Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing book
Review: This book has a clear message - that the tendency toward
organizations and groupings of people that are "non-zero-sum"
will lead us to a Heaven on Earth. "Non-zero-sum" interactions
are those that are "win-win", where mutual co-operation leads
to mutual benefit. The increasing interaction in various
rich ways of all people around the World will, by Wright's
thesis, do as it has done in smaller biological and historical
contexts - favor "good" co-operative behaviour.His rhetorical style is simple - no complex structure spanning
pages and chapters. Just taking issue after issue, and quickly
casting in the light that agrees with his thesis. He makes
frequent use of "name dropping" - brief mentions of things,
people and events likely known to a recent America audience,
such as the internet, Pol Pot, SUV's, TV, the Bible, the U.N.,
and on and on. It reads more like a reasonably edited version
of a conversation between two or three educated and optimistic
East Coast liberals over some beers. I profoundly disagree with his thesis. In his brief effort at
the end of the book to incorporate God and morality into his
vision, he perhaps unconsciously recognized what was missing.
But he can only trivialize Faith as the wonder we might hold
for what science has not yet rationalized. There was a famous quote, that I saw yesterday and cannot find
now, something about one of the great dangers being those who
would attempt to build Heaven on Earth. Mr. Wright provides us
with just such an attempt. His trivializing of a Higher Authority, of God and Faith,
resemble an Earth Scientist trying to study the Heavens by
the shadows cast at his feet. He is a useful idiot, providing a tool for the convenient use
of Leftists to lure the masses with visions of World Peace
and Harmony. The men who have held power behind that seductive
curtain have been the greatest murdering tyrants of all time. Thank God for the Christians in fly-over country in the heartland
of America. They have saved the world from tyranny a couple of
times already in the last century, and are doing so again in the
current War on Terror. No thanks to the kumbaya crowd at the
United Nations. Thanks instead to their Faith and their
understanding of the importance of Freedom.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but not conclusive
Review: I found "Nonzero" to be a very interesting read. It skimmed over history trying to prove a thesis that our evolution (cultural and biological) is driven by "non-zero-sumness." I found it more convincing in the area of cultural evolution, rather than biological evolution. Wright seems to be more of a historian than a biologist, or at least, that's how he conveys it in the book. While I had questions throughout the book, the vast majority of those questions came during my reading of the part on biological evolution. Wright certainly doesn't bind cultural evolution with biological evolution in a totally conclusive manner. He gives us parallels, but unlike in cultural evolution, I personally find his "human" approach to biology to be more confusing than clarifying. Approaching biology with words like "purpose" and "meaning" and things like that don't really get the point across clear enough. Its foundation was too wobbly to really stand up confidently. I'm guessing that Wright does have more support and that he simply summarized and generalized so that the layreader could follow it without having to be overly interested in biology. That was a bad move, though, in convincing the reader that his thesis is correct. There's also some general speculation about consciousness and whatnot towards the end, but Wright clearly states that it is only speculation. It's not really there to present a case and doesn't really serve a purpose in the book as far as convincing the reader that his thesis is correct, but it gets your brain working and may give a little inspiration to some of those sci-fi authors out there. So, in conclusion, I found his explanation of cultural evolution and its direction to be very interesting and generally convincing. But his explanation of biological evolution wasn't written rigidly enough and he didn't get as in depth as he would have needed to go in order to make the argument successfully. The cultural evolution part is 16 chapters long and the biological evolution part is 6 chapters long. The biological evolution part should have been as long, if not longer, than the cultural evolution part. Things with rigid scientific explanation shouldn't be skimmed over for the layreader. This was the first book I had ever read on the subject of cultural evolution and game theory. I found it to be an excellent introduction to the subject and I recommend it to anyone who loves history. I wouldn't recommend it to someone interested solely in the biological aspect because, as I've said before, it's too simplified and generalized to present a convincing case.
| 
