The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation

I have to say, I did not expect to like this book at all. A book that takes on such familiar themes as the selfish gene theory, but cooperation, competition, and gossip is fine, but this book goes into economics, politics (conservative and liberal) , human history, the actions of presidents... and does it very, very, well. This is truly an incredible book. Along with Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee", and Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", this belongs on EVERYONE'S shelf. Your jaw will drop at the concepts involved in this ground-breaking book, and it will stay with you long after you finish it.

a very enjoyable reading. a lot of human behaviors and phenomena of societies explained with evolution and genetics. Like why do we have music and religion, why people all over the world enjoy eating together and sharring food.Matt Ridley makes the subject very interesting and easy to understand, like in his other books

It might be difficult to find a book that tackles a more difficult problem. Well written, thought provoking, and page turning.

Very good summary of some of the new understandings of human evolutionary development resulting from primatological research. As always, Ridley is an engaging writer easy and enjoyable to read.

Great book. Loved it

Matt Ridley's Origins of Virtue is one among many recently published books on evolutionary psychology -- and it's one of the very best. What distinguishes Ridley's book from the pack is his explicit grappling with the question: What does the fact that human moral sentiments are crafted by natural selection imply about the appropriate political order? Ridley presents one of the finest challenges to Thomas Hobbes yet written. According to Ridley, modern scientific research shows that Hobbes was wrong to assume that in the absence of an all-powerful government people would brutalize each other. While each person does indeed have within himself or herself an irreducible core of self-interest, this very self-interest is typically best served by cooperating with others rather than preying on others. In Ridley's view -- which I find convincing -- all that is necessary to channel self-interested sentiments into socially cooperative patterns of behavior is a system of private and freely exchangeable property rights. The government that governs least truly does, on this reading, govern best.

This is a belated review... penned after reading Ridley's more recent book "Genome" and making some casual comparisons.Where "Genome" stays on its track, "Origins of Virtue" gets rather derailed. Skip the final chapter and you'll enjoy this book. (Or if you're a Libertarian then read ONLY the last chapter and feel vindicated.)For the most part it's a fine book, one of those rare science books that's entertaining to read. Ridley ties together biology, economics, sociology, anthropology, game theory and more to show how humans (and many other creatures, even at the cellular level) have evolved to be naturally cooperative: being generous has benefits apart from esteem-building.The problem I have with the book is that Ridley, after leading the reader chapter by chapter through a terrific set of examples and specific experiments and demonstrating the inherent ability of humans (and many other animals) to form first and second order, mutually beneficial alliances, and behave in what appears (on the surface) to be an altruistic manner with no need for religion, government or culture to prompt them, goes on to present a view of government that is pure Newt Gingrich (or Adam Smith) in its philosophy. His final chapters deal with humans' failures as environmental custodians (debunking the myth of the noble savage), proposing that unfettered private property rights are the only way humans can protect the environment for the common good. His logic seems good on the surface but he leaves out a critical point: properties are bought and sold like any other exploitable resource. He does say at one point that currency speculation is a "zero sum game", but so is property speculation based on resource extraction. This view, where a private owner (such as Weyerhauser to use a Northwest example) is assumed to do what is for the common good simply because they are (in theory) thinking long-term and wisely using land that they (or more precisely, their shareholders) own is clearly false. The result is just a "value-added" phenomenon whereby the low-profit, high-efficiency forest is converted (over time) into a sprawling, high-profit but low-efficiency housing development, or golf course, or commercial park. What's good for the property owner is often not good for the society.That aside, the book is fine, entertaining and thought-provoking.

This is a wonderful book. Ridley is an engaging writer and his book is hard to put down. The content and presentation are flawless. For other interesting books on evolutionary psychology, I also recommend "The Moral Animal" and "Survival of the Prettiest."Unfortunately, Ridley's thesis, to prove that virtues are genetic, is flawed. To be honest, I couldn't pick this up on my own, but after finishing Ridley's book, I read an article in the Boston Review by H. Allen Orr that laid waste to Ridley's thesis. Nonetheless, I wouldn't have understood the argument had I not read Ridley's book. Therefore, I recommend this book as a great introduction to the debate over their source of altruism.

I've been looking for a book that explains the origin of where we get our morals from and why we humans behave the way we do. I thought this book would have a good biological explanation to how all that came to be. What I got instead was drivel that went from one tangent to another in every chapter. It really pissed me off. It had me asking myself "What is this guy talking about?"The sad thing is, the topics covered in this book would have been interesting had it not been full of the most dull writing I have ever come across.In each chapter, he talks about several things that have nothing to do with each other. But all he had to do was focus on one of them and elaborate on one of them rather than throw random pieces of information into each chapter and call it a book on human biological history.The book begins with a very good Prolugue about how a Russian Anarchist named Kropotkin escapes from a prison with the help of lots of people. It makes you wonder what compelled a group of people to risk their lives to get this man out of prison. I thought this book would give us a biological history of how we came to be. That's what I was hoping for. And that's what this book prepares you for.But alas, from there it's all downhill. Every chapter that is followed has a variety of random things thrown in that are unreleted. Or maybe the writer did a terrible job at explaining how they are linked. Either way, nothing made any sense.Chapter 1 talks about ants and bees. Then it talks about the selfish gene, and then ancient rome, and then the relationship between a fertilised egg and its mother. All the writer had to do was talk about the importance of collectivisim. But then even that wasn't clear.Chapter 2 talks about how we humans have divisions of labour, how each and every one of us can do different tasks unlike ants that are either Worker Ants and Army Ants. But then he goes on about Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, using the Parable of the Pin Maker. I'm guessing the whole point of this chapter is about how specialisation makes us humans a better species. Again, another poorly written chapter.Chapter 3 talks about Prisoner's Dilemma. Here he goes on about Maths, Economics and Morals. This was by far the most confusing chapter. I have no idea what he was trying to say here.Chapter 4 was where I lost my patience with this book. First he talks about bats, the neocortex of the brain, it goes on and on about "Tit-for-tat" and then he talks about football.I got fed up. I put the book down. That's not a good sign.What does any of this have to do with the Prologue of the book?None of the above explains nor give us a biological history of our morals or our behaviours.It is books like this that really piss me off.Maybe the author is very knowledgabel about biology, maths, economics and all that kind of stuff, but his wrting is terrible. He goes all over the place. I can't understand why anyone gave this book a 5-star review.Until he gets an editor, I will never read another book by this author again.Overall, a poorly written mess by an awful writer.

Matt Ridley always worth reading no exception with this one . Son nicked my copy as it's so good and I bought this one for friend to enlighten her with science of virtue

Very, very strong start, meandering middle, and delving into 1990s British politics at the end. I've got a lot of time for the author due to his other books, but this one strays a bit too far from science for me.

can't put it down

One or two chapters aside, a very engaging book.