Lessons From Ants to Grasp Humanity
Richard Perry/The New York Times
By JENNIFER SCHUESSLER
Published: April 8, 2012
To the biologist Edward O. Wilson,
the Metropolitan Museum of Art encapsulates some of the conflicting
impulses natural selection has instilled in humans: the innate drive for
expression that spurs some of us to make art, the selfishness that
motivates others to earn the riches needed to collect it, and the
altruism that compels the donation of collections for the public good —
as long as the donors’ names are inscribed on the walls too.
But asked to imagine the museum from the perspective of ants, whose
intricate social world he has built a towering reputation by studying,
Dr. Wilson painted a scene that was less a lesson in evolution than a
chaotic free-for-all.
“To them the crowds would just be a flank-to-flank herd of enormous
elephants you have to dodge around,” he said with a boyish giggle from
the museum’s teeming steps during a recent visit to New York to promote
his 27th book, “The Social Conquest of Earth,” which is being published
Monday by Liveright. “I don’t think ants would have any aesthetic or
intellectual interest in the museum, though they would certainly find a
happy home in Central Park.”
An ant’s-eye view of an art museum may seem odd. But Dr. Wilson, 82, has
made a grand scientific and literary career by bringing Homo sapiens
and the natural world we emerged from closer together, uniting phenomena
great and small under the grand perspective of evolution. “Human
history makes no sense without prehistory, and prehistory makes no sense
without biology,” he said, echoing a line from the new book, which
offers a sweeping account of the human rise to domination of the
biosphere, rounded out with broad reflections on art, ethics, language
and religion.
It’s the kind of calmly imperial claim that has been getting Dr. Wilson
in trouble since the days of “Sociobiology,” the mammoth 1975 study that
was hailed by many scientists as a landmark effort
to explain behaviors like altruism, aggression and parental care as
products of natural selection but was denounced by others as justifying
racism, sexism and — “horror of horrors,” he recalled — capitalism.
That book, only a short chapter of which was about human beings,
inspired one protester to dump a pitcher of water over Dr. Wilson’s head
at a scholarly conference. But these days Dr. Wilson — a courtly man
with a touch of an Alabama drawl and a palpable eagerness to comment on
even casually encountered flora and fauna — is more likely to be hailed
as the nation’s leading advocate for biodiversity and an all-around eco
hero.
Not that his days as a controversialist are entirely behind him. “The
Social Conquest of Earth,” presented by his publisher as the capstone
work of his career, is written in the graceful style that has won him
two Pulitzer Prizes but grounded in a view of evolution that has already prompted sharp criticism from his fellow scientists.
Specifically Dr. Wilson argues that the tendency toward cooperation and
collaboration that has powered our spectacular success as a species is
explained not by kin selection — in which evolution favors the genes of
individuals who sacrifice themselves for the sake of relatives — but by
group selection, the tendency of evolution to favor groups that work
together altruistically, beyond what might be predicted by simple
genetic relatedness.
If no one is quite ready to dump a pitcher of water over Dr. Wilson’s
head, many colleagues are mystified and dismayed by his late-life
embrace of group selection — a highly controversial notion among
biologists — and rejection of the kin-selection theory that he helped
popularize in “Sociobiology.”
“ ‘Sociobiology’ is still a very great book, and now he’s trashing it
all,” said Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the
University of Chicago. “It’s crazy.” Dr. Coyne was one of more than 150
scientists who signed four letters published last spring in the journal
Nature criticizing a 2010 paper
by Dr. Wilson, written with the mathematicians Martin A. Nowak and
Corina E. Tarnita, outlining his group-selection arguments.
But Dr. Wilson, putting on a fleece vest under his professorial green
tweed jacket in preparation for a rainy walk through Central Park,
seemed unruffled by the fracas, which is only passingly acknowledged in
the new book. “I don’t mind it,” he said of the criticism, adding that
he had full confidence in his co-authors’ complex math. “I actually
expect it for any important change. No pain, no gain.”
Dr. Wilson, who retired from teaching in 1996 but remains on the Harvard
faculty, was more bothered by the suggestion that his new arguments
compromised his scientific legacy, which he said rested not on
“Sociobiology” but on his many “fundamental” discoveries about ants and
other social insects.
Certainly few living biologists can match Dr. Wilson’s record, which
includes identifying some 450 new ant species, including one he turned
up in a potted plant in the Washington offices of the World Wildlife
Fund. (On closer re-examination, alas, it turned out to be a mere
variant.) On the walk through Central Park, there was no sign of the new
frog species a team of biologists recently identified
on Staten Island, though the prospect of a previously unknown creature
lurking somewhere in the park, he said, was “virtually certain.”
“I’d look in the soil, among the mites, or maybe the springtails,” he
said, enthusiastically using his forearm to imitate that tiny bug’s rear
appendage. “They are among the least understood and most obscure
creatures.”
That sense of never-ending discovery fuels Dr. Wilson’s globe-trotting
mission to promote biodiversity preservation, which in recent months has
taken him as far as Mozambique and the South Pacific. Saving the
natural world, he said, is more important to him now than winning any
intellectual fights.
Not that he shies away from alienating potential allies. Religious
readers, for example, may not take kindly to a chapter in the new book
depicting religion as an archaic “trap” kept alive today by “purveyors
of theological narcissism,” from the pope to the Dalai Lama.
“We’ve been spinning our wheels trying to talk about ways to bring the
best of religion and science together,” he said in the interview,
dismissing organized religion as fostering tribalism we no longer need.
And while some humanities scholars have embraced evolutionary ideas,
many others will roll their eyes at his declaration, in a chapter on the
arts, that the humanities will achieve a “full maturing” only when they
take account of findings in cognitive science and genetics.
In conversation Dr. Wilson is more modest. Asked what sciences has to
learn from the arts, he responded, “Everything.” He declined to comment
on favorite pieces at the Metropolitan Museum, insisting that his
knowledge is too limited to say anything very useful about individual
works. (When he met Harper Lee last year, during a during a trip to his
home state, Alabama, with a group hoping to establish a national park
there, he had not read her “To Kill a Mockingbird,” he sheepishly
admitted.)
When it comes to nature, however, Dr. Wilson remains easily and
infectiously wonder-struck. Before heading out of Central Park he paused
by the statue of Balto, the sled dog who became a national hero
after carrying medicine to diphtheria-stricken Nome, Alaska, in 1925.
“It’s good to see a monument to an animal,” he said, looking up and
smiling.
沒有留言:
張貼留言