why aren't we in a super fair society?

He doesn't have a convincing explanation. So he tries to place the blame on theories that promote selfishness and inequality. His culprits are, Evolutionary biology and economics.

This is where his complete misunderstanding shows up. Evolutionary biology doesn't promote or justify complete selfishness of the individual. On the contrary, it tells you that because of the selfishness at the gene level, the individual organism can and will show alturistic and cooperative behaviour. ANY Dawkins reader should understand that. The author doesn't.

He makes the same mistake with economics. Adam Smith said that when selfish individual interact to maximize their profit, it would lead to cooperation and reciprocity. Monopoly is bad, fair competiton among equal promotes the best results. Much of modern economics deals with how to make markets work efficiently, ie, create a foundation for FAIR competition. The author insists that it promotes greed, unfairness, screw-everyone-else attitude. It doesn't. Of course, how far regulations should go is a matter of debate, as the author points out in his comparison with communism... but he doesn't have any clear idea about the optimal level of regulation.

So, he doesn't have any coherent explanation about WHY the world is unfair and unequal. His argument is that when people started to save and hoard for the future, that is when unequality arose. Sound like Pol Pot. The author does point out issues about communism, but it's not really well thought out. The whole problem seems to be that there are greedy people. But according to the author, people should be naturally cooperative and fair. What gives?

In order to support the argument that cooperation is good, and alturism is great, He goes on to quote a huge number of philosophers and social thinkers. However, that's really pointless. Not many social theory or movements promote COMPLETE selfishness or unfairness. So if we take out bits and pieces, ANY social idea would fit into it. As a result, the book becomes a laundry list of social thinkers and nice quotes.

So, was there anything valid in his observations? Nothing much. Just a collection of nice quotes.

And then, what's his recommendation? He argues that if we all try to be a little more fair to each other and try a bit more toward a more equal society, then the whole society would be better.

First of all, this reccomendation is almost useless. What is more fair and equal at the individual level? Maybe I shouldn't haggle down prices too much at the market... but then that may lead to higher living costs that would hurt the poorer people. It's hard to tell the consequenses of individual actions.

And when it comes to collective action, the story is even unclear. As seen in the Adam Smith and Evolutionary idea, the selfishness of the individual can create cooperation and alturism in the society. And Keynes shows that when everyone tryes to hold on to a bit more cash, the collective result is a recession where everyone gets LESS cash. The point is that the characteristics of a society is often an emergent property, that could be totally opposite of the individual tendency. So if everyone tries to be more fair, would the society become more fair? Maybe not. You really can't tell.

I can't believe the author has a biology background, or that he can be a boss of some big institution. His understanding of everything in the book is so shaky, his reccomendation so unpractical and questionable, This book it totally useless. Not reccomendable.

Peter Corning is a distinguished evolutionary biologist who has spent much of his research life investigating the implications of evolutionary biology for human social life. This book is perhaps the most ambitious of his efforts, and draws on cutting research concerning evolution had human nature. Corning is very knowledgeable and his description and analysis of this research is highly informative.

Corning is a man of the Left, and this book is his attempt to construct a realistic, morally and politically compelling, set of principles for a just society. Corning is concerned with constructing economics and social institutions that (a) speak to the needs of the poor and dispossessed in our society; (b) foster meritocratic reward, entrepreneurship, and innovation, and (c) are socially stable in the sense of attracting a strong majority of voters in a democratic society. The goal is indeed a worthy one, as achieving social justice is the only liberal ideal that remains unrealized in contemporary society.

"A harmonious society," observes Corning, "depends, absolutely, on fairness and social justice." (p. 171) Corning's first principle of social justice is that "goods and services must be distributed to each of us according to our basic needs (in this there must be equality)." (p. 154) Corning devotes considerable space to defining "basic needs" and defending his definition against the many critics of the concept, based on the work of such experts as Amartya Sen, Ian Gough,Len Doyal, and many others. Corning's defense of basic needs is very persuasive. Moreover, it is clear that in an affluent society, it is very feasible to meet the basic needs of all citizens without much sacrifice on the part of the non-poor.

Corning's second principle is the meritocratic notion that "surpluses beyond the provisioning of our basic needs must be distributed according to "merit." (p.154). Corning refuses to equate "merit" with the rewards accrued on capitalist markets, because he argues that not all market returns are "merited" (e.g., the exorbitant pay of CEO's). Corning's basic innovation in distributional justice is to propose stakeholder rather than shareholder capitalism, with the implication that the cost and profit structure of corporations would be more equally shared among owners, employees, and clients.

Corning recognizes that these two principles alone violate a basic human norm---that of reciprocity. This is because individuals will have their basic needs satisfied without contributing to society at all. For this reason he adds a third principle, "In return, each of us is obligated to contribute proportionately to the collective survival enterprise in according with our ability (there must be reciprocity)." (p. 154)

Corning argues carefully and eloquently that such an economy would be both feasible and politically acceptable to all but the rich, who can simply be outvoted. He also argues, based on an in depth analysis of how our species evolved from hunter-gather days to the present, that such an economic system would be deeply consistent with human nature. Indeed, he refers to his three principles as a "biosocial compact," harkening back to the notion of a social compact in the works of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and others. The distinctive feature of Corning's compact is that it is firmly rooted in a model of human nature, rather than being based on an abstract ethical theory.

I believe Corning's fair society is well worth thinking about, but there are some deep problems that would have to be overcome for it to work. Most important, the feasibility of this model flows from an analogy with hunter-gatherer societies, which were small and ethnically extremely homogeneous. In such societies, it is easy to determine who is contributing his fair share according to his ability and who is not. Moreover, in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, a violator of the third principle (contribution according to ability) would be summarily ostracized or refused a share of the group's collective production. This of course violates the basic needs principle. Perhaps Corning has some idea of how to ensure that people contribute according to ability without depriving them of basic needs. I have no idea how this could be done.

I imagine that the fair society could simply require that each individual of sound mind and body who is at the bottom of society's labor hierarchy show up for work for a certain number of hours per week, but it is hard to see how individuals could be motivated to work hard and with due care without either threatening the withdrawal of basic needs satisfaction, by offering material incentives for high quality work that brings most if not all individuals into the "meritocratic" category. I do not find either of these alternatives feasible. Threatening the withdrawal of basic needs violates the first principle, and paying enough for unskilled labor that individuals prefer to provide quality labor under the threat of being reduced to the basic needs category is likely to be simply impossible. There is little doubt but that many individuals would opt out of the "meritocratic" system based on incentives, and build a satisfying life based on the satisfaction of basic needs alone. Indeed, I suspect that Corning's fair society would spawn many "basic needs" subcultures focusing on art, sports, religion, and the like. Of course, such individuals could be obliged to spend time "working," but the cost of administrating a labor system without incentives where people are simply uninterested in hard, high quality work would be high, and because the reciprocity fairness condition would be widely violated, Corning's biosocial contract would quickly unravel.

I think Corning is correct in stressing the need for a solution to the problem of poverty in America, but I do not believe affording the poor a basic income and requiring them to work is the answer to the problem. I think the solution lies in understanding why there is poverty in the present economic system. Unlike the situation in many third-world countries, American poverty cannot be explained by predatory, corrupt governments and explicit laws and regulations excluding certain groups from gainful employment. Rather, poverty in America is either transient, as in the case of immigrant groups whose children received a good education and moral training from their parents, or it is chronic, and the result of a culture of poverty, in which children do not receive a decent education and are not taught proper work and study habits by their parents. If this is correct, then social policy should be geared towards creating healthy community alternatives to the culture of poverty ghettos that currently reproduce an unskilled underclass in America.

In an era where the term "socialism" is seen as an epithet, yet where "free market" capitalism seems to give license to "moral monsters" running rampant by destroying savings and despoiling the value of work, Peter Corning's "The Fair Society" aims to provide a basis for a third way forward. Here, he recognizes that socialism failed by assuming complete cooperation in an utopian state, whereas the capitalism model continues to fail by positing a mythical free market guided by a magical invisible hand while rewarding rugged self-interested individualists. Corning moves beyond these simplistic and flawed assumptions to view humans as they are, not as scholars, pundits, and policy makers wish they should be. Namely, he moves beyond the fictional creations of authors such as Ayn Rand (whose creations would presumably never have children due to their reliance on Rand's protagonists' largess) and the statistical fiction of the "rational actor" created, yet never encountered, by traditional economists, yet who have shaped the models of human behavior driving theories of public policy. He does so by positing three fundamental precepts that need to be elevated and held in balance: equality, equity, and reciprocity. While the point of balance and the mechanics of balancing are unsettled, the recognition that all three are equally important provides an important transition point in the debate over the future of America's social, political and economic system.

Specifically, Corning's three fundamental precepts, and the in-depth rationales given each, provides a measured response to socialism's credo "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need" by replacing the simplistic leveling implicit in this statement with a reasoned discussion of what basic human needs are that is grounded in extensive biological research. In turn, he balances this empathy-driven moral imperative with the need for reciprocity - recognizing that there is "no free lunch" and that by being part of the ongoing social contract of society, all must pay into the system if they hope to receive benefits from it. At the same time Corning recognizes that beyond provisioning basic needs, in this social contract merit must be rewarded. While purists, idealists and cynics may claim the "free market" does just that, any observer of a system where Big Business gets bailed out of their fiscal fiascoes, corporate CEOs get bonuses for failing, and where the one percent of the wealthiest Americans pay less than half of the taxes on capital gains, that is income earned predominantly off the labor of others, than they do on "regular" income tax (15% vs. 35%)- even after the numerous tax breaks they are bestowed, finds it apparent our current system is flawed, if not broken in considering and rewarding merit. While the potential for these flaws has been apparent at least since Adam Smith brought them to light in his masterwork, "The Wealth of Nations" (as those who have actually read it can attest to), they have been, in turn, ignored, exacerbated and allowed to fester since the 1980s, leading to the poverty, discontent, and nascent revolution against the authoritarian institutions that have turned a blind eye to the universal need for humans to have social justice.

"The Fair Society" offers a way to change the debate from discordant to discursive by recognizing that there is indeed a human nature that responds, in varying degrees, to equality, equity and reciprocity. Scholars, policy makers, and students of human nature would do well to make this masterwork by Peter Corning a reference point in future discussions about the best way forward for ourselves, our country and our children.

A Review of:

The Fair Society, The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice by Peter Corning

By Valerie M. Constance

[...]

Is there a Science of Human Nature?

Is social justice hopelessly subjective?

According to Peter Corning, the science of human nature is emerging from a confluence of research occurring within and across such disciplines from evolutionary biology and behavioral genetics, to psychology, anthropology, and being applied in economics, sociology, and political science. Take for example how some libertarians borrow from evolutionary science, specifically arguing Darwin's "survival of the fittest" premise to capitalistic free-markets; crony capitalism not withstanding. Furthermore, while social justice may seem subjective, it is actually deeply embedded in our genetic make-up, and we do "get it" when we've achieved it. As an academic and writer who has witnessed a growing collaboration to explore ideas and create new knowledge across disciplines --I say, yes, there is a science of human nature and no, it's not too subjective to incorporate into our next great social construct: Peter Corning's, "The Fair Society."

In The Fair Society, The Science of Human Nature and the pursuit of Social Justice, published by The University of Chicago Press, Copyright 2011; hereafter referred to simply as The Fair Society, Corning provides context by outlining the financial culture surrounding the great recession of 2008 and its affects in the USA and its influence throughout the world blaming capitalism. He argues, "It's not more capitalism we need but less." But before you call him a communist or a socialist, realize that he finds fault in both of these economic systems as well. So he argues for a new fair play way, which he says is inherent in our natures anyway. A position he defends convincingly with a layman's voice guiding us through thousands of years of social history and millions of years of social behavior and attributing his sources in extensive notes and reference citations from the best sources of all time. For example he observes how our ancient hunter-gatherer forebears displayed reciprocity in their collective effort to survive. He discusses Aristotle and Plato's viewpoints that "justice is the equitable rewards for the proper exercise of our abilities in interdependent economic relationships." He identifies a new discipline of behavioral economics and notes that their discovery was the standard economic model we all presume as Truth with a capital "T". Actually, he says, capitalism is a conceit that allows the wealthy to justify keeping their wealth and so, is really not rational at all in terms of human values or in so far as the whole of society goes. Not surprisingly this causes the reader great pause, and in my case, hope, that by privately rejecting the tenets of capitalism because to accept them would be to admit most of us are not rational or worse, slouches; we can actually dream about and work toward supporting a new, more fair way in which more of us can experience success and be fulfilled rather than exploited and down-trodden. This was the instant message of gratification I walked away with from reading The Fair Society.

After watching the greedy few suck up all of the resources from the masses through "too big to fail bank bailouts" to such an extent that it exposed their immorality not only towards their fellow men and women but also towards their country. Witness the examples of banks continuing big bonuses for CEO's and Wall Street whiz kids who figured out how to gamble with people's money through the creation of exotic instruments called derivatives. These derivatives allowed Wall Street to bet that silver would fall, (it didn't, causing Bear Stearns to fold) or that holders of sub-prime mortgages wouldn't be able to pay their new adjustable rates (they couldn't) or that Greece would default, (it did) allowing investment houses to create self-fulfilling prophecies of mayhem in the market place. I was beginning to despair that humans had lost all semblance of morality. Is it rational or patriotic to abandon 90% of the population for policies that serve only the richest 10%? Is it patriotic to allow your country to crumble before your eyes from betting against it to failing to invest in its proper infrastructure maintenance? Even setting aside the needs of the many in favor of the few; what message does this send our soldiers who will return, perhaps victorious but limbless, to a country where they have no health insurance, their jobs are gone, and their families broke? This example illustrates a refreshing new perspective that can arise from what Corning calls, "stakeholder capitalism" which calls for us to rise above our self-interest and avarice and reciprocate for the betterment of society as a whole, to be sensitive to human nature in specific cultural contexts and form a new socio-historical context in which we are all stakeholders. In my wounded warrior example, no one would more deserve being a stakeholder than our soldiers, but in reality, we are all worthwhile stakeholders. We should work to improve our country and its systems so that it rewards soldiers and everyone else with a stake in this country. Not only would "A Fair Society" help us grow stronger as a people and a nation, it would, Corning would say, enhance our chances of survival in a world of shrinking resources.

Corning's, The Fair Society is a theoretical model for what could replace our current failing capitalism model, but it does delineate concrete steps we can take to assure that we embark on this adventure and that is to act collectively. We have the tools now with the Internet and social media to create human communities heretofore inconceivable. My own observation, not surprisingly, would be to vote out republicans and hold democrats feet to the fire to embody the value system of the collective, us. I say we are embarking on a science of human nature in time to save ourselves from falling off a cliff, like previous great civilizations. Will we do what's necessary and believe in our genetic disposition toward fair play to invoke our kinder gentler selves in a new Fair Society and reject the selfishness of the top 1% who holds all of this nations wealth? The alternative, continuing upon our current path is unthinkable.

Here in one book is the essence of a lifelong education in social, political, and economic theory, viewed through the lens of today's best biological understanding of human nature. This is human nature not as we wish it or merely assume it to be, but as it actually comes to us, thanks to our evolutionary heritage.

Only now, when rational choice economics (the last ideology standing) has toppled, is it possible for a polymath such as Peter Corning to get our full attention -- right, left, and center -- as he tallies up the unavoidable misconceptions that led us to where we are. This book is thus an insightful history of worldviews in collision. The simple framework he offers for moving forward (thanks to our at last attaining a scientific understanding of social instincts) is neither blueprint nor ideology, but something far more foundational.

The tripartite framework Peter offers is this:

"A bio-social contract encompasses three distinct normative (and policy) precepts that must be bundled together and balanced (p. 154):

(1) Goods and services must be distributed to each according to his or her basic needs (in this, there must be equality);

(2) Surpluses beyond the provisioning of our basic needs must be distributed according to "merit" (there must also be equity);

(3) In return, each of us is obligated to contribute to the collective survival enterprise proportionately in accordance with our ability (there must be reciprocity).

The framework for a "Fair Society" that Corning offers is simple not because it is a solution. Rather, it is simple because it offers something more foundational than any solution, than any ideology. And there lies the treasure. It is a system first and foremost for encouraging all of us -- the governors and the governed, the right and the left -- to probe deeper than our usual bottom lines. Any proposed policy or piece of legislation can be assessed by how it balances or preferences each of three precepts of basic needs, merit, and reciprocity. Certainly, those are values we all share, that we all agree upon. Our conflicts arise, rather, in how we choose among them and in the efficacy of the actions we propose.

[Note: This is Connie Barlow (Michael Dowd's partner) writing this review.]

Thirty-five years ago, I was privileged for one legislative session to see why diving down into fundamentals is crucial for honorable opponents to truly understand one another, and to collaboratively help each other discover the weaknesses in proposed policy and legislation. In 1977 I was a policy assistant to the Senate President of Alaska, a liberal democrat. On occasion I was privileged to witness him and his best friend and colleague (then, minority leader for the Senate Republicans) spar privately before the bills came to the floor. Lawyers both, they amicably challenged one another, working down to fundamentals, ferreting out inconsistencies along the way. If each fared well in logic and consistency down to the basic values that differentiated their respective parties, they would shake hands and move on to other matters. If not, one or the other knew that their position was shaky, and that rethinking and possibly amendments or compromise were in order before integrity and wisdom could prevail in voting.

Peter Corning's "The Fair Society" is a crucial support in helping our pundits, politicians, and citizen stakeholders truly hear one another -- beyond the din of lobbiests, media, and posturing. We are all in this together; it is indeed time to remember our common humanity and to begin to fashion a future congruent with our best science and understanding of reality. Following are key quotations drawn from the book:

FRAMING THE PROBLEM:

"It is time to re-think the `social contract' the implicit bargain among the members of any stable society that undergirds the legitimacy of the economic and political system and ensures that there will be voluntary compliance (for the most part) with its norms and laws. What the distinguished American political observer, Walter Lippmann, many years ago termed our `public philosophy' is at a major fork in the road, and so is our economic and political system.

"Communism and state-sponsored socialism were tried out in the Soviet Union and Communist China during the twentieth century and were ultimately discredited as failures. Now free market capitalism has gone over a cliff. Where it will ultimately land -- and in what condition -- remains to be seen. Wall Street may have recovered, but much of the rest of the country, and the world, remains mired in a deep recession. And this is happening at the very time when new discoveries in the sciences have shown that the underlying assumptions that have animated capitalist doctrines and policies are in fact simplistic caricatures. The ayatollahs of economics have misled us - and themselves.

"For a generation or more, mainstream (neoclassical) economists have been telling us that capitalist economies are driven by the rational pursuit of self-interest and the "invisible hand" of self-organized, self-correcting free markets -- a model that goes back to the early economist Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations". However, it is now abundantly clear that the invisible hand can morph into a sleight of hand, as Adam Smith himself warned in an earlier work, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".

"Moreover, the new discipline of behavioral economics, which strives to determine how people actually behave in the marketplace, has discovered that the standard economic model of a rational, calculating economic man is deeply flawed. Among other things, behavioral scientists are finding that reciprocity, a sense of fairness, and even some degree of altruism are bedrock human values that also shape our economic and social behavior (as we shall see). Indeed, some of what we do routinely - like aiding others in need -- could be considered highly irrational from a conventional economist's perspective.

"Meanwhile, a number of other scientific disciplines have converged on the conclusion that our moral sensibilities represent an important, evolved component of human nature (as discussed in Chapter 4). Our moral values are not based solely on customs, or social norms, but on a complex interplay between nature and nurture." (from the Preface)

A BETTER GROUNDED VISION OF HUMAN NATURE:

"The task that now lies before us, therefore, is to move beyond the clichés about capitalism and socialism and to re-boot the public philosophy with a better-grounded vision of human nature and the underlying purpose of a human society." (p. 148)

BEYOND LEFT AND RIGHT:

"The evolutionary psychologist Dennis Krebs summed it up this way: `To create moral societies, we must make it in people's adaptive interest to cooperate with others, and the only way to do this is to design environments in ways that ensure that cooperation pays off better than selfishness, cheating, free riding and favoritism.' To ensure voluntary cooperation and social harmony, in other words, we must first achieve social justice, plain and simple." (p. 190)

THE THREE PRECEPTS OF FAIRNESS:

"A new biosocial contract must be grounded in this biological reality, and it must strive to achieve a fair society. Our primary social (and moral) obligation is to provide for all of the basic needs of our citizens. However, a biosocial contract must include other important dimensions of fairness as well. There are, in fact, three distinct fairness precepts - equality, equity (merit), and reciprocity -- that must be combined into a package and balanced in order to create a society that is relatively fair and just to everyone in terms of both the benefits and the costs. Indeed, the fairness of our social, economic, and political relationships is vitally important to sustaining a voluntary and harmonious social contract." (from the Preface)

REALISTIC HOPE:

"The single most important finding of the multidisciplinary science of fairness is that most of us do have a bias toward cooperation and a readiness to reciprocate - a sense of fairness. A Fair Society has the legitimacy of science behind it; it is not a fantasy based on some outworn nineteenth century ideology." (p. 196)

MERIT:

"It is important to reserve the term merit for outcomes that are earned. A person's rewards should ultimately reflect contributions that benefit others, or the general welfare." (p. 159)

RECIPROCITY:

"Mutual aid has been a part of our species' formula for success for millions of years, and we both dishonor our past and defile our future as a species if we don't insist on it. .. Reciprocity is a deeply embedded part of our social psychology and an indispensable mechanism for balancing our relationships with one another. . . . A clear implication of this precept is that we are obliged to contribute a fair share to the collective survival enterprise in return for the benefits we receive. This directive applies to the rich and the poor alike - to both wealthy matrons and welfare mothers. We have a duty to reciprocate for the benefits that our society provides. Otherwise, we are in effect free-riders on the efforts of others; we turn them into involuntary altruists.... Being able to work is also a strong personal preference for the overwhelming majority of the poor -- like everyone else. There is a large body of research in psychology and sociology documenting that unemployment can be profoundly depressing. Living on handouts is also a demeaning and humiliating experience for most of us, whereas doing meaningful work and being of use to others has intrinsic value and positive psychological effects, as the many millions of idled workers in our society these days are learning the hard way. Very few of us have a genuine preference for being unemployed. (p. 159)

The book was so-so. I really do not think his arguments were that convincing and he spent an awful lot of time running through the evolutionary psyche of homo sapiens. Corning definitely did his homework, but I felt he was hellbent on trying to convince us that humans are a fair minded species...really? To conclude his work, I do not believe his precepts were anything new or groundbreaking and his solutions to create this fair society lacked substance.

the book is good, the the service is good.

book is easily read, smooth reading with comfortable character size. it's good for beginner to political science.