Having just finished Nonzero for the second time, I've got to admit it is seriously one of the best and most important books I've ever read. Why did I have to read it a second time? The first was a quick read over a long weekend two years ago -- but something stuck in my mind that I hadn't really "grokked" it. And that was true, because, I read it as an archaeologist, rather than as an anthropologist, and I guess I was just looking at it as another theoretical bent. But there was that gnawing feeling I'd missed something. On a second 'conscious' reading of the book, slowly digesting as I read, and following all the notes, I came away with the gist of it, and you know, Wright's right: civilizations may come and go, but cultural evolution is here to stay. Is there a method to the madness? Yes, absolutely. Is it 'conscious' in its own right? Well, there's the rub. But as far as showing that cultural evolution proceeds pretty much along the same route as biological evolution (only at hyper-speed), well, Mr. Wright, I'm convinced.

If there is any criticism, I'd have to say it centers on the fact that he lays it all at the feet of (the pursuit of?) non-zero-sumness (a sub-set of outcomes related to game theory, and which he freely admits was awkward at times), and that took some getting used to, as well as understanding, and then believing.

The exploration of history against a background of Darwinian biological evolution, even to the molecular level, is mind-numbing, but well worth the ride. And his explanation of the (probability and) nature of life is awe-inspiring. I would suggest it become a standard text in Anthropology graduate courses as soon as possible.

But again, I think it is a very important book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone with an open mind, intelligence, and hope for the future (and a good background in the sciences wouldn't hurt either). Read it slowly and contemplate the consequences. Thanks Mr. Wright. ( )

Wright doesn't really make much use of game theory beyond his primary argument that it is the incentive to create positive sum outcomes (and the natural selection of mechanisms that do this) which drives human social progress (and biological evolution). This is identified as the force which retards or offsets Newton's second law, and which creates pockets of complexity and order within a larger system in which entropy increases. As such, that realisation does not particularly advance Darwinian mechanisms that have been understood for centuries.

Wright appears to go a bit further in arguing that the type of progress in human affairs that readers are familiar with was, if not predestined, bound to happen eventually. However, a broader use of game theory (competition between co-operative and non-co-operative models) would probably have tempered that conclusion, as would a better apprehension of the extent to which this celebrated progress is absent in many societies (I only recall pre-2001 Taliban Afghanistan being touched on, and even then in the context of its leaders now seeking outside investment), and so would a more comprehensive accounting for the negative environmental externalities that ostensible progress has incurred.

Using computer models of an iterative Prisoner's Dilemma, Robert Axelrod's "The Evolution of Co-operation" (1984) unearthed a valuable insight that certain co-operative strategies ("tit for tat") could disrupt and displace (out compete) almost all non-co-operative ones. That formed a much more valid route to the "logic of human destiny" than Nonzero ever does, although it was not developed/applied to cultural evolution. In my view, Wright does not really touch the issue of non-co-operative cultural developments (zero or negative sum games--it doesn't matter as long as the outcome for a dominant player is positive) displacing co-operative ones permanently. Nor is there any real consideration of the need to generate nonzero sumness at a fast enough pace to build enough of a hurdle that the second law of thermodymanics does not prevail.

An optimistic stance is engaging to read, but I was left with low-level niggles that it was too narrow, if not actually dishonest. In the last few chapters, the author's theorising about the destiny of the universe seems to step uncomfortably beyond anything developed in the rest of the book.

Francesca ( )

A continuation of The Moral Animal, this one looks more at society as a whole and concluded that it too seemed to be evolving into something better. ( )

Social evolution/Human evolution/History

I was led to this book after reading Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman. Wright's book also referenced numerous earlier contributers to Game theory such as Robert Axelrod. Axelrod's book The Evolution of Cooperation was a truly great find. I have become persuaded that continuing research and targeted application of game theory can be the easiest (i.e. by being more natural) mechanism the human race can use to leverage cooperation, colaberation and equality. I may be overly optimistic but it sure beats the alternative..... ( )