Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

A friend of mine at work recommended I read this during the week � and it is hard not being struck by the odd coincidence of that. Not so much him recommending a book to me, he’s done that before, but this book is very similar to The Patterning Instinct and I only read that a week or so ago. And that’s odd too, since it is years since I’ve read a book on this theme, despite it being a bit of a favourite at one time. So, reading two books on much the same topic, covering lots and lots of the same ground, and in quick succession, recommended by completely different sources all seems strange to me.

If you are tossing up whether or not to read this one, I would probably recommend reading The Patterning Instinct instead. Not least because, I think it covers the non-Western philosophies and spiritual traditions it discusses much more on their own terms than this one does. It also covers them in ways that make you feel, even though the Patterning’s author provided merely a thumbnail sketch of each, that it is a sketch of the philosophy itself. This one made me feel I was being presented an ‘example� rather than a ‘sketch� � with the history of humans being presented much more as a kind of story that leads to us in the West as the culmination. That is, I came away from tins one thinking of Said’s Orientalism, feeling that this was a white guy explaining other-people’s-cultures � which might even have been true of the patterning book too, but that one felt more inclusive. I want to say ‘objective� but that’s probably not the right word.

The patterning book was, even in its title, a bit of a dig at Pinker � whereas, this one pays him homage repeatedly throughout. And that is interesting here, since we are seeing essentially the same ‘data� being used to justify significantly different conclusions in the two books. So, in that sense, I really didn’t come away from reading these two books in quick succession feeling it was a waste of time. I do understand that you might not want to read both of them together � although, I feel like I’ve read them in the way that an ex-Australian Prime Minister used to collect various conductors� interpretations of Mahler Symphonies. The benefit of reading both has been that I got to see ‘evidence� from the past, even when it is pretty much the exact same evidence, being used to justify significantly different conclusions.

Obviously enough, I would recommend the Patterning book because it more closely corresponds with my prejudices � something that would be hardly surprising, I guess. But that said, I would also recommend it because I think it presents the material in more depth and in ways that are likely to provide you (and maybe even provoke you) with more insight into the complexities of the material too. The author of that one remains clear and accessible, despite the complexities of the material presented � something this one is too, by the way, it just I didn’t quite feel this one was as comprehensive � so the clarity here was also a function of the simpler presentation of the material.

I found a lot of the last of this to be � well, a bit too Pinker for my tastes as well. This happened a couple of times throughout � for instance, there is a bit early on where he discusses males and aggression and their hormones and the genetic selection that encouraged it, and so on � and since I have just finished reading Fine’s T-Rex book on all this, that section proved a bit of a cringe.

The bits at the end where science is proposed as being about to swoop down and save the day (and look, I know I’ve making a bit of a strawman of his argument here, but too not much of a strawman) left me cold, to be honest. My problem with the promise that ‘human ingenuity will triumph in the end� is that, well, maybe it will, but betting the house on something that simply can’t be a sure thing seems a little reckless to me. Particularly when all life on earth might be wagered on the other side of the bet. I’m not much of a betting man, so perhaps I’m too cautious. But then, maybe we should be a little more cautious with this kind of gamble, even if we end up laughing at how overly cautious proved to be while we are looking back from the glorious future that is always promised us. It’s just that some scientists believe that if global warming proves to be as bad as they think it is going to be, the total population of people on the planet could end up being about half a billion people � which means that about 7 billion people will be in excess to requirements and so will have to die one way or another.

Bits of this were really very good � I’m definitely not saying ‘don’t read this book under any circumstances� � not in the least, but if you’ve read neither of these two books and only plan to read one � read the other one.