On Reducing the Value of Life Via Sociobiology

“In the beginning,” Harvard biologist, Edward O. Wilson might say, “there were only ants. Yet from these seemingly inconsequential creatures arose nearly all other forms of animate life, including the highest evolved form of which we are familiar, Homo sapiens—human beings.”
Well, actually Wilson probably wouldn’t put it exactly that way because he knows as well as you and I do that given current evolutionary theory ants and humans are not in any way shape or form related to each other except as common descendants from the first unicellular animals. However, given Wilson’s proclivity for reducing mankind to the barest essentials coupled with his almost eerie passion for the intricate lives of ants and termites, I find it no small wonder that he hasn’t tried to draw some sort of lineage between the Hymenoptera and the primates.
Wilson is one of the founders and probably the most vocal proponent of sociobiology which goes one step beyond basic evolutionary theory and draws conclusions about the social workings of species based on their genetic heritage.
He is a reductionist to the nth degree, so to speak.
Reductionism as we have already noted in earlier essays is the explanation of scientific materialists for nearly everything in the universe about which science or pseudo-science can make a speculation. Reductionists “break things down” into their basest levels, stripping them of magic, illusions, and vagaries. Wielding the Torch of Objectivity, they claim to promote the truths of science and mathematics in their observations of the natural world and surrounding cosmos, theoretically in the pursuit of knowledge and an understanding of the workings of the universe in terms of physics, chemistry and mathematics.
Thus, a frog is reduced to “an amphibious life form made up of primarily hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and water with other trace elements constituting approximately one twentieth of the creature’s mass.” Similar statements could be made about a tree, an elephant, or a person as the reductionists pick away the layers of complexity which make each creature, rock, cloud, and ocean distinct and reveal them for what they “really “ are.
Sociobiology is then a specialized form of reductionism in that it focuses more on behavior rather than physical characteristics and attempts to explain why creatures act the way they do, again in terms of physics, chemistry and mathematics.
Although few sociobiologists will spell it out so clearly, they propose that the purpose of life is to survive (or at least long enough to replicate itself). If living organisms can hang around to help care for their progeny, so much the better, but only in terms of this making the next generation better suited towards survival.
So, Wilson and his fellow sociobiologists wander outside their respective fields of science which range from zoology and entomology to astronomy and chemistry into the realms of psychology and sociology, offering their research and observations as explanations for the phenomena of the social sciences.
For example, ethics and morals to Wilson are of no intrinsic value in themselves, but rather are valuable only inasmuch as means to the ultimate end: survival. Developing loving friendships, not stealing, and caring for children are genetic guidelines, or as Wilson calls them, “epigenetic rules” by which society abides simply because by following them, humans as a species thrives, breeds, and survives.
Wilson elaborates on his theory in his ideas about the existence of altruism and whether or not it really exists. Wilson points out that altruistic behavior is not very altruistic from the standpoint of any individual’s genes because by doing favors an individual to some extent can expect a return of that favor which in turn will help him or her to thrive and survive, thereby assuring the transmission of the individual’s genes on to another generation.

I could continue discussing the various other points Wilson makes in favor of sociobiology as well as the evidence he presents to support his claims, however this paper is neither long enough nor is that within the scope of what I am trying to point out here. Instead, let us move on to some of the criticisms of Wilson’s theory of sociobiology and namely why I believe them to be valid.
For starters, Peter Singer points out that Wilson doesn’t seem to take into account the effects culture has on individual ethics and morals. By Wilson’s reasoning, it would seem that all humans would have a virtually universal code of human rights, adjusted slightly to accommodate for environmental differences. This is where the entomologist peeks out in him, because ants, for example, work and live together much the same way no matter where they reside. Their behavior differs only due to environmental factors, and the same could be said about thousands of “lower” species from insects to frogs to mice to deer.
However, humans are not mice or deer or insects or frogs (a fact I think Wilson tends to forget at times), and our ethics, morals, and cultures are influenced by much more than the environment. Sociobiology cannot sufficiently explain the differences in ethical standards between say the citizens of the Aztec Empire and the invading Spanish conquistadors or the Australian aborigines and the British colonizers. There have been (and still area) huge chasms between the ideas of marriage, care for children, respect of elders, and status of politicians of various cultures that simply cannot be explained by sociobiology. One has to examine the individual cultural influences to make explanations of any sort possible, and as Singer noted, Wilson seems to ignore this crucial fact.
Additionally, Arthur Peacocke faults Wilson’s claim that all ethics and morals are illusory, and are biologically useful only because we function better when we believe in an ethical code.
I would not entirely disagree with Wilson on this point because I believe that as an axiomatic step in the formulation of an individual’s code of ethics one has to come to this fundamental discovery about life. The realization that just about any and every thing we do has virtually no significance in the “grand scheme of things” is a humbling experience. In my work at homeless shelters I have watched this occur on several occasions with alcoholics and drug addicts who “hit rock bottom”, and admittedly it is unsettling to say the least. However, given Wilson’s theory, it seems as if that’s all he can accept—that there is no real morality and that all beliefs and ethics are transitory illusions. What he does not understand (or if he does, he does not explain) is that from that base level of understanding a system of ethics, morals, and beliefs can be constructed, and it is significant! Why? Because each individual that goes through this process makes those beliefs significant. Oh sure, those ethics and beliefs may not be important to you or I, but for each individual, they are important and significant, and no one, not Wilson or Barbour or Teillard or Ruse or Einstein or the pope can take that significance, that dignity each individual instills in himself or herself away.
In that same line of thinking, I would like to address one final problem with Wilson’s theory of sociobiology, what John Haught calls the “hierarchical vision of reality.”
The hierarchical vision of reality is the essence of reductionist theory, and yet it is also the reason why reductionist thinking fails. Basically, as we have seen, a reductionist sees certain structures whether it be a man, an animal, a mountain, or a culture as a conglomerate of decreasingly smaller parts. Thus, a man is a collection of organic chemicals and elements that react electrically together to create a living organism. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the basic truth of such statements, but as Michael Polanyi suggests, it would be extremely wrong to deduce that that is all there is to a man. One is reminded of the old Indian fable about the three blind men who encounter an elephant. They perceive only its parts and deduce faulty conclusions about the nature of the elephant, i.e. it is really a tree, a snake, a fan, but the fact remains, that quite apart from its trunk, tail, and ear, the animal is in reality an elephant. The moral of this fable (and the lesson to be learned from the mistakes inherent in the theory of sociobiology, I might add) is that one needs to realize that besides all the tiny parts, there is an incredible organizational pattern which manifests itself in increasingly complex structures which not only gives dignity to the structure but invalidates the possibility of that structures from being entirely reduced to its elemental components.
A man is not a frog nor is he a tree although all three possess the exact organic components. However, all three are wonderful and important in their own ways, being defined by the pattern in which they were created, not the stuff of which they were made.
As a final thought, it would seem then that contemporary evolutionary theory matches well with religious ideology in that both epistemologies seem to indicate that life is making progress. More and more complex structures are arising, from inanimate constructs of molecules to full-blown living organisms in a myriad of shapes and sizes. With every new pattern of structure, so too arises a new level of dignity and wonder, and while Wilson and the sociobiologists may do all they can to refute this ideal, picking things apart as best they can, one has to wonder how sad and disgruntled they must be if they truly live with no meaning.