What do you think?
Rate this book
The Descent of Man
Applying his controversial theory of evolution to the origins of the human species, Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man was the culmination of his life's work. This Penguin Classics edition is edited with an introduction by James Moore and Adrian Desmond.
In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin refused to discuss human evolution, believing the subject too 'surrounded with prejudices'. He had been reworking his notes since the 1830s, but only with trepidation did he finally publish The Descent of Man in 1871. The book notoriously put apes in our family tree and made the races one family, diversified by 'sexual selection' - Darwin's provocative theory that female choice among competing males leads to diverging racial characteristics. Named by Sigmund Freud as 'one of the ten most significant books' ever written, Darwin's Descent of Man continues to shape the way we think about what it is that makes us uniquely human.
In their introduction, James Moore and Adrian Desmond, acclaimed biographers of Charles Darwin, call for a radical re-assessment of the book, arguing that its core ideas on race were fired by Darwin's hatred of slavery. The text is the second and definitive edition and this volume also contains suggestions for further reading, a chronology and biographical sketches of prominent individuals mentioned.
Charles Darwin (1809-82), a Victorian scientist and naturalist, has become one of the most famous figures of science to date. The advent of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 challenged and contradicted all contemporary biological and religious beliefs.
If you enjoyed The Descent of Man, you might like Darwin's On the Origin of Species, also available in Penguin Classics.
In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin refused to discuss human evolution, believing the subject too 'surrounded with prejudices'. He had been reworking his notes since the 1830s, but only with trepidation did he finally publish The Descent of Man in 1871. The book notoriously put apes in our family tree and made the races one family, diversified by 'sexual selection' - Darwin's provocative theory that female choice among competing males leads to diverging racial characteristics. Named by Sigmund Freud as 'one of the ten most significant books' ever written, Darwin's Descent of Man continues to shape the way we think about what it is that makes us uniquely human.
In their introduction, James Moore and Adrian Desmond, acclaimed biographers of Charles Darwin, call for a radical re-assessment of the book, arguing that its core ideas on race were fired by Darwin's hatred of slavery. The text is the second and definitive edition and this volume also contains suggestions for further reading, a chronology and biographical sketches of prominent individuals mentioned.
Charles Darwin (1809-82), a Victorian scientist and naturalist, has become one of the most famous figures of science to date. The advent of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 challenged and contradicted all contemporary biological and religious beliefs.
If you enjoyed The Descent of Man, you might like Darwin's On the Origin of Species, also available in Penguin Classics.
796 pages, Paperback
First published February 24, 1871
About the author
Charles Darwin
2,021 books3,024 followersCharles Robert Darwin of Britain revolutionized the study of biology with his theory, based on natural selection; his most famous works include
On the Origin of Species
(1859) and
The Descent of Man
(1871).
Chiefly Asa Gray of America advocated his theories.
Charles Robert Darwin, an eminent English collector and geologist, proposed and provided scientific evidence of common ancestors for all life over time through the process that he called. The scientific community and the public in his lifetime accepted the facts that occur and then in the 1930s widely came to see the primary explanation of the process that now forms modernity. In modified form, the foundational scientific discovery of Darwin provides a unifying logical explanation for the diversity of life.
Darwin developed his interest in history and medicine at Edinburgh University and then theology at Cambridge. His five-year voyage on the Beagle established him as a geologist, whose observations and supported uniformitarian ideas of Charles Lyell, and publication of his journal made him as a popular author. Darwin collected wildlife and fossils on the voyage, but their geographical distribution puzzled him, who investigated the transmutation and conceived idea in 1838. He discussed his ideas but needed time for extensive research despite priority of geology. He wrote in 1858, when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay, which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication.
His book of 1859 commonly established the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. He examined human sexuality in Selection in Relation to Sex , and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals followed. A series of books published his research on plants, and he finally examined effect of earthworms on soil.
A state funeral recognized Darwin in recognition of preeminence and only four other non-royal personages of the United Kingdom of the 19th century; people buried his body in Westminster abbey, close to those of John Herschel and Isaac Newton.
Her fathered Francis Darwin, astronomer George Darwin, and politician, economist and eugenicist Leonard Darwin.
(Arabic: تشارلز داروين)
Chiefly Asa Gray of America advocated his theories.
Charles Robert Darwin, an eminent English collector and geologist, proposed and provided scientific evidence of common ancestors for all life over time through the process that he called. The scientific community and the public in his lifetime accepted the facts that occur and then in the 1930s widely came to see the primary explanation of the process that now forms modernity. In modified form, the foundational scientific discovery of Darwin provides a unifying logical explanation for the diversity of life.
Darwin developed his interest in history and medicine at Edinburgh University and then theology at Cambridge. His five-year voyage on the Beagle established him as a geologist, whose observations and supported uniformitarian ideas of Charles Lyell, and publication of his journal made him as a popular author. Darwin collected wildlife and fossils on the voyage, but their geographical distribution puzzled him, who investigated the transmutation and conceived idea in 1838. He discussed his ideas but needed time for extensive research despite priority of geology. He wrote in 1858, when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay, which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication.
His book of 1859 commonly established the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. He examined human sexuality in Selection in Relation to Sex , and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals followed. A series of books published his research on plants, and he finally examined effect of earthworms on soil.
A state funeral recognized Darwin in recognition of preeminence and only four other non-royal personages of the United Kingdom of the 19th century; people buried his body in Westminster abbey, close to those of John Herschel and Isaac Newton.
Her fathered Francis Darwin, astronomer George Darwin, and politician, economist and eugenicist Leonard Darwin.
(Arabic: تشارلز داروين)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 156 reviews
Read
March 5, 2020Two years ago in the summer, possibly on my birthday I visited Charles Darwin's home Down House, in the village of Down, Kent, that address is slightly misleading as it is a very short bus journey from Orpington Train station (outer London), past some houses then suddenly a couple of fields with surprised looking horses , a small village with a couple of pubs and there you are, Down House, featuring the mighty Wormstone, a collection of insect eating plants in greenhouses, some excellent Hollyhocks and marrows in a kitchen garden, and other noble attractions .
It was a natural evolution for me to progress from visiting the house to wanting to read more Darwin, although I was sorely tempted by The expression of the emotions in man and animal I eventually selected The descent of man... which because I am a sinner I ordered on line, because I am not entirely evil not from a certain well known one-breasted warrior woman but a different retailer this I swear by the lengthy beard of Darwin.
The book arrived quickly enough and then sat unloved on the shelf for the long years down to the present as I was seduced by the vain surface attractions of many slimmer volumes. But finally read it I did, and it was not what I had expected.
I am still giddy from his powerful assertion that the nature and intelligence of humans is not different in kind from that of animals simply in extent. This book has this fierce statement of equality not only among all human people but also to all other animals; furry, feathered, scaled, and creepy crawly , discussion of non-human intelligences still seems to me to be modern, that there is this voice crying out that message in 1874 is radical.
Further, for Darwin humans survived and thrived, because they were social and moral, sympathy for each other, he argues allowed our ancient ancestors to live and breed future generations. Kindness is as important as technology (perhaps more so) in his view for human survival. This too I felt is gob-smacking. Indeed I can run with his thought and say that universal sympathy, for humans, animals, plants, the whole planet and all who sail on it will allow our evolutionary survival, while the sad want of it will lead to most of our deaths .
Much of the rest of the book was shockingly at variance with this, Darwin was also an English Victorian gentlemen and this is strongly apparent. For him too all human groups exist in a hierarchy: almost all Europeans at the top, beneath them a ranked order down to the bottom - the Irish who apparently are the lowest form of human life. Here one observes that the Englishman doth protest too much since when the Irish began to campaign for Home Rule the reaction of the English governing classes was not to say 'thank goodness, off you go' but to grasp hold of John Bull's other island all the tighter.
Entirely to my surprise Darwin here follows Lamarckian evolution - I was taught that Darwinian evolution was completely separate from Lamarck's theories and never the twain shall meet, yet here Darwin accepts Lamarck as broadly correct (at least at this stage in his life) which shows how you always have to return to the sources. Equally curious he asserts that belief in a benevolent creator God is also a sign of evolutionary sophistication, this I find strange because Darwin famously is said to have lost all faith in any kind of benevolent God after the death of his daughter Anne in 1851. No doubt in Victorian England it was wise to claim belief in a benevolent God is a sign of sophistication just as he says hairiness is .
A lot of the book is gentlemanly acknowledgement of other Victorian naturalists with gentle descent or ascent to or from their views, and what would now mostly be called evolutionary psychology, or just-so-stories. Darwin, like Marx, and later Freud, is enormously creative and inventive but the evidence and even the means of investigation are well beyond what was available to them when they were working. He gets into some interesting difficulties, being an English Victorian Gentleman who was not John Stuart Mill he has to assert that women are inferior to men, but naturally he can't prove that, he can only argue in a circle: in my society women are inferior to men, this must be because they are inferior to men (because implicitly my society despite copious evidence to the contrary must be perfectly rational), therefore women are inferior to men. Logically from what he says about the evolutionary power of altruism humans ought to marry and reproduce with the most altruistic person they can find, however he suggests that in fact beauty is the determiner and that the British aristocracy is more beautiful than non-aristocratic Britons, while admitting that in practise in Britain people marry on the basis of wealth and social status - there's a complete muddle between the theory and such evidence that he does have.
The bulk of the evidence is convincing because it is exhausting, an examination of sexual selection in birds, insects, scaly creatures and furry ones, featuring sexual display (like the Peacock's fan tail and so on) and mating behaviours - competition between males or sexual dimorphism.
Overall my sense was of the book like a busy railway station, thoughts coming in and going out again in new direction (eugenics, social-darwinism) mingling on the station concourse, this is the High Victorian thought world, full of faith in human perfectibility and full of fear of being out bred by 'lesser' humans surely a logical impossibility given Darwin's theories which is perhaps the true problem - that the man in the frock coat may not be the pinnacle of evolution. It was rather less interesting to me that The Voyage of the Beagle or The Origin of the Species because it lack the immediacy that those two book have both of which seem super powered by the impression that his travels made upon him. This book is essentially a book length digression on a paragraph in Origin detailing how humans fit into the evolutionary scheme that he outlines there. Still he points forward to some other books to read - Humboldt's Personal Narrative of a Journey to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent might be particularly interesting. Then again the ghost of Malthus hangs over Darwin's work, and indeed much of our thinking in general either in acceptance or vehement denial.
It was a natural evolution for me to progress from visiting the house to wanting to read more Darwin, although I was sorely tempted by The expression of the emotions in man and animal I eventually selected The descent of man... which because I am a sinner I ordered on line, because I am not entirely evil not from a certain well known one-breasted warrior woman but a different retailer this I swear by the lengthy beard of Darwin.
The book arrived quickly enough and then sat unloved on the shelf for the long years down to the present as I was seduced by the vain surface attractions of many slimmer volumes. But finally read it I did, and it was not what I had expected.
I am still giddy from his powerful assertion that the nature and intelligence of humans is not different in kind from that of animals simply in extent. This book has this fierce statement of equality not only among all human people but also to all other animals; furry, feathered, scaled, and creepy crawly , discussion of non-human intelligences still seems to me to be modern, that there is this voice crying out that message in 1874 is radical.
Further, for Darwin humans survived and thrived, because they were social and moral, sympathy for each other, he argues allowed our ancient ancestors to live and breed future generations. Kindness is as important as technology (perhaps more so) in his view for human survival. This too I felt is gob-smacking. Indeed I can run with his thought and say that universal sympathy, for humans, animals, plants, the whole planet and all who sail on it will allow our evolutionary survival, while the sad want of it will lead to most of our deaths .
Much of the rest of the book was shockingly at variance with this, Darwin was also an English Victorian gentlemen and this is strongly apparent. For him too all human groups exist in a hierarchy: almost all Europeans at the top, beneath them a ranked order down to the bottom - the Irish who apparently are the lowest form of human life. Here one observes that the Englishman doth protest too much since when the Irish began to campaign for Home Rule the reaction of the English governing classes was not to say 'thank goodness, off you go' but to grasp hold of John Bull's other island all the tighter.
Entirely to my surprise Darwin here follows Lamarckian evolution - I was taught that Darwinian evolution was completely separate from Lamarck's theories and never the twain shall meet, yet here Darwin accepts Lamarck as broadly correct (at least at this stage in his life) which shows how you always have to return to the sources. Equally curious he asserts that belief in a benevolent creator God is also a sign of evolutionary sophistication, this I find strange because Darwin famously is said to have lost all faith in any kind of benevolent God after the death of his daughter Anne in 1851. No doubt in Victorian England it was wise to claim belief in a benevolent God is a sign of sophistication just as he says hairiness is .
A lot of the book is gentlemanly acknowledgement of other Victorian naturalists with gentle descent or ascent to or from their views, and what would now mostly be called evolutionary psychology, or just-so-stories. Darwin, like Marx, and later Freud, is enormously creative and inventive but the evidence and even the means of investigation are well beyond what was available to them when they were working. He gets into some interesting difficulties, being an English Victorian Gentleman who was not John Stuart Mill he has to assert that women are inferior to men, but naturally he can't prove that, he can only argue in a circle: in my society women are inferior to men, this must be because they are inferior to men (because implicitly my society despite copious evidence to the contrary must be perfectly rational), therefore women are inferior to men. Logically from what he says about the evolutionary power of altruism humans ought to marry and reproduce with the most altruistic person they can find, however he suggests that in fact beauty is the determiner and that the British aristocracy is more beautiful than non-aristocratic Britons, while admitting that in practise in Britain people marry on the basis of wealth and social status - there's a complete muddle between the theory and such evidence that he does have.
The bulk of the evidence is convincing because it is exhausting, an examination of sexual selection in birds, insects, scaly creatures and furry ones, featuring sexual display (like the Peacock's fan tail and so on) and mating behaviours - competition between males or sexual dimorphism.
Overall my sense was of the book like a busy railway station, thoughts coming in and going out again in new direction (eugenics, social-darwinism) mingling on the station concourse, this is the High Victorian thought world, full of faith in human perfectibility and full of fear of being out bred by 'lesser' humans surely a logical impossibility given Darwin's theories which is perhaps the true problem - that the man in the frock coat may not be the pinnacle of evolution. It was rather less interesting to me that The Voyage of the Beagle or The Origin of the Species because it lack the immediacy that those two book have both of which seem super powered by the impression that his travels made upon him. This book is essentially a book length digression on a paragraph in Origin detailing how humans fit into the evolutionary scheme that he outlines there. Still he points forward to some other books to read - Humboldt's Personal Narrative of a Journey to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent might be particularly interesting. Then again the ghost of Malthus hangs over Darwin's work, and indeed much of our thinking in general either in acceptance or vehement denial.
February 3, 2019
دوستانِ گرانقدر، در این کتاب، زنده یاد <داروین> (یادش همیشه گرامی باد) تمامِ ��ختلافاتِ اساسی بینِ انسان و حیوانات را نفی میکند و تمامِ اوصاف جسمانی و روانیِ انسان را حالتِ تکامل یافته ای از حیوانات میداند... مغز و ھوشِ انسانی حالتِ کامل تر از مغزِ میمون میباشد و انسان ھایِ آغازین و یا همان انسان هایِ بدوی، حلقهٔ واسطِ انسان و میمون ھایِ پیشرفته اند... داروین به این نتیجه رسید که وجودِ مو در بدنِ انسان از اوصافِ مشترکِ انسان و حیوان است و تمامِ اختلافات، همچون رویِ دو پا ایستادن و چگونگیِ صورت و حرکتِ دست و صفاتِ روحی از قبیلِ " تصور" و "تخیل" و "توھم" و "تجرید" و "تعمیم" در انسان ھا را در موردِ میمون ھا آزمایش و تاثیراتِ ناقصی از این موارد را در آنها مشاھده کرد و حتی صفاتِ فداکاری، مهربانی، نوع دوستی را زیرِ قانونِ انتخابِ طبیعی درآورد و نتیجه گرفت که ھیچ دلیلی وجود ندارد انسان را در مجموعهٔ موجوداتِ طبیعی یک استثنا به شمار آوریم.. از همین رو، وجودِ انسان که تا آن زمان، مقدس و آسمانی انگاشته میشد به حوزهٔ قوانینِ طبیعی تنزل پیدا کرد و با ھمان مقولاتی مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت که سایرِ جانداران ارزیابی میشدند
با نظریهٔ زنده یاد <داروین>، دیگر نه جهان برایِ ما بود و به قولِ ادیانِ سامی، انسانها اشرفِ مخلوقات هستند و نه ما طبقِ تدبیری حکیمانه و پیشی و ھماھنگ با جهان به دستِ موجودی به نام خدا، به یکباره ساخته شده ایم و در سوراخِ ما روح دمیده شده است!!!! در این جهان موجوداتِ گوناگون آمده اند و رفته اند، ولی بسیاری از آنها خود را با جهان و بخصوص طبیعت ھماھنگ ندیده و طرح و تدبیری نیز در آن مشاھده نکرده اند و سرانجام ھم بر اساسِ قانونِ تنازعِ بقا از بین رفته اند. از میانِ آن ھمه موجودات، چندتایی از جمله ما انسان ھا، به طورِ تصادفی با محیط انطباق پیدا کرده و باقی مانده اند.. داروین بر این باور است که ھر کاری که انسان انجام میدھد جلوه ای از انتخابِ طبیعی میباشد. بنابراین، انسان نیز آگاھانه از عملکردِ سایرِ موجودات در طبیعت الگوبرداری میکند، به عبارتِ روشن تر، چون انسان نیز موجودی طبیعی است، الگویِ رفتاریِ او ھمان الگویِ موجوداتِ طبیعی میباشد. بنابراین ملاحظه کاری ھایِ احساسی، همچون حمایت از ضعیفان و بیماران و آسیب دیدگان در واقع مانع تراشی بر سر راهِ رقابتِ آزادانهٔ قوی و ضعیف در طبیعت به شمار می آید
پس عزیزانِ من، در نتیجهٔ فعالیت ھایِ علمی داروینِ بزرگ، اکنون ما باید خود را گونه ای مشابهِ انواعِ دیگر حیوانات بدانیم و این احتمال را از نظر دور نداریم که گونهٔ انسان نیز روزی ممکن است به کلی منقرض شود .... ما نباید فراموش کنیم این اندیشمندِ بزرگ داروین بود که با زحمات و فعالیتِ علمیِ خویش، تغییراتِ بنیادین در زیست شناسی و انسان شناسی به وجود آورد و نظرِ امروزیِ ما را نسبت به مکان و جایگاهِ انسان در جهان تغییر داد و در جایگاه واقعی اش نشاند، تا ما بدانیم که آنچه ادیان و مذاهبِ گوناگون در موردِ انسان و پیدایش آن گفته اند، تنها موهومات و خزعبلاتی بیش نبوده که از ذهنِ یک عده انسانهایِ بیمار و دروغگو و خرافی، به بیرون تراوش کرده است و امروزه کودکان نیز به داستانِ آفرینشِ جهان در چند روز و داستانِ آفرینشِ آدم و حوا، فقط و فقط لبخند میزنند، چه برسد به انسانهایِ اهلِ خرد و اندیشه
---------------------------------------------
در ریویوهایِ دیگر، تلاش میکنم تا بیشتر در موردِ تکاملِ انسان و این حقیقتِ روشن و انکار ناپذیر، برایتان بنویسم
امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما دوستانِ خردگرا، مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
با نظریهٔ زنده یاد <داروین>، دیگر نه جهان برایِ ما بود و به قولِ ادیانِ سامی، انسانها اشرفِ مخلوقات هستند و نه ما طبقِ تدبیری حکیمانه و پیشی و ھماھنگ با جهان به دستِ موجودی به نام خدا، به یکباره ساخته شده ایم و در سوراخِ ما روح دمیده شده است!!!! در این جهان موجوداتِ گوناگون آمده اند و رفته اند، ولی بسیاری از آنها خود را با جهان و بخصوص طبیعت ھماھنگ ندیده و طرح و تدبیری نیز در آن مشاھده نکرده اند و سرانجام ھم بر اساسِ قانونِ تنازعِ بقا از بین رفته اند. از میانِ آن ھمه موجودات، چندتایی از جمله ما انسان ھا، به طورِ تصادفی با محیط انطباق پیدا کرده و باقی مانده اند.. داروین بر این باور است که ھر کاری که انسان انجام میدھد جلوه ای از انتخابِ طبیعی میباشد. بنابراین، انسان نیز آگاھانه از عملکردِ سایرِ موجودات در طبیعت الگوبرداری میکند، به عبارتِ روشن تر، چون انسان نیز موجودی طبیعی است، الگویِ رفتاریِ او ھمان الگویِ موجوداتِ طبیعی میباشد. بنابراین ملاحظه کاری ھایِ احساسی، همچون حمایت از ضعیفان و بیماران و آسیب دیدگان در واقع مانع تراشی بر سر راهِ رقابتِ آزادانهٔ قوی و ضعیف در طبیعت به شمار می آید
پس عزیزانِ من، در نتیجهٔ فعالیت ھایِ علمی داروینِ بزرگ، اکنون ما باید خود را گونه ای مشابهِ انواعِ دیگر حیوانات بدانیم و این احتمال را از نظر دور نداریم که گونهٔ انسان نیز روزی ممکن است به کلی منقرض شود .... ما نباید فراموش کنیم این اندیشمندِ بزرگ داروین بود که با زحمات و فعالیتِ علمیِ خویش، تغییراتِ بنیادین در زیست شناسی و انسان شناسی به وجود آورد و نظرِ امروزیِ ما را نسبت به مکان و جایگاهِ انسان در جهان تغییر داد و در جایگاه واقعی اش نشاند، تا ما بدانیم که آنچه ادیان و مذاهبِ گوناگون در موردِ انسان و پیدایش آن گفته اند، تنها موهومات و خزعبلاتی بیش نبوده که از ذهنِ یک عده انسانهایِ بیمار و دروغگو و خرافی، به بیرون تراوش کرده است و امروزه کودکان نیز به داستانِ آفرینشِ جهان در چند روز و داستانِ آفرینشِ آدم و حوا، فقط و فقط لبخند میزنند، چه برسد به انسانهایِ اهلِ خرد و اندیشه
---------------------------------------------
در ریویوهایِ دیگر، تلاش میکنم تا بیشتر در موردِ تکاملِ انسان و این حقیقتِ روشن و انکار ناپذیر، برایتان بنویسم
امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما دوستانِ خردگرا، مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
November 13, 2017
Darwin wrote this book in 1872. It's interesting to compare what he wrote about then with what his successor theorists write about today.
In contrast to today’s emphasis on universals (e.g., humans are this or not this or that), Darwin notes throughout this book that individuals have a wide variability in physical, emotional, and mental characteristics. Importantly, this suggests variability in biological temperament (e.g., timidity and courage) and, more broadly, in inherited character traits.
Many theorists have assumed that we are motivated by pleasure, which we seek, and pain, which we avoid. Darwin does not agree. Some instincts in other animals, and tendencies and dispositions within ourselves, are so strong that they are followed “from the mere force of inheritance, without the stimulus of either pleasure or pain.” “Hence,” Darwin continues, “the common assumption that men must be impelled to every action by experiencing some pleasure or pain may be erroneous.” Here, Darwin implies, strongly, that an internal “ought” drives us, not pleasure or pain. A pointer dog, Darwin summarizes, must point. Or, as Schopenhauer argued, internal need, is pain, and must be satisfied (pleasure).
While some today look for the evolutionary function of various traits and tendencies, Darwin wrote that many of our human characteristics have no survival value. They may be neutral or may have developed through (non-survival-related) sexual selection, and could be retained within the species as long as they were not injurious. The second half of this book is entirely about sexual selection, where males and females develop various traits to attract mates and to out compete rivals (this topic does not get much attention within contemporary theory). Sexual selection is separate from natural selection, which applies to the "general struggle for life." The secondary sexual characteristics (traits not directly connected to the sexual organs) are "highly variable (since they are not acted on by natural selection), both within a "race" and between "races." These include hair (or lack thereof); love of ornament (e.g., body paint; "clothes initially were "for ornament, not warmth); temperamental traits (e.g., courage); skin color ("Negroes admire their own color"); and love of musical tones (cadence and rhythm; "poetry is an offspring of sound"). Regarding ornament, "fashion" has an interesting role as it lies at the cusp of conformity to group standards, yet wears out over time, which results in variations, but not radically so: "The men of each race prefer what they are accustomed to; they cannot endure any great change; but they like variety, and admire each characteristic carried to a moderate extreme." Ornament and fashion are related importantly, to beauty and the variable (by "race") of the standards for beauty (face shape, skin color, location of cheekbones, etc.).
Darwin discusses at length the role the social group plays in individual survival. Briefly, individual survival depends on the social group; what is good for the group is also good for the individual. While many today discount the operation of selection at this “communal level,” Darwin sees our “social nature,” based on parental and filial instincts, as essential to individual survival. This attachment to the group is so strong that we are obedient to the group's wishes and judgment, and our “sympathy” is such that we care most about “approbation and disapprobation” (“love of praise and the strong feeling of glory, and the still stronger horror of scorn and infamy”). “As a social animal,” Darwin writes, “it is almost certain that he would inherit a tendency to be faithful to his comrades, and obedient to the leader of his tribe....” We have a sense for right and wrong, but the moral content varies by group. Good and bad are what is good or bad for the group. In his summary of our group-centeredness, Darwin sees three main components: social instincts, moral sense (care about what others think), and "imagination" (we remember past wrongs; we plan for the future).
As a species, we share an underlying universal form to imprint on the group, but the content of that form – group norms – varies by group and culture (“Although man...has no special instincts to tell him how to aid his fellow-men, he still has the impulse....”). Even so, Darwin observes "that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct." Our commitment to the group is such that it impels us to altruistic acts that benefit the group as a whole, so that our social nature prevails over strict and pure self-preservation. We act for "the general good" of the tribe (not the general happiness of humankind). This other-regarding social instinct to support our tribe and the need to remain in its good graces removes, Darwin states, the reproach of laying "the foundation of the noblest part of our nature in the base principle of selfishness." But, then, he adds, "unless, indeed, the satisfaction which every animal feels, when it follows its proper instincts, and the dissatisfaction felt when prevented, be called selfish."
But our tribal nature comes with a downside. We promote our group's collective interest and oppose, and even hate (enmity or hatred “seems to be the complement and converse of the true social instinct”) those who are different because they are seen as a threat. Darwin writes that while we take pleasure in social company, this does not extend to the “same species” but is, rather, focused on those “of the same association.” Yet, even with this emphasis on our biological nature, Darwin sees the capacity of the mind and reason to transcend our negative impulses so that we, for example, can see the dangers of tribalism, transcend them, and commit to “the dignity of humanity.”
A few questions and concerns about Descent: First, Darwin states that the instinct for self-preservation is not felt except in the presence of danger. This is interesting as most theorists today would categorize much of what humans do as, ultimately, “self-preservation.” We eat to survive. We defend ourselves to survive. We are social because of survival value. Darwin apparently uses “self-preservation” only when the self faces immediate danger. Second, Darwin keeps sexual selection on a separate track from natural selection, yet he also says that sexual selection is even more important than natural selection as it leads to more progeny. Here, Darwin might be seaming these two selection theories back together as he states that “the better fit” leave more progeny. Yet, it's not clear how this all might work as those less fit can find each other and have children even though they don't compete at the higher levels. Much of the commentary on sexual selection focuses on males attracting females (“charming”) and out-competing other males, but Darwin is quite clear that females also do their considerable part to attract males via dress, ornament and beauty. Third, Darwin seems to have a strong Lamarkian strain. He makes continued reference to habitual actions that lead toward inherited traits, and it's not clear how that matches up with contemporary natural selection theory unless the genetic tendencies that lead to good habits result in greater survival and reproductive success.
Finally, there's a strong cultural and class boundedness to Darwin's theory. He makes some unfortunate characterizations about savages (e.g., “the hideous ornaments and equally hideous music admired by most savages)” and women who he believes are mentally inferior. Highly civilized nations, he states, can transcend natural selection and “not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes,” but that does not match up with history or Darwin's own view that whites are superior and savages are inferior. Even with those opinions, Darwin could not help make the observation from his Beagle days about the similarities of the savage mind “to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.” Most troubling, Darwin comments that there are many from the lower class who “ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind.” From the context, Darwin is not talking about those who might be or ought to be confined to institutionalized care, but to those from extremely unfortunate circumstances (“abject poverty”). What or who is deemed inferior is a dangerous line of thought. The real threat to civilized life might just lie with those who have that sort of perspective. Given genetic variability, who's to say that those from the lower class might not rise to the highest levels and vice versa. Darwin worries that “the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society.” That unfortunate comment also undermines Darwin's sexual selection thesis that the “better members” end up with the most progeny.
In contrast to today’s emphasis on universals (e.g., humans are this or not this or that), Darwin notes throughout this book that individuals have a wide variability in physical, emotional, and mental characteristics. Importantly, this suggests variability in biological temperament (e.g., timidity and courage) and, more broadly, in inherited character traits.
Many theorists have assumed that we are motivated by pleasure, which we seek, and pain, which we avoid. Darwin does not agree. Some instincts in other animals, and tendencies and dispositions within ourselves, are so strong that they are followed “from the mere force of inheritance, without the stimulus of either pleasure or pain.” “Hence,” Darwin continues, “the common assumption that men must be impelled to every action by experiencing some pleasure or pain may be erroneous.” Here, Darwin implies, strongly, that an internal “ought” drives us, not pleasure or pain. A pointer dog, Darwin summarizes, must point. Or, as Schopenhauer argued, internal need, is pain, and must be satisfied (pleasure).
While some today look for the evolutionary function of various traits and tendencies, Darwin wrote that many of our human characteristics have no survival value. They may be neutral or may have developed through (non-survival-related) sexual selection, and could be retained within the species as long as they were not injurious. The second half of this book is entirely about sexual selection, where males and females develop various traits to attract mates and to out compete rivals (this topic does not get much attention within contemporary theory). Sexual selection is separate from natural selection, which applies to the "general struggle for life." The secondary sexual characteristics (traits not directly connected to the sexual organs) are "highly variable (since they are not acted on by natural selection), both within a "race" and between "races." These include hair (or lack thereof); love of ornament (e.g., body paint; "clothes initially were "for ornament, not warmth); temperamental traits (e.g., courage); skin color ("Negroes admire their own color"); and love of musical tones (cadence and rhythm; "poetry is an offspring of sound"). Regarding ornament, "fashion" has an interesting role as it lies at the cusp of conformity to group standards, yet wears out over time, which results in variations, but not radically so: "The men of each race prefer what they are accustomed to; they cannot endure any great change; but they like variety, and admire each characteristic carried to a moderate extreme." Ornament and fashion are related importantly, to beauty and the variable (by "race") of the standards for beauty (face shape, skin color, location of cheekbones, etc.).
Darwin discusses at length the role the social group plays in individual survival. Briefly, individual survival depends on the social group; what is good for the group is also good for the individual. While many today discount the operation of selection at this “communal level,” Darwin sees our “social nature,” based on parental and filial instincts, as essential to individual survival. This attachment to the group is so strong that we are obedient to the group's wishes and judgment, and our “sympathy” is such that we care most about “approbation and disapprobation” (“love of praise and the strong feeling of glory, and the still stronger horror of scorn and infamy”). “As a social animal,” Darwin writes, “it is almost certain that he would inherit a tendency to be faithful to his comrades, and obedient to the leader of his tribe....” We have a sense for right and wrong, but the moral content varies by group. Good and bad are what is good or bad for the group. In his summary of our group-centeredness, Darwin sees three main components: social instincts, moral sense (care about what others think), and "imagination" (we remember past wrongs; we plan for the future).
As a species, we share an underlying universal form to imprint on the group, but the content of that form – group norms – varies by group and culture (“Although man...has no special instincts to tell him how to aid his fellow-men, he still has the impulse....”). Even so, Darwin observes "that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct." Our commitment to the group is such that it impels us to altruistic acts that benefit the group as a whole, so that our social nature prevails over strict and pure self-preservation. We act for "the general good" of the tribe (not the general happiness of humankind). This other-regarding social instinct to support our tribe and the need to remain in its good graces removes, Darwin states, the reproach of laying "the foundation of the noblest part of our nature in the base principle of selfishness." But, then, he adds, "unless, indeed, the satisfaction which every animal feels, when it follows its proper instincts, and the dissatisfaction felt when prevented, be called selfish."
But our tribal nature comes with a downside. We promote our group's collective interest and oppose, and even hate (enmity or hatred “seems to be the complement and converse of the true social instinct”) those who are different because they are seen as a threat. Darwin writes that while we take pleasure in social company, this does not extend to the “same species” but is, rather, focused on those “of the same association.” Yet, even with this emphasis on our biological nature, Darwin sees the capacity of the mind and reason to transcend our negative impulses so that we, for example, can see the dangers of tribalism, transcend them, and commit to “the dignity of humanity.”
A few questions and concerns about Descent: First, Darwin states that the instinct for self-preservation is not felt except in the presence of danger. This is interesting as most theorists today would categorize much of what humans do as, ultimately, “self-preservation.” We eat to survive. We defend ourselves to survive. We are social because of survival value. Darwin apparently uses “self-preservation” only when the self faces immediate danger. Second, Darwin keeps sexual selection on a separate track from natural selection, yet he also says that sexual selection is even more important than natural selection as it leads to more progeny. Here, Darwin might be seaming these two selection theories back together as he states that “the better fit” leave more progeny. Yet, it's not clear how this all might work as those less fit can find each other and have children even though they don't compete at the higher levels. Much of the commentary on sexual selection focuses on males attracting females (“charming”) and out-competing other males, but Darwin is quite clear that females also do their considerable part to attract males via dress, ornament and beauty. Third, Darwin seems to have a strong Lamarkian strain. He makes continued reference to habitual actions that lead toward inherited traits, and it's not clear how that matches up with contemporary natural selection theory unless the genetic tendencies that lead to good habits result in greater survival and reproductive success.
Finally, there's a strong cultural and class boundedness to Darwin's theory. He makes some unfortunate characterizations about savages (e.g., “the hideous ornaments and equally hideous music admired by most savages)” and women who he believes are mentally inferior. Highly civilized nations, he states, can transcend natural selection and “not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes,” but that does not match up with history or Darwin's own view that whites are superior and savages are inferior. Even with those opinions, Darwin could not help make the observation from his Beagle days about the similarities of the savage mind “to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.” Most troubling, Darwin comments that there are many from the lower class who “ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind.” From the context, Darwin is not talking about those who might be or ought to be confined to institutionalized care, but to those from extremely unfortunate circumstances (“abject poverty”). What or who is deemed inferior is a dangerous line of thought. The real threat to civilized life might just lie with those who have that sort of perspective. Given genetic variability, who's to say that those from the lower class might not rise to the highest levels and vice versa. Darwin worries that “the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society.” That unfortunate comment also undermines Darwin's sexual selection thesis that the “better members” end up with the most progeny.
March 20, 2008
This book reveals just how much Darwin's racist and sexist views influenced his scientismic method.
June 27, 2016
I'll give this superb book 5 stars and another 5 stars to it's genius author,beloved Charles Darwin☆☆☆☆☆
این کتاب به فارسی برگردانده نشده است و تنها منبع فارسی آن چکیده ایست که در سال 1330توسط دکتر محمود بهزاد در کتاب داروینیسم و تکامل گنجانده شده است.
این کتاب به فارسی برگردانده نشده است و تنها منبع فارسی آن چکیده ایست که در سال 1330توسط دکتر محمود بهزاد در کتاب داروینیسم و تکامل گنجانده شده است.
February 1, 2011
Actually I'll give this 6 or 7 stars but unfortunately I'm only allowed 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So in 1871, Charles Darwin, first published his “Descent of man and selection in relation to sex”. This work was published after his 1859 “Origin of species” which was met with much contradiction, since it opposed the biblical Genesis experience. “The Descent of Man”, well this volume I, focuses on the issues and observations of evidence of such descent, the development of man from a lower species, a comparison of the mental powers of man and lower animals, intellect and moral developments, genealogy, and man’s diverse races.
My thoughts on such… I appreciate Darwin’s empirical studies, he doesn’t just assume conclusions but gives excellent insight into the capacities of other animals and relevant similarities to man. Darwin also draws on information based on related studies and discussions by and with others within this biological arena…
His writing truly stimulates ones mental construct…
So in 1871, Charles Darwin, first published his “Descent of man and selection in relation to sex”. This work was published after his 1859 “Origin of species” which was met with much contradiction, since it opposed the biblical Genesis experience. “The Descent of Man”, well this volume I, focuses on the issues and observations of evidence of such descent, the development of man from a lower species, a comparison of the mental powers of man and lower animals, intellect and moral developments, genealogy, and man’s diverse races.
My thoughts on such… I appreciate Darwin’s empirical studies, he doesn’t just assume conclusions but gives excellent insight into the capacities of other animals and relevant similarities to man. Darwin also draws on information based on related studies and discussions by and with others within this biological arena…
His writing truly stimulates ones mental construct…
May 18, 2010
This is one of the few books I found no redeeming qualities in. Some of his sentences absolutely scream racism and sexism. I know that ignorant statements should not entirely discount what a person is saying but when Darwin refers to the "Negro" (his word) as an entirely different "species" than the European man; I think my cringe lasted for the rest of the afternoon. I am truly astounded that so many of Darwin's loyal followers have either not read this book or choose to ignore it. Granted it was written after "Origin of the Species" when Darwin had become inflated with praise so I will attempt to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he got carried away in his own "brilliance". Yuck.
December 28, 2021
Only the conclusions were assigned for the course, so I am yet to return to this book some day. But it is enough for me to feel the awe for the breakthrough that Darwin represented.
June 28, 2011
Hallelujah! Finished at last....and it only took almost 2 years to get through all 648 pages. Darwin is much more verbose in this book than he was in the very readable Voyage of the Beagle. I'm sure that this book made quite a (shocking) splash in 1874, when it was first published. He put off publishing it for a while after On the Origin of Species as he was well aware of what knickers would be twisted by the realization that he was actually saying that even humans evolved...from apes, no less. I'm glad to have read it, although there were very many more details than I need to know, especially about birds (over 200 pgs of them).
April 10, 2019
Need anything further be said of the origins of our species? While Mr. Darwin goes to great lengths to discuss variations among and between different species, particularly between the sexes, this book is as valuable a reminder today of who we are, and why we behave the way we do, as it was the day it was published. As Mr. Darwin reminds us, we are the product of a most savage and brutal history, yet we are capable of great tenderness and love. He ends the work with:
I wish we had more writers like Darwin.
We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system—with all these exalted powers—Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.
I wish we had more writers like Darwin.
October 15, 2022
A respectable and important work. The whole "Descent of Man" thing is a bit click-baitey, to apply a modern term (sounds better than "page-turney", doesn't it?). Apart from the subject bookending the publication, you are mostly reading about animals - birds mor than anything else. But that's not to say it isn't well-written and at times fascinating. I didn't enjoy it, or even necessarily agree with certain aspects of its premises, to the same extent as Voyage of the Beagle and The Origin of Species. But it's still good, and certainly worth a read by anyone particularly interested in evolution, natural selection, or just Mr. Darwin himself.
March 7, 2014
99% of this book is racist ranting about why non-Europeans are less evolved than Europeans (specifically the British). Blech.
December 31, 2018
“One must admit when he makes a mistake, reading my below review I can see how ignorant I was to the studies that where conducted after Darwin’s work which proved the parts related to natural selection, yes there were mistakes in some of Darwins observations, but natural selection is not a theory any more and there is enough evidence to prove it right more than any other simplistic explanation for human existence, unless you believe that we are living in a simulation and all the archeological evidence is put there to fool us” 31 Dec 2018
Ok, I understand how important the work done in this book must have been at the time it was published, but now with the recent discoveries in this field many of the arguments and proves put forward could be scientifically argued. Also I couldn't help noticing the contradiction in his own work. I'm Not underestimating the work and arguments put forward as they are profound specially at that time but my issue is as scientist he would have gained my respect if he would have referred to his findings and encouraged further studies to be conducted, however instead he insisted that his findings are solid prove that Men descend from apes., and this should be considered as a fact Well a simple argument would be if all animals are subject to his evolution theory then shouldn't we see a different shapes of intelligent animals other than humans!
Also he has noticed that by practicing certain activities the shape of the human would develop during his life cycle, which had been proved in other studies, so in terms of percentage change if applied then the evolution should have been faster than he depicted! Specially with the developments achieved recent millennium, I think the human brain is processing more info than he ever did before!
One that a person would notice in reading Darwin his aristocratic views of humans from different classes, he referred to the Australian Barbarians, as more stupid form of humans and even more stupid than animals, I'm sure he would have had the same views about African tribes, well no comment!
He also argued whether humans are in the evolution cycle or devolution which was quite interesting for me, he argued that capitalism could be a reason for devolution where selection is not done based on individual qualities but how rich a man is. He also referred to the below Poem from 550B.C. This suits my taste :)
The Grecian poet, Theognis, who lived 550 B.C.
"With kine and horses, Kurnus! we proceed By reasonable rules, and choose a breed For profit and increase, at any price: Of a sound stock, without defect or vice. But, in the daily matches that we make, The price is everything: for money's sake, Men marry: women are in marriage given The churl or ruffian, that in wealth has thriven, May match his offspring with the proudest race: Thus everything is mix'd, noble and base! If then in outward manner, form, and mind, You find us a degraded, motley kind, Wonder no more, my friend! the cause is plain, And to lament the consequence is vain."
(The Works of J. Hookham Frere, vol. ii. 1872, p. 334.))
Ok, I understand how important the work done in this book must have been at the time it was published, but now with the recent discoveries in this field many of the arguments and proves put forward could be scientifically argued. Also I couldn't help noticing the contradiction in his own work. I'm Not underestimating the work and arguments put forward as they are profound specially at that time but my issue is as scientist he would have gained my respect if he would have referred to his findings and encouraged further studies to be conducted, however instead he insisted that his findings are solid prove that Men descend from apes., and this should be considered as a fact Well a simple argument would be if all animals are subject to his evolution theory then shouldn't we see a different shapes of intelligent animals other than humans!
Also he has noticed that by practicing certain activities the shape of the human would develop during his life cycle, which had been proved in other studies, so in terms of percentage change if applied then the evolution should have been faster than he depicted! Specially with the developments achieved recent millennium, I think the human brain is processing more info than he ever did before!
One that a person would notice in reading Darwin his aristocratic views of humans from different classes, he referred to the Australian Barbarians, as more stupid form of humans and even more stupid than animals, I'm sure he would have had the same views about African tribes, well no comment!
He also argued whether humans are in the evolution cycle or devolution which was quite interesting for me, he argued that capitalism could be a reason for devolution where selection is not done based on individual qualities but how rich a man is. He also referred to the below Poem from 550B.C. This suits my taste :)
The Grecian poet, Theognis, who lived 550 B.C.
"With kine and horses, Kurnus! we proceed By reasonable rules, and choose a breed For profit and increase, at any price: Of a sound stock, without defect or vice. But, in the daily matches that we make, The price is everything: for money's sake, Men marry: women are in marriage given The churl or ruffian, that in wealth has thriven, May match his offspring with the proudest race: Thus everything is mix'd, noble and base! If then in outward manner, form, and mind, You find us a degraded, motley kind, Wonder no more, my friend! the cause is plain, And to lament the consequence is vain."
(The Works of J. Hookham Frere, vol. ii. 1872, p. 334.))
January 26, 2016
Evolution is an area of major interest to me so it is curious I had never read "The Descent of Man." The reason is I had been told that there is no science in the book worth mentioning, and having now read the book I find that is the case.
In his conclusions at the end of the book Darwin states his ideas put forward in the book are "highly speculative and may be in error." He was correct in that statement.
Basically Darwin posits that the various human races, while descended from an ape-like ancestor, differ from one another due to sexual selection, e.g. the preference of females in choosing whom to mate with.
For example, the dark skin of many races he attributes to female preference for dark skin. He states that it is not due to environmnet because Dutch settlers living in South Africa for 300 years still had very white skin. Therefore environment could not be the cause. Here Darwin simply betrays the complete lack of understanding of his era of geologic time, for which he must be forgiven. To him 300 years was a huge amount of time.
I did find the book worth reading, however, for historical reasons concerning the history of science, if not for the sake of science itself.
Read once again Jan 2016. Much of what Darwin writes here is simply wrong, due to his complete ignorance of genetics and the causes of heritable variation in organisms.
While I believe that all educated persons should read "The Origin of Species" this work really only appeals to those with a deep interest in the history of science.
In his conclusions at the end of the book Darwin states his ideas put forward in the book are "highly speculative and may be in error." He was correct in that statement.
Basically Darwin posits that the various human races, while descended from an ape-like ancestor, differ from one another due to sexual selection, e.g. the preference of females in choosing whom to mate with.
For example, the dark skin of many races he attributes to female preference for dark skin. He states that it is not due to environmnet because Dutch settlers living in South Africa for 300 years still had very white skin. Therefore environment could not be the cause. Here Darwin simply betrays the complete lack of understanding of his era of geologic time, for which he must be forgiven. To him 300 years was a huge amount of time.
I did find the book worth reading, however, for historical reasons concerning the history of science, if not for the sake of science itself.
Read once again Jan 2016. Much of what Darwin writes here is simply wrong, due to his complete ignorance of genetics and the causes of heritable variation in organisms.
While I believe that all educated persons should read "The Origin of Species" this work really only appeals to those with a deep interest in the history of science.
March 5, 2013
I thought this book was just brilliant. I must write a review one on these days.
September 13, 2022
had victorian-era christians shaking, screaming, crying, and throwing up which i think is funny
January 24, 2020
I had this book on my "want to buy" mental list for a while now, but since it was one I was likely to want to keep for a long time, I thought I would wait until I found a really nice used copy. The author, after all, was unlikely to benefit from me purchasing a new one. Eventually, I saw a black, hardbound copy from Easton Press or Franklin Mint or one of those fancy book publishers. I was so excited to get it, that I did not read the introduction first. If I had, I would have seen the explanation that it was an expurgated version, in which several chapters related to humans had been removed.
Bother. Even if I trusted the editor's decisions about which chapters were rendered invalid by more recent scientific research (and I don't, especially on this question), I read pre-21st century texts (and especially pre-20th century texts) most often in part for the very fact that I want to see what people from another time period thought. The mistakes are as valuable as what they got right. So I took it to the local coffeeshop, which has a give-one-take-one shelf, and left it there. As luck would have it, though, not long after that disappointment a second copy turned up, this one unexpurgated. Huzzah!
It was, I later realized, a fitting way to begin reading what is still, to this day, an explosive and controversial text, which few readers are able to face without flinching at its implications. That a fellow as quiet, unassuming, and modest as Charles Darwin was the author of not one but two such texts is an extraordinary fact. Perhaps, had he been by nature the sort to throw verbal bombshells, he would have had less impact; his ideas are explosive enough. In the case of "Origin of Species", the world has come around to accepting the fundamentals at least of what he had to say (if only just, and only in some circles). This later book is still, 150 years after it was first published, too hot to handle for most. Little wonder. It deals not only with humanity as just another species of animal, but is especially concerned with sex and race.
In particular, Darwin discusses here the question of "sexual selection" as a second driver of evolution. Even Wallace, who was Darwin's co-discoverer of evolution by natural selection, could not go this far. Many (perhaps most) modern biologists balk at the idea, or try to cast it as just another way for one sex (usually the female) to evaluate a potential mate's fitness, conventionally described. The idea that sexual selection could be selecting for bright colors, musical voices or stridulations, elaborate dancing, and so forth simply as an end in itself, even to the point of working at cross purposes to natural selection, is something that most scientists even today are not willing to accept (although there are exceptions, for example Richard Prum, see his recent book "The Evolution of Beauty").
As for race, well it was controversial in Darwin's day, when the main topics of dissension seemed to be whether or not Africans and Europeans were properly considered the same or different species, and it is controversial today (though fortunately most people nowadays seem to understand that we are all one species). It is instructive, when reading Darwin's plain and direct language on topics such as differences between the sexes and between different cultures, to compare one's own emotional reaction to that of the initial readers in 1871. It is, more or less, the same, and for more or less the same reason (although the orthodoxy on each topic has changed).
Darwin looks plainly, and exhaustively, at what is known about differences between sexes and races in other species, and finds general patterns. There is often a difference between the genders in how combative or competitive they are (in most, but not all, the more competitive and combative sex is the male). The different preferences of the sex that chooses (in most but not all species, the female), can lead to an accumulation of differences in appearance between members of the same species in different regions. Where the female does not exert choice, there is typically more combat between males, and less ability of adult males to live together in close proximity to one another. Where the female does exert significant choice, there is typically more competition between males as to who can be most musical, most brightly colored, build the most elaborate bowers, or some other such non-violent form of showing off.
Then, he does the same thing which so offended the sensibilities of Victorian England in "Origin of Species". He says, in affect, "the same thing has probably happened with humans, in the distant past". We may have, in some cases, managed to wrap our heads around evolution, but the ideas in this book are still too out there, too offensive to our ideas that humanity is different, apart from the natural world and not working the same way as other animals.
This doesn't mean that he's always correct, of course. In particular, his knowledge of how genetics worked was pretty much entirely lacking (he was not alone here, Gregor Mendel's work was not widely noticed or appreciated until the early 20th century). More generally, while our attitudes towards sex and race may not be perfect in the early 21st century, it is unlikely that a 23rd century observer, looking back, would find the attitudes of the late 19th century on those topics to be the more accurate than ours. Although I would say that, wouldn't I?
Again, just because Darwin said something, doesn't mean it's true. It is nearly always the case, though, that if Darwin said it, you should at least consider it seriously, and if you disagree take a hard look at why. We hear about what Darwin said too often nowadays from secondary, or even tertiary sources, summarizers who have only read previous summaries. His books are eminently readable, and widely available. Don't let others filter him for you, to keep you safe from uncomfortable ideas. Read his ideas in the original text, and decide for yourself.
Bother. Even if I trusted the editor's decisions about which chapters were rendered invalid by more recent scientific research (and I don't, especially on this question), I read pre-21st century texts (and especially pre-20th century texts) most often in part for the very fact that I want to see what people from another time period thought. The mistakes are as valuable as what they got right. So I took it to the local coffeeshop, which has a give-one-take-one shelf, and left it there. As luck would have it, though, not long after that disappointment a second copy turned up, this one unexpurgated. Huzzah!
It was, I later realized, a fitting way to begin reading what is still, to this day, an explosive and controversial text, which few readers are able to face without flinching at its implications. That a fellow as quiet, unassuming, and modest as Charles Darwin was the author of not one but two such texts is an extraordinary fact. Perhaps, had he been by nature the sort to throw verbal bombshells, he would have had less impact; his ideas are explosive enough. In the case of "Origin of Species", the world has come around to accepting the fundamentals at least of what he had to say (if only just, and only in some circles). This later book is still, 150 years after it was first published, too hot to handle for most. Little wonder. It deals not only with humanity as just another species of animal, but is especially concerned with sex and race.
In particular, Darwin discusses here the question of "sexual selection" as a second driver of evolution. Even Wallace, who was Darwin's co-discoverer of evolution by natural selection, could not go this far. Many (perhaps most) modern biologists balk at the idea, or try to cast it as just another way for one sex (usually the female) to evaluate a potential mate's fitness, conventionally described. The idea that sexual selection could be selecting for bright colors, musical voices or stridulations, elaborate dancing, and so forth simply as an end in itself, even to the point of working at cross purposes to natural selection, is something that most scientists even today are not willing to accept (although there are exceptions, for example Richard Prum, see his recent book "The Evolution of Beauty").
As for race, well it was controversial in Darwin's day, when the main topics of dissension seemed to be whether or not Africans and Europeans were properly considered the same or different species, and it is controversial today (though fortunately most people nowadays seem to understand that we are all one species). It is instructive, when reading Darwin's plain and direct language on topics such as differences between the sexes and between different cultures, to compare one's own emotional reaction to that of the initial readers in 1871. It is, more or less, the same, and for more or less the same reason (although the orthodoxy on each topic has changed).
Darwin looks plainly, and exhaustively, at what is known about differences between sexes and races in other species, and finds general patterns. There is often a difference between the genders in how combative or competitive they are (in most, but not all, the more competitive and combative sex is the male). The different preferences of the sex that chooses (in most but not all species, the female), can lead to an accumulation of differences in appearance between members of the same species in different regions. Where the female does not exert choice, there is typically more combat between males, and less ability of adult males to live together in close proximity to one another. Where the female does exert significant choice, there is typically more competition between males as to who can be most musical, most brightly colored, build the most elaborate bowers, or some other such non-violent form of showing off.
Then, he does the same thing which so offended the sensibilities of Victorian England in "Origin of Species". He says, in affect, "the same thing has probably happened with humans, in the distant past". We may have, in some cases, managed to wrap our heads around evolution, but the ideas in this book are still too out there, too offensive to our ideas that humanity is different, apart from the natural world and not working the same way as other animals.
This doesn't mean that he's always correct, of course. In particular, his knowledge of how genetics worked was pretty much entirely lacking (he was not alone here, Gregor Mendel's work was not widely noticed or appreciated until the early 20th century). More generally, while our attitudes towards sex and race may not be perfect in the early 21st century, it is unlikely that a 23rd century observer, looking back, would find the attitudes of the late 19th century on those topics to be the more accurate than ours. Although I would say that, wouldn't I?
Again, just because Darwin said something, doesn't mean it's true. It is nearly always the case, though, that if Darwin said it, you should at least consider it seriously, and if you disagree take a hard look at why. We hear about what Darwin said too often nowadays from secondary, or even tertiary sources, summarizers who have only read previous summaries. His books are eminently readable, and widely available. Don't let others filter him for you, to keep you safe from uncomfortable ideas. Read his ideas in the original text, and decide for yourself.
February 20, 2020
Summary: These old-timey science books are hard to rate b/c they are so profound for their day, but full of weird stuff with the lens of 2020. Also, I think I'd like to read the non-concise version. The editor's interjections are a little bit annoying and disjointed for me.
Notes:
p. 2 - Larmark argued that two laws of nature gradually changed life over time. Simple life forms perpetually came into existence, and they were all driven toward greater degrees of perfection. Species also adapted to their particular environments through experience." There aren't two branches, so this is one of the differentiation that Darwin isn't into.
p. 22 Darwin and Lamark are both thinking in terms of use and disuse. DNA doesn't quite do that.
"As species evolve new habits, some of their genes become unnecessary. Mutations that disable them are not eliminated by natural selection, because animals with those mutations suffer no penalty."
p. 53 - The editor is talking about the idea that Darwin had to look at indirect evidence of evolution in humans b/c our history is only 200k years old and not long enough to really see any fossils and the like. He uses the pygmies, American Mayans. "If a trait could increase a person's reproductive success, it could become more common over the generations." The problem is, in this case, it was a nutrition that was causing this group to be notably shorter.
p. 65 “It is familiar to everyone that watchmakers and engravers are liable to be short-sighted, whilst men living much out of doors, and especially savages, are generally long-sighted.”
p. 109..This is pretty f***-in racist, but it's the time he came from. "No doubt the difference in this respect is enormous, even if we compare the mind of one of the lowest savages, who has no words to express any number higher than four, and who uses hardly any abstract terms for common objects or for the affection with that of the most highly organised ape." Ouch. Luckily from there the rest of the chapter, largely speaking (still a couple of weird jibs in there) is comparing human to other animals, not specific groups of humans to specific animals or brits to the rest of the "savage" world.
p. 118 - "The principal of Imitation is strong in man, and especially, as I have myself observed, with savages." Dude... you are a visitor that speaks nothing of their language. These people are trying to communicate with you and you gonna say this is just what savages do? Oh my my....
Then, just in case you think it might be a compliment he says:
"In certain morbid states of the brain this tendency is exaggerated to an extraordinary degree; some hemiplegic patients and others, at the commencement of inflammatory softening of the brain unconsciously imitate every word which is uttered, whether in their own or in a foreign language, and every gesture or action which is performed near them."
p. 130 He talks about how monkeys do in fact use tools, so that's not a way to differentiate man.
p. 193 "Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind." Nopey. That was proven in 2013. But it's ok.
p.195 - The editor differentiates between what Darwin says and what is later used to justify stuff like Eugenics. Even if he agreed/disagreed, it is immaterial. It's not what he actually published and wrote and there is some evidence he would not have felt that way (although I could not yet tell from some of the authors that have published biographies. More to do there).
p. 198 "Nothing speeds up evolutio fatser than disease, because any mutuation that can provide some resistance may save an animal from death." Actually true or not, very freakin close having no idea at the time about virus/bacteria.
p. 225 he thought we evolved from apes. Kind of, not exactly.
p. .227 A person considered black in the United States might be considered white in Brazil.
p. 291 - "Polygamy...leads to the same results as would follow from an actual inequality in the number of the sexes; for if each male secures two or more females, many males cannot pair; and the latter assuredly will be the weaker or less attractive individuals." Interesting. Not sure what to think.
p. 369 "When faced with certain kinds of mental challenges, men and women use different parts of their brains -- and end up performing equally well." Actually not totally true, but again this research is more recent in neurology. This editor is a little off.
Notes:
p. 2 - Larmark argued that two laws of nature gradually changed life over time. Simple life forms perpetually came into existence, and they were all driven toward greater degrees of perfection. Species also adapted to their particular environments through experience." There aren't two branches, so this is one of the differentiation that Darwin isn't into.
p. 22 Darwin and Lamark are both thinking in terms of use and disuse. DNA doesn't quite do that.
"As species evolve new habits, some of their genes become unnecessary. Mutations that disable them are not eliminated by natural selection, because animals with those mutations suffer no penalty."
p. 53 - The editor is talking about the idea that Darwin had to look at indirect evidence of evolution in humans b/c our history is only 200k years old and not long enough to really see any fossils and the like. He uses the pygmies, American Mayans. "If a trait could increase a person's reproductive success, it could become more common over the generations." The problem is, in this case, it was a nutrition that was causing this group to be notably shorter.
p. 65 “It is familiar to everyone that watchmakers and engravers are liable to be short-sighted, whilst men living much out of doors, and especially savages, are generally long-sighted.”
p. 109..This is pretty f***-in racist, but it's the time he came from. "No doubt the difference in this respect is enormous, even if we compare the mind of one of the lowest savages, who has no words to express any number higher than four, and who uses hardly any abstract terms for common objects or for the affection with that of the most highly organised ape." Ouch. Luckily from there the rest of the chapter, largely speaking (still a couple of weird jibs in there) is comparing human to other animals, not specific groups of humans to specific animals or brits to the rest of the "savage" world.
p. 118 - "The principal of Imitation is strong in man, and especially, as I have myself observed, with savages." Dude... you are a visitor that speaks nothing of their language. These people are trying to communicate with you and you gonna say this is just what savages do? Oh my my....
Then, just in case you think it might be a compliment he says:
"In certain morbid states of the brain this tendency is exaggerated to an extraordinary degree; some hemiplegic patients and others, at the commencement of inflammatory softening of the brain unconsciously imitate every word which is uttered, whether in their own or in a foreign language, and every gesture or action which is performed near them."
p. 130 He talks about how monkeys do in fact use tools, so that's not a way to differentiate man.
p. 193 "Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind." Nopey. That was proven in 2013. But it's ok.
p.195 - The editor differentiates between what Darwin says and what is later used to justify stuff like Eugenics. Even if he agreed/disagreed, it is immaterial. It's not what he actually published and wrote and there is some evidence he would not have felt that way (although I could not yet tell from some of the authors that have published biographies. More to do there).
p. 198 "Nothing speeds up evolutio fatser than disease, because any mutuation that can provide some resistance may save an animal from death." Actually true or not, very freakin close having no idea at the time about virus/bacteria.
p. 225 he thought we evolved from apes. Kind of, not exactly.
p. .227 A person considered black in the United States might be considered white in Brazil.
p. 291 - "Polygamy...leads to the same results as would follow from an actual inequality in the number of the sexes; for if each male secures two or more females, many males cannot pair; and the latter assuredly will be the weaker or less attractive individuals." Interesting. Not sure what to think.
p. 369 "When faced with certain kinds of mental challenges, men and women use different parts of their brains -- and end up performing equally well." Actually not totally true, but again this research is more recent in neurology. This editor is a little off.
April 13, 2012
I have to admit I skipped a few sections in the part on Sexual Selection because Darwin went to such great lengths at times to quote every possible book, document, paper or manuscript that either supported or attacked his theories, that at times I just got worn down.
But having said that, it was a very worthwhile read and it is astounding how many of his theories about man's evolution from earlier forms have been proven to be right on or nearly so.
My only criticism of the book other than its length and excessive footnotes is its 19th century attitude towards the abilities of women. It is surprising to me that a man of Darwin's intellect could not see that any difference in the scholarly abilities between the men and women of his time was due entirely to differences in opportunity resulting from cultural attitudes.
Anyone interested in hearing the clear voice of Darwin coming down through the years should of course read The Origin of Species, but also this important work as well.
But having said that, it was a very worthwhile read and it is astounding how many of his theories about man's evolution from earlier forms have been proven to be right on or nearly so.
My only criticism of the book other than its length and excessive footnotes is its 19th century attitude towards the abilities of women. It is surprising to me that a man of Darwin's intellect could not see that any difference in the scholarly abilities between the men and women of his time was due entirely to differences in opportunity resulting from cultural attitudes.
Anyone interested in hearing the clear voice of Darwin coming down through the years should of course read The Origin of Species, but also this important work as well.
August 30, 2017
A few interesting chapters, but the vast majority of the book was just 'and this type of beetle is green, and this type of beetle is blue, and this type of beetle is-' I DON'T CARE
Someone should write a combined edition of Darwin's works that presents all of his theories in one novel, and leaves out the pages and pages and pages of repetitive examples.
Also Darwin was really racist and sexist, but I suppose everyone was in those days.
Someone should write a combined edition of Darwin's works that presents all of his theories in one novel, and leaves out the pages and pages and pages of repetitive examples.
Also Darwin was really racist and sexist, but I suppose everyone was in those days.
December 25, 2023
Darwin'in insanın türeyişi ve hayvanlarla benzer yanlarını açıklama çabası olarak görüyorum bu kitabını da..
Yani benim için daha çok doktora tezi özelliği taşıyor bu eser de..
150 yıl önceki bilimsel gelişmelerle anlatılmaya çalışılmış her şey..
Yenilenmesi gereken araştırmalar, fikirler.
Mikro organizmalara kadar inilen günümüzde maymun ya da başka bir hayvanla benzer yanların ispat edilmeye çalışılıyor olması bana gülünç geliyor..
Yani benim için daha çok doktora tezi özelliği taşıyor bu eser de..
150 yıl önceki bilimsel gelişmelerle anlatılmaya çalışılmış her şey..
Yenilenmesi gereken araştırmalar, fikirler.
Mikro organizmalara kadar inilen günümüzde maymun ya da başka bir hayvanla benzer yanların ispat edilmeye çalışılıyor olması bana gülünç geliyor..
September 4, 2009
legendary in it's racist iconography. a veritable Mein Kampf.
June 4, 2010
It is incredible that the same man who wrote the "Origin of Species" also wrote this pseudoscientific and racist book!
February 5, 2013
The secular humanist handbook and bible.
June 6, 2014
تمنيت لو كان لعقلي فم كما لمعدتي وألتهم هذا الكتاب بفصووولة كلها دفعة واحد كل حرف فيه
October 5, 2017
Darwin applies his theory of natural selection to humans in ways that are not supported by today’s evolutionary science. Echoing Malthus, Darwin frames his argument by saying that reproduction outpaces the resources necessary to support a population and this creates competitive pressure that natural selection acts upon. “As all animals tend to multiply beyond their means of subsistence,” he writes, “so it must have been with the progenitors of man; and this would inevitably lead to a struggle for existence and to natural selection.” The strong survive to propagate their kind; the weak die off. Groups extended and amplified this competition, pitting one group against the other. “Savages, when hard pressed, encroach on each other’s territories, and war is the result,” Darwin writes, “but they are indeed almost always at war with their neighbors.” The stronger group reproduces its kind and advances the species.
As to what constitutes group strength, Darwin focused on the “arts,” by which he meant intelligence to create superior warfare technology. “Civilized nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations,” Darwin states, “and they succeed mainly…through their arts which are the products of the intellect. It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection….” This knowledge is passed on to succeeding generations, thereby advancing the group’s superior strength. (1) Group strength was also directly related to the “moral” faculties, the social instincts, that brought the group together. This involved a willingness to cooperate for the good of the group. And, with the advance of “reasoning powers,” Darwin writes, “each man would soon learn that if he aided his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return.” (2) Then, bringing in Lamarck’s inheritance of acquired characteristics, Darwin says that “from this low motive he might acquire the habit of aiding his fellows; and the habit of performing benevolent actions certainly strengthens the feeling of sympathy which gives the first impulse to benevolent actions. Habits, moreover, followed during many generations probably tend to be inherited.” Hume’s approbation and disapprobation supplements reason-based cooperation. “Praise and blame” rests on sympathy (here, sympathy means a capacity to know how others view oneself, as opposed to care for the plight of others). Endowed with such cohesive-inducing attitudes, all of this now translates into the advantage of one tribe over another and the advance of the species. (3)
Darwin then applies his thinking to “civilized nations.” We “do our utmost to check the process of elimination,” he writes, and allow “the weak to propagate their kind.” (4) Darwin refers to the “imbecile(s), the maimed, and the sick,” though it’s clear that he applies his theory to moral and intellectual capacities as well. If the checks “do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world.”
A few critical comments: First, were all groups hostile? Wasn’t there also cooperation for mutual benefit? Or, just an uneasy coexistence? More importantly, didn’t the struggle for existence apply to the environment as a whole (and not just hostile groups), and wouldn’t this necessitate a mutually dependent, cooperative, network that created genetic-reproductive benefits for all? Prior to Chapter V, Darwin seemed to recognize that the social instincts were created by natural selection to provide mutual survival benefits: “With those animals which were benefited by living in close association the individuals which took the greatest pleasure in society would best escape various dangers, whilst those that cared least for their comrades, and lived solitary, would perish in greater numbers.”
Second, although Darwin’s group selection and the inheritance of acquired traits (habits and emulation) are generally considered to be inaccurate, Darwin was getting at something. If, as discussed above, the group is essential to individual survival, then the unit of selection can remain still at the gene-individual level. Now Trivers’ reciprocal altruism (mutual benefits) and Dawkins’ extended phenotype notion (the group as an extension of the individual gene’s interest) can work within a Darwinian context.
How might these social tendencies be passed along genetically in a way that avoids Darwin’s Lamarckian language? Evolutionary scientists today define altruism to mean actions that benefit the genetic success of others at the expense of the self. That is not the dictionary definition of altruism. Even if it were, that definition stipulates that those with altruistic tendencies always died before reproducing when it is just as likely that they did not die and were able to pass along their other-regarding traits. And, given the integral connection by the individual-gene and group interest for survival and reproductive success, is it not possible that the social instincts evolved, as they did for parent-child relationships, because of the extensive and intensive reciprocal benefits and that those who were more other-regarding were able to pass along the same tendencies to their progeny?
Third, Darwin is at his best in emphasizing the role of variability (physical, mental, moral) among individuals. Given this, is it not possible that some are more other-regarding than others, at their genetic core? The benefits of other regarding behavior are clear for the reasons argued above. The survival benefits of an egoistic, self-regarding strategy are also clear (i.e., individuals who dominate, manipulate or deceive others). In other words, could there could be the twin poles of a successful evolutionary strategy, with most of us lying at points in between.
Darwin also did not pick up on the implications of Hume’s argument that reason is a slave to passion. Given the variability of human nature, and the possible poles of human nature that lie at our genetic core, the advancement of reason does not lead, as Darwin believed (e.g., “highly civilized nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes”) to a common good. Reason is the advance of means and technique, but reason doesn’t change the motive force that comes from a relatively fixed character or disposition. Reason that rests on an other-regarding foundation is one thing. Reason that serves an egoistic nature is quite another.
1. “Now, if some one man in a tribe, more sagacious than the others, invented a new snare or weapon, or other means of attack or defence, the plainest self-interest, without the assistance of much reasoning power, would prompt the other members to imitate him; and all would thus profit. The habitual practice of each new art must likewise in some slight degree strengthen the intellect. If the new invention were an important one, the tribe would increase in number, spread, and supplant other tribes. In a tribe thus rendered more numerous there would always be a rather greater chance of the birth of other superior and inventive members.”
2. “When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if…the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger to aid and defend each other this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other….Selfish and contentious people will not cohere and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread and be victorious over other tribes: but in the course of time it would, judging from all past history, in its turn overcome by some other tribe still more highly endowed. Thus the social and moral qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused throughout the world.”
3. “[An] increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.”
4. “No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
As to what constitutes group strength, Darwin focused on the “arts,” by which he meant intelligence to create superior warfare technology. “Civilized nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations,” Darwin states, “and they succeed mainly…through their arts which are the products of the intellect. It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection….” This knowledge is passed on to succeeding generations, thereby advancing the group’s superior strength. (1) Group strength was also directly related to the “moral” faculties, the social instincts, that brought the group together. This involved a willingness to cooperate for the good of the group. And, with the advance of “reasoning powers,” Darwin writes, “each man would soon learn that if he aided his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return.” (2) Then, bringing in Lamarck’s inheritance of acquired characteristics, Darwin says that “from this low motive he might acquire the habit of aiding his fellows; and the habit of performing benevolent actions certainly strengthens the feeling of sympathy which gives the first impulse to benevolent actions. Habits, moreover, followed during many generations probably tend to be inherited.” Hume’s approbation and disapprobation supplements reason-based cooperation. “Praise and blame” rests on sympathy (here, sympathy means a capacity to know how others view oneself, as opposed to care for the plight of others). Endowed with such cohesive-inducing attitudes, all of this now translates into the advantage of one tribe over another and the advance of the species. (3)
Darwin then applies his thinking to “civilized nations.” We “do our utmost to check the process of elimination,” he writes, and allow “the weak to propagate their kind.” (4) Darwin refers to the “imbecile(s), the maimed, and the sick,” though it’s clear that he applies his theory to moral and intellectual capacities as well. If the checks “do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world.”
A few critical comments: First, were all groups hostile? Wasn’t there also cooperation for mutual benefit? Or, just an uneasy coexistence? More importantly, didn’t the struggle for existence apply to the environment as a whole (and not just hostile groups), and wouldn’t this necessitate a mutually dependent, cooperative, network that created genetic-reproductive benefits for all? Prior to Chapter V, Darwin seemed to recognize that the social instincts were created by natural selection to provide mutual survival benefits: “With those animals which were benefited by living in close association the individuals which took the greatest pleasure in society would best escape various dangers, whilst those that cared least for their comrades, and lived solitary, would perish in greater numbers.”
Second, although Darwin’s group selection and the inheritance of acquired traits (habits and emulation) are generally considered to be inaccurate, Darwin was getting at something. If, as discussed above, the group is essential to individual survival, then the unit of selection can remain still at the gene-individual level. Now Trivers’ reciprocal altruism (mutual benefits) and Dawkins’ extended phenotype notion (the group as an extension of the individual gene’s interest) can work within a Darwinian context.
How might these social tendencies be passed along genetically in a way that avoids Darwin’s Lamarckian language? Evolutionary scientists today define altruism to mean actions that benefit the genetic success of others at the expense of the self. That is not the dictionary definition of altruism. Even if it were, that definition stipulates that those with altruistic tendencies always died before reproducing when it is just as likely that they did not die and were able to pass along their other-regarding traits. And, given the integral connection by the individual-gene and group interest for survival and reproductive success, is it not possible that the social instincts evolved, as they did for parent-child relationships, because of the extensive and intensive reciprocal benefits and that those who were more other-regarding were able to pass along the same tendencies to their progeny?
Third, Darwin is at his best in emphasizing the role of variability (physical, mental, moral) among individuals. Given this, is it not possible that some are more other-regarding than others, at their genetic core? The benefits of other regarding behavior are clear for the reasons argued above. The survival benefits of an egoistic, self-regarding strategy are also clear (i.e., individuals who dominate, manipulate or deceive others). In other words, could there could be the twin poles of a successful evolutionary strategy, with most of us lying at points in between.
Darwin also did not pick up on the implications of Hume’s argument that reason is a slave to passion. Given the variability of human nature, and the possible poles of human nature that lie at our genetic core, the advancement of reason does not lead, as Darwin believed (e.g., “highly civilized nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes”) to a common good. Reason is the advance of means and technique, but reason doesn’t change the motive force that comes from a relatively fixed character or disposition. Reason that rests on an other-regarding foundation is one thing. Reason that serves an egoistic nature is quite another.
1. “Now, if some one man in a tribe, more sagacious than the others, invented a new snare or weapon, or other means of attack or defence, the plainest self-interest, without the assistance of much reasoning power, would prompt the other members to imitate him; and all would thus profit. The habitual practice of each new art must likewise in some slight degree strengthen the intellect. If the new invention were an important one, the tribe would increase in number, spread, and supplant other tribes. In a tribe thus rendered more numerous there would always be a rather greater chance of the birth of other superior and inventive members.”
2. “When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if…the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger to aid and defend each other this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other….Selfish and contentious people will not cohere and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread and be victorious over other tribes: but in the course of time it would, judging from all past history, in its turn overcome by some other tribe still more highly endowed. Thus the social and moral qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused throughout the world.”
3. “[An] increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.”
4. “No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
Read
September 2, 2023„Wiadomo, że ciało ludzkie jest zbudowane według ogólnego typu zwierząt ssących. Wszystkie kości szkieletu człowieka wykazują podobieństwo do odpowiednich części szkieletu małpy, nietoperza czy foki. To samo podobieństwo zachodzi w innych częściach organizmu. Najważniejszy z organów – mózg ludzki podlega, zgodnie z opinią wszystkich anatomów, tym samym prawom co mózg innych zwierząt”.
Praca Karola Darwina „O pochodzeniu człowieka” ukazała się w 1871 roku, czyli dwanaście lat po przełomowym „O powstawaniu gatunków”, i zapewne była jeszcze bardziej obrazoburcza niż poprzedniczka, szczególnie w kręgach kreacjonistycznych. Podobnie jak „O powstawaniu gatunków”, książka ta była dziełem nowatorskim i odważnym, burzącym obraz człowieka jako istoty wyjątkowej, stworzonej na obraz i podobieństwo boskie. Stanowiła podłoże wielu dyskusji naukowych i światopoglądowych.
Znajdziemy w niej również spostrzeżenia autora o charakterze mniej poważnym:
„Mieszkańcy Afryki Północnej, pragnąc schwytać dzikie pawiany, na przynętę stawiają im mocne piwo, którym małpy upijają się. Po takiej libacji skutek był taki sam jak u ludzi. Nazajutrz małpy były bez humoru i chore trzymały się oburącz za głowy, na widok piwa lub wina odwracały się ze wstrętem, z przyjemnością natomiast żuły cytryny. Jedna małpa amerykańskiego gatunku Ateles, wypiwszy raz zbyt dużo wódki, nie chciała jej potem pić już wcale, co świadczyłoby, że była rozsądniejsza od wielu ludzi”.
Kac dowodem na podobieństwo człowieka i innych naczelnych! :)
Chociaż książka stanowi już tylko odległą historię myśli ewolucyjnej, nie żałuję, że po nią sięgnęłam. Filogeneza człowieka to bardzo obszerny i ciekawy temat, niestety, nadal nie do końca poznany.
Praca Karola Darwina „O pochodzeniu człowieka” ukazała się w 1871 roku, czyli dwanaście lat po przełomowym „O powstawaniu gatunków”, i zapewne była jeszcze bardziej obrazoburcza niż poprzedniczka, szczególnie w kręgach kreacjonistycznych. Podobnie jak „O powstawaniu gatunków”, książka ta była dziełem nowatorskim i odważnym, burzącym obraz człowieka jako istoty wyjątkowej, stworzonej na obraz i podobieństwo boskie. Stanowiła podłoże wielu dyskusji naukowych i światopoglądowych.
Znajdziemy w niej również spostrzeżenia autora o charakterze mniej poważnym:
„Mieszkańcy Afryki Północnej, pragnąc schwytać dzikie pawiany, na przynętę stawiają im mocne piwo, którym małpy upijają się. Po takiej libacji skutek był taki sam jak u ludzi. Nazajutrz małpy były bez humoru i chore trzymały się oburącz za głowy, na widok piwa lub wina odwracały się ze wstrętem, z przyjemnością natomiast żuły cytryny. Jedna małpa amerykańskiego gatunku Ateles, wypiwszy raz zbyt dużo wódki, nie chciała jej potem pić już wcale, co świadczyłoby, że była rozsądniejsza od wielu ludzi”.
Kac dowodem na podobieństwo człowieka i innych naczelnych! :)
Chociaż książka stanowi już tylko odległą historię myśli ewolucyjnej, nie żałuję, że po nią sięgnęłam. Filogeneza człowieka to bardzo obszerny i ciekawy temat, niestety, nadal nie do końca poznany.
February 10, 2023
neature!
April 2, 2016
الإجابة (الصريحة) عن نشأة الإنسان بالنسبة لدارون ما كانتش موجودة في On The Origin of Species يمكن لأن الموضوع فيه تعقيدات كتير، ولذلك يعتبر The Descent of Man التكملة لسلسلة الاحداث الطويلة اللي بدأها في كتابه الأول.
الكتاب ده بيحتوي على 21 شابتر تقريبا، متقسمة في تلات أجزاء، منهم جزئين بيركزوا على الإنسان وجزء كبير بيتكلم على حيوانات مختلفة (زي الحشرات، والاسماك، والزواحف، والبرمائيات، والطيور، والثديات) عشان يشرح فيه قوة موازية-مساعدة للانتقاء الطبيعي Natural selection سماها الانتقاء الجنسي Sexual selection (أقل صرامة وغير معتمدة على الظروف الحياتية ولكن على اختيار الأزواج نتيجة المباريات بين الذكور في بعض الانواع الحية سواء في الجمال أو القوة أو غيرها) وعن فرضيات وملاحظات في وراثة الصفات وكيفية تمايز الذكور والإناث بشكل ملحوظ في المورفولوجيا الخارجية في بعض الأنواع بما فيها الصفات الجمالية المتعارضة مع مبدأ الانتقاء الطبيعي.
الجزئين اللي بيتكلموا عن الانسان أسهب فيهم دارون عن النشأة الأولى للإنسان وأدلة تبين إنحداره من شكل منقرض أدنى منه Extinct lower form كان من سكان العالم القديم Old world وقارن بينه وبين المنحدرين من نفس الأصل من القردة غير المذيّلة Apes، وعن أسباب تمايز الأعراق Races في ضوء القوانين الخاصة بالانتقاء الجنسي والانتقاء الطبيعي بس بدون سرد تفاصيل الاختلافات العرقية ولكن اعتبرها مجرد اختلافات ظاهرية ما بتأثرش في التصنيف وإن الأعراق مع اختلافها الخارجي ما هي الا نوع واحد منحدر من نفس الأصل وإن الفرق في القدرات العقلية هو نتيجة للحضارة Civilization والبيئة اللي نشأ فيها الإنسان بشكل أساسي وحاول يوضح إن الفروقات بين الإنسان وغيره من الأنواع هي في الكمية مش في النوعية إلا في بعض الصفات العقلية العليا.
النتائج اللي توصل لها دارون ما كانتش نتيجة لعمله الفردي زي ما كنت متوقع قبل قراءة الكتاب ولكنه اعتمد بشكل كبير على أعمال زملائه وأبحاث علماء مختلفين في وقته، ومع ذلك كان فيه أجزاء يعوزها النقص ودي أشار لها بشكل صريح زي نقص الأدلة الجيولوجية (الأحافير Fossils) في زمنه والحالات الوراثية اللي يصعب التنبؤ بها (لأن فكرة دارون عن الوراثة ما كانتش ناضجة بشكل كبير زي ما هو م��جود حاليا في علم الجينات Genetics) والفجوة المعرفية في تطور الهبات الفكرية والأخلاقية Moral and mental faculties للإنسان وبين أقرب أقرباءه لأن المواضيع دي كانت خارج معرفته وكان بيأمل إن المشاكل دي تتحل فيما بعد، ومع كدة يعتبر الكتاب موسوعة علمية لأي شخص مهتم بالمواضيع دي.
لعل المواضيع اللي اتذكرت أثارت جدل واسع في المجتمعات، سواء جدل ديني باعتبار ان الكلام يخرج عن إطار تفسير الدين لخلق الإنسان، أو جدل سياسي زي بعض الحركات اللي حاولت تستغل العلم بشكل يناسب هواها الخاص لتحقيق أغراض شخصية عن طريق (القص واللزق) للكلام وغيره إلا إن الكاتب نفسه اهتم إنه يجمع الملاحظات العلمية ويبني نظرياته بعيدا عن الإديولوجيات المختلفة وتوقع انه يساء فهم عمله واستغلاله بصورة خاطئة وده حصل فعلا، عشان كدة أنصح إن الناس تحاول تاخد الحاجات اللي زي دي من مصادرها مباشرة وتحاول تفهم المغزى من الكاتب الأساسي.
الكتاب ده بيحتوي على 21 شابتر تقريبا، متقسمة في تلات أجزاء، منهم جزئين بيركزوا على الإنسان وجزء كبير بيتكلم على حيوانات مختلفة (زي الحشرات، والاسماك، والزواحف، والبرمائيات، والطيور، والثديات) عشان يشرح فيه قوة موازية-مساعدة للانتقاء الطبيعي Natural selection سماها الانتقاء الجنسي Sexual selection (أقل صرامة وغير معتمدة على الظروف الحياتية ولكن على اختيار الأزواج نتيجة المباريات بين الذكور في بعض الانواع الحية سواء في الجمال أو القوة أو غيرها) وعن فرضيات وملاحظات في وراثة الصفات وكيفية تمايز الذكور والإناث بشكل ملحوظ في المورفولوجيا الخارجية في بعض الأنواع بما فيها الصفات الجمالية المتعارضة مع مبدأ الانتقاء الطبيعي.
الجزئين اللي بيتكلموا عن الانسان أسهب فيهم دارون عن النشأة الأولى للإنسان وأدلة تبين إنحداره من شكل منقرض أدنى منه Extinct lower form كان من سكان العالم القديم Old world وقارن بينه وبين المنحدرين من نفس الأصل من القردة غير المذيّلة Apes، وعن أسباب تمايز الأعراق Races في ضوء القوانين الخاصة بالانتقاء الجنسي والانتقاء الطبيعي بس بدون سرد تفاصيل الاختلافات العرقية ولكن اعتبرها مجرد اختلافات ظاهرية ما بتأثرش في التصنيف وإن الأعراق مع اختلافها الخارجي ما هي الا نوع واحد منحدر من نفس الأصل وإن الفرق في القدرات العقلية هو نتيجة للحضارة Civilization والبيئة اللي نشأ فيها الإنسان بشكل أساسي وحاول يوضح إن الفروقات بين الإنسان وغيره من الأنواع هي في الكمية مش في النوعية إلا في بعض الصفات العقلية العليا.
النتائج اللي توصل لها دارون ما كانتش نتيجة لعمله الفردي زي ما كنت متوقع قبل قراءة الكتاب ولكنه اعتمد بشكل كبير على أعمال زملائه وأبحاث علماء مختلفين في وقته، ومع ذلك كان فيه أجزاء يعوزها النقص ودي أشار لها بشكل صريح زي نقص الأدلة الجيولوجية (الأحافير Fossils) في زمنه والحالات الوراثية اللي يصعب التنبؤ بها (لأن فكرة دارون عن الوراثة ما كانتش ناضجة بشكل كبير زي ما هو م��جود حاليا في علم الجينات Genetics) والفجوة المعرفية في تطور الهبات الفكرية والأخلاقية Moral and mental faculties للإنسان وبين أقرب أقرباءه لأن المواضيع دي كانت خارج معرفته وكان بيأمل إن المشاكل دي تتحل فيما بعد، ومع كدة يعتبر الكتاب موسوعة علمية لأي شخص مهتم بالمواضيع دي.
لعل المواضيع اللي اتذكرت أثارت جدل واسع في المجتمعات، سواء جدل ديني باعتبار ان الكلام يخرج عن إطار تفسير الدين لخلق الإنسان، أو جدل سياسي زي بعض الحركات اللي حاولت تستغل العلم بشكل يناسب هواها الخاص لتحقيق أغراض شخصية عن طريق (القص واللزق) للكلام وغيره إلا إن الكاتب نفسه اهتم إنه يجمع الملاحظات العلمية ويبني نظرياته بعيدا عن الإديولوجيات المختلفة وتوقع انه يساء فهم عمله واستغلاله بصورة خاطئة وده حصل فعلا، عشان كدة أنصح إن الناس تحاول تاخد الحاجات اللي زي دي من مصادرها مباشرة وتحاول تفهم المغزى من الكاتب الأساسي.
March 12, 2018
A much less rewarding read than I would have hoped for. While I found Origin of Species and Voyage of the Beagle to be worthwhile, I have to say that unless you have some specific historical or cultural reason to dive into Descent of Man, I'd be very wary.
At this point, Darwin has already put out his world-changing work on evolution. Descent of Man is a follow up that focuses exclusively on sexual selection and how various animals might develop unusual colors or features that do not help them survive per se, but do increase their odds of successful mating and passing on their genes. It is very slow and tedious going. Though the book is called Descent of Man, it is in fact mostly concerned with animals of all types, and man is only addressed in a rather cursory fashion at the end of the book.
As others have mentioned, the book is also full of antiquated ideas that strike the modern reader as racist and sexist, sometimes in the extreme, though these attitudes were of course not unusual in Darwin's own time.
This is all said with no disrespect to Darwin and evolutionary ideas, which are certainly true. But we've come a long way in the 150 years or so since this book was published and it is frankly best left as a historical footnote to more recent work. I read it so you don't have to.
At this point, Darwin has already put out his world-changing work on evolution. Descent of Man is a follow up that focuses exclusively on sexual selection and how various animals might develop unusual colors or features that do not help them survive per se, but do increase their odds of successful mating and passing on their genes. It is very slow and tedious going. Though the book is called Descent of Man, it is in fact mostly concerned with animals of all types, and man is only addressed in a rather cursory fashion at the end of the book.
As others have mentioned, the book is also full of antiquated ideas that strike the modern reader as racist and sexist, sometimes in the extreme, though these attitudes were of course not unusual in Darwin's own time.
This is all said with no disrespect to Darwin and evolutionary ideas, which are certainly true. But we've come a long way in the 150 years or so since this book was published and it is frankly best left as a historical footnote to more recent work. I read it so you don't have to.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 156 reviews