Saturday, July 15, 2017

Solomon, Scott (2016): Future Humans - Inside the Science of Our Continuing Evolution

What is it about?

This book is - at least with respect to its basic setup - about two things: (1) whether and how the human race still evolves (per biological evolution; natural and sexual selection), and (2) how this evolution could unfold in the future.

The bulk of the book is devoted to discussing different mechanisms of biological evolution with numerous examples from human history as well as from the animal and plant kingdoms more generally. In addition, the book quite convincingly makes the case that despite "modernization", biological evolution has not stopped in the human race; e.g. genetic evolution through sexual selection may be even more pronounced today as it has been in the past because people move throughout the globe in increasing numbers and therefore mixing of different gene pools happens in greater extend than ever before.

However, the "future humans" content - despite being prominently featured in the book title - is very, very thin. Yes, the author discusses the mechanisms through which future evolution may play itself out (e.g. the effects of diminishing exposure to various beneficial and harmful bacteria in the post-industrial Western world), but there is quite little "end results" speculated about.

Was it good?

My feelings towards the book are mixed. In a way, the book very nicely builds towards the main deliverable: what future humans would be like - the conceptual-theoretical-empirical foundation is very solid.

But then, the main deliverable does not really materialize, which is something of a disappointment. At least I expected to read towards the end of the book about whether we would have, say, larger heads (brains), evolve into several different species and so on, but apparently the author has not dared to venture into such speculations -- the book is published by Yale University Press.

But, in this case perhaps it would have been more honest towards the reader to drop the notion of "future humans" from the title, as the book does not really paint a picture of future humans -- though it excels in spelling out the mechanisms which will bring about those future humans.

The main take-away for me?

Perhaps the main take-away for me was - perhaps a bit paradoxically - how little we know about genetic mechanisms. According to the book, in very many cases it is well-established that genetic mechanisms are responsible for evolutionary outcomes both in short and long term, but next to nothing is known today how those mechanisms precisely operate.

Who should read the book?

The book, in my opinion, should be considered mostly as a good popularized introduction to evolutionary biology and not a account on how future human beings will look like. Conceived like this, the book can be recommended to anyone interested in evolutionary biology. But then again, in this category there probably is not a shortage of excellent popularized accounts, such as those authored by Richard Dawkins, for example.

The book on Amazon.com: Future Humans

Hatcher, John (2009): The Black Death - A Personal History

What is it about?

This is a curious book. It is written by a professional historian, but is written as a "semi-fictional" story. That is, the story running through the book is fictional by nature, but it is written as far as possible based on historical facts.

The book is situated in Suffolk, Great Britan, in the rural parish of Walsham le Willows, for which there are excellent historical records available for the focal period of 1340s to 1350s. Consequently, the characters and other contextual aspects can be based quite well on historical facts such as court records.

The story is told with the parish priest, Master John as the main character. Consequently, the perception by the common people towards the pestilence appear quite theological in nature -- which well might have been the case in the absence of modern medical knowledge. However, there voice of the story is that of an external narrator.

Welcomingly, each of the chapters begins with a non-fictional contextualizing section, which provides the current historical knowledge of the issues presented in the fictional story in the chapter.

Was it good?

The book is fascinatingly set up due to the "semi-fictional" style. Moreover, the historical-factual sections at the beginning of each chapter clearly add value and more generally make the story more compelling.

Actually, the historical-factual sections make even better reading than the fictional story itself. Namely, it is somewhat evident that the author is not very experienced with writing fictional narrative -- for example sometimes the narrative reverts to the form of "this happened, and then this, and thereafter also this" without much nuance and vividness.

Overall, however, the book paints a compelling and interesting picture of what it was like to live through the black death (or one instance of it) during the Middle Ages.

The main take-away for me?

The main take-away for me is probably the vast difference in world view between us today and the people living in the Middle Ages. Namely, if the book is to be believed, fortunes and misfortunes were explained during the Middle Ages to a large degree theologically, and consequently prayer and all kinds of religious rituals were primary in combating, say, a pandemic disease -- which, from the modern Western post-industrial standpoint is largely if not entirely futile.

Who should read the book?

I think that anyone interested in the black death of the Middle Ages more in general would find the book quite interesting. However, if one seeks a thoroughly enjoyable fictional story to read, this book may not be the prime choice to make.

The book on Amazon.com: The Black Death

Dunn, Rob (2017): Never Out of Season - How Having the Food We Want When We Want It Threatens Our Food Supply and Our Future

What is it about?

The book on the other hand provides a historical account of how our food supply has developed since the start of agriculture until today (more efficiency, less variety) and on the other hand sounds the alarm concerning how the current overly engineered and focused food supply is also highly risky.

The risks stems from a high degree of reliance on just a handful of crops (and within those, just one or two varieties with highest yields), because a problem with a particular crop such as rice or corn (e.g. a pest or a plant disease) could significantly hurt the food system in its entirety.

The book contains a number of alarming examples - such as the potato famine in Ireland in the 19th century - in which cases serious problems or even deaths due to hunger resulted when one major food source was attacked by a pestilence such as the late blight disease in the case of the Irish potato famine.

Was it good?

The book is a good balance between historical case narrative (with which it opens, too), review of current biological knowledge and informed prospects, and sounding of alarm.

A book like this may quite easily cross the line between "reasoned worry" and "alarmism", but this book stays within the reasoned category.

The historical narratives, for me, constitute the best contents of the book. For instance, the protection of potato varieties for future planting purposes in an agricultural institution during the siege of Leningrad in the 1940s was highly fascinating to read -- some of the personnel practically died of hunger while protecting perfectly edible potatoes and other plants because they wanted to preserve those for future people to plant.

The main take-away for me?

Well, the main message of the book has to be the main take-away; that we are creating increasing risks by building our food supply around ever fewer food plants -- we are placing our eggs increasingly in one basket.

Who should read the book?

The book on Amazon.com: Never Out of Season

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Deary, Ian J. (2001): Intelligence - A Very Short Introduction

What is it about?

This is one of the books in Oxford University Press' Very Short Introductions series; this time on intelligence.

The book basically sets out to provide an accessible overview of what we (the scientific community) know about intelligence as a result of more than a century of research on the subject.

The book opens with a methodological discussion (an excellent primer on basic statistics) followed by a first proper chapter on the definition of intelligence (or intelligences according to some accounts).

Quite a bit of the about 120 pages is devoted to the "nature vs. nurture" discussion, i.e. whether genes or the environment matter more for a person's intelligence. There seems to be no definite conclusion yet, but I got the impression that they are roughly speaking equally important.

Was it good?

The book is very accessible, starting from the opening discussion on basic (psychology research) statistics. Throughout the book, the discussion is very down-to-earth even though the contents are drawn from academic research, and in many cases in large scale meta analyses covering decades of scientific research.

The style of the book is notably calm - fitting to a book by an academic publisher - even to the degree that it is quite difficult to draw any memorable punchlines or main messages from the text.

The main take-away for me?

I was most intrigued by the discussion about how intelligence - or mental abilities in general - develop and persist over time (mainly chapter 2). It turns out - again based on rigorous empirical scientific research - that most mental capabilities don't deteriorate (absent any detrimental medical condition) from the 20s to 30s until somewhere in the 70s or later. Those which do deteriorate mainly have to do with the absolute swiftness of information processing.

Thus, in general terms, people don't become less intelligent even very late in their life.

Who should read the book?

I would recommend the book for anyone who is interested in intelligence - what it is, how it develops and how we can study it. However, this interest should be somewhat 'serious' because the book does not deliver catchy one-liners but rather syntheses of academic findings.