I agree with almost everything he has to say, but it is all painfully obvious. I keep notes of what I learn when I read a (non-fiction) book. Usually it is difficult to summarize what I learn down to a few pages. In this case, 10 lines did it. I guess this book would be worth while to somebody if it caused them to realize that emotion and underlying human goals have arisen only because they were evolutionarily beneficial, but Selfish Gene is a much more succinct source for that lesson.
It very much annoys me that he complicates arguments by running in circles and never stating the conclusion in simple terms. For example, he never comes out and answers the questions about the souls of animals, etc. He gives several examples showing that animals do not differ from humans at all, but never concludes the argument. I kept waiting for him to take it up again or summarize, but he doesn't.
Early on, he explains the trivial fact that stereotyping is misleading when dealing with bell curve shaped data. A few chapters later, he stereo-types away.
His definitions are short sighted and dishonestly honed for his specific argument. For example, he says that every human being in the world has 5 fingers on each hand. Untrue. I know of people who have been born deformed with four fingers, and I know sombody that has lost one finger. These people are still human.
It really surprised me that somebody with his credentials is so naive. He read some artsy-fartsy book about some art society. The author of this book made a very overt analogy to animal societies (e.g., these artists struggled for dominance, etc.). Glass was blown away by this. It is funny that the author of this other book understood that humans share many emotions and drives with animals, and casually used it to enliven his fiction. Glass is blown away by this obvious phenomenon (20 years later) and feels obligated to share what he obviously thinks is a revolutionary discovery.
