It reads more like an essay than a serious science book. Also felt like it get to the main points much sooner and been a much shorter book.It's also not a good sign if guys without a science background like Edward Dutton are the ones schooling you about group selection, the author seems to have a more individualistic deterministic view of evolution which I find hard to believe but I'm not a biologist.What does /sci/ think?
>>16809778>group selectionno such thing
>>16809778I'm no expert but I thought it was an interesting and compelling theory. This whole topic is fraught with tribalism and frame games so don't expect a reasonable discussion, just a bunch of people who never read the book condemning it's heresy.
>>16809778Genetic skynet speculation is not science. It's been refuted. Gariepy is weak on the actual biochemisty required to support his idea, it's mostly hand waving.https://substack.com/inbox/post/175627384
>>16809778I like when the big idea guy lab scientist fellows write their first book they want to reach a general audience and make a statement. Their personalities really shine through and it's like 50/50 whether they're pleasant people happy to be in their preferred research, or smug ignorant assholes. Though the smug ignorant assholes are at their worst when they're writing far beyond their qualifications (Lab-bred euroscientists are writing about conspiracies and global warming, the mammal evolution expert is angry when he writes about global warming). Often, explanations that you want looked into... aren't. Like how much CO2 is produced annually, naturally, on average by volcanoes. Does it rival humans? You'll never know since financial pressures would never fund that or publish research. How many conspiracy theories are actually true? Stuff like that.But I like the science books. I liked reading "This Idea Must Die" but it made me want to write so I put it down. Carl Sagan was good. Stephen Hawking at least presents an array of sprawling ideas.
