HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

The Social Conquest of Earth by Edward O.…
Loading...

The Social Conquest of Earth

by Edward O. Wilson

Other authors: See the other authors section.

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingConversations / Mentions
5841327,111 (3.88)1 / 37
Based on a lifetime of pioneering research, preeminent naturalist Edward O. Wilson gives us a new history of human evolution, presented in an elegant and provocative narrative that promises to have reverberations in fields as diverse as anthropology and social psychology, neuroscience and 21st-century intellectual and religious history. Wilson begins by addressing three "fundamental questions" of religion and philosophy that have fascinated thinkers for centuries: Where did we come from? What are we? Where are we going? Writing that "the origin of modern humanity was a stroke of luck, good for our species for a while, bad for most of the rest of life forever," Wilson traces the rise of Homo sapiens from its infancy, drawing on his remarkable knowledge of biology and social behavior to present us with the clearest explanation ever produced as to the origin of the human condition. Wilson also reveals how "group selection" can be the only model for explaining man's origins and domination, and warns that it has now accelerated--through unregulated and untrammeled growth--to such a point that the planet as we know it is being threatened.--From publisher description.From the most celebrated heir to Darwin comes a groundbreaking book on evolution, the summa work of Edward O. Wilson's legendary career.… (more)

None.

Loading...

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

English (12)  Dutch (1)  All languages (13)
Showing 1-5 of 12 (next | show all)
Wilson, Edward O. (2012). The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: W. W. Norton. 2012. ISBN 9780871404138. Pagine 330. 15,24 €

Edward O. Wilson è un vecchio signore del Sud (è nato a Birmingham in Alabama il 10 giugno 1929 – a proposito, auguri in ritardo!). Ne abbiamo parlato più volte su questo blog, da ultimo qui (mi pare), ma soprattutto recensendo il suo unico romanzo, Anthill. Purtroppo, ho letto gli altri suoi libri in epoca ante-blog e quindi non li ho recensiti qui (né da nessuna altra parte, perché non mi imponevo quella forma di disciplina che il blog ha portato con sé).

Ho però raccontato, nella recensione al romanzo, che questo vecchio signore del Sud dall’aria serena è stato al centro di furiose polemiche per il suo Sociobiology. The New Synthesis del 1975. Adesso è di nuovo al centro delle polemiche per questo libro che, nelle sue intenzioni, voleva essere una sintesi dei suoi studi sugli organismi eu-sociali – come li chiama lui stesso – cioè gli insetti sociali e gli umani.

Il problema è che per fare questo, Wilson ha bisogno di rigettare la teoria della kin selection originariamente formulata da Hamilton e cui Wilson stesso aveva aderito all’epoca di Sociobiology e aderire invece a quella della group selection, vivacemente e ferocemente avversata dai darwiniani puri e duri.

Sorgono spontanee 2 domande:

chi ha ragione nella disputa, Wilson o i suoi oppositori? o meglio: è sostenibile una teoria della group selection? e quella della kin selection è davvero stata smentita?
nell’ipotesi che il libro di Wilson sia affetto da errori teorici gravi, vale la pena egualmente di leggerlo?

* * *

Sulla prima questione, per affrontarla senza troppi tecnicismi, penso sia opportuno partire dal punto specifico del libro di Wilson in cui l’autore abbandona la prospettiva della kin selection:

For almost half a century, it has been popular among serious scientists seeking a naturalistic explanation for the origin of humanity, I among them, to invoke kin selection as a key dynamical force of human evolution. […]
Unfortunately for this perception, the foundations of the general theory of inclusive fitness based on the assumptions of kin selection have crumbled, while evidence for it has grown equivocal at best. The beautiful theory never worked well anyway, and now it has collapsed.
A new theory of eusocial evolution, drawn in part from my collaboration with the theoretical biologists Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita, and in part from the work of other researchers, provides separate accounts for the origin of eusocial insects on the one hand and the origin of human societies on the other. [859-866. Il riferimento è come di consueto alle posizioni sul Kindle]

Naturalmente, abbandonare una posizione cui si era aderito in passato è perfettamente lecito: solo gli imbecilli, si dice, restano attaccati alle proprie idee contro ogni evidenza come patelle agli scogli. Quello che però Wilson non dice – e questo io lo trovo particolarmente grave in un libro rivolto al pubblico non specialistico – è che l’articolo di Nowak, Tarnita & Wilson “The evolution of eusociality“, pubblicato nel 2010 sul numero 466 di Nature, ha suscitato un vespaio di polemiche: sia perché l’articolo non sarebbe transitato attraverso il normale processo di peer review grazie all’autorevolezza di Wilson (succede anche a Nature, evidentemente), sia perché le conclusioni cui giunge sono state contestate da circa 150 scienziati in 5 risposte al paper di Nowak, Tarnita & Wilson. Quello che questi scienziati sostengono è che la teoria della kin selection e della inclusive fitness sono tutt’altro che crollate, come invece Wilson dà per assodato.

Questo spiega ampiamente perché The Social Conquest of Earth sia stato accolto con molte critiche e poco entusiasmo. Ne riassumo qualcuna di quelle con cui sono entrato in contatto.

Michael Gazzaniga sul Wall Street Journal del 6 aprile 2012 (Evolution Revolution) paragona la delusione provata leggendo quest’ultima prova di Wilson con quella che gli appassionati di jazz sono destinati a provare, prima o poi, per i loro beniamini:

At a certain point in their careers, great jazz musicians are almost bound to disappoint their fans. Think of John Coltrane venturing into free jazz in the late 1960s or Miles Davis going electric a few years later. The vision that made them great the first time pushes them into new territory, and the magnitude of their early accomplishments – and the number of admirers they have attracted – makes their public’s sense of betrayal all the more bitter. All they can do is keep playing, undaunted by the dissent.

La metafora jazzistica è anche funzionale a notare che (purtroppo) Wilson procede per improvvisazione, per grandi pennellate, nascondendoci il dettaglio del ragionamento che lo ha portato ad abbandonare il modello della inclusive fitness. ed evitando di rispondere alle critiche dei 150 scienziati che hanno contestato il suo modello su Nature.

Jazz artists improvise. Mr. Wilson does too as he goes through his argument in “The Social Conquest of Earth.” I say “improvise” because he chooses not to give the reader the complete story, properly annotated with references that would capture the huge controversies that accompany almost all the facts he reviews. […] While Mr. Wilson may have tired of all the rancor, it would have been intriguing to have his full account of how he arrived at his conclusions.

Jennifer Schuessler sul New York Times dell’8 aprile, più che una recensione, ci offre un ritratto di Edward O. Wilson (Lessons From Ants to Grasp Humanity) che non rifugge però dal riassumere i termini della controversia:

If no one is quite ready to dump a pitcher of water over Dr. Wilson’s head, many colleagues are mystified and dismayed by his late-life embrace of group selection – a highly controversial notion among biologists – and rejection of the kin-selection theory that he helped popularize in “Sociobiology.”
“ ‘Sociobiology’ is still a very great book, and now he’s trashing it all,” said Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago. “It’s crazy.” Dr. Coyne was one of more than 150 scientists who signed four letters published last spring in the journal Nature criticizing a 2010 paper by Dr. Wilson, written with the mathematicians Martin A. Nowak and Corina E. Tarnita, outlining his group-selection arguments.
But Dr. Wilson, putting on a fleece vest under his professorial green tweed jacket in preparation for a rainy walk through Central Park, seemed unruffled by the fracas, which is only passingly acknowledged in the new book. “I don’t mind it,” he said of the criticism, adding that he had full confidence in his co-authors’ complex math. “I actually expect it for any important change. No pain, no gain.”

Un concetto simile era già stato espresso da Wilson in un articolo di Jonah Lehrer comparso sul numero del 5 marzo 2012 del New Yorker (Kin and Kind. A fight about the genetics of altruism):

“I’ve always been an ambitious synthesizer,” he told me. “But I’m now wise enough to know the limitations of that approach.” These days, he regards the books that made him famous – ”Sociobiology” and “On Human Nature” (1979) – as flawed accounts of evolution, marred by their uncritical embrace of inclusive fitness.

La recensione di Steven Mithen – appena pubblicata su The New York Review of Books, nel numero datato 21 giugno 2012 (How Fit Is E.O. Wilson’s Evolution?) – ha il pregio, secondo me, di mettere chiaramente in luce le responsabilità dello scienziato che scrive per il vasto pubblico e non per gli specialisti e i colleghi:

My greater concern is about the responsibility of the scientist writing for the general reader, especially a scientist of Wilson’s academic reputation. Such readers, the type targeted by Wilson and his publisher, may never have heard of Nature and would be unlikely to consult endnotes. Such readers, owing to his failure to acknowledge the extent of opposition to his views, would be entirely misled into thinking that Wilson had indeed “demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect.”
[…] I cannot avoid the impression that the manner in which Wilson presents his views verges toward polemic rather than providing a responsible work of popular science.

Ho lasciato di proposito per ultima la recensione più completa, e anche la più feroce: quella di Richard Dawkins pubblicata su Prospectdel 24 maggio 2012 (The descent of Edward Wilson. A new book on evolution by a great biologist makes a slew of mistakes). Suggerirei, se il vostro inglese lo consente (ma se non lo consentisse probabilmente non leggereste questo blog), di leggere l’articolo di Dawkins nella sua interezza, per almeno 3 motivi:

Dawkins scrive bene e in modo molto chiaro e articolato;
Dawkins è un polemista pungente ed efficacissimo (a tratti uno prova anche un po’ pena per il malcapitato Wilson);
La spiegazione di Dawkins dei motivi per cui ritiene corretta la teoria della kin selection ed erronea quella della group selection.

Per i più pigri (e per mio gusto) metterò qui i punti essenziali:

[I]it was a good idea to write a book comparing these two pinnacles of social evolution [social insects and humans], but unfortunately one is obliged to wade through many pages of erroneous and downright perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. In particular, Wilson now rejects “kin selection” (I shall explain this below) and replaces it with a revival of “group selection” – the poorly defined and incoherent view that evolution is driven by the differential survival of whole groups of organisms.
[…]
Then there’s the patrician hauteur with which Wilson ignores the very serious drubbing his Nature paper received. He doesn’t even mention those many critics: not a single, solitary sentence. Does he think his authority justifies going over the heads of experts and appealing directly to a popular audience, as if the professional controversy didn’t exist – as if acceptance of his (tiny) minority view were a done deal? “The beautiful theory [kin selection, see below] never worked well anyway, and now it has collapsed.” Yes it did and does work, and no it hasn’t collapsed. For Wilson not to acknowledge that he speaks for himself against the great majority of his professional colleagues is – it pains me to say this of a lifelong hero – an act of wanton arrogance.
[…]
“Inclusive fitness” was coined as a mathematical device to allow us to keep treating the individual organism (“vehicle”) as the level of agency, when we could equivalently have switched to the gene (“replicator”). You can say that natural selection maximises individual inclusive fitness, or that it maximises gene survival. The two are equivalent, by definition. On the face of it, gene survival is simpler to deal with, so why bother with individual inclusive fitness? Because the organism has the appearance of a purpose-driven agent in a way that the gene does not. Genes lack legs to pursue goals, sense organs to perceive the world, hands to manipulate it. Gene survival is what ultimately counts in natural selection, and the world becomes full of genes that are good at surviving. But they do it vicariously, by embryologically programming “phenotypes”: programming the development of individual bodies, their brains, limbs and sense organs, in such a way as to maximise their own survival. Genes programme the embryonic development of their vehicles, then ride inside them to share their fate and, if successful, get passed on to future generations.
So, “replicators” and “vehicles” constitute two meanings of “unit of natural selection.” Replicators are the units that survive (or fail to survive) through the generations. Vehicles are the agents that replicators programme as devices to help them survive. Genes are the primary replicators, organisms the obvious vehicles. But what about groups? As with organisms, they are certainly not replicators, but are they vehicles? If so, might we make a plausible case for “group selection”?
It is important not to confuse this question – as Wilson regrettably does – with the question of whether individuals benefit from living in groups. Of course they do. Penguins huddle for warmth. That’s not group selection: every individual benefits. Lionesses hunting in groups catch more and larger prey than a lone hunter could: enough to make it worthwhile for everyone. Again, every individual benefits: group welfare is strictly incidental. Birds in flocks and fish in schools achieve safety in numbers, and may also conserve energy by riding each other’s slipstreams – the same effect as racing cyclists sometimes exploit.
Such individual advantages in group living are important but they have nothing to do with group selection. Group selection would imply that a group does something equivalent to surviving or dying, something equivalent to reproducing itself, and that it has something you could call a group phenotype, such that genes might influence its development, and hence their own survival.
[…]
Edward Wilson has made important discoveries of his own. His place in history is assured, and so is Hamilton’s. Please do read Wilson’s earlier books […]. As for the book under review, the theoretical errors I have explained are important, pervasive, and integral to its thesis in a way that renders it impossible to recommend. To borrow from Dorothy Parker, this is not a book to be tossed lightly aside. It should be thrown with great force. And sincere regret.

* * *

Ecco, Dawkins risponde negativamente alla mia seconda domanda (nell’ipotesi che il libro di Wilson sia affetto da errori teorici gravi, vale la pena egualmente di leggerlo?). Io sono però di diverso parere, e penso che invece possa essere letto fruttuosamnente, anche se con qualche cautela.

Il breve capitolo 5, intitolato Threading the evolutionary maze, è un capolavoro di sintesi che riassume i 2 pagine l’origine dell’umanità da una prospettiva evoluzionistica.

E la metafora del labirinto evoluzionistico è un efficacissiomo esempio di intuition pump:

The possible evolution of a species can be visualized as a journey through a maze. As a major advance such as the origin of eusociality is approached, each genetic change, each turn in the maze either makes the attainment of that level less likely, or even impossible, or else keeps it open for access to the next turn. In the earliest steps that keep other options alive, there is still a long way to go, and the ultimate, far distant attainment is least probable. In the last few steps, there is only a short distance to go, and the attainment becomes more probable. The maze itself is subject to evolution along the way. Old corridors (ecological niches) may close, while new ones may open. The structure of the maze depends in part on who is traveling through it, including each of the species. [414]

Ma nel libro ci sono anche altri spunti profondi, che aprono vaste prospettive di riflessione. Ad esempio sulla divisione del lavoro, all’origine della crescita economica e del progresso:

Along with fireside campsites came division of labor. It was spring-loaded: an existing predisposition within groups to self-organize by dominance hierarchies already existed. There were in addition earlier differences between males and females and between young and old. Further, within each subgroup there existed variations in leadership ability, as well as in the proneness to remain at the campsite. The inevitable result emerging quickly out of all these preadaptations was a complex division of labor. [811]

O la riflessione che, l’acquisto di informazione ha un costo, la sua perdita è gratis:

For the neuroscientist, this explanation of an ethical decision by the would-be knifer has one very attractive feature: it involves only the loss of information, not its effortful acquisition or storage. The learning of complex information and its storage in memory are deliberate, painstaking processes, but the loss of information seems to take place with no trouble at all. Damping any one of the many mechanisms involved in memory can explain the blurring of identity required by this theory. [3981]

Ci sono poi le incursioni nei campi dell’economia …

Additional studies suggest (but have not yet conclusively proved) that leveling is beneficial even for the most advanced modern societies. Those that do best for their citizens in quality of life, from education and medical care to crime control and collective self-esteem, also have the lowest income differential between the wealthiest and poorest citizens. Among twenty-three of the world’s wealthiest countries and individual U.S. states, according to an analysis in 2009 by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, Japan, the Nordic countries, and the U.S. state of New Hampshire have both the narrowest wealth differential and the highest average quality of life. At the bottom are the United Kingdom, Portugal, and the remainder of the United States. [4037]

… della politica …

If personal benefit from group memberships rises high enough or, alternatively, if selfish leaders can bend the colony to serve their personal interests, the members will be prone to altruism and conformity. Because all normal members have at least the capacity to reproduce, there is an inherent and irremediable conflict in human societies between natural selection at the individual level and natural selection at the group level. [911]

… della religione …

The evidence that lies before us in great abundance points to organized religion as an expression of tribalism. Every religion teaches its adherents that they are a special fellowship and that their creation story, moral precepts, and privilege from divine power are superior to those claimed in other religions. […] The goal of religions is submission to the will and common good of the tribe. [4186-4192]

For outsiders openly to doubt such dogmas is regarded an invasion of privacy and a personal insult. For insiders to raise doubt is punishable heresy. [4197]

… della musica …

Patel has referred to music as a “transformative technology.” To the same degree as literacy and language itself, it has changed the way people see the world. Learning to play a musical instrument even alters the structure of the brain, from subcortical circuits that encode sound patterns to neural fibers that connect the two cerebral hemispheres and patterns of gray matter density in certain regions of the cerebral cortex. Music is powerful in its impact on human feeling and on the interpretation of events. It is extraordinarily complex in the neural circuits it employs, appearing to elicit emotion in at least six different brain mechanisms. [4583]

Ci sono poi alcune frasi fulminanti nella loro profondità:

[…] from diversity comes opportunity […] [480]

In a constantly changing world, we need the flexibility that only imperfection provides. [3887]

[…] prepared learning, the inborn propensity to learn something swiftly and decisively. [1009]

E infine, “semplici” esempi di divertito “bello scrivere”.

We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. [201]

Now, except for behaving like apes much of the time and suffering genetically limited life spans, we are godlike. [4639]

[…] the response of Samuel Foote to John Montagu, fourth Earl of Sandwich, when warned that he would die either by venereal disease or by the hangman’s noose. Foote responded, “My Lord, that will depend upon whether I embrace your lordship’s mistress or your lordship’s morals.” [4028]

* * *

PS: mentre mi accingevo a esporre questo post sulla bacheca è sceso in campo (c ( )
  Boris.Limpopo | Apr 29, 2019 |
Wilson, authoritatively as one would expect, tackles the questions "Where do we come from?", "What are we?", and "Where are we going?". Some of the salient points: Whereas some insects attained eusociality through evolution of instinct, prehumans did it through evolution of intelligence. Human nature, which includes innate tribalism and bellicosity, is best explained epigenetically. Natural selection at the individual level has promoted intra-group selfishness, while selection at the group level has promoted intra-group altruism and inter-group enmity. "We, all of us, live out our lives in conflict and contention." (p 290) For our environmental crimes (global warming, etc), "we will be despised by our descendants." (p294) "The conflict between scientific knowledge and organized religions is irreconcilable." (p 295)
  fpagan | Apr 24, 2019 |
Ambitious.
Thorough.
I've read a lot of science books (biology, evolution, neuroscience, psychology...) over the last several years. ?Turns out that they probably only served to help me to be savvy enough to understand this, which turns much of what I learned from them upside down. ?áWell, ok, maybe that's an exaggeration. ?áBut Wilson covers an awful lot of ground here, summarizing all sorts of recent investigations, and very convincingly disputing a bunch of the conclusions drawn from them. ?á

The theory he rejects most heartily is inclusive fitness" (aka kin selection). ?áHe's all about group selection, which is not the same thing, even though some scientists would (apparently) weasel their words to make their disproved versions of the theories fit Wilson's version. ?áHe explains how mathematical models of kinship make it impossible for kin selection to be a force. ?á

I'm not at all sure I understood everything he was saying, but in context with the rest of his ideas, I'm convinced he's got a good enough handle on the current state of our knowledge that I don't want to read anything in these fields of science that was published before this - it'd be like I'd just be trying to master alchemy or potions before learning modern chemistry. ?áI do recommend you read this, too, and skip anything else, especially about human evolution, that is older than this. ?áIn fact, maybe skip ahead to brand-new books, as Wilson himself admits that there are still a lot of avenues of research that need to be investigated, still a lot of aspects of his theories that are not quite sufficiently supported by "current" data.

Some bookdarts - though I don't know if they mean anything sans context:

"It has long been known that Africans south of the Sahara are far more diverse genetically than native peoples in other parts of the world. ... Four San (Bushman hunter-gatherers) proved [from the protein-coding sequences of their genomes] to differ more from one another than an average European does from an average Asian."

"Colonies of cheaters lose to colonies of cooperators." ?á(The best summation of the paradox of the conflicting drives of human nature that I've ever seen.)

"The behaviors created by epigenetic rules are not hardwired like reflexes. ?áIt is the epigenetic rules instead that are hardwired, and hence compose the true core of human nature. ?áThese behaviors are learned, but the process is what psychologists call 'prepared.' ?áIn prepared learning, we are innately disposed... to learn a fear of snakes very quickly..." but not be fearful of other reptiles like turtles.

Children age 2.5 were compared to chimps, and the human tots "learned more while watching a demonstration, better understood cues that?áaid to locating?áa reward, followed the gaze of others to a target.... ?á Humans, it appears, are successful not because of an elevated general intelligence that addresses all challenges but because they are born to be specialists in social skills."

(I do wish the illustrations were in color, at least the ones with the captions indicating that Wilson thought that they would be.)

I'm certainly not convinced by everything that Wilson presented. ?áBut I found it all interesting, and believe that any of you armchair scientists will too.










" ( )
  Cheryl_in_CC_NV | Jun 6, 2016 |
Big Think interview: "In eusociality, an evolutionarily advanced level of colonial existence, adult colonial members belong to two or more overlapping generations, care cooperatively for the young, and are divided into reproductive and nonreproductive (or at least less-reproductive) castes." ( )
This review has been flagged by multiple users as abuse of the terms of service and is no longer displayed (show).
  clifforddham | Nov 5, 2015 |
Very interesting perspective. The author uses a painting by Paul Gauguin to anchor his essays on socio-genetic evolution and human nature. Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? ( )
  joeydag | Jul 23, 2015 |
Showing 1-5 of 12 (next | show all)
Wilson’s book, however, is not devoid of merit. There are interesting titbits about biology and anthropology, including fascinating descriptions of how diverse cultures divide up the colour spectrum in similar ways, and how incest taboos, which avert genetically based birth defects, are enforced even by cultures that don’t understand the genetic consequences. Yet the good bits are ultimately scuppered by Wilson’s attempt to feed questionable biological ideas to the public while ignoring the criticisms of his peers. The result is that readers will be seriously misled about human evolution and the evolution of social behaviour as a whole.

It is puzzling that, at the end of a distinguished career, Edward Wilson has chosen to repudiate fertile and long-standing ideas about evolution in favour of alternatives that are deeply flawed. His immense achievements have made his legacy secure, but it will be tarnished by this misguided attempt to explain social behaviour in insects and humans.
added by jimroberts | editTimes Literary Supplement 4731, J. A. Coyne (Feb 1, 2013)
 
Edward Wilson has made important discoveries of his own. His place in history is assured, and so is Hamilton’s. Please do read Wilson’s earlier books, including the monumental The Ants, written jointly with Bert Hölldobler (yet another world expert who will have no truck with group selection). As for the book under review, the theoretical errors I have explained are important, pervasive, and integral to its thesis in a way that renders it impossible to recommend. To borrow from Dorothy Parker, this is not a book to be tossed lightly aside. It should be thrown with great force. And sincere regret.
added by jimroberts | editProspect, Richard Dawkins (May 24, 2012)
 
Sandwiched between his discussion of evolution and a concluding statement called “A New Enlightenment” is a series of chapters on language, culture, morality, religion and art. This section is intended to answer the “What are we?” question, but it is disappointing. Each chapter is only about a dozen pages and mainly summarizes the proposals of other scholars. While Wilson is never boring, there are few new insights here. The feeling you get recalls a remark once made by Roger Ebert about an artsy horror movie: there is foreboding and there is afterboding, but no actual boding.
added by rybie2 | editNew York Times, Paul Bloom (May 11, 2012)
 

» Add other authors

Author nameRoleType of authorWork?Status
Edward O. Wilsonprimary authorall editionscalculated
Hogan, JonathanNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
People/Characters
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
Epigraph
Dedication
First words
There is no grail more elusive or precious in the life of the mind than the key to understanding the human condition.
Quotations
Last words
(Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Blurbers
Publisher series
Original language
Canonical DDC/MDS

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English (1)

No library descriptions found.

Book description
Haiku summary

Quick Links

Popular covers

Rating

Average: (3.88)
0.5
1 2
1.5
2 3
2.5
3 15
3.5 2
4 23
4.5 4
5 18

Recorded Books

An edition of this book was published by Recorded Books.

» Publisher information page

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

 

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 142,381,318 books! | Top bar: Always visible