The most recent political book I’ve read is Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture on loan from Blog of Bile’s very own xyz.  It is a collection of short essays in the field of anthropology and sociology.  Each essay attempts to shatter preconceived notions and explain in greater detail human actions which the author has deemed befuddling.  Amongst the topics discussed are cows as sacred animals, pig lovers and haters, primitive warfare, the idea of an aggressive male, extreme consumption and extreme donation, cargo cults, a history of messiahs, the violent origins of Christianity, early witchcraft and witch trials, and the contemporary resurgence of disdain for objectivity.

The book is a relatively easy and quick read, only slowing down at the end where the author feels it necessary to defend himself from the hordes of sandal-wearing druggies that are going to attack him.  The author is selling his theories as to why certain anomalies in culture exist.  Unfortunately due to the imperfect nature of his science the results are quite subjective.  Despite Mr. Harris’ ardent pleas for objectivity at the end of the book I find some of his explanations to be lacking in sufficient evidence to support his claims of causation.

On a positive note, he does an excellent job of introducing the history surrounding these topics.  There is a lot of good information in the book, mostly revolving around things that are not easily disputed such as recorded history.  This book is an excellent catalyst for debate.

Rather than go through each topic, here are some of the highlights that stick in my mind:

• A good analysis of childbirth and war are used to attempt to explain why males are dominant in most of our societies.
• Some interesting history of egalitarianism, reciprocity and “the big man” in primitive societies.
• A decent early history of Christianity, including the movements leading up to it and Paul’s initial reformation of the church following the death of Jesus.
• A scathing essay on the futility of modern movements attempting to change society by changing individual consciousness.  Scathing is an understatement, perhaps scalding, blistering or even face-melting would be more appropriate.  I think this is the essay bile would enjoy most.

Here are some problems I had with the book:

• He starts with a good premise, “I hope to present probable and reasonable solutions, not certainties.”  But by the end of the book he is so wrapped up in defending himself he comes across like an early evangelical minister telling “God’s honest truth”.
• Don’t quote the King James translation of the bible when entering into debate over the origins of Christianity.  Sometimes Mr. Harris addresses the original Aramaic, but at other times he seems to disregard the translation process that led to the quotes he chooses to use.  This part of the book could use bolstering.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

A study found that spending money on someone else made people happier than buying something for themselves.

Economist Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in the U.K. says Dunn’s results will surprise most economists, who would hold that spending money on yourself gives the greatest happiness bang for the buck. “It’s an intriguing result you won’t find in Economy 101 textbooks,” he says.

A related study was published last summer that used brain imaging and concluded that voluntary giving was preferred over taxation. Am I the only one whose response to both of these results is “No Duh!”? People are not 100% selfish, therefore philanthropy must provide some perceived benefit.

Exactly… no duh. What what? “People are not 100% selfish”? How’s that? Isn’t that contradictory? Butler Shaffer over at LRC pointed that out before I’ve had the chance.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

Kathryn’s report of studies showing that people derive “some perceived benefit” from helping others contradicts her conclusion that “people are not 100% selfish.” I cannot conceive of any voluntary act that is not rooted in selfishness, i.e., in the desire of the individual to be better off after acting than in not acting at all, or in pursuing other ends. Kathryn’s earlier comment that “spending money on someone else made people happier than buying something for themselves” reflects this fact. I have a continuing debate with one of my colleagues over the notion of “altruism.” I have yet to have him identify such an act, be it actual or hypothetical. Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene” may provide some insight into why a parent, for instance, might choose to die in order to save her child, an act motivated by an inner self-interest motivated desire. Our other beneficial actions vis-a-vis our neighbors may express similar purposes.

I hear statements about so-called “selfless” acts of individuals while watching televised sporting events. A sportscaster will praise a player who lets a teammate score a basket as an “unselfish” player. Nonsense! Such a player has a selfish desire to win the game, and if his teammate can more easily promote that objective than he, there is no “selflessness” in his doing so.

I suspect that when we attribute “unselfishness” to the actions of others, we may be saying nothing more than “I wouldn’t have done that, therefore, when someone else does it, it must be an act of altruism.” The Objectivists are good at this kind of reasoning. I prefer the explanation: “I don’t know why he did what he did, but with all the options available to him, he chose the one that best served ends that he valued over others.”

The notion of being “unselfish” is part of the division that generates the inner sense of “good” and “bad” that helps keep us in a state of subservience to those who insist on controlling our “bad” side in order to foster “good” ends. Such thinking is premised on the proposition that a “selfish” person is one who puts HIS “greedy” interests ahead of mine! It is in our self-interest to abandon such divisive thinking so that we can more readily go about the business of living well by cooperating with and assisting others. Such behavior makes us “feel good,” as selfish a purpose in acting as one can imagine.