- Gebundene Ausgabe: 448 Seiten
- Verlag: Pantheon; Auflage: 1 (4. Januar 2000)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 0679442529
- ISBN-13: 978-0679442523
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 24,4 x 16,5 x 3,5 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 30 Kundenrezensionen
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 303.482 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny (Englisch) Gebundene Ausgabe – 4. Januar 2000
|Neu ab||Gebraucht ab|
Kunden, die diesen Artikel angesehen haben, haben auch angesehen
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
Nonzero, from New Republic writer Robert Wright, is a difficult and important book--well worth reading--addressing the controversial question of purpose in evolution. Using language suggesting that natural selection is a designer's tool, Wright inevitably draws the conclusion that evolution is goal-oriented (or at least moves toward inevitable ends independently of environmental or contingent variables).
The underlying reason that non-zero-sum games wind up being played well is the same in biological evolution as in cultural evolution. Whether you are a bunch of genes or a bunch of memes, if you're all in the same boat you'll tend to perish unless you are conducive to productive coordination.... Genetic evolution thus tends to create smoothly integrated organisms, and cultural evolution tends to create smoothly integrated groups of organisms.
Admittedly, it's as hard to think clearly about natural selection as it is to think about God, but that makes it just as important to acknowledge our biases and try to exclude them from our conclusions. It is this that makes Nonzero potentially unsatisfying to the scientifically literate. Time after time we've seen thinkers try to find in biological evolution a "drive toward complexity" that might explain all sorts of other phenomena from economics to spirituality. Some authors, like Teilhard de Chardin, have much to offer the careful reader who takes pains to read metaphorically. Others--legions of cranks--provide nothing but opaque diatribes culminating in often-bizarre assertions proven to nobody but the author. Wright is much closer to de Chardin along this axis; his anthropological scholarship is particularly noteworthy, and his grasp of world history is excellent. Unfortunately, he has the advocate's willingness to blind himself to disagreeable facts and to muddle over concepts whose clarity would be poisonous to his positions: try to pin him down on what he means by complexity, for example. Still, his thesis that human cultures are historically striving for cooperative, nonzero-sum situations is heartening and compelling; even though it's not supported by biology, it's not knocked down, either. If the reader can work around the undefined assumptions, Wright's charm and obvious interest in planetary survival make Nonzero a worthy read. If the first chapter's title--"The Ladder of Cultural Evolution"--makes you cringe, the last one--"You Call This a God?"--will make you smile. --Rob Lightner
Advance Praise for Nonzero
"I recommend Nonzero to any and all readers as a marvelous summary and interpretation of what is now known and surmised about biological and human history on our planet. For an author so well informed scientifically, perhaps the book's most unusual feature is the fact that Wright does not flinch from closing with a chatty, informal yet incisive argument about cosmic meaning and purpose behind the story he unfolds. . . . I greatly admire the book. [Wright] knows so much and has thought so clearly; and allows his imagination to range so freely!"
-- William H. McNeill, professor emeritus of history, University of Chicago, and author of The Rise of the West
"This is the book to read to start off the millennium. Leaping from mountaintop to mountaintop, this integrative and inspiring volume is brimming with hope for a positive human future. Religions are made of such stuff."
-- Martin Seligman, professor of psychology, University of Pennsylvania, and author of Learned Optimism
"Wright's chapters on the evolution of biological complexity and intelligence -- in addition to being beautifully written and scientifically sound -- are a welcome corrective to current trendy views that understate natural selection's creative power. There is, indeed, as Darwin said, a grandeur in this view of life."
-- James Gould, professor of biology, Princeton University, and author of Biological Science
Praise for The Moral Animal
"A fiercely intelligent, beautifully written, and engrossingly original book. Wright writes with a consistent, irreverent wit that does not hide a heartfelt seriousness of purpose."
-- New York Times Book Review
"This clever and stimulating book is destined to become a classic. . . . Like Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species and Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, it could well change the way people think and feel about their lives -- perhaps even how they behave. . . . An intellectual entertainment argued with wit and style."
-- The Economist
Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Die Evolution von der ersten Bakterie zum Menschen und die Entwicklung des Menschen vom Steinewerfer zum Erfinder der Atombombe ist tatsächlich ein Fortschritt - zu mehr Frieden und Zusammenarbeit auf der Erde. Kurz gesagt: Die Evolution ist zielgerichtet (Fachwort: teleologisch). Durch Zufall und Irrtum, durch eine "arms race" zwischen immer intelligenter agierenden Lebewesen führte sie zum Menschen und den zur globalen Zusammenarbeit.
Das "tool" der Evolution zur Errechung dieses Zwecks? Die Erfindung des "reziproken Altruismus" und damit die immer stärker werdenden Neigung zu "Nonzero-Games". Daher der Titel, denn die Spieltheorie sagt: Bei Zero-Games wie Fussball oder Schach MUSS einer verlieren. Bei Nonzero-Games KÖNNEN beide verlieren, aber oft genug gewinnen sie. Zum Beispiel beim Handel. Durch gegenseitige Freundlichkeit, gegenseitiges Vertrauen, gegenseitige Zuverlässigkeit, Dann wird aus Nonzero sogar eine Win/Win-Situation. Und die stärkt Freundlicheit, Vertrauen und Zuverlässigkeit weiter.
Ein typisches Beispiel für den Fortschritt? Zwischen den Dörfchen der frühen Clanfamilien gabs ständig Krieg. Nicht weil unsere Ahnen so angriffslustig waren, sondern weil die Männer im Krieg "Status"gewannen, durch reiche Beute mehr Frauen anzogen und mehr Kinder zeugen (und ernähren) konnten. Durch die immer stärkere Vernetzung der Welt bis heute wird Krieg vermieden. Er findet statt, aber nur noch in begrenzten Gebieten. Die Abstände zwischen den Kriegsschauplätzen sind immens gewachsen. In den Städten und Dörfern dazwischen herrscht Frieden. Einleuchtend, oder?
Ich finde auf jeden Fall: Wer mitreden will über das Thema "Wird alles immer schlechter? Oder vielleicht besser?" MUSS Robert Wright's NONZERO gelesen haben. Sonst redet er Unsinn. Er zeigt zumindest, dass er von Evolution und menschlicher Historie keine Ahnung an. Und ganz abgesehen davon: NONZERO ist für alle, die einigermaßen gut Englisch können, die reine Lesefreude!
Now comes Robert Wright, previously author of Three Scientists and Their Gods and The Moral Animal, with an excellent book accompanied by an enthusiastic blurb by William McNeill. Wright's purpose to set out the gospel of progress anew, this time using the language of game theory as his principal mode of rhetoric. At its most basic level Wright's point is that interactions are positive-sum: there are gains from cooperation. Thus human cultural evolution has an arrow and a direction: toward greater complexity, toward higher civilization.
The direction arises at two levels. First, individual humans seek out things that increase their own powers and capabilities. Cooperation tends to do this, so people find ways to cooperate. But the most important form of cooperation is one that is almost impossible to stop: the simple sharing of knowledge. Two heads are better than one. The denser the population (and the better the means of communication) the more ideas will be generated, the larger the number of ideas that turn out to be useful, and the faster will be progress. People are, Wright argues--in my view correctly---naturally acquisitive in that they want useful things, and will eagerly copy new technologies they hear about. Thus Wright sees inventions such as agriculture as inevitable--not as a lucky accident.
Second, at the level of human societies, the societies that are more powerful--have better technologies, more effective social arrangements, greater population densities, and so forth--either swamp their neighbors or force their neighbors to copy them in order to maintain their autonomy. In Eurasia, where contact was constant from an early age--from the year 200 on one could travel from Gibralter to the mouth of China's Yangtze River and cross only three borders--a good innovation at one end would diffuse all the way to the other in a matter of centuries. He believes that the wide spread of religion in agricultural civilizations proves that its productivity-boosting and division of labor-enhancing effects outweigh its exploitative side: those societies that did not have temples and priests did not flourish.
Even if you buy all of Wright's argument that forms of increasing returns--non-zero-sum-ness, as Wright calls it--impart an arrow of increasing complexity and division of labor to human social, cultural, and economic evolution, this does not necessarily amount to Progress--at least not to anything we would see as progress in human morality or human happiness. For why should organizational complexity be Progress? As Wright puts it: "...it would be hard to argue that there was net moral gain between the hunter-gatherer and ancient-state phases of cultural evolution. The Egyptians had slaves--which virtually no known hunter-gatherer societies had--and their soldiers returned from wars of conquest proudly brandishing the severed penises of their slain foes."
So in the end Wright is forced to play a game of three-card monte to reach conclusions that support his belief in Progress. The card labeled "complexity" must be switched for the card labeled "Progress" without our noticing. In the industrial core, at the end of the twentieth century, we are inclined to tolerate this switch--to say that it is obvious that a highly complicated and productive civilization will have widely-distributed individual wealth, lots of individual freedom, and soft forms of rule, and that social complexity is civilization. But back in the middle of the twentieth century this switch could not have been accomplished at all: "complexity yes," people would have said, "but progress no." And who knows how things will look in a hundred more years?
Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet (1743- 1794), was an aristocrat, a mathematician, an official of the Academy of Sciences, and was a friend of Voltaire (1694-1778). He strongly supported the revolution of 1789 as an example of human progress. But the Committee of Public Safety turned on him: he was arrested, and died in prison before he could be executed.
Möchten Sie weitere Rezensionen zu diesem Artikel anzeigen?
Die neuesten Kundenrezensionen