Now on ScienceBlogs: 'The Secret World of Naked Snakes': a ZSL event

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Greg Laden's Blog

Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff

Recent Comments

Profile


Welcome to Greg Laden's Blog.




Nature Blog Network



Search

Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

Archives

Recent Posts

« George Dyson: Let's take a nuclear-powered rocket to Saturn | Main | Blogrolling »

Michael Pollan: The omnivore's next dilemma

Category: Brain and Behavior
Posted on: February 15, 2008 8:17 PM, by Greg Laden

What if human consciousness isn't the end-all and be-all of Darwinism? What if we are all just pawns in corn's clever strategy game, the ultimate prize of which is world domination? Author Michael Pollan asks us to see things from a plant's-eye view -- to consider the possibility that nature isn't opposed to culture, that biochemistry rivals intellect as a survival tool. By merely shifting our perspective, he argues, we can heal the Earth. Who's the more sophisticated species now?

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/64256

Comments

1

I would argue there are a plethora of bacterial species that are more sophisticated than a lot of relatively inconsequential multi-cellular mammals.

Posted by: Lorax | February 15, 2008 8:33 PM

2

I am not sure that any single prokaryote should be considered more "sophisticated" than the complex amalgamations of complex cells that pass for most people's common perception of "animals". But in terms of numbers they have definitely done better than us. After all, in simple numbers, then the modern factory-fed chicken is probably the most successful bird in history. It's just a more sophisticated argument than Douglas Adams' suggestion that it's the lab mice who really control human development.

Posted by: R N B | February 16, 2008 11:35 AM

3

What do you mean by "What if human consciousness isn't the end-all and be-all of Darwinism? " Evolutionary theory has no end-all or be-all, although that is a popular misconception. Is that what you are addressing - the misconception (or as I have not yet viewed this talk, is that what the speaker is getting at) ?

Posted by: Badger3k | February 16, 2008 3:42 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM