E.O. Wilson, Naturalist Dubbed a Modern-day Darwin, Dies at 92 (reuters.com) 32
Edward O. Wilson, a U.S. naturalist dubbed the "modern-day Darwin" died on Sunday at the age of 92 in Massachusetts, his foundation said in a statement. From a report: Alongside British naturalist David Attenborough, Wilson was considered one of the world's leading authorities on natural history and conservation. Wilson's Half-Earth Project calls for protecting half the planet's land and sea so there are enough diverse and well-connected ecosystems to reverse the course of species extinction, which is happening at a rate not seen in 10 million years. The United Nations has urged countries to commit to conserving 30% of their land and water -- almost double the area now under some form of protection - by 2030, a target known as "30 by 30" and inspired in part by Wilson.
Born in the southern U.S. state of Alabama, Wilson's trajectory as an entomologist, someone who studies insects, was set at the age of 10, when he spent hours in the woods collecting bugs and butterflies. He went on to spend 70 years as a scientist at Harvard University, putting in time as a professor and curator in entomology. Through his career, Wilson discovered more than 400 species of ants. He said one of his greatest achievements was working out how ants communicate danger and food trails, for example, by emitting chemicals.
Born in the southern U.S. state of Alabama, Wilson's trajectory as an entomologist, someone who studies insects, was set at the age of 10, when he spent hours in the woods collecting bugs and butterflies. He went on to spend 70 years as a scientist at Harvard University, putting in time as a professor and curator in entomology. Through his career, Wilson discovered more than 400 species of ants. He said one of his greatest achievements was working out how ants communicate danger and food trails, for example, by emitting chemicals.
We should name an award after him. (Score:2)
Did he happen to part from this world in a particular original manner?
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, he was the first him to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he happen to part from this world in a particular original manner?
In that case, he would be a saint, and depicted with his means of departure.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he happen to part from this world in a particular original manner?
In that case, he would be a saint, and depicted with his means of departure.
Carried off in the jaws of a Harvard grad student, legs curled up.
He was a marvelous thinker, and communicator. I'm very much thankful I've been around to hear him speak, and read his words.
Re: (Score:3)
Did he happen to part from this world in a particular original manner?
Yes. Due to his eusociality, he sacrificed his own life for the good of his cohort.
How's He Not Been Canceled By Now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Among Wilson's most controversial works was 1975's "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" in which he wrote that all human behavior was a product of genetic predetermination, not learned experiences. By coming out in favor of human nature over nurture, he set off a firestorm of criticism, with his harshest opponents accusing him of being racist and sexist.
One protester threw water on Wilson while he was speaking at a conference as others chanted, "Wilson, you're all wet." It was, Wilson said later, a matter of pride for him that he was willing to pursue scientific truth despite such attacks.
It must have been nice to live in such a tolerant, pro-science era. Today he'd've probably been mobbed and beaten:
https://www.theatlantic.com/po... [theatlantic.com]
The protesters—some of whom were wearing masks and may not have been Middlebury students—began pushing them. When Stanger tried to shield Murray, according a Middlebury spokesman, a protester grabbed her hair and twisted her neck.
Murray, Stanger and their escorts made it to a waiting car, but the protesters
“pounded on it, rocked it back and forth, and jumped onto the hood,” according to The New York Times. One took a large traffic sign, attached to a concrete base, and placed it in front of the car to prevent it from leaving.
Re:How's He Not Been Canceled By Now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wilson was a great entomologist, and many of his ideas were ahead of their time. His "selfish gene" hypothesis is what got him in trouble because he over-emphasized it in his writings. Obviously genes have a dramatic influence on behavior, but in humans this effect is not going to be as strong as it is in his favorite subject, ants. I think if he had been a bit more nuanced in how he laid out the selfish gene hypothesis, he would have run into less pushback. Nonetheless, he will be remembered as an influential biologist and his ideas will continue to stir controversy.
Re: How's He Not Been Canceled By Now? (Score:3, Interesting)
As you point out, the problem with Wilson was that he could not distinguish humans from ants. He was overly reductive in his analysis of behavior, reaching to natural selection and genes as an overarching theory of everything. This completely overlooked how much culture affects human behavior, as he looked for an adaptive explanation for any sort of bizarre behavior that can be better explained by things like the religion one is brought up around or unique courtship rituals societies develop that are comple
Re: How's He Not Been Canceled By Now? (Score:1)
A problem with Wilson is that like many in the life sciences, he was a severely unquantitative person. He had a line in one of his memoirs, Letters to a Yoing Scientist, I think, that basically said it's okay to suck at math because you can always outsource your quantitative analyses to professional mathematicians and statisticians.
Re: (Score:3)
His "selfish gene" hypothesis is what got him in trouble ...
You are confusing Richard Dawkins with E.O. Wilson.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, I was thinking of sociobiology, which got the two of them into a big fight.
https://answersingenesis.org/t... [answersingenesis.org]
Both of them were saying approximately the same thing, but argued over mechanisms (e.g., organismal vs. gene selection). I think they both got things wrong in many respects.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, I was thinking of sociobiology, which got the two of them into a big fight.
https://answersingenesis.org/t... [answersingenesis.org]
Both of them were saying approximately the same thing, but argued over mechanisms (e.g., organismal vs. gene selection). I think they both got things wrong in many respects.
answersingenesis.org? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
That was supposed to be funny. I found their debate to be tedious.
https://www.theguardian.com/sc... [theguardian.com]
I don't think either of them got things right, and the science has moved beyond their squabble. I never liked either of their ideas particularly.
https://www.prospectmagazine.c... [prospectmagazine.co.uk]
We know an awful lot more about genes, gene regulation, gene products and integration with other gene products now, including micro RNA. I am not sure that the debate over what the elements of selection are will be resolved because it
Re: (Score:1)
Remember when being against evolution was strictly a Christian fundamentalist position? Today the academic Maoists get equal time.
Fortunately the protesters' genes will not propagate to the next generation, because this would require receptive females willing to bear the children of (ptui!) males. This particular cohort of protesters doesn't have any of those.
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be protesters that go too far and they should be arrested when committing crimes. However, don't act like this is a new phenomenon when all the campus buildings made in the 1970s were built using narrow windows with wire reinforced glass to prevent students from smashing them. If you want to talk about violence then you need only look to the 1960s where politicians were murdered.
Re: (Score:2)
You could also look back to 2017, when James Hodgkinson attempted a mass murder of politicians. Or back to 2020, when protestors repeatedly tried to barricade government officials inside buildings and burn those buildings down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind... I skimmed over your comment and didn't see that you'd already covered that.
Re: (Score:2)
authorized biography by Richard Rhodes (Score:2)
https://www.goodreads.com/book... [goodreads.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Pillar of science (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, all those famous people with foundations are super sketchy. You shouldn't trust the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation as far as you can throw it!
A loss (Score:3)
I've read his "Letters to a Young Scientist", and it's a good book. My two recollections from it are:
1. Find a niche where no-one else is looking and specialize in that.
2. If you want to study nature you don't have to go to faraway lands or distant places. A few square meters in a cow pasture contains a plethora of life in it once you start looking for it.
I think he also had a fun little anecdote about a species migration experiment where they sterilized an island, but that might have been from another book.
half earth for nature, how? (Score:2)
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbn... [nbcnews.com]
A true Ant Man! (Score:2)
Here's a funny Dr. Fun's comic strip related to him and ants: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm... [zimage.com]