Dear scientists: Follow the ants

Our recent article about the origin, genomics and evolution of female-limited polymorphisms in animals document a widespread phenomenon, with implications for evolutionary biology and society.

Capitalists have gotten creative in making the extremes of climate change feel like something that can be solved by individuals

Leninism is not perfect nor should it be copied mechanically, but abandoning it for vague principles — as Dan La Botz proposes — leaves us without tools to confront the realities of power, contends Antony Teso.

Far from saying “goodbye” to Lenin’s legacy, we should confront and renew it. Lenin and his comrades offer too much of value to do otherwise, writes Paul Le Blanc.

An experiment with male-dimorphic mites shows long-lasting benefits of genetic rescue, regardless of type of male rescuer and despite introducing genetic load, in populations subjected to a thermal stress.

The logical empiricists were basically correct about the relationship between science and philosophy

## Introduction Dialectical thinking in biology has famously been put forward by the eponymous book of Levins and Lewontin (1985). Much of the book was dedicated to the interpenetration between organisms and their environments. In particular, chapter 3, “The Organism as the Subject and Object of Evolution”, originally published by Lewontin (1983), explored how organisms simultaneously change and respond to their environments. This contrasted with two one-way causal models that commonly infuse biology: (1) on developmental timescales the phenotype is determined by the genotype, and (2) on evolutionary timescales the phenotype is determined by the environment, through the selection of genotypes. Levins and Lewontin’s take on the reciprocal causation between organisms and their environments contributed to the elaboration of dialectical accounts of development (e.g. Oyama, Gray, and Griffiths 2001; Sultan 2015) and of selection pressures (e.g. Odling-Smee, Laland, and Feldman 2003; Svensson 2018). However, one of Lewontin’s most cited and influential contributions is strikingly absent from the Dialectical Biologist. In “The Units of Selection”, Lewontin (1970) argues that Darwinian evolution by natural selection can in principle apply to any level of biological organisation, provided that heritable phenotypic variability cause differences in fitness. This was a major step towards the emergence of what is called today Multi-Level Selection (MLS) theory (e.g. Okasha 2006; Wilson and Sober 1989), according to which several levels of biological organization can simultaneously be the target of selection. ## Parts and wholes The first and second principles lie at the core of MLS theory, according to which properties of parts result, in part, from selection pressures exerted on the wholes they form. In the case of the evolution of altruism1 for instance, behaving altruistically is an individual property that is negatively selected at short time scales by individual-level selection inside each group, and positively selected at longer time scales during selection among groups. Selection among groups occurs because containing many altruists is a beneficent group-level property. MLS theory is at odds with the naive version of holism which asserted that individual traits evolved for the preservation of the species (“Arterhaltend”, Lorenz 1963), in line with the old concept of Balance of Nature. As Dawkins (1981) ironically put: “Should we then not expect lions to refrain from killing antelopes, ‘for the good of the mammals’ ?”. As indicated by its name, MLS theory considers that several levels of selection are acting simultaneously, with no predetermined outcome. In contrast to MLS theory, according to the “gene-eyes view” (Ågren 2021) championed by Dawkins (1976) and others, selection acts at the level of genes only. Altruistic alleles can be selected if they spread more efficiently indirectly through the bearer’s relatives (“kin selection”), following Hamilton’s rule (Hamilton 1964). According to the gene-eyes view, the group-level property “containing many altruists” is therefore explained by selection at the level of genes. Even the individual-level property “behaving altruistically” is explained by lower-level processes at the gene-level. ## Subjects and objects According to the third principle, subjects and objects are interchangeable. The usual theory of evolution by natural selection instead favours linear causation, where populations of organisms respond to external selection pressures dictated by the environment. Selection pressures are conceived as independent causes that remain unaltered during the process of adaptation. Standard evolutionary theory has therefore been qualified as “externalist” (Godfrey-Smith 1996; Laland et al. 2013). Dialectical accounts of biology like the Developmental Systems Theory and Niche Construction Theory (Odling-Smee, Laland, and Feldman 2003; Oyama, Gray, and Griffiths 2001), instead rely on the reciprocal causality between organisms and their environments. MLS theory also reach the conclusion that selective forces act both as subjects and objects. In the Descent of Man, Darwin famously provided the first sketch of what is called today group selection. He wrote: “It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.” (Darwin 1871) ## Change The fourth principle claims that change must be sought in “all aspects of all systems”, that processes are ontologically prior to objects. The idea that natural selection is both a cause and an effect, as outlined in the previous section, reveals that natural selection itself is a historical product subject to change, especially in a MLS context where higher levels of selection modify previous selection regimes. ## Struggle of opposites Levins and Lewontin’s fifth principle stresses that processes are fueled by actions of opposing forces, paraphrasing Lenin (1925): “Development is the struggle of opposites.” and inspired by the law of the unity and conflict of opposites formulated by Engels (1873-1886). Although this has not been formulated explicitly by advocates of MLS theory, the struggle of opposites is one one its central aspects, as in the example provided by Lewontin (1970) and summarized by Williams (1966) as follows: “There is a series of alleles symbolized by the in house-mouse populations that produces a marked distortion of the segregation ratio of sperm. As much as 95 per cent of the sperm of a heterozygous male may bear such a gene, and only 5 per cent bear the wild-type allele. This marked selective advantage is opposed by other adverse effects in the homozygotes, either an embryonic lethality or male sterility. Such characters as lethality, sterility, and measurable segregation ratios furnish an excellent opportunity for calculating the effect of selection as a function of gene frequency in hypothetical populations. Such calculations, based on a deterministic model of selection, indicate that these alleles should have certain equilibrium frequencies in the populations in which they occur. Studies of wild populations, however, consistently give frequencies below the calculated values. Lewontin concludes that the deficiency must be ascribed to some force in opposition to genic selection, and that group selection is the likely force. He showed that by substituting a stochastic model of natural selection, so as to allow for a certain rate of fixation of one or another allele in family groups and small local populations, he could account for the observed low frequencies of the t-alleles.” ## Quantity and quality Although they don’t incorporate it in their “official” list of principles, Levins and Lewontin also mention on several occasions Engels’s law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes, it self derived from Hegel. Trotsky previously noted that the Darwinian theory of the origin of species is an instance of this law, where the continuous transformation of species can lead to the formation of a new species: “This brilliant biologist [i.e., Darwin], while showing how small quantitative deviations accumulate and yield a completely new biological ‘quality,’ in this way explaining the origin of species, applied without being conscious of it, the methods of dialectical materialism in the area of organic life. The Hegelian law of the transition from quantity into quality found in Darwin a brilliant, although philosophically unenlightened application” (Trotsky 1999) ## Conclusion I do not contend that the similarities between several dialectical aspects of social history and MLS theory outlined here correspond to deep ontological homologies. It would for instance make little sense to hold that the state of dual power in 1917 is precisely the same thing as dual fitness during an ETI. Rather than homologies, I believe these similarities constitute interesting analogies, that may spring from two complementary aspects of dialectics: habits of thought and ontological properties. ## References Ågren, J. Arvid (2021). _The Gene’s-Eye View of Evolution_. Oxford University Press. Bourrat, Pierrick (2015). “Levels, Time and Fitness in Evolutionary Transitions in Individuality”. In: _Philosophy and Theory in Biology_ 7, pp. 1-17. Darwin, Charles (1871). _The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex_. London: John Murray. Dawkins, Richard (1976). _The Selfish Gene_. First Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Deeg, Nils (2023). “Is The Dialectical Biologist Dialectical? Reexamining the Legacy of 20th Century ‘Marxist’ Biology”. In: _Junctions: Graduate Journal of the Humanities_ 7.1, pp. 34–48. doi: 10.33391/jgjh.160. Eldredge, Niles and Stephen Jay Gould (1972). “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism”. In: _Models in Paleobiology_. Freeman, Cooper & Co. San FRancisco, California: Schopf, T. J. M., pp. 92–115. Haldane, J. B. S. (1932). _The Causes of Evolution_. Vol. 5. London: Longmans Green & Co. Haldane, J. B. S. (1937). “A Dialectical Account of Evolution”. In: _Science & Society_ 1.4, pp. 473–486. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. I”. In: _Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 7.1, pp. 1–16. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4. Laland, Kevin N., John Odling-Smee, William Hoppitt, and Tobias Uller (2013). “More on How and Why: Cause and Effect in Biology Revisited”. In: _Biology & Philosophy_ 28.5, pp. 719–745. doi: 10.1007/s10539-012-9335-1. Lehtonen, Jussi (2016). “Multilevel Selection in Kin Selection Language”. In: _Trends in Ecology & Evolution_ 31.10, pp. 752–762. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.07.006. Levins, Richard and Richard Lewontin (1985). _The Dialectical Biologist_. Harvard University Press. Lewontin, R. C. (1962). “Interdeme Selection Controlling a Polymorphism in the House Mouse”. In: _The American Naturalist_ 96.887, pp. 65–78. doi: 10.1086/282208. Lewontin, Richard C. (1970). “The Units of Selection”. In: _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics_ 1.1, pp. 1–18. Lewontin, Richard C. and Leslie Clarence Dunn (1960). “The Evolutionary Dynamics of a Polymorphism in the House Mouse”. In: _Genetics_ 45.6, p. 705. Odling-Smee, F. John, Kevin N. Laland, and Marcus W. Feldman (2003). _Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution_. 37. Princeton University Press. Okasha, Samir (2006). _Evolution and the Levels of Selection_. Clarendon Press. Oyama, Susan, Russell D. Gray, and Paul E. Griffiths (2001). _Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution_. MIT Press, Cambridge. Svensson, Erik I. (2018). “On Reciprocal Causation in the Evolutionary Process”. In: _Evolutionary Biology_ 45.1, pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.1007/s11692-017-9431-x. Williams, George Christopher (1966). _Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought_. Vol. 61. Princeton University Press. <p class=”reference Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Messenger WhatsApp Email

Why so many discussions on Substack about evolutionary biology are embarrassing and reveal poor scholarship

Science, evolution, map-making, and truth

Science, evolution, map-making, and truth

Toward critical consciousness and the development of revolutionary capacity

On the Relationship Between Science and Philosophy

Jeffrey Epstein’s emails show a fascination with eugenics consistent with the billionaire tech class.Mother Jones illustration; Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office/ZUMA Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free _Mother Jones Daily_. Why was Jeffrey Epstein obsessed with genes? In the latest tranche of Epstein records and emails made available by the Department of Justice, themes of genes, genetics, and IQ—alongside more explicit threads of white supremacy—keep cropping up, often adjacent to Epstein’s fascination with steering research in the biological sciences. Those newly released emails include a February 2016 correspondence with Noam Chomsky in which Epstein insists on a genetic basis for Black and white differences in test scores—using it as a springboard to advocate for wider genetic editing. Practically impossible, Chomsky replies—and if it could be done, the best use would be “changing the genes for dedicated savagery and lack of concern for the welfare or even security of the population on the part of that [sector] of educated elite that reaches positions of power.” “Agreed,” Epstein wrote. “Genetic altruism.” Epstein’s language, perhaps influenced by that of biologist Richard Dawkins—whose own interest in eugenics, altruism, and selfishness shows some compatibility—echoes of Silicon Valley’s beloved “effective altruism,” another faux “altruism” built on dreams of harem bunkers for the super-rich. But then, Epstein had ideas in common with the billionaire circles in which he moved. I’ve covered his former friend Donald Trump’s fixation on race and genetics: > There’s a pattern to [Trump’s] comments about intelligence (or lack thereof), his intense hostility towards disabled people (including reputed public use of the r-word stretching back decades), and his preoccupation with “good” genes: it’s inseparable from his constant promotion of Afrikaner and Northern European immigration, sympathy to claims of “white genocide,” and promotion of close advisors like Stephen Miller and Elon Musk. And those of Epstein correspondents Peter Thiel and Elon Musk: > Musk’s fantasies of superiority connect deeply to his twin obsessions with genetics and reproduction—especially his own. “He really wants smart people to have kids,” Musk’s colleague Shivon Zilis, mother to four of his 14 publicly reported children, told the journalist Walter Isaacson. Evil men like Epstein are, in the simplest form, obsessed with eugenics because they believe that their ill-gotten gains are the product of some innate superiority. His personal eugenicist beliefs have been previously reported on: A 2019 _New York Times_ investigation, for instance, found that he “hoped to seed the human race with his DNA by impregnating women at his vast New Mexico ranch.” He was talking about those plans with scientists in the early 2000s, which, to public knowledge, fortunately did not happen. But the new emails reveal a previously unappreciated range of public intellectuals and scientists implicitly tolerating those ideas—treating race science and eugenics as acceptable conversation even if, as Chomsky does in that discourse, contesting them. Epstein’s passion for injecting eugenics into conversation after conversation in his emails should shape the way we think about his role in funding scientific research and development—and steering richer men’s money in that world. Epstein’s fascination with eugenics also puts his funding of health research in a disturbing light. In a 2017 interview with _Science_ , Epstein diminished the work of the Gates Foundation, which he said “doesn’t search for smart people”: unlike Gates, Epstein said, he was “interested in the rarefied peaks” and in “new theories of biology,” cultivating relationships with sympathetic scientists like virologist and former Stanford University professor Nathan Wolfe, a close Epstein ally and comrade in misogyny. Some of Epstein’s conversations about genes, I found when parsing through the newest batch of emails, are just weird. In one email to a “Jabor Y,” Epstein wrote that he was “looking forward to your DNA test. to see how many genes we share.” An unknown sender asked Epstein if he’d had his genome sequenced. Knowing what he’s done, it feels horrific to read Epstein jokingly respond that he has “two recessive genes that cause hyper fucking.” In a 2013 email, Epstein remarked approvingly on “iq tests for children”—presumably not because the billionaire eugenics class particularly care about some disabled kids getting diagnoses they need for adequate accommodations in school. Some of his correspondents took it even further. Racist AI researcher and Epstein grantee Joscha Bach said, as reported in MS NOW, that Black children’s brains “are slower at learning high-level concepts” and better suited to a “more hunting/running style of life.” In a separate email with Bach—in which Bach also discusses the “Ashkenazi mutation”—Epstein reimagines Ancient Rome as a eugenicist paradise, a favorite theme of right-wing eugenicist tech billionaires like Musk: “it seems that Greece and Rome had a class society that allowed the upper classes to have more offspring than the lower classes, and larger social mobility based on IQ than our current arrangement,” Epstein writes approvingly. And like Rome, it would be nice if the eugenicist billionaire empire fell.

(3,500 words)

Population genetics simulations and analysis of experimental datasets in yeast, Drosophila and E. coli show that beneficial mutations are abundant but transient, as they become deleterious after environmental turnover (antagonistic pleiotropy). Consequently, populations continuously adapt to changing environments (adaptive tracking), yet most mutations that reach fixation are neutral.

Talks over an American-Russian peace plan seek to impose a harsh settlement on Ukraine. Faced with the carve-up of territory, it’s vital to build an international peace movement opposing the logic of imperialist blocs.