The author proposes a unitary system of knowledge of animal behavior applied to humans [24, 27]. The idea is to find out the reasons for what the creature is doing [18] so as to control its behavior [21]. This is a biological perspective, as opposed to cultural determinism [20]. The result, of course, is biological determinism. However, the author wants to leave a door open--"because man is an intelligent agent he plays the decisive part in determining the course of his own evolutionary future" [459]. A curious Epilogue [462] is entitled "The Unknown God" in which he seems to join Santayana [464] in not excluding religion, since "religion is the natural reaction of the imagination when confronted by the difficulties of a truculent world" [464]. "We live by faith...our most prevalent motivation, and it is a reliable guide for behavior just in so far as it is founded on knowledge" [465]. But of course, if there is some portion of Faith "founded on knowledge", it is probably not "Faith", and mystic extrapolations from uncertainties are probably not reliable guides.
The author colligates the thinking of philosophers with the data, but never resolves even small problems -- such as the uniformity of causes in a closed, if equilibrate, system [42, 46, 51, 54]. We are left with opposed views at the same level of expertise derived from the same data. [53]
How helpful is it to say "success depends on...native capacities"? [6] "All thinking is tied...to action." [6]
While his restatement of quantifications of the universe are helpful, we are given no real clues or suggestions for further experiment. Will a socialization eclipse personal avarice? [53]Will a highly organized society require MORE, or LESS, individuation? We know the patterns of the living body are distinctive. [56]
And if Entropy is defeated in some way by Life, is it irrelevant to its evolution? [51]