Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species

Instead of concisely making a case for the questions raised by the author in the beginning, this book goes into too many irrelevant directions. Reading this book continued to give me impression of someone wanting to ‘squeeze’ all they have learned, irrespective of its relevance, into one book.There are also instances where the writer’s some claims are general cultural observations, instead of evidenced based data, and this is not science. Further, not only not all claims have underlying studies referenced, making it unclear to trace the source of her statements, but where there are references at the end of the book, they are also not easy to trace if one wanted to read the actual study.Finally, having read the ‘selfish gene’ by Richard Dawkins, I continued to wonder about the strength of the author’s main thesis, when in reality the struggle to remain alive, survive and pass on one’s genes is evolutionarily agnostic to whether one is a male or female.In the end, despite being weak, I still read it and would still suggest it (with the above caveats) to anyone else who wants to be a mother herself, given there are not many similar books out there.

Sociobiology has historically been centered on males. Consider the classic case of the langur monkey. When an alpha male deposes a rival male and claims his harem the first thing he does is kill the infants. That brings the females into heat sooner and allows him to reproduce sooner. Infanticide is in his rational self-interest (Sarah Blaffer Hrdy was actually the one who figured this out). The implication is that males are in a life and death struggle to become alpha and females just want to breed with the winner. To be sure, traditional sociobiology has some modest correctives for the myth of the "coy female and promiscuous male." In the case of a monogamous species males and females partner up. In that case the alpha males cannot claim a harem of females. But females can still breed with an alpha male by having an adulterous affair. Not every woman can marry an alpha male but she certainly can copulate with one. In fact, cryptic female choice shows that females often stage sperm competitions in their vagina. The strategy is simple: copulate with many males in a short period of time and let the fittest sperm win. Gangbangs clearly falsify the "coy female" model. But even so, they continue to reinforces the same tired narrative: males are locked in a struggle for status while females are only interested in breeding with the winner.Sarah Blaffer Hrdy convincingly shows that females are locked in their own brutal status-seeking competition. Females are bigger and stronger than the males in many species such as mole rats, jackrabbits, marmosets, and bats. Among solitary species these "big mothers" are able to control a larger territory than their smaller and weaker rival females. That means more food for their offspring. Among social animals such as hyenas the alpha females are able to claim a larger share of the group's food for herself and her offspring. The lower status females have to make do with the scraps. In some species the alpha females don't even let the low-status females breed. They are forced to wait for the alpha female to die, at which time they may become the new alpha and gain the power they need to breed.Hrdy also shows that infanticide isn't just for males. Chimp females do not let rival females hold their babies because they may not get them back alive. Killing a rival's children mean more food and higher status for her own offspring. That's why babies often have stranger anxiety - it is the baby's defense mechanism against infanticide. Babies know perfectly well that they are not safe with strangers. In fact, females have a good reason to kill their own offspring. A popular slogan from sociobiology is that "sperm are cheaper than eggs", which means that procreating takes a smaller investment for males than females. That's what leads to the myth of the coy female and promiscuous male. But a corollary would be that "eggs are cheaper than caring for offspring." It doesn't make evolutionary sense for a female to invest her time and energy caring for a weak, sickly, or disabled infant. Better to kill it and try again. Killing healthy offspring also makes sense if the female doesn't have a high enough social status to secure food for it. Better to cut her losses early than to waste time trying to feed it. In our Judeo-Christian culture we expect mothers to attach immediately to babies but that is actually unnatural in most human cultures. Attachment (and therefore love) is conditional on having a healthy baby and the status needed to care for it.A lot of people will find these revelations shocking. Hrdy agrees. The traditional picture of sociobiology is that "males do a lot of ugly things to get ahead." Hrdy points out that females do a lot of ugly things to get ahead too. But don't confuse explaining the facts with a moral stand. That is the logical fallacy of the appeal to nature - basing morality on the way the natural world works. The best solution would be to bring about a detente in the status-seeking arms race. In one of the more poignant quotes Hrdy writes: "Sociobiology is not a field known for the encouraging news it offers either sex. Yet its most promising revelation to date has to be that over evolutionary time, lifelong monogamy turns out to be the cure for all sorts of detrimental devices that one sex uses to the exploit the other." Indeed.This book is pretty dense so I would start with something a bit easier if this is your first exposure to sociobiology. Start with  The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People  by David Barash to get an overview of sociobiology.  The Triumph of Sociobiology  is also good.

Biology has an agenda. Squirrels, whales, and crickets do not have our language facility, thus they do not have self-help books, preachers, or legions of well-meaning advisors. Yet they are born with the genetically provided rules (feelings) that allow them to be successful squirrels, wonderful whales, and competent crickets. We too have genetically provided rules, which sociobiologists and such are trying to discover. This wonderful book is the author's attempt to explain some of the conditions of motherhood, the relations between mothers and babies, and sometimes tough choices mothers have to make. This work is, in my opinion, magnificent.NOTE TO REVIEWERS: If one starts off a review with phrases like "goofy liberal", "ranting conservative", or "clueless libertarian", readers like me read no further. Plus my estimation of the reviewer's intelligence is halved.

I only wish I had had this book to read when my own children were young. Sarah Hrdy is a creative and courageous explorer - how she managed to set off on her line of inquiry, coming out of the fiercely patriarchal Harvard-Cambridge MA setting in the 1960's amazes me. We are lucky to have such a logical, thoughtful, and adventurous explorer in our midst.

This book helped me understand myself as a mother and gave insightful ideas into how to make life better for mothers and their children.It clearly outlines what's unique about human motherhood. I found myself understanding others, too.

In "Mother Nature", Blaffer Hrdy has produced a brilliant synthesis. Starting from her extensive knowledge of primatology (her professional life began with studies of langur monkeys), she considers how human behaviour fits with patterns of reproduction in other primates, and particularly the relationships between mothers and their children.Central throughout is the question of how far there may be conflicts of interest between mothers and fathers, and between parents and children in terms of how much investment each desires or is willing to give. As we know, these conflicts often result in some unexpected and complex outcomes; female langurs who accept as mates males who kill their children; a group of hunter gatherer mothers who will hardly let their infants out of their sight, yet will also expose unwanted children at birth; a society whose high caste kills female infants, whilst the low caste favours them; children who avoid looking into their parent's face yet will earnestly cling to their legs...In considering the underlying logic of these complexities, Blaffer Hrdy blends sociology, behavioural ecology, genetics and psychology. Her admiration for Bill Hamilton and John Bowlby is evident, and she is open about her own experiences and values. However, she is rigorous in her analysis, unafraid to criticise her heroes and never looking for easy or congenial solutions. This is decidedly not one of those pieces of sociological speculation that are little more than a mask for ideology.Blaffer Hrdy writes with great erudition and wit, and her command of the material is formidable. As someone who trained first in Zoology but then went on to work in child psychology, I was hugely impressed. Perhaps even more impressive, though, she also made it a warm and entertaining read. I have a new heroine!

I read this when expecting my first child. It was a genuinely challenging read, at times I felt such despair at our human behaviour and at others such hope.

So hard to get hold of, thank you!

Lots of interesting ideas based on research and therefore believable.

私はこの本を推奨しない、専門家は別として。　ほ乳類のみならず他の脊椎動物の母親とその子の関係に関して、多岐にわたる知見を駆使して解明を試みた著書。内応は広範にわたり、レミングの出生調整なども知り得た。ただし、この例を講義に使いたかったが、文献にたどり着けないので本当かどうか疑問ではある。しかし記述はヒトに近い霊長類（霊長類の用語は差別的だが）に最も多く割かれているので、人の出産、育児、幼児殺しに敷延できるかもしれない。　個人的な感想ではあるが、多岐にわたることがかえって論点を鮮明にすることを妨げていると思う。せっかちだとの非難を恐れずに言えば、で何が言いたいの？　と言いたくなる個所が多く見られる。本を厚くするためとは考えたくないが、論点をもっと簡潔にしてほしかった。　何よりも英語の構文が複雑である。自然科学、それも実験科学の論文に慣れた著者なら、このような書き方は、まずしない。米口語（と思う、辞書に出てこないから）の理解できない単語や成句も多すぎる。対象とする読者がアメリカのためだろうが、心理学者（進化学者？）はかく論じるのかと思えた。　本著を読破し理解された方に敬意を表したいが、私は内容の半分程度しか理解できなかった。いずれ翻訳を読むことになるだろう。