The Spirit in Human Evolution - Waldorf Research Institute

I have to admit that reductionist thinking in the mind of a wise old scientist like
E.O. Wilson, a man who can generously acknowledge just how far the various branches
of science are from realizing their part of the consilient vision, is stimulating because it
is in many respects subtle. Each point Wilson makes sets a benchmark for any counter or
complementary arguments. On top of which, if I may be permitted a very non-scientific
remark, Professor Wilson is clearly a man with enthusiasm verging on love for nature, its
diversity and its complexity, as his autobiography reveals. He is clearly no mere theorist
but someone with a lifetime’s experience of observing nature.
On the other hand, in the words of theorists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel
Dennett, to name two of the leading proponents of reductionist ultra-Darwinism, the idea
is positively “dangerous” 10 and, I must add, in some ways daft. The danger, however, is
greater.
One of the central assertions that goes with the ultra-Darwinist or biologically
determinist view is that there is a one-to-one correlation between gene and unit of
behavior, between several genes and certain behavioral tendencies, which is the milder
form being increasingly used. This claim is not only misleading to the nonspecialist but
lends itself to verbal and conceptual shorthand by specialists themselves. We are told
that no biologist really thinks in terms of a one-to-one correlation of gene and behavior
but scientific papers and articles, not to mention popular science books and television
programs increasingly use this terminology. 11
Furthermore, if you suggest that genes are not susceptible to any extrinsic forces,
that is to say they are not and can not be influenced by any external factors such the
environment, including the cell environment in which the genes are first able to become
in any sense active, then the chain of cause and effect is a tight linear one that extends
only in one direction. Given time and money for research, so the argument goes, all
forms of life and behavior will be explainable and therefore predictable. This is the Holy
Grail of sociobiology and reductionist microbiology. And if everything is predetermined
genetically and therefore, once we have “decoded” the human genome, the total content
of human DNA, the step to intervention and manipulation is a short one. It is already
being taken.
Greedy and Generous Reductionism
Both Dawkins and especially Dennett disavow “greedy reductionism” or
ultra- Darwinism. The problem is there can be no “generous” or “good” reductionism,
especially if it constitutes the only approach. There is nothing generous about Dennett’s
description of Darwin’s basic theory of natural selection as a “universal acid” eating its
way inexorably through any levels of explanation, a universally applicable explanation
that lies at the bottom of all fields of knowledge. Nevertheless Dennett ridicules “greedy
reductionism.” Dawkins too explains at length in his recent books 12 the need for a stepby-step
reductionism and laments what he calls “precipice reductionism.”
There is a problem with relativizing reductionism by saying that we do not
need to go all the way or, we can stop at higher levels in the conventional hierarchy.
_________________________
10
I refer to Dennett’s book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, p 199.
11
See Rose, S., Lifelines, chapters 4, 9 and 10 for accounts of a number of recent examples, 1997.
See also Wills, C., 1998, Children of Prometheus: the Accelerating Pace of Human Evolution, Chapter
11, for an account of how complex the relationship between genes and behaviour actually is, in
for example Down’s Syndrome or William’s Syndrome.
12
Dawkins, R., River Out of Eden, 1995.
48