Kindle Price:	£9.22
Sold by:	Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.

You've subscribed to ! We will pre-order your items within 24 hours of when they become available. When new books are released, we'll charge your default payment method for the lowest price available during the pre-order period.

Update your device or payment method, cancel individual pre-orders or your subscription at
Your Memberships and Subscriptions

There was an error. We were unable to process your subscription due to an error. Please refresh and try again.

Follow the author

Peter Singer

A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation (Darwinism Today Series) Kindle Edition

by Peter Singer (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

4.1 42 ratings

See all formats and editions

Amazon Price

New from

Used from

Kindle Edition

"Please retry"

£9.22

—

Hardcover

"Please retry"

£14.77

£22.30

£13.71

Kindle Edition
£9.22 Read with our free app
Hardcover
£14.77

4 Used from £13.71 3 New from £22.30 2 Collectible from £34.95

In this ground-breaking book, a renowned bioethicist argues that the political left must radically revise its outdated view of human nature. He shows how the insights of modern evolutionary theory, particularly on the evolution of cooperation, can help the left attain its social and political goals.

Singer explains why the left originally rejected Darwinian thought and why these reasons are no longer viable. He discusses how twentieth-century thinking has transformed our understanding of Darwinian evolution, showing that it is compatible with cooperation as well as competition, and that the left can draw on this modern understanding to foster cooperation for socially desirable ends. A Darwinian left, says Singer, would still be on the side of the weak, poor, and oppressed, but it would have a better understanding of what social and economic changes would really work to benefit them. It would also work toward a higher moral status for nonhuman animals and a less anthropocentric view of our dominance over nature.

ISBN-13

978-0300083231
Sticky notes

On Kindle Scribe
Publisher

Yale University Press
Publication date

1 Oct. 2013
Language

English
File size

481 KB
See all details

See all supported devices

Peter Singer
35
Kindle Edition
1 offer from £7.19
Peter Singer
335
Kindle Edition
1 offer from £0.99

Product description

Synopsis

The application of Darwinian ideas to social and political thinking is one of the most controversial intellectual developments of our time, stirring up fierce debate among a wide range of people including scientists, social scientists, journalists, economists, psychiatrists, philosophers and lawyers. Darwinism Today is a series of short books that introduces readers to the cutting edge of these debates. Written by leading Darwinian scholars, the books show how issues as disparate as the nature of aggression and the definition of female beauty can be illuminated in unexpected ways by recent advances in evolutionary biology, and reveal the implications of such findings for society. In A Darwinian Left Peter Singer looks at why the left-wing is so contemptuous of these biological theories of behaviour. If humans are indeed born cooperators as research suggests, why does the right claim Darwinism as its own? The author traces the history of this intellectual divide and concludes that it i s high time the left radically revised its outdated view of human nature.

He shows how the insights of modern evolutionary theory can help to set realistic and realizable goals, reinvigorating left-wing thinking for the next millennium. This is a new vision of the political left from one of the leading moral philosophers of our time.

--This text refers to an alternate kindle_edition edition.

Amazon Review

Marx approved of Darwin, up to a point. The Englishman's theories explained biological form scientifically, without recourse to a Creator. But the idea that evolution offered insights into psychology and social behaviour was anathema to the Left, whose belief that human nature was a mere "ensemble of social relations", would have terrible consequences. The Right, meanwhile, was quick to harness "survival of the fittest" to ideas of progress. Economic might was regarded as the overriding agent of social evolution; those disenfranchised in the rush for capital "deserved" to be left behind. Today, evolutionary maths has developed to the point where it can show how co-operation and altruism emerge in nature. Can the Left harness this new thinking to challenge the Right's proprietorial claims on what has been dubbed the single most important idea of the century? Peter Singer's book--part of a series of handsomely packaged essays on recent Darwinian thought--dwells far more on past errors than on the possibilities for a Left-wing future. He seems also to have swallowed rather uncritically some of the more reactionary pronouncements of the evolutionary psychologists. (For a useful corrective, see Lesley Rogers' Sexing the Brain.) Nevertheless, this little volume--a perfect stocking-filler for broadsheet readers of all political hues--offers much food for thought. "Properly understood, self-interest is broader than economic self- interest," Singer writes. "Public policy does not have to rely on self- interest in this narrow economic sense. It can, instead, appeal to the widespread need to feel wanted, or useful, or belong to a community." Thatcherites take note. --Simon Ings --This text refers to the hardcover edition.

Product details

ASIN ‏ : ‎ B00G2C137Y
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Yale University Press (1 Oct. 2013)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 481 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
Print length ‏ : ‎ 81 pages

Best Sellers Rank: 615,000 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- 613 in Political Philosophy
- 2,529 in Biological Evolution
- 11,762 in Political Science (Books)

Customer reviews:
4.1 42 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Peter Singer

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Peter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.

Singer is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.

Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. In 2023, Singer published Animal Liberation Now, in order to bring the book fully up to date.

Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek). His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.

Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer regained the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.

Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour, and in 2021 he was awarded the Berggruen Prize for Philosophy.

Customer reviews

4.1 out of 5

42 global ratings

How customer reviews and ratings work

Sort reviews by

Top reviews from United Kingdom

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

JohnCarr

Left Behind?

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 20 November 2019

Verified Purchase

This 70-page, pocket-sized book is part of a series on ‘Darwinism Today’ produced in the late 90’s arising out of a programme at the London School of Economics.
Most deal with factual propositions e.g. differences between men and women or between biological parents and step-parents. Some, including this volume, are more political. Peter Singer is, I think it uncontroversial to say, a controversial ethicist, who in this book sets out his case for a politics that remains true to leftist ideals while accepting biological reality.
While the likes of Marx and Engels welcomed Darwin’s theory, not least because of its rejection of the literal truth of Genesis, they and their followers got one thing badly wrong. As Singer puts it, “The materialist theory of history implies that there is no fixed human nature.” To fully accept natural selection is to dash the hope of many on the left of the perfectibility of humankind. We are not born blank slates.
Part of the reason that I would describe myself as a classical liberal (with a conservative temperament) is my growing belief that many on the left get human nature wrong. I’ve sometimes heard people on the left wonder why some of us on the right like life-long socialist George Orwell. From my point of view, apart from Orwell’s obvious brilliance, I’d give two reasons. One is that he wrote in English. By that I don’t mean that he didn’t write in Swedish or Swahili but that it wasn’t an ordeal to try and figure out what he meant. The second, and more pertinent point in this case, is that Orwell understood human nature as it is and not, as so many on the left do, as they would like it to be.
Singer uses part of an analogy that had long occurred to me. Woodworkers study a piece of wood before working it whereas some reformers draw up their ideal society and then try to impose it without taking human nature into account. I would go further and suggest that some reformers take the crooked timber of humanity and treat it as though they’re handling plastic or metal that they can shape however they want given enough effort - and other peoples taxes. People have a tendency to be selfish, to favour their own over strangers and to arrange themselves in hierarchies. Policies that don’t take these factors into account are likely to fail.
Singer argues that the left should look to something we see in nature namely co-operation. People also have tendencies to work together for the common good and to act altruistically and his argument is that leftists should come up with practical policies that encourage these tendencies to flourish.
Now my ethics and my politics differ markedly from those of Singer. Nevertheless, I think he does a good job of arguing his case. He didn’t move me a millimetre in my beliefs but, if you are on the left, I would strongly recommend that you read this. Our societies need a strong right and a strong left, both of whose values accept certain realities.
Sadly, many spokespersons on the left - including the self-appointed - have fallen further behind on basic biology since this book was written. When Singer wrote it there was broad agreement across the political spectrum on basic biology as to what constituted male and female. When the Big Lebowski answered his own question as to, “What makes a man, Mr. Lebowski?”, with, “Is it being prepared to do the right thing? Whatever the cost? Isn’t that that makes a man?”, the Dude’s reply of, “That and a pair of testicles”, would not have seemed problematic or be a candidate for a trigger warning.

Helpful

silverfawkes

Singer's book deserves 5 stars for his clear explanation why ...

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 9 June 2016

Verified Purchase

Singer's book deserves 5 stars for his clear explanation why the traditional left has failed in its defining aims of reducing poverty and inequality because it has never allowed for the nature of the evolved human animal. The left has and still does cling to the belief that the human animal is born a blank slate on which the social environment writes and determines our nature and our behaviour.

The kindle edition deserves zero: £9.18 for what is little more than a pamphlet is very expensive and it is riddled with errors. Every word that starts with "li" appears as "u" and there is random punctuation. Another example of Kindle's sloppy editing

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 4 October 2015

Verified Purchase

Makes a bit of sense brief though

Helpful

VEL – The Contemporary Heretic

Is Anything Left in Singer's Darwinian Left That is Still Recognisably of the Left?

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 20 December 2011

"In the 20th century," Singer observes, "the dream of the perfectibility of humankind turned into the nightmares of Stalinist Russia" (p31).

In the course of this brief pamphlet, moral philosopher Peter Singer exhorts the Left to wake up.
_____________

Social Darwinism is dead. The idea that the poor, ill and weak ought to be permitted to perish without the misguided intervention of charity, welfare and medical treatment in accordance with the Darwinian process of natural selection is wholly anathema to contemporary western sensibilities.

Indeed, if the spectre of 'Social Darwinism' survives at all in mainstream contemporary political discourse, it does so only as a 'straw man' sometimes falsely attributed to conservatives by leftists in order to smear them, and as a useful form of 'guilt by association' sometimes invoked by creationists in order to discredit the theory of evolution.

However, despite the attachment of some American conservatives to creationism, there remains a perception that Darwinism is somehow more compatible with conservatism than socialism.

After all, research in evolutionary psychology surely suggests that at least some aspects of traditional gender roles (e.g. women's responsibility child-care) are likely to be justified by reference to innate psychological differences between the sexes.

Similarly, the theory of kin selection – namely, the theory that helping behaviour is sometimes adaptive if directed towards close biological relatives – could be viewed as reinforcing conservatives' traditional faith in the family unit.

Meanwhile, the view that humans have evolved to be fundamentally self-interested seems to confirm the underlying assumptions of classical economics – while making a classless utopia of the sort envisaged by Marx wholly unworkable.

These and other observations have led figures such as political scientist Larry Arnhart to champion a new "Darwinian Conservatism" drawing on the emerging science of evolutionary psychology.

Against this, Peter Singer seeks to reclaim Darwin – and evolutionary psychology – for the Left.

Although he clarifies many misunderstandings regarding the political implications of evolutionary psychology and Darwinism, his attempt is not altogether successful.

The Naturalistic Fallacy
Since David Hume, it has been an article of faith among many moral philosophers that one cannot derive values from facts. To do so is to commit what philosophers call 'the naturalistic fallacy'.

Far from challenging the naturalistic fallacy, most modern evolutionary psychologists have been only too happy to reiterate the alleged inviolable division between scientific fact and moral prescription – not least because this has provided them with licence to investigate the possible evolutionary function of such morally questionable (or indeed morally reprehensible) behaviours as rape , infidelity and child abuse while denying that they are in any way condoning or providing a justification for the behaviours in question.

Singer himself likewise accepts and reiterates this principle that normative conclusions can never be derived from factual ones.

However, this merely begs the question – if moral and political values cannot be derived from scientific facts, whence are they to be arrived at? Invoking the naturalistic fallacy with respect to any attempt to derive values from facts suggests that normative statements can only be derived from other normative statements. But how then are our ultimate moral convictions, from which all others are derived, themselves to be justified?

Singer's discussion implies that one's ultimate moral values must simply be taken on faith and there can be no ultimate justification for them.

Thus, in the current work, rather than seeking to justify leftist political ideals such as the desirability of equality on the basis of Darwinism or on any other basis, Singer instead simply accepts these ideals as a priori assumptions and implicitly presumes that the reader shares his convictions.

However, accepting the naturalistic fallacy does not, Singer emphasises, mean that the facts of human nature are irrelevant to politics.

On the contrary, while Darwinism may not be able to prescribe which ultimate political objectives are desirable, Singer rightly recognises that "an understanding of human nature in the light of evolutionary theory can help us to identify the means by which we may achieve some of our social and political goals... as well as assessing the possible costs and benefits of doing so" (p15).

Marxist Utopia Reconsidered
In addition to informing the means by which given social and political goals can be attained and the costs of doing so, an evolutionary understanding of human nature may also suggest that some political goals may simply be beyond our reach – at least in the absence of a wholesale eugenic re-engineering of human nature itself.

In watering down the Utopian aspirations of previous generations of leftists, Singer seems to implicitly concede as much.

Although evolutionary psychologists like to emphasise that altruism and even morality itself may represent an aspect of our evolved psychologies, evolutionary theory nevertheless also suggests we are innately predisposed to care more about ourselves and our families than about unrelated strangers. Thus, selfishness and nepotism are, to some extent, innate and universal.

This suggests the sort of egalitarian utopia envisaged by Marx and his followers ('from each according to his ability, to each according to their need' etc.) is unattainable for three main reasons:

1) Individuals inevitably strive to promote themselves and their kin above fellow citizens;
2) Only coercive state apparatus can prevent them so doing;
3) The individuals placed in control of this coercive apparatus will themselves seek to promote the interests of themselves and their kin and will corruptly use this coercive apparatus to do so;

Thus, Singer laments, "What egalitarian revolution has not been betrayed by its leaders?" (p39) – or, as H.L. Mencken put it, the "one undoubted effect [of revolutions] is simply to throw out one gang of thieves and put in another".

In addition, humankind's innate selfishness also means that complete egalitarianism, if it were achieved, is likely to be economically inefficient – because it would remove the incentive of self-interested self-advancement that lies behind the production of goods and services (not to mention of works of art and scientific advances) which benefit society as a whole. (As Adam Smith famously wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.") And, again, the only alternative means of ensuring goods and services are produced is state coercion, which, given human nature, will inevitably be exercised corruptly.

Nepotism and Equality of Opportunity
'Selfish Gene Theory' does not, however, suggest that humans are entirely self-interested. On the contrary, inclusive fitness theory (i.e. the theory of kin selection) suggests that humans also care about their biological relatives, because the latter share genes in common with oneself.

However, this is not necessarily a boon to egalitarians.

On the contrary, the fact that human selfishness is therefore tempered by a healthy dose of nepotism likely means that 'equality of opportunity' is as unattainable as 'equality of outcome' – because individuals will inevitably seek to aid the social, educational and economic advancement of their kin (e.g. their offspring) at the expense of others, and those individuals better placed to do so (i.e. with more money, contacts, intelligence or simply time on their hands) will generally be more successful at doing so.

However, given that many conservatives and libertarians are as committed to the ideal of 'equality of opportunity' as Marxists are to 'equality of outcome', this conclusion may be even less welcome among conservatives than it is among socialists. Indeed, to some extent, this conclusion simply complements and reinforces the familiar leftist claim that 'equality of opportunity' and 'meritocracy' are illusory.

Moreover, the human proclivity towards nepotism has even been interpreted to suggest that racism and ethnocentrism may be innate and universal .

This, again, is unlikely to be welcome news for the contemporary Left, or indeed for mainstream contemporary conservatives (who are typically as committed to 'multiracialism' as their political opponents), since it seemingly suggests that ethnic conflict is inevitable and that an harmonious multiracial society, let alone a racially egalitarian society, is an impossibility.

Animal Liberation
Singer also uses Darwinism to buttress his conclusions concerning the issue with which he is most associated in popular perception – namely, 'animal liberation'.

For Singer, the common evolutionary origin suggests that both humans and non-human animals are fundamentally alike, not least in possessing the capacity to suffer when mistreated.

This means that our consumption of animals as food, our killing of them for sport, as well as our enslavement of them for use as draft animals, or even as pets, and our imprisonment of them in zoos and laboratories is all potentially ethically problematic, since all of these things are generally regarded as unacceptable when done to humans.

"By knocking out the idea that we are a separate creation from the animals," Singer writes, "Darwinian thinking provided the basis for a revolution in our attitudes to non-human animals" (p17).

However, Singer neglects to acknowledge that human-animal continuity cuts both ways.

Thus, anti-vivisectionists opposed to animal experiments sometimes argue that medical experiments conducted on non-human subjects are worthless in developing treatments for humans, because such treatments will frequently have different effects on humans to that which they exert on the species upon which the tests are conducted. However, our evolutionary continuity with non-human species renders this argument implausible.

Moreover, if humans are subject to the same principles of natural selection as other species, this suggests, in some respects, not the elevation of non-human species to the status of humans, as demanded by Singer, but rather the relegation of humans to that of animals. In other words, like animals, we are, as Richard Dawkins (in)famously wrote, "survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes", our lives have no meaning beyond that and free will is, in all probability, an illusion.

Finally, acceptance of the existence of an innate human nature surely entails recognition of carnivory (or omnivory) as a fundamental part of this nature.

Of course, the naturalistic fallacy, as usual, applies – although meat-eating may be natural, this does not mean it is right. However, it does suggest vegetarianism may be sub-optimal in health terms.

At any rate, given that Singer is an opponent of the view that there is a valid moral distinction between acts and omissions, if he believes it is wrong for us to eat animals, does he also believe we should take positive steps to prevent lions from eating gazelles?

Reciprocity
Singer rightly observes that financial interest is not synonymous with Darwinian fitness. Indeed, in novel environments, the two may not even correlate (Vining 1986).

Neither does wealth always lead to greater happiness. "Properly understood," Singer argues "self-interest is broader than economic self-interest" and "from an evolutionary perspective, we cannot identify self-interest with wealth" (p42).

In chapter 4 ("Competition or Cooperation?"), Singer argues that, although both competition and cooperation are natural to humans, it is possible to create a society that focuses more on cooperation, as other cultures have done in the past and in other parts of the world, and that this is more consistent with the values of the Left.

However, although it may be true that some societies foster altruism and cooperation better than our own, Singer is short on practical suggestions as to how a culture of altruism is to be fostered.

Changing the values of a culture is not easy. This is especially so for a liberal democratic (as opposed to a despotic totalitarian) government, let alone for a solitary Australian moral philosopher – and Singer's condemnation of "the nightmares of Stalinist Russia" suggests that he would not defend the sort of totalitarian interference with human freedoms to which the Left has so often resorted in the past.

More fundamentally, Singer is wrong to see competition as in conflict with cooperation. In fact, extreme examples of altruism often occur in the context extreme competition.

For example, some of the most remarkable acts of altruistic self-sacrifice are those performed by soldiers in wartime (e.g. kamikaze pilots, suicide bombers and soldiers who throw themselves on grenades). Yet war constitutes perhaps the most extreme form of competition known to man. In short, soldiers risk or even sacrifice their lives, not only to save the lives of others, but also often to take the lives of others as well.

More importantly, trade – a form of cooperation – is as fundamental to capitalism as is competition. Indeed, far from disparaging cooperation, neo-liberal economists since Adam Smith have viewed voluntary exchange and economic specialization as central to capitalist prosperity.

It is therefore ironic then that author Matt Ridley, who, like Singer, seeks to draw political lessons from evolutionary psychology, also like Singer focuses on humans' innate capacity for cooperation to justify his conclusions (see The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation ). However, in Ridley's hands, this trait provides a rationale, not for socialism, but rather for unregulated lassez faire free markets – because, according to Ridley, humans, as natural traders and produce efficient systems of exchange which government intervention can only distort or imperfectly replicate.

However, whereas economic trade is motivated by self-interested calculation, Singer seems to envisage a form of reciprocity mediated by emotions such as compassion and guilt.

However, these emotions have themselves evolved through the rational calculation of natural selection (Trivers 1971). Therefore, while open to manipulation, especially in evolutionarily novel societies, they are necessarily limited in scope.

Eugenics
In response to the claim that welfare encourages the unemployed to have children and thereby promotes dysgenic fertility patterns (see The Welfare Trait ), Singer argues, "even if there were a genetic component to something as nebulous as unemployment, to say that these genes are 'deleterious' would involve value judgements that go way beyond what the science alone can tell us".

However, although viewing traits as desirable or undesirable certainly does involve extra-scientific value judgements, virtually everyone would accept some traits (e.g. generosity, conscientiousness) as more desirable than others (e.g. selfishness, laziness). The desirability of these traits can therefore surely be taken as given in the same way Singer himself accepts the desirability of his own leftist social ideals without providing any ultimate justification for them.

Moreover, although it may not be meaningful to talk of unemployment itself as heritable, twin and adoption studies of the sort pioneered by behavioural geneticists have demonstrated a heritable component to personality traits of the sort that may underlie unemployment (e.g. intelligence and conscientiousness).

[Actually, in the strict biological sense, unemployment probably is heritable. So, incidentally, are road traffic accidents and a person's political persuasion. This is because each of these characteristics reflect personality traits that are themselves partially heritable e.g. risk-takers are more likely to have traffic accidents and more compassionate people are more likely to favour left-wing policies.]

At any rate, even if the reason that children from deprived backgrounds have worse outcomes in life is because of 'environmental deprivation' or 'bad parenting' rather than because of inherited personality traits, a case can still be made for restricting the reproductive rights of the parents. After all, children usually get both their genes and their parenting from the same set of parents – and, in the absence of a massive illiberal programme of forced adoptions, will continue to do so in the future.

Therefore, so long as an association between parentage and social outcomes is established, the question of whether this association is biologically or environmentally-mediated is simply beside the point when it comes to recognising the need to restrict the reproductive rights of people unfit to become parents.

As for eugenics, if we accept Singer's contention that an understanding of our evolved psychologies can help show us how achieve, but not choose between, ultimate social objectives, then surely it can be argued that eugenics could provide a useful means of achieving the goal of producing the better people and societies.

Indeed, given that Singer appears to concede that human nature (as it currently exists) is fundamentally incompatible with the sort of classless society traditionally envisaged by socialists, perhaps then the only way to revive the socialist dream of building a Utopian society is simply to genetically re-engineer human nature itself – something that may indeed, in the near or foreseeable future, become a possibility.

It is therefore perhaps no accident that, prior to World War Two, eugenics was typically identified as a 'progressive' cause. Early twentieth century socialist eugenicists such as HG Wells, Sidney Webb, Margeret Sanger and George Bernard Shaw may then have tentatively grasped what eludes contemporary leftists (Singer evidently included) – namely that re-engineering society requires re-engineering Man himself.

However, there is a problem with this case for a 'New Socialist Eugenics'. Before the eugenic programme is complete, the individuals controlling eugenic programmes (be they governments or corporations) will still possess a more traditional human nature, and may therefore have less than altruistic motivations themselves.

This seems to suggest that, as philosopher John Gray concludes, if human nature is "scientifically remodelled... it will be done haphazardly, as an upshot of the struggles in the murky world where big business, organized crime and the hidden parts of government vie for control" ( Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals : p6).

What's Left?
Singer defines 'the Left' in unusually broad terms, namely as "on the side of the weak, not the powerful; of the oppressed, not the oppressor" (p8).

However, few conservatives would admit to being on the side of the oppressor.

Rather, conservatives reject the dichotomous subdivision of persons into 'oppressor' and 'oppressed' classes, arguing that the real world is more complex and that mutually beneficial cooperation rather than exploitation and oppression is at the heart of the capitalist system.

Moreover, conservatives usually claim that their policies actually benefit society as a whole, the poor included, and that socialist reforms often inadvertently hurt those whom they naïvely aspire to assist.

Thus, welfare payments to the poor are seen by conservatives as encouraging welfare dependency; while imposing a 'minimum wage' (or increasing the level of this wage) is seen as likely to increase levels of unemployment.

Indeed, many conservatives would share Singer's aspiration to create a more altruistic culture.

Indeed, this aspiration seems more compatible with the libertarian notion of voluntary charitable donations replacing taxation than with the progressive taxation typically championed by the Left. After all, taxation, forcibly extracted with the threat of criminal sanctions, is not so much a form of altruism so much as of extortion.

Interestingly, Singer's broad conception of the Left has been criticised by some of his fellow leftists, both those sceptical of the claims of evolutionary psychology (e.g. The First Darwinian Left ) as well as others broadly receptive to this emerging field (e.g. Marek Kohn in As We Know It: Coming to Terms with an Evolved Mind ).

Group Differences
Among Singer's controversial concessions to conservatism are the recognition that "the existence of hierarchy or a system of rank is a near-universal human tendency" and therefore presumably has an innate basis (p37) and that not "all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning" (p61).

In claiming that not "all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning", he also seems to envisage instead that innate differences between individuals and groups in abilities and temperament may underlie at least some some disparities in achievement.

[Interestingly, in contrast to modern Leftists, Marx himself, in advocating "from each according to his ability", seemed to implicitly recognise the reality of differences in 'ability' – differences which, given the equalisation of social conditions envisaged under communism, he presumably conceived of as innate in origin.]

With regard to group differences, Singer wisely avoids discussing the incendiary, but plausible, possibility that innate racial differences (e.g. in intelligence) may underlie differences in achievement and outcomes as between races. Instead, he illustrates the possibility that not "all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning" with the marginally less incendiary issue of sex differences.

"If achieving high status increases access to women," Singer observes, "then we can expect men to have a stronger drive for status than women" (p18) – and that this, rather than any supposed discrimination, may explain the disproportionate number of men in high status occupations.

Singer neglects to mention the related factor that women are, in all probability, also innately predisposed to invest more heavily, and more directly, in their offspring, especially during the latter's infancy, a factor that also surely impedes women's career advancement.

[For a more detailed discussion of the biological and psychological factors underlying the gender pay gap, see Kingsley Brown's excellent Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality . See also Browne's Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work first published in the same 'Darwinism Today' Series as the work currently being reviewed.]

Progressing beyond Progressivism?
This all certainly represents uncharacteristic progress in the thought of a self-styled 'progressive'. However, one wonders whether Singer, like so many before him, is on the verge of progressing beyond facile progressivism altogether.

After all, if there is nothing left in Singer's 'Darwinian Left' still recognisably of the Left, then perhaps the time has come for the Left is to be left behind altogether.
______
References
Trivers, R 'The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism' Quarterly Review of Biology 1971
Vining, DR 'Social Versus Reproductive Success' Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1986

Amazon Music Stream millions of songs	AbeBooks Books, art & collectables	ACX Audiobook Publishing Made Easy	Amazon Web Services Scalable Cloud Computing Services

Audible Download Audiobooks	Goodreads Book reviews & recommendations	Amazon Home Services Experienced pros Happiness Guarantee	IMDb Movies, TV & Celebrities

Kindle Direct Publishing Indie Digital & Print Publishing Made Easy	Shopbop Designer Fashion Brands	Amazon Warehouse Deep Discounts Open-Box Products	Amazon Business Service for business customers

	Whole Foods Market We Believe in Real Food

Buy for others

Buying and sending Kindle Books to others

Image Unavailable

Follow the author

A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation (Darwinism Today Series) Kindle Edition

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Product description

Synopsis

Amazon Review

About the Author

Book Description

Product details

About the author

Peter Singer

Customer reviews

Top reviews from United Kingdom

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.