What do you think?
Rate this book
Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny
In his bestselling The Moral Animal, Robert Wright applied the principles of evolutionary biology to the study of the human mind. Now Wright attempts something even more explaining the direction of evolution and human history–and discerning where history will lead us next.In The Logic of Human Destiny, Wright asserts that, ever since the primordial ooze, life has followed a basic pattern. Organisms and human societies alike have grown more complex by mastering the challenges of internal cooperation. Wright's narrative ranges from fossilized bacteria to vampire bats, from stone-age villages to the World Trade Organization, uncovering such surprises as the benefits of barbarian hordes and the useful stability of feudalism. Here is history endowed with moral significance–a way of looking at our biological and cultural evolution that suggests, refreshingly, that human morality has improved over time, and that our instinct to discover meaning may itself serve a higher purpose. Insightful, witty, profound, Nonzero offers breathtaking implications for what we believe and how we adapt to technology's ongoing transformation of the world.
450 pages, Kindle Edition
393 people are currently reading
8265 people want to read
About the author
Robert Wright
180 books1,488 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
ROBERT WRIGHT is the author of The Moral Animal, Nonzero, and Three Scientists and Their Gods. The New York Times selected The Moral Animal as one of the ten best books of the year and the other two as notable books of the year.
Wright is a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Essay and Criticism and has been a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. A contributing editor at The New Republic, he has also written for Time, Slate, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker.
Wright has taught in the philosophy department at Princeton and the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania, and is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and editor in chief of Bloggingheads.tv.
ROBERT WRIGHT is the author of The Moral Animal, Nonzero, and Three Scientists and Their Gods. The New York Times selected The Moral Animal as one of the ten best books of the year and the other two as notable books of the year.
Wright is a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Essay and Criticism and has been a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. A contributing editor at The New Republic, he has also written for Time, Slate, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker.
Wright has taught in the philosophy department at Princeton and the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania, and is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and editor in chief of Bloggingheads.tv.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 249 reviews
January 17, 2011
There's a subtle difference between popular science books written by scientists, and popular science books written by science journalists. Compare Robert Wright's "Nonzero" to Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Both are deep-thinking overviews of human history, largely organized along Darwinian lines- but Diamond's book is brain-shaking in a way that Wright's isn't. One hypothesis might be that scientists are just closer to the material, so their thinking is deeper and more nuanced. But I think there's more to it than that- I think science journalists have a kind of inferiority complex, which usually leads them to overplay their hand. That is, they run ahead of the material, liberally sprinkle the text with their own deep-thoughts, and usually end with some sweeping conclusions that are generally unsupported by the evidence they've presented. That's certainly the case here, at least.
Wright's book starts off strong. His theory is that biological evolution and the evolution of human culture are both directional- that is, they tend inexorably to higher levels of complexity over time. The mechanism by which this occurs is cooperation through trade and inter-dependence. As the sphere of cooperation extends from one cell to multiple cells, to organisms, to humans, to villages, to chiefdoms, to states, to empires, to the entire world, the benefits of cooperation power growth to higher levels of complexity. Much of the theoretical underpinning of the argument comes from game theory (Robert Axelrod's excellent "The Evolution of Cooperation" is one of Wright's touchstones)- the phrase "non-zero sum" itself comes from game theory terminology, meaning a game where both players can benefit from cooperation.
So far, so good. Wright deftly handles some basic objections, such as the frequent setbacks that seem to contradict a trend towards complexity. His general retort is that species and cultures that don't effectively harness the power of cooperation will be outcompeted by species and cultures who do, and so, even though the quirks of history (meteors, despotic rulers) may set back a particular species or culture, when viewed as a whole, culture or biology continues its inexorable climb towards complexity. There are, of course, many eminent scientists who disagree with this argument. Wright reserves most of his ire for Stephen Jay Gould, who spent most of his career arguing that species only evolve to "fit" with their environment, and some environments demand complexity, while others don't. Wright offers an effective response here, which is that if you include competition within a species or culture in the calculation, the environment always includes a force which pushes towards greater complexity.
So where does the book go wrong? Mostly at the end, where Wright extends his argument to prognosticating on the future of the human species, and some tangential topics such as the nature of consciousness. Here, I felt like he was making a classic error of extrapolating from too little evidence. Humans have been around for such a short span of time, biologically speaking, and given that we know of only one species that has ever achieved our level of intelligence, it seems a bit of a leap to conclude that the evolution of intelligence is a basic feature of all life in the universe. Likewise, that humans could be considered a single world-spanning organism. And by the time he gets to exploring the idea that the evolution of humans is part of some eternal plan for the universe to "know itself", I felt like we had moved well beyond the realm of science into theology. Maybe Wright wouldn't disagree- his next book is "The Evolution of God", applying evolutionary theory to study of God.
But what about the really important question- what's going to happen to humanity in the future? Jared Diamond argues convincingly in "Collapse" that we're screwed- we'll eventually outstrip our natural resources, like the people on Easter Island, and end in a pretty grim way. Here Wright offers a starkly different opinion, largely based on the same evidence. He feels like we're about to enter a period of serious shake-up, but eventually, through the effect of new information and energy technologies, humans will enter a new golden age, where we peacefully co-exist, respect the Earth, and evolve even higher levels of consciousness. Who you agree with will probably depend on your natural disposition- as a pessimist, I side with Diamond. But as a human, I'm rooting for Wright.
Wright's book starts off strong. His theory is that biological evolution and the evolution of human culture are both directional- that is, they tend inexorably to higher levels of complexity over time. The mechanism by which this occurs is cooperation through trade and inter-dependence. As the sphere of cooperation extends from one cell to multiple cells, to organisms, to humans, to villages, to chiefdoms, to states, to empires, to the entire world, the benefits of cooperation power growth to higher levels of complexity. Much of the theoretical underpinning of the argument comes from game theory (Robert Axelrod's excellent "The Evolution of Cooperation" is one of Wright's touchstones)- the phrase "non-zero sum" itself comes from game theory terminology, meaning a game where both players can benefit from cooperation.
So far, so good. Wright deftly handles some basic objections, such as the frequent setbacks that seem to contradict a trend towards complexity. His general retort is that species and cultures that don't effectively harness the power of cooperation will be outcompeted by species and cultures who do, and so, even though the quirks of history (meteors, despotic rulers) may set back a particular species or culture, when viewed as a whole, culture or biology continues its inexorable climb towards complexity. There are, of course, many eminent scientists who disagree with this argument. Wright reserves most of his ire for Stephen Jay Gould, who spent most of his career arguing that species only evolve to "fit" with their environment, and some environments demand complexity, while others don't. Wright offers an effective response here, which is that if you include competition within a species or culture in the calculation, the environment always includes a force which pushes towards greater complexity.
So where does the book go wrong? Mostly at the end, where Wright extends his argument to prognosticating on the future of the human species, and some tangential topics such as the nature of consciousness. Here, I felt like he was making a classic error of extrapolating from too little evidence. Humans have been around for such a short span of time, biologically speaking, and given that we know of only one species that has ever achieved our level of intelligence, it seems a bit of a leap to conclude that the evolution of intelligence is a basic feature of all life in the universe. Likewise, that humans could be considered a single world-spanning organism. And by the time he gets to exploring the idea that the evolution of humans is part of some eternal plan for the universe to "know itself", I felt like we had moved well beyond the realm of science into theology. Maybe Wright wouldn't disagree- his next book is "The Evolution of God", applying evolutionary theory to study of God.
But what about the really important question- what's going to happen to humanity in the future? Jared Diamond argues convincingly in "Collapse" that we're screwed- we'll eventually outstrip our natural resources, like the people on Easter Island, and end in a pretty grim way. Here Wright offers a starkly different opinion, largely based on the same evidence. He feels like we're about to enter a period of serious shake-up, but eventually, through the effect of new information and energy technologies, humans will enter a new golden age, where we peacefully co-exist, respect the Earth, and evolve even higher levels of consciousness. Who you agree with will probably depend on your natural disposition- as a pessimist, I side with Diamond. But as a human, I'm rooting for Wright.
December 15, 2017
I will never understand why people don't like this book on here. I read this one after evolution of God and the Moral animal and still found it fascinating. Wright knows how to write! The story of cultural evolution from zero-sum to non-zero sum is fascinating. There are obviously plenty of counter examples, but as he says "follow the meme" not the individual cultures. So while America might be building walls, the meme of democracy and egalitarianism will survive. This is like Pinker's better angles of our nature, but Pinker was so wrong about so much in the blank slate, that I would say skip all Pinker and just read Wright.
October 3, 2012
This is a pretty weak-hearted review.
When I picked up this book I was looking specifically for something and didn’t find it here. And I’d already figured out most of what this book is about, so overall I was disappointed. It might deserve more stars, but I can’t get away from that sense of disappointment.
What was I obsessing over?
Many years ago I stumbled on Robert Axelrod’s The Evolution of Cooperation and saw in it some astonishing insights. It is strictly about game theory, which tends to lose people right off the bat. If they know anything about the topic, they probably learned how terribly reductionist it is and how absurdly abused it was during the cold war. All correct, but what caused that misuse was the failure to understand in those early days what is clumsily termed “the shadow of the future” (akin, in a somewhat inverse way, to the economist’s term “discount parameter”).
What is so astonishing is that game theory (more precisely the star game, the Prisoner’s Dilemma) states is that in many situations it is perfectly logical for a pair of players to attempt to screw each other, even while knowing that if they cooperate they’ll almost certainly be better off. The reason is actually simple after it has been carefully explained, but the explanation isn’t simple:
1) The game requires that there be no communication between the players. In this it is like many situations in life where one cannot communicate or, more importantly, where communication can’t be trusted (for example, when survival is at stake it may be very foolish to give credence to the peace offerings of that other neolithic tribe that yours has encountered).
2) The stakes in the game happen to be arranged so that you will have a better outcome by defecting (i.e., screwing) regardless of which choice the other player makes. (This arrangement of payoffs is what makes it a Prisoner’s Dilemma. A slight rearrangement in payoffs turns it into a game of Chicken). Real world situations can be translated into games, but the more complex the situation the more likely there will be disagreement about the form of the payoff matrix. Some nuclear strategists saw the cold war as a Prisoner’s Dilemma, while others saw it as a game of Chicken. Part of that has to do with the distinction between an arms race (more likely to be PD) and an actual war (Chicken, except perhaps to extremists). Trying to turn the real-world into a game is inevitably not scientific, so folks with an overly positivist or empiricist perspective often dismiss all of this as smoke and mirrors. (Fuzzy-minded idealists tend to get lost here and keep saying “why not change the rules of the game?” as if that were somehow easy.)
3) Without communication to set up external constraints (e.g., royal sons or nephews exchanged between feudal kingdoms as hostages), those payoffs are too tempting, so both sides choose the “defect” option.
So even though both players would agree beforehand that the both-cooperate outcome would be best both individually and collectively, logic dictates that they’ll inevitably choose otherwise. And, of course, rationality is assumed (yes, a huge limitation, but such reductionist “thought experiments” can provide a powerful first approximation of reality nevertheless).
So nuclear strategists thought they had every reason to rationally predict the Soviets would eventually betray any “agreement”, so war was inevitable and should be fought soon while the USA had an advantage. Thankfully they were out-shouted.
The mistake? What did they get wrong? Well, plenty of course. Certainly the expectation of rationality. The realization that the fear of a “Chicken” aspect to unlimited nuclear war made it that much more frightening (think of the classic game of automotive Chicken from James Dean’s Rebel Without a Cause -- the both-defect outcome would have had both drivers going over the cliff with their cars).
But what later game theorists discovered was even more astonishing. It turns out that if the game is iterated -- played over and over again -- the ultimate outcomes do a complete reversal. If two players face each other year after year, generation after generation, they build up a reputation, right? Well, if the Prisoner’s Dilemma is played with an equivalent, the best strategy turns out to be a cooperative one.
Why? This is at the heart of Nonzero: cooperation is a non-zero game, so “wealth” accumulates (actually, his book should have been titled “Positive”, since he really is emphasizing the beneficent side of this stuff -- but that really wouldn’t be very catchy, would it?) Non-cooperation is, at best, a zero-sum game so wealth simply transfers from hand to hand (although parasitism and war are destructive enough that they will typically be negative-sum).
What The Evolution of Cooperation showed in its latter chapters was that the ultimately best strategy was something called tit-for-tat : play “nice” the first time, then in each subsequent transaction, do to your opponent what they did to you the last time around. Period. (Well, kinda -- a bit more below). By playing nice the first time, if your opponent also plays nice and follows this strategy you’ll remain forever in a bliss of productive cooperation. If they screw you, you will punish them in precisely the same amount and they’ll learn that it doesn’t pay.
Of course, there is that problem of endless retribution. If the other team defects once and only once, the two players get into a cycle where they take turns punishing each other. So it turns out the best strategy is actually generous tit-for-tat, where occasionally you “forgive” your opponent and try to sync up again in benevolent counterplay. (But not often or predictably enough that you can be taken advantage of).
Axelrod’s thin book showed that this tit-for-tat effect was so strong that it happens naturally in evolution, without any need for communication or even the ability to communicate. He pointed out that some units on the opposites sides in WWI evolved a timed way of fighting that minimized casualties on both sides until the generals came along and put an end to the lack of bloodshed. (I think he also pointed out that term limits in elected officials would limit cooperation between parties and create additional gridlock in legislatures, although I may have found that one elsewhere). More recently researchers have found that some fish species exhibit tit-for-tat behavior when cooperating in hazardous activity (inspecting whether larger fish are feeling predatory).
That cooperation is a naturally evolving trait has stunning implications, and this is what Wright explores, and why this book is somewhat important. If you want to understand the theoretical aspects of how cooperation is crucial to civilization, read Wright’s book.
Unfortunately, I’d already gotten that message. What I was looking for was a more detailed examination of how certain parts of our psyches and societies may have developed in light of this revelation. For example, the notorious Arab saying “Me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger.” Or, a more proper hierarchy: “Me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, me, my brother and my cousin against the village, our village against the village across the valley, this valley against the valley on the other side of the mountain…” ad naseum. (Science fiction readers will be familiar with the trope that an alien presence would instantly obliterate most human divisiveness). In other words, the formation of Social Identity theory is implied -- so where is the discussion?
In small villages, it is possible to know everyone by reputation. What happens when people become anonymous in cities? Reputation is often not available, so the default behavior should drop back to the default defection of Prisoner’s Dilemma. Quite visible in anonymous chat rooms on the internet, of course. How might crime be related to this? Several times I’ve been on city buses and witnessed teens climbing on (without paying, of course), tagging the bus with graffiti and walking away. Would they be doing this if the bus was full of people they’d be interacting with the rest of their lives?
But often in “real life” we can see moral behavior collapse into, at best, legalistic behavior. If reputations can’t be tracked reliably, then self-governance via shame or guilt becomes irrelevant and only external coercion matters. Luckily millions of generations of evolution under which “generous tit-for-tat” was the survivor’s game means it became to a large extent instinctive. We tend to like cooperating because it agrees with the whispered advice of those ancestors. What does that mean with respect to religion?
Wright spends his time on is the Pollyanna-ish view that cooperation evolves naturally, and thus will always win in the long run, and we’ll all be very happy if we just have patience (okay, a gross simplification).
But he misses how cooperation only evolves in the presence of reputational information, and how that is often missing in our dense cities and our overpopulated world.
I’m still waiting for the book that explores this.
When I picked up this book I was looking specifically for something and didn’t find it here. And I’d already figured out most of what this book is about, so overall I was disappointed. It might deserve more stars, but I can’t get away from that sense of disappointment.
What was I obsessing over?
Many years ago I stumbled on Robert Axelrod’s The Evolution of Cooperation and saw in it some astonishing insights. It is strictly about game theory, which tends to lose people right off the bat. If they know anything about the topic, they probably learned how terribly reductionist it is and how absurdly abused it was during the cold war. All correct, but what caused that misuse was the failure to understand in those early days what is clumsily termed “the shadow of the future” (akin, in a somewhat inverse way, to the economist’s term “discount parameter”).
What is so astonishing is that game theory (more precisely the star game, the Prisoner’s Dilemma) states is that in many situations it is perfectly logical for a pair of players to attempt to screw each other, even while knowing that if they cooperate they’ll almost certainly be better off. The reason is actually simple after it has been carefully explained, but the explanation isn’t simple:
1) The game requires that there be no communication between the players. In this it is like many situations in life where one cannot communicate or, more importantly, where communication can’t be trusted (for example, when survival is at stake it may be very foolish to give credence to the peace offerings of that other neolithic tribe that yours has encountered).
2) The stakes in the game happen to be arranged so that you will have a better outcome by defecting (i.e., screwing) regardless of which choice the other player makes. (This arrangement of payoffs is what makes it a Prisoner’s Dilemma. A slight rearrangement in payoffs turns it into a game of Chicken). Real world situations can be translated into games, but the more complex the situation the more likely there will be disagreement about the form of the payoff matrix. Some nuclear strategists saw the cold war as a Prisoner’s Dilemma, while others saw it as a game of Chicken. Part of that has to do with the distinction between an arms race (more likely to be PD) and an actual war (Chicken, except perhaps to extremists). Trying to turn the real-world into a game is inevitably not scientific, so folks with an overly positivist or empiricist perspective often dismiss all of this as smoke and mirrors. (Fuzzy-minded idealists tend to get lost here and keep saying “why not change the rules of the game?” as if that were somehow easy.)
3) Without communication to set up external constraints (e.g., royal sons or nephews exchanged between feudal kingdoms as hostages), those payoffs are too tempting, so both sides choose the “defect” option.
So even though both players would agree beforehand that the both-cooperate outcome would be best both individually and collectively, logic dictates that they’ll inevitably choose otherwise. And, of course, rationality is assumed (yes, a huge limitation, but such reductionist “thought experiments” can provide a powerful first approximation of reality nevertheless).
So nuclear strategists thought they had every reason to rationally predict the Soviets would eventually betray any “agreement”, so war was inevitable and should be fought soon while the USA had an advantage. Thankfully they were out-shouted.
The mistake? What did they get wrong? Well, plenty of course. Certainly the expectation of rationality. The realization that the fear of a “Chicken” aspect to unlimited nuclear war made it that much more frightening (think of the classic game of automotive Chicken from James Dean’s Rebel Without a Cause -- the both-defect outcome would have had both drivers going over the cliff with their cars).
But what later game theorists discovered was even more astonishing. It turns out that if the game is iterated -- played over and over again -- the ultimate outcomes do a complete reversal. If two players face each other year after year, generation after generation, they build up a reputation, right? Well, if the Prisoner’s Dilemma is played with an equivalent, the best strategy turns out to be a cooperative one.
Why? This is at the heart of Nonzero: cooperation is a non-zero game, so “wealth” accumulates (actually, his book should have been titled “Positive”, since he really is emphasizing the beneficent side of this stuff -- but that really wouldn’t be very catchy, would it?) Non-cooperation is, at best, a zero-sum game so wealth simply transfers from hand to hand (although parasitism and war are destructive enough that they will typically be negative-sum).
What The Evolution of Cooperation showed in its latter chapters was that the ultimately best strategy was something called tit-for-tat : play “nice” the first time, then in each subsequent transaction, do to your opponent what they did to you the last time around. Period. (Well, kinda -- a bit more below). By playing nice the first time, if your opponent also plays nice and follows this strategy you’ll remain forever in a bliss of productive cooperation. If they screw you, you will punish them in precisely the same amount and they’ll learn that it doesn’t pay.
Of course, there is that problem of endless retribution. If the other team defects once and only once, the two players get into a cycle where they take turns punishing each other. So it turns out the best strategy is actually generous tit-for-tat, where occasionally you “forgive” your opponent and try to sync up again in benevolent counterplay. (But not often or predictably enough that you can be taken advantage of).
Axelrod’s thin book showed that this tit-for-tat effect was so strong that it happens naturally in evolution, without any need for communication or even the ability to communicate. He pointed out that some units on the opposites sides in WWI evolved a timed way of fighting that minimized casualties on both sides until the generals came along and put an end to the lack of bloodshed. (I think he also pointed out that term limits in elected officials would limit cooperation between parties and create additional gridlock in legislatures, although I may have found that one elsewhere). More recently researchers have found that some fish species exhibit tit-for-tat behavior when cooperating in hazardous activity (inspecting whether larger fish are feeling predatory).
That cooperation is a naturally evolving trait has stunning implications, and this is what Wright explores, and why this book is somewhat important. If you want to understand the theoretical aspects of how cooperation is crucial to civilization, read Wright’s book.
Unfortunately, I’d already gotten that message. What I was looking for was a more detailed examination of how certain parts of our psyches and societies may have developed in light of this revelation. For example, the notorious Arab saying “Me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger.” Or, a more proper hierarchy: “Me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, me, my brother and my cousin against the village, our village against the village across the valley, this valley against the valley on the other side of the mountain…” ad naseum. (Science fiction readers will be familiar with the trope that an alien presence would instantly obliterate most human divisiveness). In other words, the formation of Social Identity theory is implied -- so where is the discussion?
In small villages, it is possible to know everyone by reputation. What happens when people become anonymous in cities? Reputation is often not available, so the default behavior should drop back to the default defection of Prisoner’s Dilemma. Quite visible in anonymous chat rooms on the internet, of course. How might crime be related to this? Several times I’ve been on city buses and witnessed teens climbing on (without paying, of course), tagging the bus with graffiti and walking away. Would they be doing this if the bus was full of people they’d be interacting with the rest of their lives?
But often in “real life” we can see moral behavior collapse into, at best, legalistic behavior. If reputations can’t be tracked reliably, then self-governance via shame or guilt becomes irrelevant and only external coercion matters. Luckily millions of generations of evolution under which “generous tit-for-tat” was the survivor’s game means it became to a large extent instinctive. We tend to like cooperating because it agrees with the whispered advice of those ancestors. What does that mean with respect to religion?
Wright spends his time on is the Pollyanna-ish view that cooperation evolves naturally, and thus will always win in the long run, and we’ll all be very happy if we just have patience (okay, a gross simplification).
But he misses how cooperation only evolves in the presence of reputational information, and how that is often missing in our dense cities and our overpopulated world.
I’m still waiting for the book that explores this.
January 19, 2020
In game theory, a “non-zero sum” transaction refers to outcomes where one participants win, does not result in the other participants loss.
In other words, everyone benefits.
It’s the proverbial Win/Win (or no deal).
Stronger together if you will.
Non-zero sum transactions are posited to be the very engine of human progress.
How so?
I’m glad you asked.
Imagine we’re a couple of Stone Age folks who need to make stone axes to survive.
Let’s go ahead and say it takes both of us about (x1) hour to make (x1) mediocre stone axe each.
If I can focus on specializing in making really kick ass stone axe heads. And I can produce (x2) nice ones in (x1) hour.
And if you can focus and specialize in making really boss axe handles. And you can produce (x2) nice ones in (x1) hour.
At that point, I can trade you (x1) killer axe head, for (x1) awesome axe handle, and then we both have (x1) kick ass axe (some assembly required) for the same time it would have taken either of us to make a crappy one.
Keep multiplying that equation and in about 200,000 years you end up with iPhones (please ignore the slave labor for the sake of this example).
Any way.
The book explains how non-zero sum transactions drove human evolution, why Malthusian predictions were wrong, and why we are less likely to go to war with Germany or Japan again (hint, because we trade stuff).
The author Robert Wright is a really interesting guy.
He’s a journalist (not an academic), but his work is excellent, and he is an important thinker in the field of evolutionary psychology.
Great book.
In other words, everyone benefits.
It’s the proverbial Win/Win (or no deal).
Stronger together if you will.
Non-zero sum transactions are posited to be the very engine of human progress.
How so?
I’m glad you asked.
Imagine we’re a couple of Stone Age folks who need to make stone axes to survive.
Let’s go ahead and say it takes both of us about (x1) hour to make (x1) mediocre stone axe each.
If I can focus on specializing in making really kick ass stone axe heads. And I can produce (x2) nice ones in (x1) hour.
And if you can focus and specialize in making really boss axe handles. And you can produce (x2) nice ones in (x1) hour.
At that point, I can trade you (x1) killer axe head, for (x1) awesome axe handle, and then we both have (x1) kick ass axe (some assembly required) for the same time it would have taken either of us to make a crappy one.
Keep multiplying that equation and in about 200,000 years you end up with iPhones (please ignore the slave labor for the sake of this example).
Any way.
The book explains how non-zero sum transactions drove human evolution, why Malthusian predictions were wrong, and why we are less likely to go to war with Germany or Japan again (hint, because we trade stuff).
The author Robert Wright is a really interesting guy.
He’s a journalist (not an academic), but his work is excellent, and he is an important thinker in the field of evolutionary psychology.
Great book.
April 12, 2011
Nonzero presents the type of reading eventuality that drives me to despair: a book eagerly imbibed some six or seven years ago—and recommended afterwards to a handful of friends—of which today, dredge the polluted and choppy canals of my memory though I might, produces but a hazy, shimmery image from which can be recollected naught other than an attractive blue, yellow and white cover, the authorial handle (one frequently confused with Richard of the shared surname), and a minute, fleshless skeletal stab at summation: to whit, that of a humanity which, under the auspices of best-of-all-possible-choices Game Theory Cooperation and erector-set Complexity, ascends the rungs of history as an entity of increasing organization and adaptability, able to abut, survey, and surmount the variety of evolutionary obstacles put in place by a stochastic and ofttimes hostile world of mostly limited resources and nigh limitless information in all of its variegated and layered encodings; other than that, bupkis. There is a lingering, vague sense that the examples were numerous and convincing, and yet somehow a tad too convenient or forced or abstract to reach that level of persuasion that might turn a reader into a believer. The ridiculous thing is, I still would encourage others to give it a try whilst being unable to provide them with the details of what, exactly, I am pushing on them. To have read and then forgotten is a terribly sad thing.
June 21, 2011
I probably did Wright a huge disservice by reading his books essentially backwards. I hit NonZero and was like, yeah yeah yeah, read all this before. Anyway, I love the ideas he flushes out with: NonZero, Moral Animal, Evolution of God, etc. For me a lot of it rings very very true. I love how much of Wright's thinking is similar to Philo of Alexandria...
"He [God] has made none of these particular things complete in itself, so that it should have no need at all of other things. Thus through the desire to obtain what it needs, it must perforce approach that which can supply its needs, and this approach must be mutual and reciprocal. Thus through reciprocity and combination ... God meant that they should come to fellowship and concord and form a single harmony, and that a universal give and take should govern them, and lead up to the consumption of the whole world." - Philo of Alexandria.
Amen to Philo and Amen to Wright.
"He [God] has made none of these particular things complete in itself, so that it should have no need at all of other things. Thus through the desire to obtain what it needs, it must perforce approach that which can supply its needs, and this approach must be mutual and reciprocal. Thus through reciprocity and combination ... God meant that they should come to fellowship and concord and form a single harmony, and that a universal give and take should govern them, and lead up to the consumption of the whole world." - Philo of Alexandria.
Amen to Philo and Amen to Wright.
November 5, 2017
Mandatory reading for every human being on the planet.
December 25, 2014
The book develops the interesting thesis that evolution tends to develop towards increasing complexity. It forces you to consider cultural and biological evolution from a different perspective. In the end though, the book is disappointing because much salient information is simply omitted and some facts are very unconvincingly massaged into the posited trend. The final part of the book, proposing natural selection shows signs of (intelligent) design suffers from misrepresentation of others' arguments and semantic tricks and should probably be ignored.
The first part of Nonzero deals with cultural evolution. It reviews how non-zero sum interactions between (groups of) people stimulate the development of larger scale more highly organised societies. So pervasive is the power of our species exploitation of such interactions that this trend is, according to Wright a hallmark of human culture and visible throughout human history. On the very large scale this, in hindsight, is true. Nonzero suggests that cases where this development is not visible represent exceptions that do not detract from this thesis.
Although such works necessarily sketch human history with a broad brush, the topic that I'm most familiar with - hunter-gatherer archaeology - suffers from selective treatment and, sometimes, wishful thinking. The Mesolithic to my knowledge does not represent a slow but steady increase in population sizes and societal complexity. To some degree one might suggest that in Central Europe the Upper Palaeolithic represented a more complex kind of society.
The perspective taken on the origin and spread of farming is refreshing. It was simply a good idea, likely to develop in forager societies dependent on their surroundings for food. No extraneous cause other than human needs and our tendency to compete for status need to be invoked. I can sympathise with this view, especially regarding the uptake of farming by hunter-gatherers in Central and NW Europe. Farming then leads to ever larger states, ever better information technologies (writing, money) and ever greater interactions between different peoples spurring on technological developments. Currently, according to Wright, our interdependence is so great and the potential gains from our non-zero-interactions so great that our evolution will continue to lead us to the formation of supranational forms of government. This is aided by the increasing informational connectivity of our world (that simultaneously also empowers sectarian groups).
The second part of the book states that biological evolution exhibits a similar trend towards increasing complexity based on the increase in nonzero interactions between (groups of) genes. The interesting perspective adopted of the differential reproduction of genes as an information "technology" works well for these chapters. The review of some mechanisms such as arms races as leading to increasing complexity is quite convincing. Again though important arguments against his idea of natural selection inherently leading to ever greater complexity are ignored. What about the argument that in some circumstances simplicity works better, perhaps having led to the development of viruses from more complex forms? Similarly the fact that useful features such as eyes and flying independently developed multiple times is cited in support of the thesis, yet the fact that they also disappeared independently multiple times when no longer needed is not mentioned.
Finally the book argues that the evolution of consciousness may be used to suggest that evolution itself has a (benevolent) purpose. This argument rests on the writer's contention that modern behavioural science implicitly states that consciousness doesn't do anything. Some posited functions by others are stated by the writer to be incomprehensible, leading to his preference for the non-functionality of consciousness. As I understand it, consciousness does have its uses in the reproduction of our genes, even if it often functions as a post-hoc rationalisation of one's actions. This may still lead to a re-evaluation of actions taken in a specific situation allowing individuals to develop effective heuristic rules to aid in making behavioural choices. Even if consciousness were nonfunctional one would still have to exclude the possibility that it evolved as the byproduct of our increasingly powerful brain. This invalidates the writers next step suggesting that, since we are conscious where automata would have sufficed, some sort of benevolent guidance underlies evolution. The final part makes the whole book highly disappointing.
The first part of Nonzero deals with cultural evolution. It reviews how non-zero sum interactions between (groups of) people stimulate the development of larger scale more highly organised societies. So pervasive is the power of our species exploitation of such interactions that this trend is, according to Wright a hallmark of human culture and visible throughout human history. On the very large scale this, in hindsight, is true. Nonzero suggests that cases where this development is not visible represent exceptions that do not detract from this thesis.
Although such works necessarily sketch human history with a broad brush, the topic that I'm most familiar with - hunter-gatherer archaeology - suffers from selective treatment and, sometimes, wishful thinking. The Mesolithic to my knowledge does not represent a slow but steady increase in population sizes and societal complexity. To some degree one might suggest that in Central Europe the Upper Palaeolithic represented a more complex kind of society.
The perspective taken on the origin and spread of farming is refreshing. It was simply a good idea, likely to develop in forager societies dependent on their surroundings for food. No extraneous cause other than human needs and our tendency to compete for status need to be invoked. I can sympathise with this view, especially regarding the uptake of farming by hunter-gatherers in Central and NW Europe. Farming then leads to ever larger states, ever better information technologies (writing, money) and ever greater interactions between different peoples spurring on technological developments. Currently, according to Wright, our interdependence is so great and the potential gains from our non-zero-interactions so great that our evolution will continue to lead us to the formation of supranational forms of government. This is aided by the increasing informational connectivity of our world (that simultaneously also empowers sectarian groups).
The second part of the book states that biological evolution exhibits a similar trend towards increasing complexity based on the increase in nonzero interactions between (groups of) genes. The interesting perspective adopted of the differential reproduction of genes as an information "technology" works well for these chapters. The review of some mechanisms such as arms races as leading to increasing complexity is quite convincing. Again though important arguments against his idea of natural selection inherently leading to ever greater complexity are ignored. What about the argument that in some circumstances simplicity works better, perhaps having led to the development of viruses from more complex forms? Similarly the fact that useful features such as eyes and flying independently developed multiple times is cited in support of the thesis, yet the fact that they also disappeared independently multiple times when no longer needed is not mentioned.
Finally the book argues that the evolution of consciousness may be used to suggest that evolution itself has a (benevolent) purpose. This argument rests on the writer's contention that modern behavioural science implicitly states that consciousness doesn't do anything. Some posited functions by others are stated by the writer to be incomprehensible, leading to his preference for the non-functionality of consciousness. As I understand it, consciousness does have its uses in the reproduction of our genes, even if it often functions as a post-hoc rationalisation of one's actions. This may still lead to a re-evaluation of actions taken in a specific situation allowing individuals to develop effective heuristic rules to aid in making behavioural choices. Even if consciousness were nonfunctional one would still have to exclude the possibility that it evolved as the byproduct of our increasingly powerful brain. This invalidates the writers next step suggesting that, since we are conscious where automata would have sufficed, some sort of benevolent guidance underlies evolution. The final part makes the whole book highly disappointing.
February 13, 2021
First there was nothing. Then there were nonzero sum games.
Published in 1999, Robert Wright's Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destinty presents a big picture interpretation of history as a tale of rising collaboration. He seeks to defend cultural evolution from its critics and argues that societies become more complex by more readily engaging in non-zero sum games.
Complexity is mostly understood as specialization of labor, the invisible hand, and a view of trade as a game that is competitive at first glance but which, on the whole, is actually collaborative. Political strife is competitive at first glance, but, on the whole, is actually collaborative.
Reading this work in 2020 within the context of the Coronavirus, global warming, and the rise of nationalism, I am a little worried about the timelines of these longterm success stories. In the short term, we create the future through our individual and collective choices even if the longterm we are swept up in its larger patterns. Perhaps Wright would agree with that argument since he calls for a slowing down of change to mitigate against reactionary tribalism.
Published in 1999, Robert Wright's Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destinty presents a big picture interpretation of history as a tale of rising collaboration. He seeks to defend cultural evolution from its critics and argues that societies become more complex by more readily engaging in non-zero sum games.
Complexity is mostly understood as specialization of labor, the invisible hand, and a view of trade as a game that is competitive at first glance but which, on the whole, is actually collaborative. Political strife is competitive at first glance, but, on the whole, is actually collaborative.
Reading this work in 2020 within the context of the Coronavirus, global warming, and the rise of nationalism, I am a little worried about the timelines of these longterm success stories. In the short term, we create the future through our individual and collective choices even if the longterm we are swept up in its larger patterns. Perhaps Wright would agree with that argument since he calls for a slowing down of change to mitigate against reactionary tribalism.
September 24, 2020
While I may not agree with some of Wright's assumptions, perspectives, and conclusions, this is an excellent look at another way of thinking of human history with an eye toward examining where we might go from here. I love reading different perspectives, especially about the one animal I find most perplexing and, ultimately, blind-minded. An interesting viewpoint and examination.
September 7, 2016
This book came to my attention by way of David Brin, who claims it as mandatory reading for anyone interested in saving the world. I’m not sure if I’d go that far, but the assertion that positive sum games play a critical role in biological and cultural evolution is definitely significant, especially insofar as it carves out a space for balance between competition and cooperation in discussions about evolutionary development. If pointing out this interesting facet of natural selection were Wright’s only goal, he might have written a better book. Unfortunately, Wright insists that positive sum games reveal not only that nature proceeds in a certain direction (plausible), but also that such directionality, enabled and amplified by positive sum relationships, imbues human life with meaning and purpose (problematic). The result is a blend of brilliance and atavism; Wright’s insightful, progressive vision is ultimately dampened by his adherence to one of humanity’s oldest misconceptions: purpose and meaning are properties of the universe itself, rather than features of experiential narratives generated by the human body.
This book is a predecessor to Ted Chu’s Human Purpose and Transhuman Potential, which also makes the case that evolution is both directional and demonstrative of the universe’s inherent meaningfulness. Chu’s book is more thorough, far-reaching, and contemporary (it was published 15 years after Nonzero), but he essentially takes the baton from Wright without significantly altering the message. Additionally, both thinkers insist on clinging to notions of divinity that are almost entirely incompatible with their scientific worldviews.
Let’s begin with Wright’s least controversial claim: evolution gives nature a direction, with biological (and cultural) systems tending to become more complex and interconnected over time. This directionality flows from the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), which dictates that energy systems always tend toward equilibrium, a state of chemical inertness where no life can thrive. In the grand scale of things, entropy can never be overcome, but organisms can stave off its effects through efficient organization of matter and nutrients. The more complex, efficient, and adaptable the organism, the longer it can survive. Over time, simple organisms group together in adaptive, mutually beneficial arrangements that extend the lifespan of all constituents––hence the progression from unicellular organisms to increasingly robust multicellular life.
Wright effectively argues that this pattern is descriptive not just of organic evolution, but also of human cultural evolution. History demonstrates that positive sum relationships between human groups ultimately outlast bellicose tribalism and subjugation. That doesn’t mean myriad zero-sum games are not brutally playing themselves out at any given point in history (they always are), but it does mean that, over time, civilization favors win-win arrangements over zero-sum games. There are numerous historical examples that, when taken in isolation, seem to contradict this point of view, but I’m willing to agree with Wright and others (such as Steven Pinker) that progress is real and the world truly has become safer––even better––in recent epochs (at least for humans).
So, great, let’s give ourselves a big pat on the back and return to the project of trying to solve existing problems, which are multifarious and demand further adaptation, moral imagination, and a commitment to rooting out and bolstering as many positive sum relationships as possible. The problem with the nonzero approach, as I see it, is that it’s both easy and common for two or more parties to arrange a positive sum game in which everyone involved benefits but others do not. When an American company outsources jobs overseas, it’s win-win for the business owners and third-world workers who get access to better jobs and wages, but American middle class workers are left in the lurch. When Uber enables independent drivers and smartphone users to connect at unprecedented speeds for a competitive price, cab drivers who’ve spent many years and dollars getting licensed lose business.
There are plenty of examples of how certain nonzero relationships can be seen as zero-sum if you’re the person getting the fuzzy end of the lollypop. Wright’s answer to this problem is practical and level-headed: since the driving forces behind globalization are so powerful, we shouldn’t buy the argument that regulating new technologies will stifle innovation or destroy markets. We can’t stop technological progress, but we can slow it down at times in order to minimize its most detrimental effects. Revenue will still flow, tinkerers will still tinker, and the next killer app will still get made if we make rules about how quickly or in what fashion companies and governments can exercise their considerable power to put people out of work and/or cut off social services. In fact, helping populations through times of transition is the best way of allowing progress to continue: “The only thing with much chance of stalling globalization for any length of time is the very chaotic backlash––from the angry and disgruntled––that a slight slowdown might avert” (234). It is refreshing to get such a reasonable and sensitive perspective from someone who might otherwise be accused to shrugging his shoulders at the worst results of creative destruction and muttering, “Well, that’s the price of progress.”
While I agree with Wright that “To stop technical progress is to reserve a place in the dustbin of history,” I think his book (and others by similar thinkers) lacks a serious discussion about human quality of life (196). Wright has much to say about grand historical trends, global brains, and ways that technical innovation has generated win-win relationships, but he’s surprisingly mute when it comes to human fulfillment or flourishing. And while it’s true that “Literature is nice, but putting food on the table is nicer,” I balk a bit at his attitude that art doesn’t play a significant role in human progress (145). In all its forms, art is crucial for human self-expression and -actualization, and is also our primary means of encapsulating the richness of human experience to share it with others. I’ll concede that I don’t starve because of technology, but only if I can also insist that my heart soars because of art. My desire to keep living would decline drastically if I were wrenched away from the plethora of narratives (real and fictional) I explore in solitude and with loved ones. That which makes life possible doesn’t always make it meaningful.
This brings us to Wright’s final blunder, which is really a pair of blunders. The first is Wright’s bizarre characterization of consciousness through a woefully inapt thought experiment. Wright asks the reader to imagine a world that seems just like ours, with people who look and act just as we do, only they have no consciousness (i.e. no internal experience of sensations, emotions, or reflections). “Such a world,” Wright contends, “would lack moral meaning…it would offer no context in which words such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ made sense” (321). This is nonsense. As with many thought experiments, such a world is completely incompatible with what we know about how intelligent organisms are structured. Consciousness is a gradient––animals have it, but to a lesser degree than humans, especially when it comes our big superpowers: symbol manipulation and future projection. Any creature that possesses a sufficiently complex system of bio-feedback loops and neural networks will have some form of consciousness; it’s a necessary tool that enables massive conglomerations of highly specialized cells to aggregate sense data and guide the “boat” away from rocky shores, which would ruin the game of life for everyone. So if you happened on a world in which people acted just as we do, with all our nuance, quirkiness, and pettiness, the only logical conclusion would be that those people were fully conscious. It’s the old “if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck…” problem, and the same goes for humans. Wright’s “human-like zombies” give the impression that a brain could be fully functional without producing the experience of mind, which is impossible as far as we know.
Wright’s determination to link a flawed understanding of consciousness with evolution’s directionality forces him into an awkward mysticism:
That biological evolution has an arrow––the invention of more structurally and informationally complex forms of life––and that this arrow points toward meaning, isn’t, of course, proof of the existence of God. But it’s more suggestive of divinity than an alternative world would be: a world in which evolution had no direction, or a world with directional evolution but no consciousness. (323)
Because he does not view consciousness as a necessary, emergent property of directional evolution, Wright jumps to the conclusion that consciousness’s existence is “suggestive of divinity.” But why? And what “meaning” does directional evolution point toward? Evolution’s directionality––to the extent that it exists––is just a fact of life, not some revelatory link to the world’s inherent meaning or some divine being’s intentions. Wright has forgotten to apply Occam’s Razor; instead of choosing the simpler explanation (consciousness is a natural property of sufficiently complex brains), he clings to a quasi-supernatural definition of consciousness: “Consciousness––the fact that it is like something to be alive––[is] a profound and possibly eternal mystery, and a suggestive one to say the least. And divinity isn’t the only thing it suggests” (331). To be fair, some scientists seem to think the jury is still out on whether or not the existence of consciousness implicates divinity or some other metaphysical force, but I’m not holding my breath.
Wright’s second concluding blunder is the book’s strikingly misguided final flourish:
In the end, this is the best argument for higher purpose: that the history of life on earth is too good a story not to have been written. But, whether or not you believe the story indeed has a cosmic author, one thing seems clear: it is our story. As its lead characters, we can’t escape its implications. (334)
I can accept Wright’s softer arguments that a few of history’s broadest trends were “destined” (the rise of positive sum games among them), but I heartily reject the notion that our story was just too awesome “not to have been written.” This reads like the puerile musings of an aging autocrat who, looking back on his illustrious legacy (i.e. decades of tyranny), convinces himself that it just couldn’t have happened any other way. This is arrogance of cosmic proportions, with meaning written in the stars and deciphered by clever astronomers, Wright’s “lead characters.”
Why spring for cheap romanticism when truly stirring notions are close at hand? Instead of portraying nonzero thinking as a special key to understanding the universe’s underlying purpose, why not bask in the glory of being the only existing creature (as far as we know) capable of creating thought systems of complexity and scope, of using everything at our disposal, from biological gifts to technological marvels, to generate ideas and stories that reconstruct the past, throw perspective on the present, and grasp at a better future?
Wright hasn’t exposed the true meaning hidden under the universe’s insouciant guise, but he has created a thought-provoking and worthwhile book. In the end, the importance of positive sum thinking for solving modern problems is enough to forgive Wright’s unjustified extravagance. Having paid a few dollars for the experience of reading Nonzero, I think reader and writer both came out on top.
This review was originally published on my blog, words&dirt.
This book is a predecessor to Ted Chu’s Human Purpose and Transhuman Potential, which also makes the case that evolution is both directional and demonstrative of the universe’s inherent meaningfulness. Chu’s book is more thorough, far-reaching, and contemporary (it was published 15 years after Nonzero), but he essentially takes the baton from Wright without significantly altering the message. Additionally, both thinkers insist on clinging to notions of divinity that are almost entirely incompatible with their scientific worldviews.
Let’s begin with Wright’s least controversial claim: evolution gives nature a direction, with biological (and cultural) systems tending to become more complex and interconnected over time. This directionality flows from the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), which dictates that energy systems always tend toward equilibrium, a state of chemical inertness where no life can thrive. In the grand scale of things, entropy can never be overcome, but organisms can stave off its effects through efficient organization of matter and nutrients. The more complex, efficient, and adaptable the organism, the longer it can survive. Over time, simple organisms group together in adaptive, mutually beneficial arrangements that extend the lifespan of all constituents––hence the progression from unicellular organisms to increasingly robust multicellular life.
Wright effectively argues that this pattern is descriptive not just of organic evolution, but also of human cultural evolution. History demonstrates that positive sum relationships between human groups ultimately outlast bellicose tribalism and subjugation. That doesn’t mean myriad zero-sum games are not brutally playing themselves out at any given point in history (they always are), but it does mean that, over time, civilization favors win-win arrangements over zero-sum games. There are numerous historical examples that, when taken in isolation, seem to contradict this point of view, but I’m willing to agree with Wright and others (such as Steven Pinker) that progress is real and the world truly has become safer––even better––in recent epochs (at least for humans).
So, great, let’s give ourselves a big pat on the back and return to the project of trying to solve existing problems, which are multifarious and demand further adaptation, moral imagination, and a commitment to rooting out and bolstering as many positive sum relationships as possible. The problem with the nonzero approach, as I see it, is that it’s both easy and common for two or more parties to arrange a positive sum game in which everyone involved benefits but others do not. When an American company outsources jobs overseas, it’s win-win for the business owners and third-world workers who get access to better jobs and wages, but American middle class workers are left in the lurch. When Uber enables independent drivers and smartphone users to connect at unprecedented speeds for a competitive price, cab drivers who’ve spent many years and dollars getting licensed lose business.
There are plenty of examples of how certain nonzero relationships can be seen as zero-sum if you’re the person getting the fuzzy end of the lollypop. Wright’s answer to this problem is practical and level-headed: since the driving forces behind globalization are so powerful, we shouldn’t buy the argument that regulating new technologies will stifle innovation or destroy markets. We can’t stop technological progress, but we can slow it down at times in order to minimize its most detrimental effects. Revenue will still flow, tinkerers will still tinker, and the next killer app will still get made if we make rules about how quickly or in what fashion companies and governments can exercise their considerable power to put people out of work and/or cut off social services. In fact, helping populations through times of transition is the best way of allowing progress to continue: “The only thing with much chance of stalling globalization for any length of time is the very chaotic backlash––from the angry and disgruntled––that a slight slowdown might avert” (234). It is refreshing to get such a reasonable and sensitive perspective from someone who might otherwise be accused to shrugging his shoulders at the worst results of creative destruction and muttering, “Well, that’s the price of progress.”
While I agree with Wright that “To stop technical progress is to reserve a place in the dustbin of history,” I think his book (and others by similar thinkers) lacks a serious discussion about human quality of life (196). Wright has much to say about grand historical trends, global brains, and ways that technical innovation has generated win-win relationships, but he’s surprisingly mute when it comes to human fulfillment or flourishing. And while it’s true that “Literature is nice, but putting food on the table is nicer,” I balk a bit at his attitude that art doesn’t play a significant role in human progress (145). In all its forms, art is crucial for human self-expression and -actualization, and is also our primary means of encapsulating the richness of human experience to share it with others. I’ll concede that I don’t starve because of technology, but only if I can also insist that my heart soars because of art. My desire to keep living would decline drastically if I were wrenched away from the plethora of narratives (real and fictional) I explore in solitude and with loved ones. That which makes life possible doesn’t always make it meaningful.
This brings us to Wright’s final blunder, which is really a pair of blunders. The first is Wright’s bizarre characterization of consciousness through a woefully inapt thought experiment. Wright asks the reader to imagine a world that seems just like ours, with people who look and act just as we do, only they have no consciousness (i.e. no internal experience of sensations, emotions, or reflections). “Such a world,” Wright contends, “would lack moral meaning…it would offer no context in which words such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ made sense” (321). This is nonsense. As with many thought experiments, such a world is completely incompatible with what we know about how intelligent organisms are structured. Consciousness is a gradient––animals have it, but to a lesser degree than humans, especially when it comes our big superpowers: symbol manipulation and future projection. Any creature that possesses a sufficiently complex system of bio-feedback loops and neural networks will have some form of consciousness; it’s a necessary tool that enables massive conglomerations of highly specialized cells to aggregate sense data and guide the “boat” away from rocky shores, which would ruin the game of life for everyone. So if you happened on a world in which people acted just as we do, with all our nuance, quirkiness, and pettiness, the only logical conclusion would be that those people were fully conscious. It’s the old “if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck…” problem, and the same goes for humans. Wright’s “human-like zombies” give the impression that a brain could be fully functional without producing the experience of mind, which is impossible as far as we know.
Wright’s determination to link a flawed understanding of consciousness with evolution’s directionality forces him into an awkward mysticism:
That biological evolution has an arrow––the invention of more structurally and informationally complex forms of life––and that this arrow points toward meaning, isn’t, of course, proof of the existence of God. But it’s more suggestive of divinity than an alternative world would be: a world in which evolution had no direction, or a world with directional evolution but no consciousness. (323)
Because he does not view consciousness as a necessary, emergent property of directional evolution, Wright jumps to the conclusion that consciousness’s existence is “suggestive of divinity.” But why? And what “meaning” does directional evolution point toward? Evolution’s directionality––to the extent that it exists––is just a fact of life, not some revelatory link to the world’s inherent meaning or some divine being’s intentions. Wright has forgotten to apply Occam’s Razor; instead of choosing the simpler explanation (consciousness is a natural property of sufficiently complex brains), he clings to a quasi-supernatural definition of consciousness: “Consciousness––the fact that it is like something to be alive––[is] a profound and possibly eternal mystery, and a suggestive one to say the least. And divinity isn’t the only thing it suggests” (331). To be fair, some scientists seem to think the jury is still out on whether or not the existence of consciousness implicates divinity or some other metaphysical force, but I’m not holding my breath.
Wright’s second concluding blunder is the book’s strikingly misguided final flourish:
In the end, this is the best argument for higher purpose: that the history of life on earth is too good a story not to have been written. But, whether or not you believe the story indeed has a cosmic author, one thing seems clear: it is our story. As its lead characters, we can’t escape its implications. (334)
I can accept Wright’s softer arguments that a few of history’s broadest trends were “destined” (the rise of positive sum games among them), but I heartily reject the notion that our story was just too awesome “not to have been written.” This reads like the puerile musings of an aging autocrat who, looking back on his illustrious legacy (i.e. decades of tyranny), convinces himself that it just couldn’t have happened any other way. This is arrogance of cosmic proportions, with meaning written in the stars and deciphered by clever astronomers, Wright’s “lead characters.”
Why spring for cheap romanticism when truly stirring notions are close at hand? Instead of portraying nonzero thinking as a special key to understanding the universe’s underlying purpose, why not bask in the glory of being the only existing creature (as far as we know) capable of creating thought systems of complexity and scope, of using everything at our disposal, from biological gifts to technological marvels, to generate ideas and stories that reconstruct the past, throw perspective on the present, and grasp at a better future?
Wright hasn’t exposed the true meaning hidden under the universe’s insouciant guise, but he has created a thought-provoking and worthwhile book. In the end, the importance of positive sum thinking for solving modern problems is enough to forgive Wright’s unjustified extravagance. Having paid a few dollars for the experience of reading Nonzero, I think reader and writer both came out on top.
This review was originally published on my blog, words&dirt.
September 30, 2009
This is probably one the most challenging and rewarding books I have read in a long time. Robert Wright must be a brilliant researcher to have organized the amount of topics and references that he gathered to support his theories in this book. It provided an amazing perspective of the progression through time of human civilization. I teach a world civilization class and most of the concepts in this book are WAY too complicated for my students (6th grade) BUT it gives me many exciting examples and thoughts to use in class.
September 2, 2019
Wright's thesis is that human history has a destiny -- or at least a direction. This is not a mystic or supernatural direction. Rather, the history of matter, life in general, and humanity in particular tends toward complexity over time. This, in turn, is because there exist opportunities for nonzero sum interactions.
The rest of the book builds this argument starting with human culture and then discussing the origination and evolution of life. It's history through a particular lens in the style of Jared Diamond (or, to use a more contemporary example, Yuval Noah Harari). Like all good lenses, it doesn't explain everything but it does help bring clarity in certain areas. As is common for this genre, the tour through history is somewhat selective so as to emphasize the point. However, Wright gets credit for selecting the examples that both best support and most challenge his lens. A number of the chapters belabor the point more than they need to, and Wright spends a decent amount of time immersing himself in the debates that were de rigueur in 2000 -- hence 4 stars.
Instead of going into detail about the full argument, I'll focus on the core: nonzero sumness and how it leads to complexity. Given that core, the rest of the argument is interesting and important to work out in detail (beautiful theories often fail when faced with the detail of reality), but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. :-D
A nonzero sum interaction is one where coordinated action yields more net value than uncoordinated action. I intentionally use the term coordinated rather than cooperative to highlight the key point that a nonzero sum interaction need not involve conscious agents. That said, I'm going to use agent based language from here on out because to do otherwise tortures English. But remember that conscious agents are not necessary for nonzero sum interactions.
A coordinated action yields more value than the agents would have realized independently, but for the coordination to really be successful, each agent needs to individually realize more value than they would have realized without the coordination. Otherwise, there is no incentive to coordinate. As Wright puts it, every nonzero sum interaction has a zero sum core: the coordination produces more value than not coordinating, but that value needs to be divided and that division is zero sum. (Unless the agents have gotten to the point where their destinies are so shared that they can hardly be called independent anymore and they both realize all the costs and value of coordination.)
Time again to step back from agents. I said that Wright used this model to discuss the broad stroke mechanisms by which life might have originated. Molecules have no incentive to coordinate. So we have to instead think about success through the lens of natural selection. Natural selection works by a sheer numbers game: whatever genes are more successfully propagated to the next generation "win" the evolution game. The same is true for more mechanical molecular structures. Coordination at this level -- and really, up to the level of somewhat sophisticated life -- is a matter of there just being more of a particular structure around. And eventually, levels of coordination become intricate enough that the two coordinating agents are not really independent any more (e.g. nuclei and mitochondria in cells or humans who want to live in societies that have massive infrastructure like electricity).
(In normal evolutionary manner, this doesn't mean that the less coordinated agents don't continue along their own evolutionary track. Increasing complexity doesn't require less coordinated agents to disappear, although it may introduce pressures that they need to adapt to.)
Getting back to nonzero sum interactions, if coordination yields more value than a lack of coordination, then coordination strategies will be more successful over time. This is true even if every instance of coordination requires completely random coincidence to get started. Think of nonzero sum interactions as a ratchet: once a particular source of nonzero sum value started to be exploited, it's hard to move back to less cooperative strategies.
This ratcheting effect is the heart of Wright's argument that history has a direction. Because each step of complexity tends to be hard to undo and because more complex structures and organisms yield the potential for even more nonzero sum interactions, complexity tends to increase over time. A subset of molecules coordinate to become simple organisms to become more complex organisms to start evolving ever and ever more complex culture.
As Wright makes sure we are all clear on, this does not violate entropy. This order does not come without a cost. Acts of coordination -- including the coordination to merely sustain something like an organism -- take in energy; some goes to waste.
In this framing, nonzero sumness sounds totally awesome! And it is pretty awesome. In general, coordinating will yield more total value than the sum of the value created by not coordinating. However, coordination that lasts over many iterations increases interdependence. Nonzero sum interaction mean we succeed together and we fail together. To use an example from human culture, if two societies start trading they can specialize but that means that if their trading relationship is interrupted, they will no longer be able to provide as effectively for themselves as they would have if they had stayed independent. This yoking explains why nonzero sum relationships have often failed just as spectacularly as they have succeeded. Wright does not argue that coordination always brings success, just that coordination is the more successful strategy in the long run. Even in the case of our hypothetical trading partners, if they realized enough value before their relationship were interrupted, then coordination is likely a net win.
Overall, this was a good book that has aged well.
The rest of the book builds this argument starting with human culture and then discussing the origination and evolution of life. It's history through a particular lens in the style of Jared Diamond (or, to use a more contemporary example, Yuval Noah Harari). Like all good lenses, it doesn't explain everything but it does help bring clarity in certain areas. As is common for this genre, the tour through history is somewhat selective so as to emphasize the point. However, Wright gets credit for selecting the examples that both best support and most challenge his lens. A number of the chapters belabor the point more than they need to, and Wright spends a decent amount of time immersing himself in the debates that were de rigueur in 2000 -- hence 4 stars.
Instead of going into detail about the full argument, I'll focus on the core: nonzero sumness and how it leads to complexity. Given that core, the rest of the argument is interesting and important to work out in detail (beautiful theories often fail when faced with the detail of reality), but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. :-D
A nonzero sum interaction is one where coordinated action yields more net value than uncoordinated action. I intentionally use the term coordinated rather than cooperative to highlight the key point that a nonzero sum interaction need not involve conscious agents. That said, I'm going to use agent based language from here on out because to do otherwise tortures English. But remember that conscious agents are not necessary for nonzero sum interactions.
A coordinated action yields more value than the agents would have realized independently, but for the coordination to really be successful, each agent needs to individually realize more value than they would have realized without the coordination. Otherwise, there is no incentive to coordinate. As Wright puts it, every nonzero sum interaction has a zero sum core: the coordination produces more value than not coordinating, but that value needs to be divided and that division is zero sum. (Unless the agents have gotten to the point where their destinies are so shared that they can hardly be called independent anymore and they both realize all the costs and value of coordination.)
Time again to step back from agents. I said that Wright used this model to discuss the broad stroke mechanisms by which life might have originated. Molecules have no incentive to coordinate. So we have to instead think about success through the lens of natural selection. Natural selection works by a sheer numbers game: whatever genes are more successfully propagated to the next generation "win" the evolution game. The same is true for more mechanical molecular structures. Coordination at this level -- and really, up to the level of somewhat sophisticated life -- is a matter of there just being more of a particular structure around. And eventually, levels of coordination become intricate enough that the two coordinating agents are not really independent any more (e.g. nuclei and mitochondria in cells or humans who want to live in societies that have massive infrastructure like electricity).
(In normal evolutionary manner, this doesn't mean that the less coordinated agents don't continue along their own evolutionary track. Increasing complexity doesn't require less coordinated agents to disappear, although it may introduce pressures that they need to adapt to.)
Getting back to nonzero sum interactions, if coordination yields more value than a lack of coordination, then coordination strategies will be more successful over time. This is true even if every instance of coordination requires completely random coincidence to get started. Think of nonzero sum interactions as a ratchet: once a particular source of nonzero sum value started to be exploited, it's hard to move back to less cooperative strategies.
This ratcheting effect is the heart of Wright's argument that history has a direction. Because each step of complexity tends to be hard to undo and because more complex structures and organisms yield the potential for even more nonzero sum interactions, complexity tends to increase over time. A subset of molecules coordinate to become simple organisms to become more complex organisms to start evolving ever and ever more complex culture.
As Wright makes sure we are all clear on, this does not violate entropy. This order does not come without a cost. Acts of coordination -- including the coordination to merely sustain something like an organism -- take in energy; some goes to waste.
In this framing, nonzero sumness sounds totally awesome! And it is pretty awesome. In general, coordinating will yield more total value than the sum of the value created by not coordinating. However, coordination that lasts over many iterations increases interdependence. Nonzero sum interaction mean we succeed together and we fail together. To use an example from human culture, if two societies start trading they can specialize but that means that if their trading relationship is interrupted, they will no longer be able to provide as effectively for themselves as they would have if they had stayed independent. This yoking explains why nonzero sum relationships have often failed just as spectacularly as they have succeeded. Wright does not argue that coordination always brings success, just that coordination is the more successful strategy in the long run. Even in the case of our hypothetical trading partners, if they realized enough value before their relationship were interrupted, then coordination is likely a net win.
Overall, this was a good book that has aged well.
Read
April 20, 2021PART I A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMANKIND
1. The Ladder of Cultural Evolution
6/10
Some intelligent quotes, but it's largely just a loose and nonspecific intro that doesn't really make much sense as the full idea is not clear at all.
2. The Way We Were
5,5/10
Still very flimsy. It's all holistic stuff about being one whole as humans and working together. Unfortunately he still has not really explained much at all. It's a chapter that's kinda about nothing much.
3. Add Technology and Bake for Five Millennia
4/10
Honestly very boring ideological chit-chat that often plays tight and loose with evidence and research. It's the worst chapter I've read by him and a letdown overall because The Moral Animal is such an amazing book with some great research presented in it. I'm not sure why he wrote this or why he suddenly wants to avoid certain findings to support his new holistic theory about groups.
4. The Invisible Brain
6/10
Intro still. Huge groups advance progress? Sure, but he's overlooking everything else here. Potential, geniuses, overall tribe potential. In reality it's not only primitive power dynamics that are at play in group and state settings. It's extremely simplistic to only focus on this while not just ignoring, but even dismissing any other theory. Not really the ideal way to present your theory.
5. War: What Is It Good For?
6/10
Ehhh… not really getting the point.
6. The Inevitability of Agriculture
5/10
Still not convincing.
7. The Age of Chiefdoms
5,5/10
Basic chiefdom info you can read in regular anthropology books. Nothing new. But may be interesting to laymen.
8. The Second Information Revolution
5/10
How much interesting stuff can you say about writing's influence on ancient societies overall? Not much.
9. Civilization and So On
5/10
Still don't get it.
10. Our Friends the Barbarians
5/10
Just a bunch of history stories. Not really sure what the point is yet.
11. Dark Ages
5/10
Okay, I've read/listened to quite a few more chapters, but this book is a mess that overlooks most modern studies on groups and instead tries to focus on a holistic point of view completely ignoring actual evidence.
It's a historical book describing small societies and events in history. Basically trying to describe everything that happened. But it's not for me. I've watched history documentaries about all of history and they were fun. But I hate books like this that are unfocused and not fully scientific. It's impossible to just jump into a setting one minute and then jump out of it the next minute without any visual guides. Shame, it's fine enough history. Just not in a way where I can enjoy it.
Frankly, unless you are looking at a very basic overview of human tribe living this is not the book for you. I could probably have enjoyed it 20 years ago, maybe. But now it feels banal and repetitive, telling me stuff I've seen in much better YouTube documentaries. Go search YouTube for this stuff instead unless you love reading and don't need to see it visually.
When I think about it I overall feel this way: if the book had followed the modern heritability, personality and intelligence research more closely I would have found it to be fine enough as an overview of group settings. Not amazing, but a good overview. Now it feels like it's not a proper overview as it's way too holistic and based on guesswork. And then it has the issue of being unfocused too. You can't fail twice in huge ways and get away with it. You can easily fail a single time and still write a good book. So fixing one or the other would work for me. As of now it feels like it's not really getting at the truth, but rather trying frantically to avoid it.
12. The Inscrutable Orient
0/10
13. Modern Times
0/10
14. And Here We Are
0/10
15. New World Order
0/10
16. Degrees of Freedom
0/10
PART II A BRIEF HISTORY OF ORGANIC LIFE
17. The Cosmic Context
0/10
18. The Rise of Biological Non-zero-sumness
0/10
19. Why Life Is So Complex
0/10
20. The Last Adaptation
0/10
PART III FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
21. Non-crazy Questions
0/10
22. You Call This a God?
0/10
1. The Ladder of Cultural Evolution
6/10
Some intelligent quotes, but it's largely just a loose and nonspecific intro that doesn't really make much sense as the full idea is not clear at all.
2. The Way We Were
5,5/10
Still very flimsy. It's all holistic stuff about being one whole as humans and working together. Unfortunately he still has not really explained much at all. It's a chapter that's kinda about nothing much.
3. Add Technology and Bake for Five Millennia
4/10
Honestly very boring ideological chit-chat that often plays tight and loose with evidence and research. It's the worst chapter I've read by him and a letdown overall because The Moral Animal is such an amazing book with some great research presented in it. I'm not sure why he wrote this or why he suddenly wants to avoid certain findings to support his new holistic theory about groups.
4. The Invisible Brain
6/10
Intro still. Huge groups advance progress? Sure, but he's overlooking everything else here. Potential, geniuses, overall tribe potential. In reality it's not only primitive power dynamics that are at play in group and state settings. It's extremely simplistic to only focus on this while not just ignoring, but even dismissing any other theory. Not really the ideal way to present your theory.
5. War: What Is It Good For?
6/10
Ehhh… not really getting the point.
6. The Inevitability of Agriculture
5/10
Still not convincing.
7. The Age of Chiefdoms
5,5/10
Basic chiefdom info you can read in regular anthropology books. Nothing new. But may be interesting to laymen.
8. The Second Information Revolution
5/10
How much interesting stuff can you say about writing's influence on ancient societies overall? Not much.
9. Civilization and So On
5/10
Still don't get it.
10. Our Friends the Barbarians
5/10
Just a bunch of history stories. Not really sure what the point is yet.
11. Dark Ages
5/10
Okay, I've read/listened to quite a few more chapters, but this book is a mess that overlooks most modern studies on groups and instead tries to focus on a holistic point of view completely ignoring actual evidence.
It's a historical book describing small societies and events in history. Basically trying to describe everything that happened. But it's not for me. I've watched history documentaries about all of history and they were fun. But I hate books like this that are unfocused and not fully scientific. It's impossible to just jump into a setting one minute and then jump out of it the next minute without any visual guides. Shame, it's fine enough history. Just not in a way where I can enjoy it.
Frankly, unless you are looking at a very basic overview of human tribe living this is not the book for you. I could probably have enjoyed it 20 years ago, maybe. But now it feels banal and repetitive, telling me stuff I've seen in much better YouTube documentaries. Go search YouTube for this stuff instead unless you love reading and don't need to see it visually.
When I think about it I overall feel this way: if the book had followed the modern heritability, personality and intelligence research more closely I would have found it to be fine enough as an overview of group settings. Not amazing, but a good overview. Now it feels like it's not a proper overview as it's way too holistic and based on guesswork. And then it has the issue of being unfocused too. You can't fail twice in huge ways and get away with it. You can easily fail a single time and still write a good book. So fixing one or the other would work for me. As of now it feels like it's not really getting at the truth, but rather trying frantically to avoid it.
12. The Inscrutable Orient
0/10
13. Modern Times
0/10
14. And Here We Are
0/10
15. New World Order
0/10
16. Degrees of Freedom
0/10
PART II A BRIEF HISTORY OF ORGANIC LIFE
17. The Cosmic Context
0/10
18. The Rise of Biological Non-zero-sumness
0/10
19. Why Life Is So Complex
0/10
20. The Last Adaptation
0/10
PART III FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
21. Non-crazy Questions
0/10
22. You Call This a God?
0/10
Read
October 9, 2014Not sure how to rate it.
The book has three section, related to:
1) changes over time in human societies (structure, complexity, production, etc.)
2) changes over time in Earth's life-forms (evolutionary aspects)
3) whether (1) and (2) suggest a divine goal or purpose
Section (1) is the largest part of the book. I kept thinking he's making good points, dispelling some myths - but at the same time he's skimming over or overlooking other aspects. I have no problem seeing hunter-gatherers as wanting fair reciprocity, rather than imagining them being selfless altruists. I can accept that ancient slavery increased a society's total wealth, and sooner or later a fraction of that wealth did make it's way down to society's poor. But the author more or less equates the logic of the two (fair reciprocity and the highly disproportionate gains in class societies). [There are sporadic points he does speak negatively of the abuses of class societies.] Perhaps, the kind of mass production found in ancient slavery would not have been instituted by the cooperative action of free individuals - but the author doesn't attempt to make such an argument to justify slavery in a human species with an inherent desire for fair reciprocity. The author's inattention or disinterest in clarifying these conflicting dynamics in the economic progress of humanity makes me wonder what other conclusions might be drawn if they were included in the equation. Also, how do early societies go from individuals who have priorities for themselves and those closest to them but peer pressure maintains a proximity to fair reciprocity to societies with a "big men" or "chief" who combines ruthless selfishness with just enough sharing to prevent rebellion? With essentially no discussion, the author brushes aside a theory that these ruthless leaders are "bad men" despite various aspects of the actions making them sound like psychopaths. We know there are such individuals as psychopaths in society today, and we know they are more concentrated in higher positions in society. This could explain why most humans want fair reciprocity, but early elites, slaveholders, etc. show so little empathy for those actually laboring to produce that wealth for others. If there is such a distinction, there seems to be an inherent conflict within human society which could come to a head at some point. That could have been a valuable discussion even if one disagreed with the author's conclusions.
A disproportionate part of section (2) seemed to be a critique of certain arguments by Stephen Jay Gould, although the author never claims Gould's and his views are essentially the only options in the field.
In the third section, the author doesn't claim there is sufficient evidence to say there was a conscious plan / goal behind the evolution of life and society, but he considers it suggestive. It will seem significant to believers, but there seems little for those who aren't looking to bolster an already-held view they've otherwise seen little to support in the real world.
The book has three section, related to:
1) changes over time in human societies (structure, complexity, production, etc.)
2) changes over time in Earth's life-forms (evolutionary aspects)
3) whether (1) and (2) suggest a divine goal or purpose
Section (1) is the largest part of the book. I kept thinking he's making good points, dispelling some myths - but at the same time he's skimming over or overlooking other aspects. I have no problem seeing hunter-gatherers as wanting fair reciprocity, rather than imagining them being selfless altruists. I can accept that ancient slavery increased a society's total wealth, and sooner or later a fraction of that wealth did make it's way down to society's poor. But the author more or less equates the logic of the two (fair reciprocity and the highly disproportionate gains in class societies). [There are sporadic points he does speak negatively of the abuses of class societies.] Perhaps, the kind of mass production found in ancient slavery would not have been instituted by the cooperative action of free individuals - but the author doesn't attempt to make such an argument to justify slavery in a human species with an inherent desire for fair reciprocity. The author's inattention or disinterest in clarifying these conflicting dynamics in the economic progress of humanity makes me wonder what other conclusions might be drawn if they were included in the equation. Also, how do early societies go from individuals who have priorities for themselves and those closest to them but peer pressure maintains a proximity to fair reciprocity to societies with a "big men" or "chief" who combines ruthless selfishness with just enough sharing to prevent rebellion? With essentially no discussion, the author brushes aside a theory that these ruthless leaders are "bad men" despite various aspects of the actions making them sound like psychopaths. We know there are such individuals as psychopaths in society today, and we know they are more concentrated in higher positions in society. This could explain why most humans want fair reciprocity, but early elites, slaveholders, etc. show so little empathy for those actually laboring to produce that wealth for others. If there is such a distinction, there seems to be an inherent conflict within human society which could come to a head at some point. That could have been a valuable discussion even if one disagreed with the author's conclusions.
A disproportionate part of section (2) seemed to be a critique of certain arguments by Stephen Jay Gould, although the author never claims Gould's and his views are essentially the only options in the field.
In the third section, the author doesn't claim there is sufficient evidence to say there was a conscious plan / goal behind the evolution of life and society, but he considers it suggestive. It will seem significant to believers, but there seems little for those who aren't looking to bolster an already-held view they've otherwise seen little to support in the real world.
May 8, 2009
This is another of those rare non-fiction "I couldn't put it down" books.
Using Game Theory, Wright develops a theory of Cultural Evolution that gives rise to optimism, while not ignoring those things that could go wrong. However, if history is any guide, the increasing complexity of human culture has always moved Homo Sapiens closer and closer to a culture of mutual collaboration and reciprocal altruism to the point that we might look forward to a global culture that would make war even more of a zero-sum game than it is now. We are talking win-win versus total lose-lose here.
Though written before 9/11, he does see the potential of just such a terrorist act. He also points out in the Introduction, "The Storm Before the Calm" that we live in chaotic times as have many before us and that the chaos has always, in recorded history, been followed by a period of increased complexity and relative prosperity and happiness.
The first two-thirds of the book, which I found the most interesting, traces human history in such a way that it is clear that non-zero-sumness (his made up word for mutual gain) has always led to greater ends than existed before. He does this with a delightful sense of humor and shows how some of the givens, we learned in school, are false truths. One of my favorites is the chapter titled "Our Friends the Barbarians".
He also, in much less detail, looks at organic evolution as a process of greater and greater complexity supporting his contention that culture has also moved to greater complexity and that both of these processes are natural and positive.
The last section contains a philosophical discussion that raises what he calls "Non-Crazy Questions" like: "Is the human race an organism?" He also discusses the idea of God but not as an anthropomorphic being made in our image but as a force that created and maintains Darwinian Natural Selection as a guiding rule of existence.
All of this heavy duty stuff is presented in such a light-handed and light-hearted manner that it makes these ideas accessible even to a non-scientific mind like mine. Yet, in no way does he trivialize the important issues he is raising.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is struggling with trying to make sense of what is going on in the world now. I would also recommend it to those who think they have all the "right" answers but only if they can come with an open mind.
Using Game Theory, Wright develops a theory of Cultural Evolution that gives rise to optimism, while not ignoring those things that could go wrong. However, if history is any guide, the increasing complexity of human culture has always moved Homo Sapiens closer and closer to a culture of mutual collaboration and reciprocal altruism to the point that we might look forward to a global culture that would make war even more of a zero-sum game than it is now. We are talking win-win versus total lose-lose here.
Though written before 9/11, he does see the potential of just such a terrorist act. He also points out in the Introduction, "The Storm Before the Calm" that we live in chaotic times as have many before us and that the chaos has always, in recorded history, been followed by a period of increased complexity and relative prosperity and happiness.
The first two-thirds of the book, which I found the most interesting, traces human history in such a way that it is clear that non-zero-sumness (his made up word for mutual gain) has always led to greater ends than existed before. He does this with a delightful sense of humor and shows how some of the givens, we learned in school, are false truths. One of my favorites is the chapter titled "Our Friends the Barbarians".
He also, in much less detail, looks at organic evolution as a process of greater and greater complexity supporting his contention that culture has also moved to greater complexity and that both of these processes are natural and positive.
The last section contains a philosophical discussion that raises what he calls "Non-Crazy Questions" like: "Is the human race an organism?" He also discusses the idea of God but not as an anthropomorphic being made in our image but as a force that created and maintains Darwinian Natural Selection as a guiding rule of existence.
All of this heavy duty stuff is presented in such a light-handed and light-hearted manner that it makes these ideas accessible even to a non-scientific mind like mine. Yet, in no way does he trivialize the important issues he is raising.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is struggling with trying to make sense of what is going on in the world now. I would also recommend it to those who think they have all the "right" answers but only if they can come with an open mind.
July 27, 2014
Thought provoking (generally thoughts of 'how could this selective interpretation be taken seriously by a publisher). Couldn't finish it, after battling for 250 pages. Premise: world history basically follows a pattern that produces the best for everyone. The world also apparently stands 'at its moral zenith to date'. With 85% of the world without adequate food, shelter and security, whilst the other 15% spend money on gastric bands and diabetes operations? Apparently all workers receive a decent wage because of the wonders of human destiny. Where? Does the author mean he, his peers, family and students do? This Panglossian nonsense is all the more sickening for hypocritically (and explicitly) bashing other Panglossian nonsense. As for the 'facts' used to back up the theory, to take one small example: the Council of Europe led to 'a largely peaceful 19th century'...only because the nations faced each other off in third countries they owned as colonies, rather than on their own precious soil, numpty! Gah! The whole 357 pages was like this! The Mongol hordes were good for Eurasian culture due to a safer trade network...seriously? Authoritarian regimes aren't faring too well in the twenty first century, as history dictates that political freedom must expand...perhaps in your town, Wright, but much of the globe is covered by authoritarian regimes last I looked.
In his thesis, that everyone in the world is playing a 'non-zero-sum game' through trade, culture, etc, he barely acknowledges that some people get a huge slice of the non-zero-sum pie, whilst others have to work for starvation wages. Fairly confident they have a less rosy view of 'the arrow of history' than Wright.
Nb fair play for Wright at least saying what he thinks. Labelling whole interest groups as 'insane' (not tongue in cheek, either) is crass and wrong, but at least he has a proper opinion. To be clear, though, his opinion is wrong.
In his thesis, that everyone in the world is playing a 'non-zero-sum game' through trade, culture, etc, he barely acknowledges that some people get a huge slice of the non-zero-sum pie, whilst others have to work for starvation wages. Fairly confident they have a less rosy view of 'the arrow of history' than Wright.
Nb fair play for Wright at least saying what he thinks. Labelling whole interest groups as 'insane' (not tongue in cheek, either) is crass and wrong, but at least he has a proper opinion. To be clear, though, his opinion is wrong.
September 8, 2012
The book suffers from strong preconceived conclusions. They diminish many other good messages.
The concepts of cultural evolution and arc of history are good by themselves. Progress is defined - roughly - as ever quicker and cheaper movements of ideas and matter. Evolution of complexity in human affairs and their role in humanity's ever widening reach (in all sense) make a good theory. Author uses countless examples as he goes along in the first two-third of the book while explaining the thesis and they all keep the reading interesting and pleasurable.
Yet, the predisposition to conclude strongly optimistically and create revisionist views of past to be able to arrive at such forecasts destroy so many other good things. The author appears almost fatalistic in trying to prove that human society was always expected to progress to the current point and is destined to move to the greater things. Inidrectly, the message is that if anything else were to happen (say humans end up blowing up the globe through pollution or bomb), the entire natural and cultural selection would prove so useless.
To be fair, the author did not say as above, but the needless predictions are roughly based on this type of arguments. The book's digression towards the end to completely new topics - including a quick summary of natural evolution, the question of God, humanity as an organism etc - is pointless and too superficial, even though like all else in the book is interesting and with some fresh tales/views.
The concepts of cultural evolution and arc of history are good by themselves. Progress is defined - roughly - as ever quicker and cheaper movements of ideas and matter. Evolution of complexity in human affairs and their role in humanity's ever widening reach (in all sense) make a good theory. Author uses countless examples as he goes along in the first two-third of the book while explaining the thesis and they all keep the reading interesting and pleasurable.
Yet, the predisposition to conclude strongly optimistically and create revisionist views of past to be able to arrive at such forecasts destroy so many other good things. The author appears almost fatalistic in trying to prove that human society was always expected to progress to the current point and is destined to move to the greater things. Inidrectly, the message is that if anything else were to happen (say humans end up blowing up the globe through pollution or bomb), the entire natural and cultural selection would prove so useless.
To be fair, the author did not say as above, but the needless predictions are roughly based on this type of arguments. The book's digression towards the end to completely new topics - including a quick summary of natural evolution, the question of God, humanity as an organism etc - is pointless and too superficial, even though like all else in the book is interesting and with some fresh tales/views.
May 20, 2022
An interesting idea that could have been explained in 100 pages instead of 300. Much of the book is simply a run through of human history in order to show that all societies evolve into more complex societies, just at different speeds. The author's basic premise is that biological evolution gives way to cultural evolution. Individual, mildly sentient cells merged into multicelled organisms and acquired a collective brain. These organisms (us) merge into large thinking webs constituting another collective brain. In other words the Earth is an evolving organism and we are it's maturing brain. And just as an organism's brain has stewardship of the body we have now been given stewardship of the biosphere-Earth.
The author acknowledges that this is basically the theory developed by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin back in the 1940's, but he dismisses de Chardin as a "mystic". This is probably because de Chardin was a Catholic priest and saw the development of this biosphere (which he named the Noosphere) culminating in a one on one communion with God. But he neglects to mention that de Chardin was also a paleontologist.
I was disappointed in the author's reluctance to advocate for his own theory. At numerous points in the book he would provide a theory then say, it may not be true but you have to admit its not crazy. Seems a little spineless.
The author acknowledges that this is basically the theory developed by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin back in the 1940's, but he dismisses de Chardin as a "mystic". This is probably because de Chardin was a Catholic priest and saw the development of this biosphere (which he named the Noosphere) culminating in a one on one communion with God. But he neglects to mention that de Chardin was also a paleontologist.
I was disappointed in the author's reluctance to advocate for his own theory. At numerous points in the book he would provide a theory then say, it may not be true but you have to admit its not crazy. Seems a little spineless.
May 26, 2019
Domu uztvēru. Neierasts tas evolucionārās psiholoģijas skatījums uz pasauli. Mēģinājums no psiholoģijas viedokļa skaidrot dabas procesus. Darvinisma psiholoģija jeb psiholoģijas darvinisms. Grāmata Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment noteikti uz mani atstāja daudz pārliecinošāku iespaidu. Tomēr arī šī grāmata ir atspirdzinošs piedāvājums palūkoties uz pasauli ar citādām acīm. Tas ir piedāvājums ieraudzīt pasaulē daudz vairāk miermielīgas neieinteresētības kā mēs mēdzam piedēvēt tai. Un patiesībā tas ir piedāvājums ieraudzīt arī pasaulē klātesošo labvēlību, kuru mums katram un visiem kopā ir reāla iespēja praktizēt. Pašiem savā labā. Domas skaidrība noteikti nav šīs grāmatas spēcīgākā iezīme, bet spēja iedvesmot gan.
June 22, 2014
I actually loved the theory put forth about a non-zero-sum world in which humanity continually moves toward a more peaceful and unified existence as we grow larger and more complex. I even very much agree with many of assertions and predictions; however, for a book to purport to be scientific in its conclusions there is way too much soft science here, and many of Mr. Wright's conclusions seem to come by way of intuition and historical cherry picking.
Even with that said I did actually enjoy this book. It's full of enticing ideas and some great sources are referenced in some places (i.e Telihard de Chardin ect.). The book presents a very positive and optimistic view for the world moving forward and I hope that Wright's "gut" is right on, but the book is presented as an anthropological study in game theory, and for that it misses very wide of the mark.
Even with that said I did actually enjoy this book. It's full of enticing ideas and some great sources are referenced in some places (i.e Telihard de Chardin ect.). The book presents a very positive and optimistic view for the world moving forward and I hope that Wright's "gut" is right on, but the book is presented as an anthropological study in game theory, and for that it misses very wide of the mark.
June 12, 2020
From the intro, I knew this book was going to be one of my preferred ones. It's bringing together many themes in which I'm interested: the non-linearities due to complex interactions, and the "information flow" we need to take advantage of these non-linearities. All in the title: when we cooperate, we can make more than we each individually bring.
I love how the book is structured: focusing on human society and then spending the last third on all life forms. It's not just the destiny of life to go towards more cooperation to get the benefits of non-zero interaction; all life does it! We could almost that's what life is. I recommend "The vital question" by Nick Lane for more on this.
I read this book in audiobook and I need a re-read on paper.
I love how the book is structured: focusing on human society and then spending the last third on all life forms. It's not just the destiny of life to go towards more cooperation to get the benefits of non-zero interaction; all life does it! We could almost that's what life is. I recommend "The vital question" by Nick Lane for more on this.
I read this book in audiobook and I need a re-read on paper.
April 9, 2007
If you have been to a TED conference or visited their podcasts, you have probably heard of Robert Wright. This book is a book I recommend to someone interested in game theory. Most game theory books show payoff tables and a bunch of math but this get to the heart of game theory and helps you understand history through the lens of game theory.
August 23, 2017
Fantastic book. This talks about Bin Laden and Al Queda long before 9-11. Sadly, his predictions for the future were not correct, and he likely didn't plan on the US having G.W.Bush in the White House who reacted with anger, rather than logic. We are still engaged in the longest running war in our nation's history because of Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq.
May 25, 2021
Anyone selling you a win-win is after your wallet, and their comfort.
Anyone selling you a win-win-win is absolutely off their rocker.
Anyone selling you a win-win-win is absolutely off their rocker.
December 25, 2017
- This book is about principles underlying cultural evolution and makes a lot of radical claims. The main thesis of the book is to investigate whether evolution (genetic and cultural) has a purpose, direction or goal. The author says yes using the logic of non-zero-sum games, where all parties involve (mostly) mutually benefit as opposed to zero-sum games.
- One way to predict the future of evolution is to retroactively inspect the history of the biosphere to understand the present moment. How did social complexity arise? Other than basic drives like thirst, hunger and sex, high level pressures like social status must have given a big impetus. After all, as the book argues, one way to compete successfully is to invent technologies that create new non-zero-sum games. Such games create the basis for human and animal cooperation. A natural question is how do zero-sum games that are prevalent in our society, like war and capitalistic companies, lead to non-zero-sum games? There are compelling arguments about the interplay of these games as I will discuss later. This is also directly tied to the interplay of human cooperation and conflict.
- There are plenty of historical examples, most notably the cultural evolution of Northwest Coast Indians. These societies had 'Big Men' in charge of managing supplies, putting sanctions on the timing of fishing, bartering goods with neighboring 'Big Men' and so on. This social organization directly contributed to non-zero-sum-ness, as the risk associated with food production and safety became more distributed.
- So why did some hunting-gathering societies gather more wealth and non-zero-sum-ness than others? Was it surplus of resources. It does not seem so. Robert Carneiro published a paper about Kuikuru, who inhabited the jungles of Amazonia and tended gardens for manioc, a staple food and source of tapioca. This society could have easily tripled the production of manioc but they preferred leisure time. In general, for them and many other similar societies, surplus did not equal economic development. In order to scale human cooperation, there needs to be availability of cheap transportation, communication and density of population. These are the key enablers for facilitating nonzero sum games.
- What about war? The author argues that war isn't non stop zero sum ness. "Even as war inserts zero-sum dynamics between two groups, within the groups things are quite different. If your village is beset by axe-wielding men bent on slaughter, your relations with fellow villagers can pivot quickly towards the non-zero-sum; action in concert you may fend off the assault, but divided you will likely fall".
- The author makes many more historical arguments of the principle of non-zero-sum games as the basic driving force behind cultural evolution via progress in technological evolution (via maximizing information exchange). In the second half of the book, this principle is used to explain why for instance China was not the driving force behind the first industrial revolution. It might have been due to the Ming dynasty, which reigned until 1644, and aggressively pushed forward with an isolationist foreign policy. In turn choosing to play a more zero-sum game with everyone else.
- In the very final parts of the book, things start getting extremely speculative but interesting. If non-zero-sum-ness is the basic principle underlying social and biosphere evolution, then one can imagine meta-evolution strategies to evolve such non zero sum games. Under this view, the entire biosphere can be thought of as a giant organism (see the Gaia hypothesis that draws similar conclusions). However there are practical and meta physical problems. If it took 3 billion years for the earth organism to evolve, then there really hasn't been many evolutionary trials since the beginning of big bang. And for this to be true, the first seed of life must be confirmed to come via meteorites or other related cosmic mechanisms. Regardless, its an interesting idea to ponder.
- The book closes by relating the triumph of non-zero-sum-ness to the expansion of humanity's moral compass. Where is this taking us? Perhaps towards the equal moral status of all human beings.
- One way to predict the future of evolution is to retroactively inspect the history of the biosphere to understand the present moment. How did social complexity arise? Other than basic drives like thirst, hunger and sex, high level pressures like social status must have given a big impetus. After all, as the book argues, one way to compete successfully is to invent technologies that create new non-zero-sum games. Such games create the basis for human and animal cooperation. A natural question is how do zero-sum games that are prevalent in our society, like war and capitalistic companies, lead to non-zero-sum games? There are compelling arguments about the interplay of these games as I will discuss later. This is also directly tied to the interplay of human cooperation and conflict.
- There are plenty of historical examples, most notably the cultural evolution of Northwest Coast Indians. These societies had 'Big Men' in charge of managing supplies, putting sanctions on the timing of fishing, bartering goods with neighboring 'Big Men' and so on. This social organization directly contributed to non-zero-sum-ness, as the risk associated with food production and safety became more distributed.
- So why did some hunting-gathering societies gather more wealth and non-zero-sum-ness than others? Was it surplus of resources. It does not seem so. Robert Carneiro published a paper about Kuikuru, who inhabited the jungles of Amazonia and tended gardens for manioc, a staple food and source of tapioca. This society could have easily tripled the production of manioc but they preferred leisure time. In general, for them and many other similar societies, surplus did not equal economic development. In order to scale human cooperation, there needs to be availability of cheap transportation, communication and density of population. These are the key enablers for facilitating nonzero sum games.
- What about war? The author argues that war isn't non stop zero sum ness. "Even as war inserts zero-sum dynamics between two groups, within the groups things are quite different. If your village is beset by axe-wielding men bent on slaughter, your relations with fellow villagers can pivot quickly towards the non-zero-sum; action in concert you may fend off the assault, but divided you will likely fall".
- The author makes many more historical arguments of the principle of non-zero-sum games as the basic driving force behind cultural evolution via progress in technological evolution (via maximizing information exchange). In the second half of the book, this principle is used to explain why for instance China was not the driving force behind the first industrial revolution. It might have been due to the Ming dynasty, which reigned until 1644, and aggressively pushed forward with an isolationist foreign policy. In turn choosing to play a more zero-sum game with everyone else.
- In the very final parts of the book, things start getting extremely speculative but interesting. If non-zero-sum-ness is the basic principle underlying social and biosphere evolution, then one can imagine meta-evolution strategies to evolve such non zero sum games. Under this view, the entire biosphere can be thought of as a giant organism (see the Gaia hypothesis that draws similar conclusions). However there are practical and meta physical problems. If it took 3 billion years for the earth organism to evolve, then there really hasn't been many evolutionary trials since the beginning of big bang. And for this to be true, the first seed of life must be confirmed to come via meteorites or other related cosmic mechanisms. Regardless, its an interesting idea to ponder.
- The book closes by relating the triumph of non-zero-sum-ness to the expansion of humanity's moral compass. Where is this taking us? Perhaps towards the equal moral status of all human beings.
September 6, 2020
With well over 300 positive reviews from various sources, Wright’s book can easily be summarized as a very important contribution to a detailed yet encompassing understanding of biological and cultural evolution’s contribution to the human condition through time. Lots of time, leading to his focus on the present and future.
The extensive reviews do an excellent job of relating all his major points, and the reviewer’s personal reaction to them—which always must be kept in sight and also provide a glimpse into the thinking which Wright touches upon at various points in his book. So, there is no need for me to go there. I really enjoyed the cultural and historical details of support for his overall perspective in particular, and his playful narrative using down-to-earth examples and comments. Where I do want to go is to that overall perspective which I consider essential to understanding human decision-making: game theory.
There are four outcomes possible: 1), zero-sum (I win or lose) in a contention of action or 2), non-zero-sum (I and my opposite either both lose or both win) in a contention of action. Now, as Wright points out in his detailed examples throughout the book, although the zero-sum result can be really bad for the loser all the way up to not so bad, it’s still losing. Likewise with a non-zero-sum result, it can be a great positive result for both all the way to a really bad result for both. History is basically a recorded narration of the degrees of zero-sum and non-zero-sumness that has resulted from all the contentions of action that have occurred through recorded time, including non-recorded evidence as a result of scientific inquiry, such as biological and archeological evidence. Given this lens, a fundamental understanding of how stuff happens is greatly clarified—the rest is interesting detail about the characters, cultural concepts and associated behavior, geographical characteristics, and timing of how it all took place.
And Wright would add that it’s not just interesting, and entertaining at times, but also shows a tendency over time to be more and more complex. Not always, because many times positive nonzero action should have been taken but instead came out with a negative result (because those invading hordes really did have super iron swords, or that volcano really did erupt despite warnings from nearby traditional enemies). But overall, decisions about contentious situations tend to be positive nonzero and that is the driving force, or “destiny,” of humanity: to just do better next time overall. It simply adds up over time, because it lays the ground for it to happen a little more frequently despite some setbacks.
Unfortunately, many reviewers get lost in the trees and forget the encompassing forest I just described, especially with the end of the book. Some say it’s too optimistic, and others want something more positive. Well, Wright gives both: We can do better, just work more cooperatively for positive nonzero-sumness, but things can also go very wrong when we don’t and humanity will experience a setback. However, overall the trend over time—lots of time—is more positive nonzero and resulting complexity. That’s all he’s saying, and hoping we all make the right choice. That definition of “destiny” I can live with.
Now, if I can take a moment for a bit of extended discussion, there seems to be one element that is missing in this scenario presented by Wright, and I should add, probably by all such analyses of decision-making. And that is motivation for making decisions. Why do humans end up in situations where they have to make decisions, or are simply motivated by their body to take any action, such as by their autonomic nervous system, which forces that person to take some action—not just consciously via their brain but continuously millions of times a day automatically by the cells which constitute the body whole? Why not just remain in a condition of stasis until . . . what, something happens?
That’s the key: something happens, and the body has to react or, ultimately, die. This could be a threat from an element of nature such as a rainstorm, temperature change from weather, a rock falling down towards you because of gravity, or other similar threats. That would get you moving, but again, the question is why? Well, because your body might be uncomfortable or even die. That would be motivation to action, but what is it that the motivation is for, ultimately? Most simply put, the motivation is to control one’s environment, to avoid being too hot or cold or having a rock falling on your head. That fact, control, is the motivation for you to make a conscious decision or an automatic one by your bodily cells to get moving and save yourself.
That’s pretty simple when dealing with situations caused by inanimate forces or objects. Ah, but what happens when the conflict occurs with animate objects, other life forms? Then is when Wright’s use of game theory comes into play, as his book amply illustrates, because the source of motivation is now other living beings who are also seeking their own best interest, just as you are: whether it be a crouching lion, nourishing plant, disease producing bacteria, or that woman or man soliciting you to contribute time or funds for their social cause.
So, is the decision for action to be carried out in a zero-sum or a nonzero format, and what are the expectations and chances involved? Again, Wright provides extensive examples of how humans have made those decisions and played the game throughout history and face such decisions for the future. The necessity for each person—and by extension for every living being, bacteria, plant, or animal—to try to control as much of their environment as possible is the key to defining the difference between animate and inanimate elements on Earth and elsewhere in the universe, for that matter.
By the very nature of the first constituting chemical reactions which gave form to reproducing and growing cellular structures, control was necessary. And the scene was set through genetic material and evolutionary processes for increasing the potential to survive control situations and thereby the general direction of complexity, as is amply described by Wright. It is the need for control and survival which therefore motivated all life forms to continually improve their faculties for control, first based solely on genetic-derived enhancement but later through learning and memory via increasingly complex neurology and later through culture, possessed primarily by humans, which allowed the transmission of that learning to more efficiently control their environment—and play the zero-sum and nonzero-sum games with more complexity.
It seems to me that this is the missing link, control as motivation, for explaining why we engaged in game theory decisions in the first place, starting those millions of years ago, and why we still do so today: because we have to. We must attempt to control our lives as much as possible, and the way for us humans to do that is primarily by the only choices we have: win or lose, or take the next step and try to cooperate. That’s how Wright’s splendid conceptual framework fits in this game of Life.
The extensive reviews do an excellent job of relating all his major points, and the reviewer’s personal reaction to them—which always must be kept in sight and also provide a glimpse into the thinking which Wright touches upon at various points in his book. So, there is no need for me to go there. I really enjoyed the cultural and historical details of support for his overall perspective in particular, and his playful narrative using down-to-earth examples and comments. Where I do want to go is to that overall perspective which I consider essential to understanding human decision-making: game theory.
There are four outcomes possible: 1), zero-sum (I win or lose) in a contention of action or 2), non-zero-sum (I and my opposite either both lose or both win) in a contention of action. Now, as Wright points out in his detailed examples throughout the book, although the zero-sum result can be really bad for the loser all the way up to not so bad, it’s still losing. Likewise with a non-zero-sum result, it can be a great positive result for both all the way to a really bad result for both. History is basically a recorded narration of the degrees of zero-sum and non-zero-sumness that has resulted from all the contentions of action that have occurred through recorded time, including non-recorded evidence as a result of scientific inquiry, such as biological and archeological evidence. Given this lens, a fundamental understanding of how stuff happens is greatly clarified—the rest is interesting detail about the characters, cultural concepts and associated behavior, geographical characteristics, and timing of how it all took place.
And Wright would add that it’s not just interesting, and entertaining at times, but also shows a tendency over time to be more and more complex. Not always, because many times positive nonzero action should have been taken but instead came out with a negative result (because those invading hordes really did have super iron swords, or that volcano really did erupt despite warnings from nearby traditional enemies). But overall, decisions about contentious situations tend to be positive nonzero and that is the driving force, or “destiny,” of humanity: to just do better next time overall. It simply adds up over time, because it lays the ground for it to happen a little more frequently despite some setbacks.
Unfortunately, many reviewers get lost in the trees and forget the encompassing forest I just described, especially with the end of the book. Some say it’s too optimistic, and others want something more positive. Well, Wright gives both: We can do better, just work more cooperatively for positive nonzero-sumness, but things can also go very wrong when we don’t and humanity will experience a setback. However, overall the trend over time—lots of time—is more positive nonzero and resulting complexity. That’s all he’s saying, and hoping we all make the right choice. That definition of “destiny” I can live with.
Now, if I can take a moment for a bit of extended discussion, there seems to be one element that is missing in this scenario presented by Wright, and I should add, probably by all such analyses of decision-making. And that is motivation for making decisions. Why do humans end up in situations where they have to make decisions, or are simply motivated by their body to take any action, such as by their autonomic nervous system, which forces that person to take some action—not just consciously via their brain but continuously millions of times a day automatically by the cells which constitute the body whole? Why not just remain in a condition of stasis until . . . what, something happens?
That’s the key: something happens, and the body has to react or, ultimately, die. This could be a threat from an element of nature such as a rainstorm, temperature change from weather, a rock falling down towards you because of gravity, or other similar threats. That would get you moving, but again, the question is why? Well, because your body might be uncomfortable or even die. That would be motivation to action, but what is it that the motivation is for, ultimately? Most simply put, the motivation is to control one’s environment, to avoid being too hot or cold or having a rock falling on your head. That fact, control, is the motivation for you to make a conscious decision or an automatic one by your bodily cells to get moving and save yourself.
That’s pretty simple when dealing with situations caused by inanimate forces or objects. Ah, but what happens when the conflict occurs with animate objects, other life forms? Then is when Wright’s use of game theory comes into play, as his book amply illustrates, because the source of motivation is now other living beings who are also seeking their own best interest, just as you are: whether it be a crouching lion, nourishing plant, disease producing bacteria, or that woman or man soliciting you to contribute time or funds for their social cause.
So, is the decision for action to be carried out in a zero-sum or a nonzero format, and what are the expectations and chances involved? Again, Wright provides extensive examples of how humans have made those decisions and played the game throughout history and face such decisions for the future. The necessity for each person—and by extension for every living being, bacteria, plant, or animal—to try to control as much of their environment as possible is the key to defining the difference between animate and inanimate elements on Earth and elsewhere in the universe, for that matter.
By the very nature of the first constituting chemical reactions which gave form to reproducing and growing cellular structures, control was necessary. And the scene was set through genetic material and evolutionary processes for increasing the potential to survive control situations and thereby the general direction of complexity, as is amply described by Wright. It is the need for control and survival which therefore motivated all life forms to continually improve their faculties for control, first based solely on genetic-derived enhancement but later through learning and memory via increasingly complex neurology and later through culture, possessed primarily by humans, which allowed the transmission of that learning to more efficiently control their environment—and play the zero-sum and nonzero-sum games with more complexity.
It seems to me that this is the missing link, control as motivation, for explaining why we engaged in game theory decisions in the first place, starting those millions of years ago, and why we still do so today: because we have to. We must attempt to control our lives as much as possible, and the way for us humans to do that is primarily by the only choices we have: win or lose, or take the next step and try to cooperate. That’s how Wright’s splendid conceptual framework fits in this game of Life.
April 21, 2019
This is a great, optimistic vision of humanity's past and future. Using the concepts found in game theory, the author examines history and concludes that humanity has engaged in countless non-zero sum interactions (those that leave both "players" better off) that have pushed us in a forward direction. I find his arguments to be well-justified and quite compelling. The only thing holding me back from a five-star review is the speculation that Wright engages in towards the end of the book. I feel that he was trying to extrapolate a little too far ahead, and I do not put much stock in such far-reaching predictions.
February 19, 2024
So much to consider. Wright creates an unfashionable theory about the arc of human destiny. The expansiveness is appealing but does it hold? Remarkably well. The appeal is partially in the sunny prospect of non-zero , which only demands slight faith.
October 9, 2024
Religious experience
Displaying 1 - 30 of 249 reviews