Reflections: The Origins of Virtue

It seems like a long time since I started reading this book. It’s been sitting around me for months together, getting shunned every now and then for another interesting and far more gripping book. And now that I have finally finished it, it feels like I have taken forever to write about it. It’s got to do with two reasons. Ever since I started my other blog on cooking, the novelty of it has been quite compelling. I am fueled to write posts there. Besides, writing out a recipe is far far simpler and easier than all the work required to think and assimilate my thoughts to churn out a post here. Secondly, I started reading this book fully aware that I may not learn anything significantly new. Yet, when it comes to morality, society, and the definitions of virtue, I am willing to read as many repetitive (and non-repetitive) books as possible, in the hopes that I may stumble upon some, novel, interesting trains of thought that would help me internalize and understand these concepts much better.

The basic questions addressed in the book are - When and why did virtues like cooperation and altruism emerge among us?, Are these virtues wired-instincts, or are they nurtured traits?, What is the fine-line between cooperation and competition, between altruism and self-interest? How do virtues serve the interests of the individual, as much as they help our species to survive? So, is man inherently good or bad?

The short answer for why morality, altruism, and cooperation are exalted as virtues is because we need to adopt and embrace these traits for ensuring our survival, and the survival of our genes, and our species. Mankind has achieved so much and has progressed to such heights because our species knows how to cooperate, reciprocate, trade, and divide labor among specialized people. The point is, each virtue serves a selfish purpose - to us and to our species. Reciprocation is our incentive. If there were no reciprocation, we limit the altruistic deeds we do for others. In our scriptures it is called Karma - you receive what you give. So be good, and reap the benefits. We form friendships, enter into marriage, are cordial and helpful to neighbors, family and other smaller circles of our community, in order to reap the benefits of reciprocation and division of labor. We have the ingrained need to be an accepted part of a community, because when hardships strike, we have people to fall back on and help us. But in order to expect such help, we need to offer help as well. And so on... the gregarious, well-connected, socially active person is the most effective survivor. And consider this paradox - when you gift someone, you subconsciously expect something in return at some point. Then, is the person who refuses to accept any gift from friends or family, the most selfish person? For he realizes the debt he incurs by accepting the gift, and hence refuses to accept such burden of reciprocation?

It leads to another paradox. Despite the accepted rationality of practicing virtuous behavior, human-beings are still territorial, and fiercely compete with one another. Why so? It is natural selection’s way of ensuring the fittest, and only the most competent survive. At a micro-level, our genes are selfish. They cause us to fight for them, stand up for them - to ensure their propagation over other kinds of genes. This is one explanation for racial and territorial conflicts. But one can’t afford to be too aggressive to too many people, and too very often. We have the seen the fall of capitalistic giants who have been so caught up with greed and aggression.

We flounder while trying to establish a balance between competition and cooperation. Is tit-for-tat always a good strategy? We need to know when to forgive and when not to. It’s imperative that we don’t get pushed and trampled upon in our effusive need to always do good to others and never expect anything in return. For when we resort to the latter “selfless” mode, we as individuals perish, although we may help to sustain the growth of our species. Basically, it is not “rational” when one chooses to neglect the self.

For most people, selfishness is a negative trait. With that conditioning, sometimes we make decisions that are detrimental to the self. When my good friend told me that I had to do things for “self-preservation”, the whole term was new to me. When we have been taught to ignore the self, to not expect anything in return for our moral duties, it is a radical perspective to pause and consider that everything that has been established, including religion and morality, are essentially to serve a “selfish” purpose - be it from the standpoint of the community or the individual. Survival, is basically selfish. There is no escaping from it. If you have just one serving of food, and you see a hungry, wailing child of a strangers’, and a hungry child of yours, you will invariably choose to give the food to your child. Nature has wired our instincts to first help our blood and genes. If resources are in surplus, then we have the luxury of sharing a small piece of ours with others’, even without expecting anything in return right-away. We have emotions such as guilt, to make us help other non-related members of our species every now and then, because without our community, we are nothing.

But my objective is this - at some point, if I have a child, I want to be able to teach him/her when to be selfish, and when not to be. I want to help him/her understand that self-preservation is as much important as compassion and empathy for others - that one needs to  know when to draw the line and say - “no, I won’t be nice to you”. And I want to make him/her realize when to forgive and when not to forgive.

Our scriptures speak a slightly different language that seems to urge the individual to always help the betterment of the species, while completely ignoring the self. I need more time and wisdom to understand why that is so. Maybe the bigger perspective of propagating our species is much more important than preserving the needs of the individual. But if every individual loses their need or drive to do something for themselves, and have no pressing instinct to preserve the self, won’t the progress of the species grind to a halt as well? How, you ask? Here is Matt Ridley’s talk on his recent book, which touches upon my question.

Digested Thoughts: A thought-provoking book on the rationality and practicality of morality and virtues. There are many more interesting thoughts, such as on the benefits of privatization of property, and the necessity for governments to govern and control our societies. 

Reflections: The Dragons of Eden

Any book on the human brain/mind is sure to light up my... well, figurative antennae. To top it, an award winning book on the evolution of human intelligence, written by a renowned scientist, was simply screeching to be read. Carl Sagan has carefully arranged his thoughts and his speculations on the evolution of the human brain, trying to pin-point the turn when intelligence made its entry and propelled Homosapiens to the the top of the food chain.

Not sure if I’m hovering on the brink of a “Writer’s-block”, or some form of lapse in the Broca’s region of my brain, but lately I have been struggling to pull out words from vague puffs of thoughts. I take longer than usual to speak, and wrestle with my mind to put down intelligent (or even sensible) sounding words on paper. So, my thoughts on this book are going to sound quite inadequate. And honestly, I’m quite surprised that I am not practically oozing with things to discuss and reflect on after reading such a book.

One of the things I was disappointed with the book was that, Sagan dwells on the evolution of the human brain - the physical mass itself, while I pointedly wanted to read about the progression of intelligence. I guess it goes back to the philosophical implication - there is no mind without the brain. And yes, I understand that it’s not easy to define intelligence without discussing the numerous cognitive regions of the brain. But, since I was quite familiar with the regions of the brain, the localized and non-localized cognitive functions, the extremely cool experiments with people and monkeys concerning language, the mind-blowing experiments with “split-brained” people, the significance of the corpus-callosum and the interaction between the left and right hemispheres etc.... the book didn’t hold enough insights or surprises for me. I was looking for a few missing pieces in my puzzle, and it sadly didn’t hand me those. Nevertheless, it’s an intelligent and engaging read. And for an astrophysicist to gather so much research evidence and glean wonderful and precise insights into the complexities of the human brain is testament to Sagan’s mind-blowing intelligence.

However, I am not omniscient. I did learn quite a few things. It was quite fascinating to learn that our brain-mass as well as our body to brain mass ratio, have been rapidly increasing, relative to other animals on the planet. So bigger brains do, in a sense, mean more intelligence! In a nut-shell, intelligence or higher-order reasoning abilities are attributed to the development of the neocortex, the part of the brain specific to mammals. I was impressed with the archaeological and anthropological evidences of the progression of the brain and the development of the temporal and frontal lobes, all of which are also associated with intelligence. Haven’t we heard our grand-moms say, a  broader forehead marks intelligence? And ahem, that is Sagan’s hypothesis on why human childbirth is so painful - our pelvic bones haven’t evolved at the rate at which the human head has “grown” or changed in shape (wish I could paste pictures of the skulls of Neanderthals versus homo-sapiens). Besides, given the structure of our bodies, apparently the pelvic bones cannot become wider without damaging our gait and balance. So well, all the science-fiction movies about babies with gigantic heads with brain tentacles waving about as they traumatize their moms don’t seem too unrealistic in the future ;)

Sagan also has an interesting take on the abortion issue. He defines the beginning of human life to the start of neocortical development. For, according to him, that’s what sets us humans apart, and if we are to value human life, the neocortical development seems to be a reasonable cut-off point for him. I don’t really agree. What if one’s neocortex is poorly developed, or gets damaged? Does the person lose their human label, and all the dignities that go with it? Besides, as the book reiterates, intelligence arises from numerous complex cognitive activities, spanning several regions of the brain. The issue of the start of life is far too ambiguous and philosophical still. But I enjoyed reading such extrapolations on the topic, including the future that awaits us, Artificial Intelligence, and the intelligent aliens we might have to encounter at some point.

The title of the book might intrigue a few - why dragons, and why Eden? The R-complex of the brain, the deeply buried repressed Unconscious (as Freud might say) harbors our primordial fears, desires and instincts. It’s called the reptilian part of the brain - the one that still instills fear and loathing of reptiles, our early deadly predators. Our brain seems to have evolved to combat the predators - for example, the reason why we sleep at nights and dream of dinosaurs and dragons. So in a convoluted way, our brain’s growth is due to the fear of reptiles (or, by natural selection, the brains that could survive such predators have sustained). It has given rise to various cultural beliefs and myths surrounding reptiles and snakes (such as in India). Even in the genesis, it’s because of a reptile, mankind gets thrown into a world of sins. But we progressed because of our well developing neocortex and seamless interaction between the left and right hemispheres (one pattern matches to form rudimentary hypotheses about the world, and the other critically and rationally weeds out the illogical hypotheses). Sadly, even in this state of evolution, many left hemispheres don’t work as rationally, and myths still abound. Sagan goes on to talk about the importance of rationality in our civilization.

And there are many more interesting cultural beliefs that tie with all this. Ever wondered why every human civilization insists on training the right hand? I won’t spoil this for you, if you really are contemplating on reading this book. How wondrous - your brain will seek out to learn more about itself.

Reflections: The Moral Animal

If I were a bee, this book would be my alluring pot of honey. Of course, I’m not a bee. However, I love to slurp down honey anytime, so I still made a beeline for it. Enough of the puns. In all seriousness, this book is packaged with all the questions I have been torturing myself with (and unfortunately, a few around me) for the last two years. Fortunately, I have been building myself to the “answers” or explanations provided in this book, so, although most of the material was not a drastic eye-opener per se, the discussions nonetheless are quite interesting (if cynical), thought-provoking and analytical. Besides, they form solid pillars in a not-so-robust shack of theories in my head.

Robert Wright’s fundamental assertion is that no field of human or social studies can even begin to understand the complexity of human beings - their nature, behavior and cognition, independent of the role played by evolution. He makes a fervent point that Evolutionary Psychology (or  Darwinism) is a pertinent field to explain how natural selection has molded the contours of our brain, our mind, our body and behavior. He brings in  the simple principles of natural selection to explain - the reason why we drifted into monogamy when every scientist emphasizes on the invariable male instinct to philander, the origins of morality and conscience, the reasoning behind our moral codes, the need for so many intricate emotions - guilt, compassion, empathy, happiness, sadness, jealousy, love, affection, friendship, the highly complex nature of our social interactions, the pressing need for societal acceptance, and the beauty of our intelligent and deceiving mind. At its core, the book emphasizes that we are animals wired and acting on base instincts instilled by Nature. But the instincts have been deftly crafted by the intelligence of “natural selection”, making us believe we are sophisticated and intellectual in the decisions that we take. As the book reiterates - natural selection did all the thinking for us, but deceives us into believing we are creatures of free-will, above and beyond the shackles of genetic/biological determinism. Natural selection's aim is to push its species into thriving and surviving, so that the precious genes can be propagated through generations. Everything that we do can be traced back to the roots of this simple, yet devious scheme. However, society would crumble if we were to offload all blame and attribute all our malevolent actions to the relentless program of natural selection. Hence, surfaces the practicality of “being good and moral.”

The need for altruism, compassion and friendship has no real noble nature. They have been plugged into us, for without such a design we can’t hope for harmonious existence. And without the promise of some semblance of harmony, Nature dreads that we will bring about an apocalypse and destroy every shred of our gene prints. Wright defines Nature's plan as reciprocal altruism. Fundamentally, altruism exists and is glorified since we expect (at some sub-conscious, unconscious level), reciprocation of all the good deeds. In Hindu philosophy, this is termed as Karma. We are constantly reminded that good begets good, and bad begets bad, and are urged to do good. This is precisely what Nature believes in, but, in a more pragmatic manner. Our social structure couldn’t have grown to this state without this design. Without such a refined, moral social structure, our species couldn’t have progressed to this extent. Every single “good” intention and feeling programmed into us is for our own self-interest. Our ingrained sense of justice and retribution is to ensure that every set of genes has an “equal” or fair chance of survival. When we are twinged with hurt, its Nature’s way of reminding us that we need to step up, assert ourselves and work aggressively towards our interests. As a matter of fact, natural selection rarely urges us to forgive or forget. It mercilessly pushes us into the fray of intense competition for the proliferation of our genes.

One might wonder how philanthropy or working towards a successful and noble career would be marked with undertones of gene proliferation. But in a round-about way, it does, or at least that is Nature’s intention. Philanthropy helps revive gene-pools which are threatened to dwindle, and the moral reputation built from such deeds help us lead a better life (the boomerang of reciprocal altruism). Every noble ambition is tainted with self-serving needs, although not blatantly apparent.  In our current social structure, some instincts may not be as pertinent, yet, they exist, while successfully tricking us into thinking that our ambitions stem out of higher, and nobler, rational thought. This is beautifully compared with the Freudian theory of unconscious repression, and the role of the Id and Super-Ego in bolstering the Ego. The conscience, feelings of nobility and altruism would be our Super-ego, Id would  be the wrapped up version of natural selection’s instincts, both of which work in uncanny ways to serve the Ego.

The whole book is organized around Darwin’s own life, his decisions and thoughts. Darwin is celebrated as a man with high Victorian virtues, with a delicate conscience and sympathetic bent of mind. He is known for caring for every living creature around him, for his compassion, altruism and staunch principles. But Wright does a wonderful job of drawing parallels from this great man’s life to elucidate the underlying design of natural selection.

The discussions on the implications on morality are thoroughly researched and presented. Although it’s a little unsettling to ponder on the vacuousness of concepts such as “good”, “bad”, and morality, as standalone “truths”, it opens a new horizon of thinking, which is much more practical and utilitarian. The utilitarian maxim is to work towards maximizing “happiness” (overall “good”), in any situation that has a tussle between “right” and “wrong”. Wright expatiates upon Utilitarianism as being the most pertinent theory of morality to mesh with human nature, as well as with natural selection’s drive. Happiness is a frowned upon concept with austere religious doctrines. Although most religions seem to abhor the pursuit of happiness, they are in fact only propelling the notion of non-sensual bliss, not all sorts of happiness. Spirituality does prescribe the route to lasting happiness, devoid of sensory pleasures. This wisdom is in fact precisely the way out of natural selections clutches - of its continuous egging towards attaining one form of sensory pleasure or the other, only to leave us unsatisfied and in search for more pleasure. With more search for pleasure, there is an increased chance of proliferating our genes.

The book contains a wealth of enthralling discussions on humanity. It may get to a point of extreme cynicism, what with the revelation that the purpose of our lives is basically to procreate and successfully nurture the next generation to carry forth our genetic material, that notions of “true love” and monogamy have evolved only because human babies require enormous parental investment and resources from both parents for several years to be able to mature and survive. No wonder why even religion presses us towards the noble cause of raising our young. But, there are exceptions in our species - those who have gone beyond nature’s instincts to redefine altruism and morality. And it’s in our limited scope to aspire to fight against our instincts and rise above the rest.

Reflections: Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors

Who are we? Where did we come from? If each of us were to draw our genealogy map, most cannot list anyone beyond the last three generations. There are many of us who have hardly heard, leave alone seen, our great grandparents. With the floodgates of genetic research flung wide open, how priceless would it be to unearth the histories of our ancestors to better understand ourselves and those around us. We might finally understand why we are the way we are, and hopefully find some wisdom to project a better path for the future - for the benefit of us, humanity and the whole planet.

After many discussions on several topics that are weaved into this book, I received the book as a New Year's gift from my dear friend. It's wonderful that my New Year started with such an excellent gift. It has helped me answer questions that I have battled with for a while and has opened my mind to interesting vistas sure to help me sort out many of my future doubts. Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan have put together the story of humanity - right from the formation of the planet from mere star dusts, to the evolution of the most complex species, some blessed with enough intelligence to trace their histories. It's a story about how there came to be a structure in the midst of random chaos, how an impeccable ecosystem was established to sustain a cycle of energy, and how mere cell reproduction was perfected with Nature's laws of survival to bring about selective multiplication of the fittest of species. Well, we all are aware of evolution. Is that all this book talks about? Yes and No. It's about evolution, but from a perspective we have probably never considered before. It not just asserts that we come from animals, but tries to bridge the gap between the two of us, explaining how the very "animal" instincts that we now denigrate actually helped the survival of our ancestors, and our nature and personalities are shaped by them. The objectivity of the discussion helps us view animals and us in a much clear light to contrast the differences and the similarities, while trying to answer the question - what makes us humans? How are we different?

There are just far too many things that are interesting in the book, that left with enough time and a patient audience I would likely ardently discuss every page and paragraph. But to save our sanity, I have picked some excellent themes that were explored-

Altruism or Selfish Genes
Those who have been victims of my past discussions on this topic will thank their stars with this revelation of mine - my confusions have been finally resolved. Every act of ours has a layer of selfishness behind it. But being selfish isn't bad. It is one of the reasons why we exist today. But like many out there, I could never reconcile with the argument that even a man who sacrifices his life to save the lives of those who aren't even his kins, can have any trace of selfishness tainting his motive. After all isn't survival the key instinct? How can there be any selfishness in choosing to not survive, just to help the survival of others? Ah, the answer lies embedded in that exclaim - it is indeed to help the survival of others, the species. If some thousands of our ancestors hadn't chosen to sacrifice themselves to save their species, there would have been no human race. As much as it is embedded in our genes to survive and procreate to keep our race thriving, by the same logic our instincts are wired to sacrifice ourselves to save our species (escalating from our family, our community, our nation, our planet, our species), if their survival were threatened. The utilitarian logic of saving millions at the cost of one/some, stems from our selfish genes. Not convincing enough? Well, there are evidences of monkeys, bees and even ants, assumed to be automatons that lack emotion, logic or intelligence, demonstrating such brave altruistic acts. Is this unvalidated research? Nope, scientists still assert this, as is evident from this new article. And adding the cherry atop the icing, here is another reason to bolster this. Most animals, especially those living in colonies and communities, such as ants, bees, monkeys and even us (after all, haven't read time and again that "Main is a social animal"?), can only exist in a society that maintains a symbiotic relationship - it reduces to basic economics. We cannot survive without our group. That's man's greatest threat to survival. Therefore, it is indeed in his long term best interests that he cares for and tries to protect his social circle. Those who are short sighted and who have started disconnecting themselves from this instinct, restrict their filed of concern to themselves, sometimes their own family, while some still see far enough to want to protect whales and tigers.

Cultural Diversity and Natural Selection
I have been harping on world peace, the unity of humanity, with the dream of the whole world living as one big happy family. And this is the first time, I have relinquished such a dream - not out of resignation or pessimism, but I finally comprehend the design behind diversity and isolation of pockets of communities. This is because, the more diverse the cultures, the more diverse the gene pools, which means the more chance of survival. If a certain genetic trait is lost due to our unanimity, how would we survive a certain deadly virus that is immune and can be cured only with the lost gene sequence? Humanity would be at the brink of extinction. Kind of why inbreeding is dangerous and therefore repulsive. Our world will essentially be one happy family with minimal variations in gene sequences. Precisely why our ancestors lived in communities, and why there continues to be hostility on some level when it comes to complete genetic intermingling. It finally makes some iota of sense as to why inter-racial marriages are still regarded with such intense revulsion. But of course, there HAS to be some amount of genetic mixing between clans/races, otherwise it leads us back to a similar problem - homogeneity of genes within communities. No surprise that even female monkeys invariably get attracted to males from another clan, while facing stiff resistance from many monkeys from either clans. It is amazing that this balance that impels some genetic mixing and some genetic preservation has lasted so many billions of years. I finally face reality - and this what the book gives us in liberal doses. I concede that the world cannot and should never be just one big happy family. Diversity is valuable to us, not homogeneity.

Definition of Humanity
So what makes us humans? What makes us so special, gives us the right to control, dominate, pollute, and head on a path to bring eventual destruction to ourselves? Is it our ability to think, to reason, to speak, to feel, to create and appreciate art and music, to exhibit a culture, to be in a monogamous relationship, to create and use sophisticated tools, to put together codes of religion and morality and to philosophize about our souls? Sadly, no. Discussions about chimpanzees, baboons, bonobos, bees, ants, sparrows and a host of such varied animals provide evidence that many animals display such characteristics, although the scale of their abilities is still not comparable to us. I like how the book emphasizes that these animals differ from us not in kind, but only in the ways. Baboons and most birds mate for life. Baboons and birds are capable of expressing talent and appreciation for music. Most animals are capable of showing affection, emotion, caring for their group, they are capable enough to establish their own chain of social hierarchy, their own methods of hunting, and even mold their own tools. It has been proved that even an accomplished scientist, after spending several hours with a friendly chimpanzee, can still not learn the seemingly "simple" skill of the chimpanzees to shape a twig, insert it into a termites' hole, manage to get some termites on the twig, extricate it carefully from the narrow hole and eat the little treats sitting on it. Well, can chimpanzees catch a fish like us? No... but just not yet. Macaque monkeys have exhibited high standards of morality, by choosing to rather starve than try to reach for their food that was hooked to an electric switch administering a shock to another macaque monkey, every time the food was touched. Seeing the other monkey flinch, the other stopped trying to reach for the food. And macaque monkeys show this trait despite not being taught the virtues of altruism, or about God or morality.

But would every human be as considerate as "low-level" creatures such as the monkeys and ants, to sacrifice ourselves for our group? No. Do animals engage in violence for the sake of greed? No. Do they try to kill or attack unless there is a need. No. Do animals execute calculated murder? No. And what about us humans? Having all 6 senses we don't bother about the planet, we don't hesitate to eradicate communities for industrialization and choose to rationalize all our acts and stay blind to morality. As I have ranted previously, we humans have lost in touch with Nature's ways, that many instincts that are wired in all other animals have faded in us.

How free is our will?
Centering around this, the authors tie in a brilliant discussion on free will. If we are to disrupt the social structure of animals, and for experimental purposes, we artificially create a society with 10 extremely aggressive males and 2 females, will such a society survive? No. As was the pitiable catastrophe that ensued when scientists unwittingly put in a mismatched group of baboons in the same cage. There was anarchy and violence, for Nature never creates or encourages a group in which there can be so many "leaders" or alpha males. And leaving just 2 females for so many alphas, just did not agree with the animals' natures. Can we blame the animals or their nature for the violence, killing and bloodshed? Does it make sense to talk about the baboons' free will? The experiment is an example of how each species has it's own set of core natures which cannot be shaken off. If social engineering is poorly and artificially designed, it will result in mayhem, and there is very little relevance to free will. Humans need to be wary of their limitations as well. Our reason hasn't evolved enough for us to cast away all concerns of upsetting our social and ecological balance. Our survival hangs on the balance that we take for granted. It's not about our free will to do what we want and argue that reason and intelligence will help us sustain. We are not omnipotent.

That was my major take-away from the book. Understanding our ancestors is the first step towards truly understanding us - acknowledging our limitations and staying within their boundaries, realizing which vestigial instincts we need to shed off, for although they might have been beneficial to our ancestors, they no longer apply to our phase of existence, and how to truly extend our potentials and "special" adaptive features of intelligence and reason to grow, and evolve our future generations into much sophisticated creatures. Sadly, the current trend seems to be a horrific regression.

My thoughts would be incomplete without the authors' articulate and wise words:
"We achieve some measure of adulthood when we recognize our parents as they really were, without sentimentalizing or mythologizing, but also without blaming them unfairly of our imperfections. Maturity entails a readiness, painful and wrenching though it may be, to look squarely into the long dark spaces, into the fearsome shadows. In this act of ancestral remembrance and acceptance may be found a light by which to see our children safely home."

Reflections: Genome

The Human Genome - the internal code and recipe that has been opening scientific gates to unravel the secrets behind our creation and existence, is undoubtedly a breakthrough in Genetics. In this wonderful book, Matt Ridley takes us on an enlightening scientific tour on the myths, the revelations, the controversies and the future of the study of Genetics. Since the human genome comes packaged in 23 separate pairs of chromosomes, the book is organized into 22 chapters, with each chapter focusing on a certain chromosome (the X and Y chromosomes have been paired as one chapter). In each chapter, Ridley discusses a certain theme that corroborates with an important gene (or a sequence of it) present on the particular chromosome that forms the chapter.

Before discussing about the content, the first thing that I need to rave about is Ridley's writing. When I first glanced through the book, I was frankly intimidated, for I'm not a biologist and I found more than 300 pages to be covered with walls and walls of small-lettered text. But despite such a daunting appearance, Ridley's laudable writing was not in the least bit didactic or dense. There was never a paragraph when I felt the writing was droning, nor did I zone off - which speaks a lot about the deft writing. In contrast, the book was very entertaining and extremely engaging! Ridley also infuses some characteristic British satire and humour, which I very much appreciated! Yes, this book is targeted for "lay men" and non-biologists, and yes, the content must appear a little watered-down to a student of Genetics, but for me it contained the right amounts of technical detail and Ridley managed to coherently convey the science and arguments with fluid eloquence.

In each chapter Ridley discusses some scientific history concerning the gene/chromosome/disease, and presents some very interesting studies in evolutionary biology and other fields such as neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology to buttress the findings in genetics and to steer clear the misconceptions. Some of the chapters and experimental findings were familiar to me, but nonetheless, the exact scientific reasoning behind them was very enlightening. For example, it's almost hearsay that psychological stress results in a higher probability of illness and coronary diseases. But previously I didn't know that certain gene sequences induced the brain to release the chemical cortisol, which in turn brought down the immune system, making us more susceptible to contract an illness. The other aspect that I really appreciated was the stimulating discussions on nurture versus nature's role in our behavior and biological response. Ridley maintains a balanced outlook, neither promoting genetic determinism, nor trivializing the effects of nurture (or social determinism, as he calls it), and individual psychological dispositions. In the chapter dealing with stress, Ridley brings out the concept of dualism (which is the belief in an entity called the mind, interacting with the body). A person who psychologically responds to his environmental stimuli by creating more stress for himself, makes the brain secrete more cortisol, which in turn reduces his immune system's potential to fight diseases. Contrary to the reductionists' stance that biological determinism alone determined our behavior and health, in this case, psychological behavior and our individualistic response to our environment, result in influencing our biological activity. I appreciated such balanced discussions, despite the book's core dealing with a heavily reductionist-approach to science.

The other chapters that really enthralled me were those on X and Y chromosomes, Eugenics and Free Will. Never before did I learn that there was sexual antagonism between the X and the Y chromosomes! It appears to be such a paradox to all that we have heard about natural selection and survival! Procreation and survival have been deemed to be Nature's biggest concern, but it appears that the X chromosome that statistically outnumbers the Y chromosome, attempts to destroy the Y chromosome through mutations that might generate a protein sequence, which would destroy the Y chromosome! (gross oversimplification on my part in explaining this, but bear with me). It's like a hacker having found the password to an enemy's account, creating a virus to destroy the account! But some mutations of the Y chromosome escapes the destroy sequence and hence the male species gets saved. This hypothesis is alluded as a sweep in evolution every once in a million years, wherein through a new mutation of the Y chromosome, a slightly different variation of the species comes into existence! And, I didn't know that the Y chromosome is responsible for the formation of the placenta in the embryo, to act as a parasite on the mother and ensure the progeny is being taken care of! Have you EVER fathomed such mother-child antagonism and distrust from the male chromosome! There are some very interesting hypotheses on homosexuality surrounding this antagonism between the X and Y chromosomes. Similarly, peacocks apparently didn't have such exquisite plumes a few hundred generations back. Females seem to be progressively resisting the "seduction" of the males, due to which the male peacock needs to produce more and more beautiful and convincing techniques to attract the female, thereby growing more beautiful plumes. If this resistance to males keeps increasing, there may be a point when the species would obliterate themselves. This theory has been incredibly astonishing to me! Hopefully I didn't misunderstand his writing, for it still seems such an antithesis to the fundamental characteristics of Nature.

The chapter on Eugenics was quite thought-provoking as well. The historical significances, such as many western countries, including the U.S., having passed laws to sterilise more than 100,000 "mentally defective" and "feeble-minded" people to prevent them from having defective children, who would bring down the overall quality of the human race appalled me. I had heard of the Nazi's atrocities but never did I know that many other western countries participated in such pro-eugenic revolutions. Churchill's famous quote has been, "the multiplication of the feeble minded is a very terrible danger to the race". Apparently even writers such as Bernard Shaw and H.G Wells were pro-eugenic. It brings out the age old debate between Utilitarian principles of morality towards the bigger society, versus the individuals' rights. While I can understand the concern of those in support of Eugenics, I can't digest the idea of the state, or the government deciding and dictating on how we should "breed". It really brings to light the dangers of our obsession with ensuring "perfect human beings". Starting from Down's Syndrome and schizophrenia, the definition of "mental health" can turn as subjective as "feeble minded", or "low IQ". I commend the fact that Ridley did not shy away from such discussions concerning the uglier side of Genetics, and the dangerous possibilities that the future holds.

The last chapter on Free Will was a very fitting end to the book. Ridley argues that social determinism, parental influence and environmental determinism, all play as much a role in deciding our "internal program", than mere genetic determinism. Despite such mechanisms of determinism acting on us, the concept of Free Will, however trivial it may appear, does exist. I liked his line of thought that, acting random is not necessarily exercising freedom. We human beings do follow a determined predictable path - it's deterministic that we eat and sleep everyday, yet the nitty-gritties such as when and how still rely on us. Just because we are not random, doesn't mean our deterministic life is fatalistic. Yes, in the end "Free Will" does seem to be reduced to a tiny subset of actions, yet as Ridley puts it, "Freedom lies in expressing your own determinism. If freedom is what we prefer, then it is preferable to be determined by forces that originate in ourselves and not in others." This statement has been very convincing to me.

Having raved so much, I have one tiny quibble. While initially, the organization of the chapters really helped me wrap my head around the concepts, it broke down towards the end. Ridley just picked a theme and in a convoluted manner tried to relate it to a part of a gene sequence, after which he focused primarily on the theme, rather than on the chromosome or the gene. For example, I found the disconnected discussions on Cancer a little confusing and jarring; oncogenes and tumor-suppressants were discussed in a different chapter, while telomerase had it's own chapter. Their interactions were not discussed. Instead, a dedicated chapter on Cancer would have worked better. Obviously there is no single gene present on a chromosome that can explain concepts such as Cancer or Intelligence, so I can understand the complexity and difficulty, yet I think it would have worked better if he had picked relevant themes and organized the book in terms of those, rather than sequence them based on chromosomes.

Despite my nit-picking on the organization (which probably stemmed only because of my vested interest to learn about cancer), the book is extremely educative, engaging and stimulating. It opened new lines of thought that I had never previously considered and it has changed my perspective on evolutionary biology. And Matt Ridley now ranks as one of my favorite scientific writers!