| Wildlife and Nature Books Online in Association with Amazon.com |    |
|
|
|
| What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes | 
| Author: Jonathan Marks
Publisher: University of California Press
Category: Book
List Price: $21.95
Buy Used: $4.25
You Save: $17.70 (81%)
New (18) from $14.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  18 reviews
Sales Rank: 249847
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 333
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6 x 0.8
ISBN: 0520240642
Dewey Decimal Number: 599.935
EAN: 9780520240643
ASIN: 0520240642
Publication Date: November 1, 2003
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Superb, crisp, clean, unread paperback with very light shelfwear to the covers and publisher's mark to one edge - GREAT!
|
| Customer Reviews:
| Showing reviews 1-5 of 18 | | NEXT » |
 Engaging read, useful tools, some loopholes, awkward style July 13, 2008
If you're interested in what can and cannot be learned from the new advances in genetics technology--particularly the applications of that technology to the social sciences, history, psychology, political theory, and so on--then 98% Chimp won't disappoint. Marks is clearly conversant with the details of this rapidly advancing field as well as with the wildly unscientific claims made by many of its practitioners--to say nothing of those made by the technocratic/futurist know-nothings in the media or politics who make hay with research findings--and his outrage about how all this is being conveyed to/understood by the public is infectious. The topic is such that some of Marks' specific case studies are already outdated (published in 2002, revised in 2003, and at the time I'm writing this review, in 2008, the field has already changed quite a bit), but the underlying fallacies that he identifies are just as present and as pernicious as ever. The book is most valuable in providing sympathetic readers with the detailed tools necessary for arguing against genetic fundamentalists, socio-biologists and other extremists. It may not convince those on the other side, but if it doesn't give them at least some second thoughts then they aren't really paying attention.
That said, Marks doesn't always seal his arguments in an air-tight manner. I'm essentially 100% in agreement with him. But I kept imagining using his book to debate an intelligent, determined science fundamentalist, and I found on virtually every page an overly facile generalization, a straw-man argument, or an attempt to dodge thornier issues, all of which would be jumped on by an attentive opponent. In most cases I could see how to close the loophole myself, but I shouldn't have to work that hard to do what I take to be the author's job.
Lastly, I found Marks' style really distracting. The constant shifts in register are obviously intended to mark moves in and out of his "sarcastic voice," but listening to an author sneer all the time, even when you agree with him, is a bit unsettling. Especially when the author is writing about such an important subject and one where his opponents are likely to already be on the defensive.
And the short paragraphs.
Don't even get me started on the short paragraphs.
Or the loose structure, in which dozens of such short paragraphs could be moved virtually anywhere else in a given chapter without affecting the meaning.
It often feels as if Marks simply grouped his notecards together and hit "print."
I kept wondering how California's editors let this pass unrevised.
It will do little to instill good writing habits in you or your students.
You get the point.
So all-in-all a useful book, if not quite the slam-dunk this topic desperately needs.
2 percent can mean a lot April 29, 2006
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
This book falls in the 3/4 star borderline for me, but in the end, deserves a 4-star rating in part because of the vitriol it has produced from some reviewers.
Is Marks a Marxist, with that blinkering his science? (Nice pun, eh?) Not that I saw. Evolutionary Psychology (capitalized) has moved beyond evolutionary psychology, from a proper subfield of evolutionary psychology into a theory of sociology and even a theory of philosophy (it makes philosophical arguments about ethics and aesthetics). Books like Marks are a necessary corrective to Evolutionary Psychology. (Read my review of Richard Francis' "Why Men Won't Ask for Directions: The Seductions of Sociobiology" or David Buller's "Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature" for more on the difference between Ev Psych and ev psych.)
In short, that 2 percent genetic different, when activated by and expressed through an environmental difference that is much greater than 2 percent, results in significant differences.
Note: Marks just looked at the 2 percent difference in normally coding genetic DNA. A more complete look at both the human and chimapanzee genome will likely reveal learner differences in coding DNA, i.e., DNA that does such things as regulate the circumstances under which a certain gene is expressed, such as certain exterior temperatures, sunlight levels, etc., or sets internal controls such as how frequently it codes for itself through messenger RNA, etc.
 Hardly worth reading April 14, 2006
2 out of 10 found this review helpful
Basically, for Marks, it does not matter if or how life on this planet is related or not because humans have created artificial boundaries that have nothing to do with literal relatedness. People rely on cultural myths to make themselves feel important and to give their life meaning. They don't want to be upset by ideas about evolution that might damage their egos and sense of superiority to other species. OK. But Marks seems to be happy that this sense of superiority is also directed against other humans as long as science doesn't get involved. The only time it goes wrong is when 'science' is used to justify the superiority of one group of people against another.
Marks makes the totally false assumption that anyone who is interested in other species, sociobiology or agrees with Dawkins is trying to put a scientific acceptance on how humans have come to be so racist etc. It is as if Nazism was only wrong in that 'science' was used as some (false) justification. If they had left the 'science' out and justified their atrocities purely on the normal cultural mythological grounds that are more 'human' then that is somehow OK. Marks does not seem to recognize that the Nazis succeeded because they tapped into the human need for creation myths - they wanted their own origin myth, pure blood, cultural identity with superiority of their group and difference from others, not unlike all other human cultural, political, religious etc etc 'tribes'.
If Marks is inadvertently giving the OK to human atrocities as long as 'science' isn't brought into the equation then he needs to rethink his arguments. He is definitely giving the impression that the human dependency on having a special place in the universe cannot and should not be challenged - even though this inevitably leads to groups depending on having a special place in relation to other groups. If he actually means this then it is necessary to conclude that he wishes to sustain divisions and perhaps ultimately seeks the domination of his own particular group, no doubt whomever he perceives to be 'good' in contrast to those he labels 'evil'.
Marks says that creationism never led to anyone being killed when, obviously, religious beliefs have often been used to justify killing. He also says the 'naturalistic fallacy' is when we use information about other animals to illuminate understanding of humans which is wrong. The naturalistic fallacy is when we use the fact that something happens in nature to mean that it should happen and must be good. Marks' implication that whatever happens traditionally in a human culture must be good is surely a culturalistic fallacy.
For some of us science, including evolution and sociobiology, reveals that there is no 'us' and 'them' - only 'us'. It helps us understand why we may have thoughts, feelings and behaviors that are ultimately harmful to ourselves and others and increasingly maladaptive. It teaches us humility, that we are not at the centre of the universe, that there is no parental omnipotent being to kill or die for. We can experience life as awesome, feel incredible wonder that we as individuals are actually experiencing life and feel happiness without having to believe in supernatural powers or that we belong to one particular group as opposed to another. If cultural creationist myths lead to happiness the world should be overflowing with happiness and goodwill.
Marks seems to have lost himself in some mistaken ideas about those he considers 'them' - an all too human trait. Though certain ideas are falsely presented as 'science' they cannot take hold without the cultural foundations already being there. To denounce the false 'science' but support the myths is pointless. I found Marks arguments poor, his humor largely facile and, apart from when he explains literal relatedness and one or two other things, the book as a whole I found of little value.
 tackles the grey area in biology and genetics July 4, 2005
4 out of 9 found this review helpful
Far too many people can see beyond black and white, right and left, conservative and liberal, etc., as many of the previous reviews illustrate. It seems especially true today, as few folks are exposed to (or can grasp) any argument that is not clearly set off from its exact opposite. This book is not about the expected. It's about that uncharted grey area between science and religion, critical thinking and dogma, apes and humans. Hooray for Marks for having the courage to write critically without pandering to the cliched expectations of typical two-sided debates. Recommended for critical thinkers. Not for dogmatists--religious, scientific, or otherwise.
He never tells you what it means March 7, 2005
6 out of 18 found this review helpful
What it means to be 98 percent chimpanzee is that an interspecific hybrid is very likely possible. It would not surprise me if someone has already tried it out in a Petry dish. Interspecific hybrids of big cats like lions and tigers are well known as is the hybrid of horse and donkey that we call a mule. Mules are sterile because the differing chromosome numbers of their parent species do not permit precise alignment of chromosomes in meiosis, needed to produce viable gametes. Humans and chimpanzees likewise differ in chromosome number: humans have 46 versus chimpanzee 48, which may have been the original isolating mechanism responsible for speciation.
But what he does tell you is a bag of Marxist anti-sociobiology propaganda which originated with Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, two Harvard Marxists, in the seventies. To the Marxists it is intolerable to admit that human nature has an inherited component because that diectly contradicts their materialist theory of history. To them human nature is infinitely malleable and is controlled by the work environment. Thus, being brought up in a capitalist system ruined your character but this could be remedied by putting you to work in the socialist system. Mao did this to college professors by sending them to work in collective farms and calling it his "cultural revolution." Pol Pot saw this but did not think that Mao had it quite right. For one thing, he did not think it would work with those who had had too much capitalist education. Hence, he set an admission limit of eighth grade for his re-education camps and ordered those with more than an eighth grade education shot right away.
|
|
|
Wildlife, nature and the Environment
Sponsored Links
Learn how to get your own Amazon Book shop | |
|
