Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny

Over 10 years ago, accomplished journalist Robert Wright wrote the acclaimed "Moral Animal," summarizing the findings of the new (or at least reborn and renamed) science, evolutionary psychology. I read, reread, and underlined "The Moral Animal," convinced that I had finally found an explanation for human behavior I could wholeheartedly believe in. With great expectation, I approached "Nonzero." In "Nonzero," Wright relies on "Moral Animal," but has a much more ambitious thesis. He draws heavily on game theory which Wright broadly divides into competitive games (I win, you lose) and co-operative games (win-win). He acknowledges the constant presence of both types of games in human interaction, then relentlessly develops the hypothesis that real cultural progress is always the result of technological advance PLUS a co-operative (nonzero sum) cultural interaction. Progress builds on itself and a complex society eventually develops. In Part I (long), Wright considers hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists, war, culture, technology, chiefdoms, barbarians, China, Romans, Dark Ages, modern times, and the Globalization of world commerce. One by one, he uses impeccable logic to show how progress in cultural evolution has been made through co-operation, and how improved technology then forced further nonzero sum (co-operative) games. In Part II (short) he applies the same thinking to biological evolution. In Part III (short) he ambitiously speculates on the meaning of life, God, and Globalization issues. This is a very different book than "Moral Animal." In that situation Wright took an already coalescing collection of data about a new field of study and presented it in a cohesive form for public consumption. Matt Ridley did the same in his excellent book "Red Queen" while a whole group of similar thinking scientists cheered them both on. In "Nonzero" Wright cuts across several disciplines, developing his own ideas, alone. For this, he has been criticized by academians from history, biology, philosophy, anthropology, economics, politics, and theology - though his rough drafts were critiqued by representatives from all these disciplines. Although Wright makes a good case, his subject matter is more amenable to speculation than proof. Evolution has hard evidence from molecular biology, the fossil record, DNA, and elsewhere - every new finding fits easily into the framework of existing knowledge. Not so with the game theory analysis of historical cultural evolution - any plausible theory can be just as logically advocated as the next. That being said, Wright makes a compelling argument with valid points on every page and writes in an informal, conversational, non-abrasive style. Throughout the chaos of history, he concentrates on the good (progress) that accrues, even if he's describing the barbaric overthrow of a society that had become corrupt - always maintaining a "fireside chat" style sense of humor: "This view of history, intent on

Back in 1794 the Enlightenment philosphe Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet wrote his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind--the boldest of the eighteenth-century declarations that humanity had and was destined to see Progress with a capital P. Condorcet was a powerful and convincing advocate--Malthus wrote his Essay on Population explicitly against Condorcet. But that was the high water mark of belief in Progress. By and large the past two centuries have seen the reaction, and confidence in human Progress--technological, political, humanistic, and moral--fell out of intellectual favor.Now comes Robert Wright, previously author of Three Scientists and Their Gods and The Moral Animal, with an excellent book accompanied by an enthusiastic blurb by William McNeill. Wright's purpose to set out the gospel of progress anew, this time using the language of game theory as his principal mode of rhetoric. At its most basic level Wright's point is that interactions are positive-sum: there are gains from cooperation. Thus human cultural evolution has an arrow and a direction: toward greater complexity, toward higher civilization.The direction arises at two levels. First, individual humans seek out things that increase their own powers and capabilities. Cooperation tends to do this, so people find ways to cooperate. But the most important form of cooperation is one that is almost impossible to stop: the simple sharing of knowledge. Two heads are better than one. The denser the population (and the better the means of communication) the more ideas will be generated, the larger the number of ideas that turn out to be useful, and the faster will be progress. People are, Wright argues--in my view correctly---naturally acquisitive in that they want useful things, and will eagerly copy new technologies they hear about. Thus Wright sees inventions such as agriculture as inevitable--not as a lucky accident.Second, at the level of human societies, the societies that are more powerful--have better technologies, more effective social arrangements, greater population densities, and so forth--either swamp their neighbors or force their neighbors to copy them in order to maintain their autonomy. In Eurasia, where contact was constant from an early age--from the year 200 on one could travel from Gibralter to the mouth of China's Yangtze River and cross only three borders--a good innovation at one end would diffuse all the way to the other in a matter of centuries. He believes that the wide spread of religion in agricultural civilizations proves that its productivity-boosting and division of labor-enhancing effects outweigh its exploitative side: those societies that did not have temples and priests did not flourish.Wright dismisses gloomy talk of barbarian invasions and the fall of empires by asserting that one goes from furs-and-swords to linen-and-pens in three generations: "The Romans

Nonzero is a work of amazing erudition and daring. Wright takes on the entire sweep of history-both human and biological-and reinterprets it through the prism of games theory. And it works. The whole question of proof or non-proof seems beside the point to me (Was Kant or Hegel ever proved right or proved wrong?). Rather, Wright has given us an astonishingly powerful tool with which to analyze the larger movement of history. This is no simplification; Wright takes pains to point out that, on the micro level, history is full of countercurrents and various other aberrations; but his case for the general movement toward greater complexity and greater cooperation is extremely persuasive. Naturally, since this is Big Think analysis, it will stir up controversy among more traditional thinkers eager to defend their turf. But anyone who really cares about recent developments in modern thought must read this book. It's probably the most exciting-and, given Wright's humor and razor-sharp style, the most entertaining-books I've read in a long, long time.

Thankfully, an increasing number of authors (Landes, Diamond, et al) have been tackling social evolution - a crucial topic that's been shied away from for too long. Wright's effort is inspired, intelligent, engaging, erudite, not the least bit pretentious, and exceedingly well-written. Wright's basic message is that living organizations - both organisms and the groups they form - have been getting increasingly complex and well-integrated since life began, so it's a good bet that this trend will continue into the future. He presents a general hypothesis, and then provides a mountain of fascinating evidence to back it up. It's not experimental science, it's theory-driven science, but it's definitely not "bad science" as a few reviewers (usually non-scientists, interestingly) have said. Reading this book will definitely increase your knowledge and understanding of the history of life on earth, and as the goal of science is to increase knowledge and understanding, I'd say the scientific value of this book is high - much higher than most history you will read (historians usually don't even try to make their interpretations consistent with biological knowledge). Though not the last word in social evolution, this book is an excellent leap forward, and anyone interested in history, biology, or social evolution should read it, and have a great time doing it. Highly recommended.