Rating: 
Summary: Nonzero, nonplussed: what logic?
Review: This book combines scientific facts with the author's (political?) opinions in a very questionable, naive way. What he calls 'fact' would not be endorsed by a real scientist worth his salt, EVER. Much of evolutionary psychology is in fact story-telling, as most biologists in their right mind recognise. But it is a good book in that it serves as a warning light, maybe, to what havoc our present behavior might wreak on the world.
Rating: 
Summary: Social Evolution properly described
Review: Robert Wright has compiled the support and theories that properly explain the "WHY" of human existance. If humans are what he says then we not only have a wonderful past that brought us through the Biological evolution process, but we have a future that brings into account social evolution and a spiritual existence. Every one who finds the standard answers preached from the pulpits of American Churches unbelievable should at least sample the well written and supported ideas put forward in this book. We are more than Biological, we are more than Social, we are cognizant spiritual beings and you don't have to leave your brain at the door to believe within this framework.
Rating:
Summary: Higher purpose
Review: I first heard about Non-Zero when I heard President Clinton refer to it enthusiastically in a speech, earlier this year, in which he cited how we are here on this earth, hopefully working for a higher purpose. I bought the book and read it and found it inspiring and compelling, especially realizing that the President had read it and been impressed with it, and gleaned and cited this particular insight. The Economist review cited on the dust cover of the book says, in part, "This clever and stimulating book is destined to become a classic.... Like Charles Darwin's On the Origin of the Species and Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene, it could well change the way people think and feel about their lives -- perhaps even how they behave... An intellectual entertainment argued with wit and style."
Rating: 
Summary: Non-zero informality
Review: I felt that this book made some interesting points but was a little peturbed by the informal nature by which Robert Wright uses to proves his points. It was ingrained in me in Guns, Germs, and Steel how difficult it is to prove anything in cultural evolution, so it is very important that the proof of theories are exceptionally thorough. Robert Wright doesn't adequately support many of the important points in his book. This is especially evident when he begins to talk about biological evolution - he seems out of his territory. Overall though Robert Wright does an admirable job in posing some thought provoking ideas in part three of the book, though he spends too much time reacting to ideas posed by others.
Rating: 
Summary: 4 for audacity
Review: The author freely acknowledges that the subtitle is grandiose. He tries to take a small specific idea (game theory in terms of zero-sum vs. non-zero-sum outcomes) and apply it broadly to human historical social science. It's a difficult task, and something that historians have not attempted very often in the past 50 years. Don't put this besides Spengler, Toynbee, or Gibbon. Wright just doesn't know enough specific history or anthropology to fit every piece in the puzzle, he gets much of it right, but there are little details that one can quibble with. And in my opinion, this sort of over-arching theory must be strong in details to have any credibility in terms of 'theory.' Normally I would give the book 3 stars, but too few people attempt this sort of thing, so I don't want to discourage anyone out there!
Rating:
Summary: Good polemic
Review: It's funny how these things go....a hundred years ago no one doubted the idea of progress, with Europe as the vanguard and the US coming up fast on the outside lane. Then after Nazism and Communism, not to mention the various anti-imperialist movements, the whole idea was quietly shunted aside in polite society; no one's better or more advanced, we're all just different: what came to be seen as the politically correct position.The trouble is, as Robert Wright realises, there obviously is such a thing as progress, both biologically (which is where he differs from Stephen Jay Gould at al) and culturally. In fact much of the furore over Evolutionary Psychology is about precisely this, that it's findings are often not what the politically correct wish to hear, and so must be, in a neat reversal of the real state of affairs, ideologically motivated. I reckon Wright is spot on in most of what he says, and he's got an easy and relaxed writing style. He's a prickly customer though when it comes to other writers, eg he doesn't seem to like Richard Dawkins much, though he invokes memes frequently, and he doesn't like David Landes' Wealth and Poverty of Nations, though I didn't see much difference in their approach to the question of why Europe broke through technologically while China didn't (of course Wright is keen to stress that he's not any sort of racist/imperialist and is generally a nice left-wing tolerant kind of a guy, which is presumably why he sets Landes up as a straw man - he wants to resurrect the idea of progress without the imperialist/racist connotations of the past). But I did get the feeling of clashing egos a lot. The book tails off at the end; I thought the last chapters were over-ambitious. The idea of a world identical to ours but without consciousness I found nonsensical. Still, it's a good polemic, and I'm glad someone's stuck their neck out to argue for progress. I look forward to the ensuing debate.
Rating:
Summary: Great Backbone-Idea--But, Too Unrealistic?
Review: Amazon.com reviewers rule! Other reviews here have already noted my two reactions to the book--but implicitly, let me make them explicit. (Then I have a major concern, fear, confusion which remains about Reaction #2...) (1) Looking at a vast subject (here, human social evolution and nature) via a specific thinking-tool (here, game theory) can produce powerful description, explanation. Bravo. But also, (2) looking at anything requires a general perspective, which is inevitably value-laden (here, perhaps, Wright's belief in progress and cooperation--which some reviewers like, others deeply question). Again bravo, for book and for reviewers. My concern? I fear for the imminent human social future, specifically the cataclysmic collision-course we are on regarding environmental rape via global warming and pollution and resource-depletion, combined with the rocketing population explosion, plus nation-states' increasing conflicts. (I don't even include accidental nuclear war, too-probable intentional terrorism-sabotage via chem-bio-radio...) In short, though good on past human cooperation, is Wright naively inapplicable, even misleading, on our dismal approaching nightmare-scenario future? Can Wright confront the tragedy that though intelligent and somewhat cooperative, Homo Sapiens the "rogue mammal" lacks both moral sense, plus--the central point--the ability to cooperate and control selves and society to save self, society, the planet. Can we ONLY cooperate in a limited range--family, group, community? We may intelligently see and know the expresstrain coming at us. Tragically, we can't control that newly-immense complexity. I DO want to be fair to Wright, but see p. 233 as quoted in James Simmers 19 Jul 00 review--is Wright perhaps paltry and naive here in assuming more cooperation than we can muster against approaching shipwreck? I'm perplexed. Haven't species in the past, hit calamity and disarray (or even vanished) just-like-that? It's more dismal than Marx-Freud-existentialism together, perhaps, to think Darwinistically thus. Perhaps I'm wrong. But the deadly cocktail approaching (population, environment, warfare) may be utterly new, in order of magnitude? And utterly inaccessible to Wright's cooperation-in-complexity? I kind of hope I'm wrong--that Wright is right here--but for this reader anyhow, NONZERO powerfully produced ponderings like this....!
Rating:
Summary: Undefined goals
Review: Somehow it just seems to easy to look at an end products, such as humans and their complex societies, and call it "inevitable." But we are just products of the moment, not an "end" product. Was human-like intelligence inevitable? Was social complexity inevitable, due to "non-zero sumness"? It is if your are Robert Wright, and Wright writes well. But he hits a few difficulties in making his point. Most of the book is about the rise of social "complexity" from non-zero games (in his eyes win-win situations, though he short-changes lose-lose situations, which are also non-zero). Now one would think that he would define social complexity, but noooo, one is left to a short bit in the appendix which basicially says "I know complexity when I see it." Not good enough for me, as the definition is not a trivial concern. One cannot measure social complexity by the tax code, when, for example, social graces have long since been abandoned. And then there is the biological part. Someone should tell Wright that he does not necessarily share half of his genes with his brother ... a bit more biological research was in order for Wright, the historian. And the alleged evolutionary drive toward intelligence? First, why is "intelligence" equated with complexity? (The point of the book is that social and biological "goals" are the same). Humans, in many ways, are simple animals ... our brain is the exception. To me, the ecolocation of a bat, or the photosynthesis and reproduction of maple trees ... now that is complex. Or is it? Wright just does not give us enough clues to judge. If biology had an innate drive toward intelligence, as Wright suggests, then trees and insects would be playing chess with us. The fact is that evolution has been much more chaotic, and happened upon a species of limited intelligence known as _Homo sapiens_. As for the history of social complexity, best to read Jared Diamond's book, _Guns, Germs, & Steel_ ... he puts forth a much more cogent argument. But to give Wright his due, his book makes you think -- and think again. And that is what books are for.
Rating:
Summary: The Limits of Natural Teleology
Review: For an excellent review of this book by William A. Dembski, author of "Intelligent Design", see the August/September 2000 edition of First Things magazine, pg 46.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent history but miserable "Tips on Saving the World"
Review: Nonzero starts off great. The history of humankind is reviewed from the perspective that human culture advances as technology advances by people instituting cultural changes to increase nonzero sum gains (gains accrued by the facilitation of trade). This whole analysis is exciting and thought provoking, which explains why so many people have been stimulated to write reviews of this book. The problem comes when the author (Robert Wright) tries to predict the future and to give his advice on how to "save the world". At this point the book gets very hard to stomach. He pictures a world progressively dominated by a single world (supranational) governance, with "culture lag" (technology changing too fast for society to adapt) being a major problem. Here's his tip on how to "save the world" (p. 233): "The idea isn't to create a Bureau of Global Slowdown at the United Nations. The idea is simply to tolerate various supranational efforts that are starting to take shape and that, as they solidify, will naturally have a sedative effect. As first-world and third-world workers unite to raise third-world wages (and thus keep first-world wages from free falling), industrialists will complain that this dulls the market's edge, slowing progress. Yes, it does-but that's okay. As environmentalists unite to save rain forests, or tax fossil fuels, the same complaint will be heard-and the same answer will apply. In the age of the superempowered angry man, and the quite disgruntled man, the slowing down of deeply unsettling change is a benefit, not just a cost because anger and disgruntlement are world-class problems." I'll let this "tip" speak for itself.
|
