The Red Queen

XenonOfArcticus writes "I first came upon Matt Ridley when Slashdot reviewed Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Parts (here and here ). Ridley's finely-honed technical writing style could make a treatise on the Boston White Pages intriguing and enlightening, and his treatment of the human Genome was simply eye-opening. I had to have more, and went out immediately to order every Ridley book I could find. Luckily, The Red Queen and The Origins of Virtue were already available and his latest, Nature via Nurture was just hitting shelves. Prepare yourself for my ongoing Overview of Ridley in Three Parts." Read on for the rest of Xenon's review. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature author Matt Ridley pages 405 publisher Penguin Books rating Excellent reviewer Chris 'Xenon' Hanson ISBN 0140245480 summary Why sex is the reason humans are at the top of the food chain.

After laying our souls (and chromosomes!) bare in Genome, Ridley swiftly moves on to a topic that is variously fascinating and taboo: Sex. Every Slashdot user it seems wants more information about it. Ridley immediately tackles the Paradox of Sex: In an asexual organism, every individual of the species can create offspring. In sexual creatures (like people!), only the female can produce young. What's so great about sex then, that overcomes this obvious numerical handicap? In eleven brisk chapters, Ridley unravels the riddles with examples of how and why other species Do It (or Don't It), and what it all means.

Topics explored (though not claimed to be definitively explained) include mitochondrial DNA, dowries, the genetic foundations of harems, how males of a species could develop flagrant 'handicaps' like bright coloration or songs, monogamy, polygamy, adultery and a small species of New Zealand snail that suffers from a parasite named (I'm not making this up) Microphallus. One of the most compelling concepts is that a species' strongest competitor (and driving force behind their evolution) is their own kind, not their foes. In the end it is this argument, called The Red Queen (after a Lewis Carrol character that runs quickly but never gets ahead) that explains so much of our evolutionary hodgepodge of DNA and instinctive behaviour.

Around the world The Red Queen hustles, dissecting the environmental clues given by the mating rituals and biology of various species, asexual, sexual, heterosexual, hermaphroditic and otherwise, comparing them to Homo Sapiens, "the sexiest primate alive" (except for bonobos). As for humans, Ridley divulges how walking upright and our large brains are connected to our comparatively slow maturation, long lifespan and lack of hair. Always in the background is the unquestionable tenet: No one is descended from a celibate organism.

Ridley daringly takes on feminism and gender equality by pointing out that males and females DO differ genetically (duh!) and that in other species the effect of this difference is quite marked. Rather than degenerating into a misogynistic orgy of gender-bashing, he exposes the reasons why (among other differences) men might actually be better at reading maps and women might be more social. Both genders have to get along in order to continue the species, so understanding our differences may be a boon to all. While in the mood for controversy, Ridley delves into the reasons for the genetic-confounding phenomena of homosexuality in a species.

You don't need to have read Genome to read Red Queen, but if you have, you might find all of the puzzles fitting together into an even bigger picture, to be further sketched out in The Origins of Virtue and Nature Via Nurture. This book is not illustrated and probably won't help you get a date next weekend, but it might explain why you're instinctively attracted to those three young blondes at the bar. And why they're all more interested in the cinderblock quarterback of the football team. And despite what my inbox tells me, it has nothing to do with the size of a certain part of your anatomy, but rather the size of ... well, go read the book.

Table of Contents

• Human Nature
• The Enigma
• The Power of Parasites
• Genetic Mutiny and Gender
• The Peacock's Tale
• Polygamy and the Nature of Men
• Monogamy and the Nature of Women
• Sexing the Mind
• The Uses of Beauty
• The Intellectual Chess Game
• The Self-Domesticated Ape

You can purchase The Red Queen from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

Red Queen is a much earlier book than Genome

[isomeme]

The review (while otherwise good) implies that Genome predates Red Queen, when in fact the former came out in 2000 and the latter in 1995.

By the way, I echo the recommendation -- reading this book profoundly changed how I think about evolution and genetics. The only comparably assumption-shattering biology book I can think of is Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life.

Re:Red Queen is a much earlier book than Genome

[happyDave]

I've read the Red Queen, and The Selfish Gene, so I'll have to check those out.
Otherwise, I would also recommend:
Desmond Morris: The Naked Ape
Daniel Dennett: Darwin's Dangeroous Idea
(Dennett is a philosopher, and thus looks at the logic more than the science, but it is still an excellent work. He has another excellent book, that has much less to do with evolution and genetics: Consciousness Explained.)

A fascinating book that enthralls as much as a nov

[rkz]

The Red Queen - named after a theory which is itself named for the 'Alice' character, who must run as fast as she can simply to keep pace with the world around her - fascinated from beginning to end. Looking at the evolution of sex, it is filled with intriguing facts, remarkable examples, and frequently alarming revelations. From why the peacock has that remarkable tail (it's probably to do with sexy sons) to why polygamy benefits females rather than males, the book is a real eye-opener. Once you've learned the secret of the lek, the local disco will never seem the same again. And, given that a man's testicular size is evidence that neither he nor his partner evolved for true monogamy, you may not find this book terribly reassuring. Polygyny, polyandry, incest, infanticide, and group-bonking bonobos: it may leave you thinking that, in comparison to even some of our closest relatives, we humans have very conservative sex lives indeed. And we may only have started doing it at all so that we don't fall prey to parasites! A great read, and real incentive to read anything else available by Matt Ridley.

Matt Ridley interview

[akuzi]

There's an interesting video interview with Matt Ridley where he talks about his latest book 'Nature via Nurture' on edge.org http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ridley03/ridley_in dex.html

Re:A few percent

[morganx]

The human species is actually closer to 99% identical to chimps genetically. It's recently been discovered that the Y chromosome has more genes on it than was thought, which would indicate human males are actually closer-related to male chimps than to human females and vice versa. Go figure. There is an article about it here.

Re:Resident evil reference

[frozenray]

> Is this where the "Red Queen" in resident evil got her name?

The title of Ridley's book is a reference to Lewis Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass":

[...] Just at this moment, somehow or other, they began to run.

Alice never could quite make out, in thinking it over afterwards, how it was that they began: all she remembers is, that they were running hand in hand, and the Queen went so fast that it was all she could do to keep up with her: and still the Queen kept crying `Faster! Faster!' but Alice felt she could not go faster, thought she had not breath left to say so.

The most curious part of the thing was, that the trees and the other things round them never changed their places at all: however fast they went, they never seemed to pass anything. `I wonder if all the things move along with us?' thought poor puzzled Alice. And the Queen seemed to guess her thoughts, for she cried, `Faster! Don't try to talk!'

Not that Alice had any idea of doing that. She felt as if she would never be able to talk again, she was getting so much out of breath: and still the Queen cried `Faster! Faster!' and dragged her along. `Are we nearly there?' Alice managed to pant out at last.

`Nearly there!' the Queen repeated. `Why, we passed it ten minutes ago! Faster! And they ran on for a time in silence, with the wind whistling in Alice's ears, and almost blowing her hair off her head, she fancied.

`Now! Now!' cried the Queen. `Faster! Faster!' And they went so fast that at last they seemed to skim through the air, hardly touching the ground with their feet, till suddenly, just as Alice was getting quite exhausted, they stopped, and she found herself sitting on the ground, breathless and giddy. [...]

Alice looked round her in great surprise. `Why, I do believe we've been under this tree the whole time! Everything's just as it was!'

`Of course it is,' said the Queen, `what would you have it?'

`Well, in out country,' said Alice, still panting a little, `you'd generally get to somewhere else -- if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'

`A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. `Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'

The last paragraph nicely sums up the view that in evolution, standing still means falling into extinction and just keeping one's place is a difficult proposition.

Re:ADD Version

[dreadnougat]

The "religious right" does not (for the most part) have a problem with gay marriage, at least not where I live (btw I'm Orthodox, if that's relevant). The problem is the worry that churches will lose the right to not marry gays.

Re:ADD Version

[FroMan]

Not completely true...

First, in genesis, the creation of Adam and Eve. Not Adam, Eve, Sue, etc...

Also in genesis we also have where Abram (to be Abraham) takes Sari's (to be Sarah) maidservent and has a child with her. While it was acceptable of the time to do that, the rift caused through bitterness of Sari and the maidservent was an example of why it was a bad thing.

Also, David is punished for taking Bersheba (sp?) though she was already married, then killing the man (or having him killed by putting him in front of battle). The child is taken after it is born.

The story of Solomon in (kings/chronicles) implies that Solomon should not have taken multiple wives (two fold reason, they would drag him into their religion and it was wrong).

Also in Hosea, where Hosea is told to take a prostitute as a wife to demonstrate to Isreal how it is a whore to other gods we have another example of where taking multiple wives is wrong.

Also, Jesus makes not in the gospels that marriage is sacred and binding between a man and a woman when he is answering he scribes about the law on marriage.

Again, the the NT Paul also mentions that the man's body is the wive's and the wive's body is the man's, and they should not with hold from eachother. Note the singular.

So, its easy to take out of context that the Bible supports polygamy, but that is simpley not the case. God intended a single man and a single woman to be together.

Re:recommended related reading

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using Ridley's Nature via Nurture as a recomended supplemental text for my 3rd year university course in genetics and behaviour.

FWIW, here's my suggested reading list for those interested in the topics covered by The Red Queen.

Dawkins: Extended Phenotype
Cronin: The Ant and the Peacock
Segerstrale: Defenders of The Truth

Another highly recommended book on behavioural biology, but in a slightly different vein

Sapolsky: The trouble with Testosterone

great book

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a great book. especially interesting is the part about how women choose mates. it talks about how a survey in the UK revealed that women with extra-marital affairs are actually more likely to conceive on the days they sleep with their lovers.

basically, women choose a husband based on his abilities as a provider. but they frequently choose a sex partner based on his physical attributes. the idea is that their offspring will have great physical attributes, but will be raised (unwittingly) by the nice-guy, caretaker husband. doesn't make as much sense now with paternity testing, but interesting nonetheless.

another cool part is how ridley explains the promiscuous history of men. the idea that men lust after hordes of young (even underage) women is frowned upon by society, but makes perfect evolutionary sense considering the males' goals-- he is looking to fertilize as many women as possible, preferrably young women who are at the height of their fertility.

I think everyone should read this book. the insight into human relationships is immense.

Re:ADD Version

[sd_jeff]

Interestingly a similar study was done on suicide. It is a trait that reduced the population in difficult (depressing) times thereby leaving more resources for the group.

This is an example of "group selectionism", which doesn't find much favor among professional biologists nowadays. Their reasoning is that it is easy for such groups to be invaded by mutants who "cheat".

For example, in a population where everyone has a tendency towards suicide in lean times, any mutant that lacks suicidal tendencies will probably leave more offspring. This is because the mutant's kids enjoy the same benefits the regular suicidal folk enjoy (fewer members in group to divide limited resources) without paying the costs which are only borne by the regular individuals (higher probabilty of killing themselves).

Over several generations, fewer and fewer members of the population will be suicidal as the descendants of that mutant "cheater" become more relatively numerous.

The only way an "altruistic" gene can spread is if it is an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) that can coexist with other alleles in the population. In other words, it's structured in such a way to guard against cheaters or find some way of cohabiting in a stable manner with other strategies in the local population's gene pool.

Origins of Virtue review

[Charles Dodgeson]

I am a co-author of a review essay on one of Matt Ridley's other books, Origin of Virtue. It was published in Managerial and Decision Economics in 1998. On-line copies of a draft of the review can be found here.

Apologies in advance for the yucky HTML that LaTeX2HTML produced in those days. If I can find the original source, I'll see if I can generate a usable PDF.

(And let me fix a few of the broken links in that before I hit the submit button).