John K. Tsotsos

reciprocity is brief but admirably clear in explicating these processes as they might foster altruism (defined nonpsychologically, as net reproductive sacrifice). He appears to endorse the common belief that selection between groups for altruism is a weak force because it “seems likely to be a slow process, while the subversion of groups from within seems likely to be a fast one” (p. 121). True, but if group benefit is conferred as a pleiotropic effect of an individually beneficial trait, such selection could be very strong. And one of the scenarios Godfrey-Smith entertains for an easily demonstrated ‘basic human prosociality’ (an evolved altruistic bias) indeed is multilevel. His exploration of the possibilities in this very active area of psychosocial research and evolutionary speculation is refreshingly noncommittal. Similarly his treatment of meme theory and cultural evolution, which allows that under some conditions ideas can be ‘Darwinian individuals’. Under other conditions what happens is more like learning, in which, though “adaptation can arise by retention and refinement of useful variants, this is not in general because these variants make more of themselves” (p. 138). Most brilliant is how Godfrey-Smith handles ‘human nature’, which many of my politically liberal humanist colleagues vehemently dismiss as a pernicious myth. But of course there is such a thing — even liberal humanists have different expectations for their children than their dogs! GodfreySmith writes: “Homo sapiens is an easily recognized species, and once you know that someone is a human you can make predictions about him or her. The observable features are caused in large part by a genetic profile that is common across humans. If you want to know why humans look so unlike chimps and sturgeons, DNA is not the whole story but it is the most important difference maker” (p. 139, harkening back to Chapter Six). But he goes on to insist that we are not stuck with the nature we have: “As evolution is open-ended, this talk about our nature has a post hoc character. A new characteristic that is ‘abnormal’ now might be the basis for a new nature in the future. That much is true of all species, not just humans.” (p. 142). This balanced and hopeful view Godfrey-Smith aligns with those of 20th Century existentialists, like Jean-Paul Sartre. The last, and perhaps the most ‘ornithological’, chapter is on “Information”. One knee-jerk reaction is to think we know what this is: what else could it be that is transcribed into RNA and translated (like a poem) into protein if not information? But the idea is riddled with contradiction. We can describe in exquisite detail just how a particular gene produces a particular protein without ever using the I-word. Of course how and why a gene makes a protein is recorded in its structure. But similarly a tree’s age and climatic experience is recorded in its pattern of rings, and a geological formation’s history is recorded in its strata. Godfrey-Smith concludes that “evolution is not an information-using or informationinvolving process in a way that marks it off from other processes of change” (p. 152). Instead, he prefers communication as a unifying concept for biology, quite unlike standard accounts of information or coding. “Communication-like behaviors are ubiquitous, and communication is also a manifestation of something more basic. A combination of receptivity and activity, with those behaviors stabilized by selection, by feedback, is a distinctive feature of the living world” (p. 156). The philosophy and practices of biology connect more or less strongly in the various chapters of this book. Although doubtless too much attention paid to the meaning of words would slow progress, too little promotes fruitless debates and opens windows for hype — encouraging the public (and our funders) to believe that results mean more or other than they do. Some areas of research importantly engage social issues (genetic determinism, human empathy, species conservation) and to pretend that there are only facts at play is disingenuous. In others it may be that all we birds might gain from ornithology is a deeper understanding of ourselves. This book touches all these bases, and although it is too brief to be the only text for any course, it would be a perfect addition to or foundation for the reading list for many. And no practicing biologist who reads it is likely to think her time was wasted.