Product Description

In a book sure to stir argument for years to come, Robert Wright challen+ges the conventional view that biological evolution and human history are aimless. Ingeniously employing game theory - the logic of 'zero-sum' and 'non-zero-sum' games - Wright isolates the impetus behind life's basic direction: the impetus that, via biological evolution, created complex, intelligent animals, and then via cultural evolution, pushed the human species towards deeper and vaster social complexity. In this view, the coming of today's independent global society was 'in the cards' - not quite inevitable, but, as Wright puts it, 'so probable as to inspire wonder'. In a narrative of breathtaking scope and erudition, yet pungent wit, Wright takes on some of the past century's most prominent thinkers, including Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins. Wright argues that a coolly specific appraisal of humanity's three-billion-year past can give new spiritual meaning to the present and even offer political guidance for the future. This book will change the way people think about the human prospect.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #23207 in Books
• Published on: 2001-09-06
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 445 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
One of the main layman's objections to the supposedly random process of evolution is that for all its inherent pointlessness, evolution seems to have a goal, a narrative, a conscious direction. And that direction is towards complexity. Germs become animals. Apes become humans. Blood-caked Aztec savages become liberal-minded East Coast essayists. Now Robert Wright, author of the much-praised The Moral Animal, has come along with a contentious new book to tell us that the layman has been on to something all along. Evolution does have a goal.

The title of Wright's book comes from games theory, which divides human interactions into "zero sum games", where for every winner there's a loser, and "non-zero sum games", where everyone gains. Wright's aim is to knit together this theory with anthropology, zoology, biology, and history, plus a dash of chaos theory, and thus attest that "non-zero sum altruism" is the natural inclination of humankind. To prove this he cites such disparate phenomena as the sago-swapping natives of the US Northwest, the global government-in-waiting that is the European Union, and the anarchically generous ethos that rules the Net--all of which apparently go to show that we are, deep down, caring, sharing nice guys. Wright's second aim is to show this niceness is no accident: evolution helps to make us that way.

The author's learning is lightly worn. Sometimes too lightly. After a while his chatty, hey-let's-have-a-beer style starts to grate: "When was the last time you invented a boomerang?"; "Ah, Tahiti!". There are also some minor errors, like his claiming that Britain fought the Hundred Years War (it was England), or his perception that milkmen are a thing of the past, that make you wonder whether he has finessed some of the more intractable scientific arguments. Certainly his book has already attracted some brickbats from the atheistic hardnuts of evolutionary psychology. But the case that he advocates remains as exciting as it is unsettling. Because, if evolution does have a point, if human history has a deliberate, conscious, "narrative drive", who had the idea? Who's the scriptwriter of Man, the Movie? --Sean Thomas

Review
'Wright has constructed an interesting thesis... bold and thought-provoking.' SUNDAY TIMES 'Not only a fascinating read but an important one.' INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY 'One of the main layman's objections to the supposedly random process of evolution is that for all its inherent pointlessness, evolution seems to have a goal, a narrative, a conscious direction. And that direction is towards complexity. Germs become animals. Apes become humans. Blood-caked Aztec savages become liberal-minded East Coast essayists. Now Robert Wright, author of the much-praised The Moral Animal, has come along with a contentious new book to tell us that the layman has been on to something all along. Evolution does have a goal. The title of Wright's book comes from games theory, which divides human interactions into "zero sum games", where for every winner there's a loser, and "non-zero sum games", where everyone gains. Wright's aim is to knit together this theory with anthropology, zoology, biology, and history, plus a dash of chaos theory, and thus attest that "non-zero sum altruism" is the natural inclination of humankind. To prove this he cites such disparate phenomena as the sago-swapping natives of the US Northwest, the global government-in-waiting that is the European Union, and the anarchically generous ethos that rules the Net--all of which apparently go to show that we are, deep down, caring, sharing nice guys. Wright's second aim is to show this niceness is no accident: evolution helps to make us that way. The author's learning is lightly worn. Sometimes too lightly. After a while his chatty, hey-let's-have-a-beer style starts to grate: "When was the last time you invented a boomerang?"; "Ah, Tahiti!". There are also some minor errors, like his claiming that Britain fought the Hundred Years War (it was England), or his perception that milkmen are a thing of the past, that make you wonder whether he has finessed some of the more intractable scientific arguments. Certainly his book has already attracted some brickbats from the atheistic hardnuts of evolutionary psychology. But the case that he advocates remains as exciting as it is unsettling. Because, if evolution does have a point, if human history has a deliberate, conscious, "narrative drive", who had the idea? Who's the scriptwriter of Man, the Movie?' - Sean Thomas, AMAZON.CO.UK REVIEW

About the Author
Robert Wright has written extensively for THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, THE NEW YORKER and TIME magazine, and currently works as a senior editor at THE NEW REPUBLIC.

Customer Reviews

An optimist's sociological musings
A few years ago, with "Moral Animal" Robert Wright caused a complete turnaround in my recreational reading habits from mostly fiction to mostly nonfiction. His style was easy and stimulating and generated a new interest in evolutionary science in general and evolutionary psychology in particular, and, perhaps with most consequence, introduced me to the current rennaisance in popular science writing. It was therefore with a keen sense of anticipation that I picked up a copy of his latest, "Nonzero".

The book is written in two parts, the first sociological in orientation and the second biological, and finishes up with a few guesses as to the future of mankind. The basic topic is a game-theoretical take on the positive consequences of mutually self-interested cooperation, which the author enshrines in the unfortunately ugly phrase "nonzero-summness". In a defensively apologetic appendix, Wright confesses he wanted to use this as the title. I'm glad he didn't.

The phrase "zero sum" is in fairly common use in the US, although I have not heard it much in Europe; it means an interaction where there is no overall, net gain for the parties concerned. A boxing match is a zero sum game, one man wins, another loses. In contrast, Wright's interest is in interactions whose results are positive for all parties, generating "progress". Examples are easy - consider the organisation between different people with different expertise it takes to, say, build a house.

In a necessarily thin history of the human race, Wright finds this nonzero-summness wherever he looks, elevating it, more or less, to the level of an over-arching principle of the development of life and, inevitably, the development of human society.

There is a great deal of high talk, provocative nudges, and suggestions of the perception of higher things. But Wright never seems to bite the bullet and take a controversial stance, preferring to adopt a generally optimistic attitude, rather like Rodin's thinker, looking upward, with a goofy smile on his face - cute, perhaps, but not nearly so interesting. The result is a vague sort of impression that because things have gone well in the past, Wright thinks it likely, possibly even (but not explicitly) necessary, that they will continue to go well in the future. (Perhaps only a modern American, even a Californian, could have written this book.)

A brief duel near the middle of the book with Popper's ideas on the inability of historical studies to predict future developments is unconvincing. Popper was surely discussing something considerably more refined than Wright's generalist approach - after all, one buys into mutual funds which have performed well in the past on the odds that they will continue to do so, but this still does not mean that the behaviour of the stock exchange is predictable.

This is an optimist's sociology book - read it for a nice, warm and fuzzy feel of an idea of the universe as a place built for progress, but don't expect any paradigm-changing revelations. Overall, I rate it an interesting read, but ultimately dissappointing.

Well worth reading
I see this book hasn't been reviewed on Amazon for more than 5 years, so the comments need an update. I recommend anyone browsing here to give the book a try. I don't agree with previous reviewers that the ideas in this book are superficial: Rather they are so fundamental to the way the world works that the examples appear self evident when the author raises them. Why not decide for yourself? It's very readable, whether or not you finde it also thought provoking.

excellent and thought-provoking
I'd lent my first copy out a few years ago, and am glad to have reordered it - really broad-ranging, thought-provoking and interesting. Covers a lot of ground without being superficial, and a really valuable angle to take.

This book may not appeal to the cynical, but I thought it was unusual and enriching.