[HN Gopher] E.O. Wilson has died
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       E.O. Wilson has died
        
       Author : harscoat
       Score  : 306 points
       Date   : 2021-12-27 09:32 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
        
       | akyu wrote:
       | People like Wilson are a rare breed. He stuck to his guns despite
       | the huge backlash around Sociobiology. From my vantage point, it
       | seems everyone else is coming around to eventually admitting he
       | was basically right all along, begrudgingly of course.
        
       | melling wrote:
       | Richard Rhodes released his biography of E.O. Wilson a couple of
       | months ago:
       | 
       | https://www.amazon.com/Scientist-Wilson-Life-Nature/dp/03855...
       | 
       | Rhodes is famous for this book, that's often mentioned on HN
       | 
       | Making of the Atomic Bomb:
       | https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1451677618/
        
         | toomuchtodo wrote:
         | Making of the Atomic Bomb is excellent, highly recommended.
        
         | ImaCake wrote:
         | I can vouch for the audiobook of the biography. It is a lovely
         | read, although I would have liked for it to be longer and have
         | more detail. Some of the technical biology explanations could
         | have been done better, so that could be a barrier to those less
         | well versed in biology.
        
       | ubicomp wrote:
       | Gosh. What an amazing human. I think about his work often. It has
       | had great influence on how I perceive the world. Rest in Peace.
        
       | webenliven wrote:
        
       | dexwell wrote:
       | "The real problem of humanity is the following: we have
       | paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like
       | technology" -- E. O. Wilson, 2009
        
         | api wrote:
         | The cyberpunks were by far the most prophetic of all science
         | fiction writers, and I feel like this kind of insight is what
         | drove that. They put forward a future where they were
         | optimistic about technology and neutral to pessimistic about
         | human beings.
        
           | LiquidSky wrote:
           | "High tech, low life" as Bruce Sterling put it.
        
           | dennis_jeeves wrote:
        
         | agumonkey wrote:
         | Quality quote.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | dwt204 wrote:
       | Evolutionary biologists are divided on his work. His own research
       | and published works have been used by racists for example to
       | readily explain the social origins of intelligence, poverty,
       | crime, and violence regarding POC. He never actively fought
       | against such tendencies, even though he was aware that he had
       | become the darling of white nationalists, and even fascists
       | globally. I believe that ALL "traits" can be explained by social
       | environment rather than by biology. I respectfully refer you to
       | many of Gould's work on sociobiology. We are not insects we are
       | human beings.
        
         | yucky wrote:
         | >I believe that ALL "traits" can be explained by social
         | environment rather than by biology.
         | 
         | That probably "feels right" to say, but is it backed up with
         | data? DNA is a real thing, not a social construct.
        
           | drewcoo wrote:
           | Social constructs are real things.
        
             | animanoir wrote:
             | Social constructs are like farts. We need oxygen, air to
             | breathe, but sometimes someone farts and we breath that
             | too.
        
         | dennis_jeeves wrote:
        
         | pdonis wrote:
         | While Wilson's extreme position on nature over nurture is
         | certainly open to question, Gould is not a good source to be
         | referencing (and the extreme position of nurture over nature
         | you describe is at least as much open to question).
         | Evolutionary biologists may be "divided" about Wilson, but
         | they're pretty firmly negative about Gould's work in that
         | field. See, for example, here:
         | 
         | http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html
         | 
         | Btw, Wilson was well aware that humans are not insects. He is
         | the one who said of socialism for humans, "Great idea, wrong
         | species".
        
           | sunstone wrote:
           | Not surprisingly Wilson's comment of "Great idea, wrong
           | species." was about communism for which it was very apt
           | (communism doesn't scale for humans), not socialism.
           | Socialism works well in more than a few very successful
           | countries around the world.
        
             | pdonis wrote:
             | _> Not surprisingly Wilson 's comment of "Great idea, wrong
             | species." was about communism for which it was very apt
             | (communism doesn't scale for humans), not socialism._
             | 
             | Wilson specifically used the term "socialism". The full
             | quote is given here:
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson#The_Ants,_1990
        
               | sunstone wrote:
               | The quote is,"Wilson said in reference to ants "Karl Marx
               | was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the
               | wrong species". Which seems a bit odd as Karl Marx was a
               | communist and not a socialist, as far as I know. It's
               | unlikely that Wilson was confused about this two terms so
               | I expect it's just and honest mistake that's been
               | continually repeated with out any one going back to the
               | origininal sources.
        
               | ced wrote:
               | _" Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that
               | he had the wrong species"_
               | 
               | It seems that what Marx called socialism is basically
               | communism.
               | 
               |  _By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of
               | communism as the latter had come to be considered an old-
               | fashioned synonym for socialism. It was not until after
               | the Bolshevik Revolution that socialism was appropriated
               | by Vladimir Lenin to mean a stage between capitalism and
               | communism._
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
        
           | VictorPath wrote:
           | Gould said that one faction of evolutionary biologists were
           | mostly wasting their time, it's not a surprise that they
           | would be firmly negative about that.
           | 
           | The letter signers you posted say they are from the center
           | for evolutionary psychology, departments of anthropology and
           | psychology. This is the whole problem, they have one foot (if
           | not both feet) outside of science and in social science.
        
             | pdonis wrote:
             | _> Gould said that one faction of evolutionary biologists
             | were mostly wasting their time_
             | 
             | Yes, he said that, but he said it in the context of giving
             | descriptions of what those evolutionary biologists were
             | doing that were completely disconnected from reality.
             | 
             |  _> The letter signers you posted_
             | 
             | Are an anthropologist and a psychologist, yes. But the
             | criticisms of Gould that they describe are by no means
             | limited to those fields. The names they list in footnote 2,
             | for example, are a roll call of major evolutionary
             | biologists of the 20th century. Those people are not
             | "outside of science"; they are right in the middle of the
             | scientific field that Gould portrayed himself as an expert
             | on, and they all say Gould's claims are nonsense.
        
               | User23 wrote:
               | Gould himself provides good reason to believe his ideas
               | are nonsense. He began with the result he wanted, and
               | then unsurprisingly got it.                 My original
               | reasons for writing The Mismeasure of Man mixed the
               | personal with the professional. I confess, first of all,
               | to strong feelings on this particular issue. I grew up in
               | a family with a tradition of participation in campaigns
               | for social justice, and I was active, as a student, in
               | the civil rights movement at a time of great excitement
               | and success in the early 1960s. (p. 36)
        
         | the__alchemist wrote:
        
           | dang wrote:
           | Please don't post unsubstantive dismissals, no matter how
           | wrong another comment is or you feel it is. Responding this
           | way just leads to flamewars. We don't want those here because
           | they dumb the forum down and then destroy it.
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        
       | sunstone wrote:
       | One of the giants. "Consilience" is one of his books that's well
       | worth reading. Small book, small words, short sentences and huge
       | ideas.
        
         | Simplicitas wrote:
         | Can't recommend this book enough
        
       | smcl wrote:
       | RadioLab did do a very nice ~20 minute bit on E.O. Wilson, it's
       | just a conversation on stage (so it's not overproduced and
       | chopped up with weird sounds like RL stuff can be):
       | https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/91867...
       | 
       | Just sharing because I really liked this, he comes across as a
       | really lovely man.
        
         | harscoat wrote:
         | "Thanks for the inspiration and may the ants be ever in your
         | favor."
         | https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/1475496023384465408
        
         | harscoat wrote:
         | "He was so kind & supportive of my work when I was a student--I
         | kept an email he sent me as a postdoc that was v encouraging,
         | it was like a pep talk I would read & re-read in tough times!"
         | https://twitter.com/JessicaLWareLab/status/14754258439629578...
        
       | cloudmike wrote:
       | "March away from the sounds of the guns. Observe from a distance,
       | but do not join the fray. Make a fray of your own."
       | 
       | -- E.O. Wilson
        
       | InDemoVeritas wrote:
       | I was there for his last Harvard lecture. He ended by saying,
       | "Now I can say it. Humans have instincts!"
        
       | pbmango wrote:
       | I learned as much about staying curious from reading
       | "Consilience" as anything I can remember in recent years.
       | Transformed my thinking.
        
       | junon wrote:
       | Never heard of E.O. Wilson before now, but his work sounds
       | fascinating. Anyone have any suggestions on how to break into his
       | stuff? Sounds like he has 30 or so books, is "On Human Nature" a
       | good start?
        
         | joak wrote:
         | I'm just finishing Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life a
         | 2016 book in which he proposes that half of the Earth's surface
         | should be designated a human-free natural reserve to preserve
         | biodiversity.
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Earth
         | 
         | A great read, I think we should make real his proposal. I
         | believe we will eventually.
        
           | pphysch wrote:
           | How would you determine which humans get displaced to make
           | room for "human-free" reserves?
        
         | nabla9 wrote:
         | Ants, sosiobiology and biodiversity conservation. I have only
         | read _" Sociobiology: The New Synthesis"_ (1975).
         | 
         | Be aware that Wilson's group selection theory is not generally
         | accepted by other evolutionary biologists. Read about Wilsion-
         | Dawkins kin selection vs. group arguments and debates.
         | 
         | ps. There are two Wilson's in the group selection side (David
         | Sloan Wilson and E. O. Wilson) it's easy to mix them if you
         | don't read carefully.
        
           | junon wrote:
           | Thank you :)
        
         | jonjacky wrote:
         | His autobiography _Naturalist_ (1994) is a very readable
         | introduction to his life and work -- and to his personality. He
         | writes there about the controversies in his life, including his
         | disputes at Harvard with his nemesis James Watson, and the
         | Sociobiology controversy in the 1970s.
        
       | I_complete_me wrote:
       | Great writer, great scientist, great human. May he Rest In Peace.
        
       | telchar wrote:
       | Such a loss. If you want to know what a hive mind really is (it's
       | not how pop culture portrays it), read The Ants. Fascinating
       | book.
        
       | qntty wrote:
       | "[The successful scientist] is sometimes driven, I will dare to
       | suggest, by a passive-aggressive nature, and sometimes an anger
       | against some part of society or problem in the world. There is
       | also an introversion in the innovator that keeps him from team
       | sports and social events. He dislikes authority, or at least
       | being told what to do. He is not a leader in high school or
       | college, nor is he likely to be pledged by social clubs. From an
       | early age he is a dreamer, not a doer. His attention wanders
       | easily. He likes to probe, to collect, to tinker. He is prone to
       | fantasize. He is not inclined to focus. He will not be voted by
       | his classmates most likely to succeed."
       | 
       | -- E.O. Wilson
        
         | humanistbot wrote:
         | I know the man just died, but this is such a limited and
         | damaging understanding of what science is and who can be a
         | scientist. You don't need any of those traits to be a
         | successful scientist. Science is a method. This is just feeding
         | into the "jocks vs nerds" mentality.
        
           | zeruch wrote:
           | ...and the quote is likely because Wilson is of the era where
           | those tropes were hardcoded into social status/cliques. Its
           | an accurate perception of an era somewhat gone.
        
           | 8note wrote:
           | Hypothesis generation is key to good science, but is a
           | creative process rather than a procedural one
        
           | ravar wrote:
           | And know that method by the fruits it produces, the
           | replication crisis, and more broadly an overwhelming number
           | of papers that are not wrong but totally pointless. I'm not
           | saying the quote is totally right but there is something
           | about that temperament that produces researchers who are less
           | inclined to publish things that they know are
           | wrong/meaningless, just to get ahead in the publish or perish
           | paradigm.
        
           | inglor_cz wrote:
           | Science _has_ its methods, but I think that saying  "science
           | _is_ a method " is too reductive.
           | 
           | Much like visual artists need to master the brush or the
           | pencil, but this technical mastery isn't enough to produce
           | lasting Art, the method itself does not produce good Science.
           | 
           | Maybe the long list given by Wilson is too long (there are
           | definitely extroverted scientists out there), but at the very
           | least, a good scientist needs to be _curious_.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | vwcx wrote:
       | This weekend we also saw the loss of Tom Lovejoy, one of the most
       | important conservation biologists of the last century.
       | 
       | https://news.mongabay.com/2021/12/tom-lovejoy-prominent-cons...
        
       | the__alchemist wrote:
       | Legend. Ants. Bees. Learning. The essence of science.
       | 
       | He came up in casual conversation yesterday, re science and
       | learning math, as well as how tough learning math can be once
       | you're older. (He famously attempted to learn calculus in his
       | 30s, and had a struggle, despite already being a Harvard
       | professor, and world-class scientist)
        
         | javajosh wrote:
         | It is remarkable, and wholly admirable, that he tried to learn
         | calc later in life; it is even more remarkable that he admitted
         | his struggle! His genuine humility and curiosity came across in
         | spades in his wonderful little book "Consilience", so this
         | anecdote doesn't surprise me.
        
       | wombatmobile wrote:
       | "If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate
       | back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand
       | years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would
       | collapse into chaos."
       | 
       | -- Edward O. Wilson
        
         | kabes wrote:
         | Mankind is one species with about 7 billion specimen. Insects
         | an entire class with in the million species and 10 quintillion
         | specimen. Not really a fair comparison. If all mammals would
         | dissapear there'd also be chaos. Even just whale poop has a big
         | impact.
        
           | wombatmobile wrote:
           | And yet humans commonly think they are the most important
           | thing on earth, placing themselves at the apex of some
           | pyramid.
           | 
           | E O Wilson gives us perspective by seeing the world not as a
           | bauble in a real estate store, but as a canvas for all of
           | biology.
        
             | nine_k wrote:
             | Humans are most important beings on Earth for themselves,
             | which I find perfectly natural.
        
         | Theizestooke wrote:
         | Both scenarios would cause upheaval, and I'm not sure what he
         | means by a "rich state of equilibrium".
        
           | snowwrestler wrote:
           | The living world is not currently in a state of equilibrium.
           | The populations of humans and the animals and plants we keep
           | are growing extremely quickly; almost every other population
           | of living thing is shrinking quickly.
           | 
           | "Rich" refers to the variety and abundance of living things.
           | The total biomass of living things has declined (there's less
           | overall) and what is left is concentrated into far fewer
           | species than previously.
           | 
           | Just taken as a store of information, the loss is staggering.
           | But from a practical perspective we are less rich; it's far
           | harder today to catch fish than it used to be, for example.
        
           | civilized wrote:
           | He means something that would be interesting for a biologist
           | like him to hang out in and observe.
           | 
           | I know some biologists, and they often wish that the world
           | should be "rich" from a biologist's perspective even if the
           | biologist isn't there to observe it.
           | 
           | It's a curious perspective to me. If you don't exist, why
           | would it matter whether the world is (a) green and buzzing
           | with insects, or (b) reduced to grey goo or strange matter?
           | Why would your aesthetic preferences be relevant in a world
           | that you don't exist in? It's not like you're going to get to
           | watch this universe through a viewport.
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | snowwrestler wrote:
             | Aesthetic preferences exist in our minds independent of our
             | direct experience. That's why people can have aesthetic
             | opinions of things the instant they experience them.
             | 
             | An aesthetic preference is essentially an ideal against
             | which we compare our experience. Whether we expect to meet
             | that ideal does not diminish its power. In fact if it was
             | easily met, it would not be much of an ideal.
        
             | ahmedalsudani wrote:
             | We wouldn't survive for long without insects, and we'd
             | notice the rot buildup in our environment very quickly
             | without them.
             | 
             | It's not about "biology". It's about roles in the
             | ecosystem.
        
               | civilized wrote:
               | I'm not sure what you think you're responding to in my
               | comment.
        
               | ahmedalsudani wrote:
               | > I'm not sure what you think you're responding to in my
               | comment.
               | 
               | A direct question would be easy to answer. As it is, I'm
               | sorry to hear about your confusion :-)
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | wanderingmind wrote:
           | A modern day equivalent of this rich state of equilibrium can
           | be observed in Chernobyl. The place was decimated by nuclear
           | radiation a few decades ago. Initially it was believed that
           | the place never support any large life forms for many
           | centuries. However wild life is currently thriving in
           | Chernobyl including large mammals and birds [0].
           | 
           | [0]
           | https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/sustainability/chernobyl-
           | is...
        
           | api wrote:
           | The notion of equilibrium is something I always disagree with
           | when I read environmentalists. The ecosystem is never in
           | equilibrium. If it were it would be dead. If it reached a
           | meta-stable state evolutionary change would halt.
           | 
           | An icy comet circling way out beyond Neptune is an example of
           | a system somewhat near equilibrium.
        
       | SamWhited wrote:
       | I was just listening to an interview with him on Vox
       | Conversations yesterday, that's so sad to hear. "EO Wilson's Plan
       | to Save the World" is well worth listening to. RSS:
       | http://feeds.megaphone.fm/theezrakleinshow
        
       | arto wrote:
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson
        
       | martingoodson wrote:
       | One of the great writers on science. This is from 'The Diversity
       | of Life': "In the Amazon Basin the greatest violence sometimes
       | begins as a flicker of light beyond the horizon. There in the
       | perfect bowl of the night sky, untouched by light from any human
       | source, a thunderstorm sends its premonitory signal and begins a
       | slow journey to the observer, who thinks: the world is about to
       | change."
        
       | what_is_orcas wrote:
       | This is a true loss.
        
       | Jugurtha wrote:
       | E.O. Wilson comes up when you get into the "actor model"[0],
       | especially with this quote:
       | 
       | > _"A colony of ants is more than just an aggregate of insects
       | that are living together. One ant is no ant."_
       | 
       | Many publications and articles on the topic of actors reference
       | it at some point.
       | 
       | - [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-12-27 23:00 UTC)