What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Chain of Life
Originally published in 1956, The Great Chain of Life brings a humanist’s keen eye and ear to one of the great questions of the “What am I?” Originally a scholar of literature and theater, toward the end of his career Joseph Wood Krutch turned to the study of the natural world. Bringing his keen intellect to bear on the places around him, Krutch crafted some of the most memorable and important works of nature writing extant.
Whether anticipating the arguments of biologists who now ascribe high levels of cognition to the so-called lower animals, recognizing the importance of nature for a well-lived life, or seeing nature as an elaborately interconnected, interdependent network, Krutch’s seminal work contains lessons just as resonant today as they were when the book was first written.
Lavishly illustrated with thirteen beautiful woodcuts by Paul Landacre, an all-but-lost yet important Los Angeles artist whom Rockwell Kent called “the best American wood engraver working,” The Great Chain of Life will be cherished by new generations of readers.
Whether anticipating the arguments of biologists who now ascribe high levels of cognition to the so-called lower animals, recognizing the importance of nature for a well-lived life, or seeing nature as an elaborately interconnected, interdependent network, Krutch’s seminal work contains lessons just as resonant today as they were when the book was first written.
Lavishly illustrated with thirteen beautiful woodcuts by Paul Landacre, an all-but-lost yet important Los Angeles artist whom Rockwell Kent called “the best American wood engraver working,” The Great Chain of Life will be cherished by new generations of readers.
- GenresNonfiction
245 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1957
3 people are currently reading
126 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Wood Krutch
93 books9 followersWorks of American critic, naturalist, and writer Joseph Wood Krutch include
The Modern Temper
(1929) and
The Measure of Man
(1954).
He worked as a professor at Columbia University from 1937 to 1953. Moving to Arizona in 1952, he wrote books about natural issues of ecology, the southwestern desert environment, and the natural history of the Grand Canyon, winning renown as a naturalist and conservationist. Krutch is possibly best known for A Desert Year , which won the John Burroughs medal in 1954.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...
He worked as a professor at Columbia University from 1937 to 1953. Moving to Arizona in 1952, he wrote books about natural issues of ecology, the southwestern desert environment, and the natural history of the Grand Canyon, winning renown as a naturalist and conservationist. Krutch is possibly best known for A Desert Year , which won the John Burroughs medal in 1954.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 6, 2021
How wonderful to read a formative book 30 years later and still find its lessons to be fresh and relevant! Its ideas seeded my mind during my impressionable college years, just when I was pulling away from organized religion and yet still wanted to remain connected to spirituality, to revering nature and life, and still wanted to remain engaged with certain Christian tenets that helped establish my perspective on what is good in mankind and in the world. This is certainly not a spiritual book per se. It does not espouse nor even mention a single faith. And yet what is "spirituality" if not finding joy in life and in the interconnectedness of all living things, in seeing good in both the commonalities and the differences, in looking for potential and open paths while rejecting binary thinking and closed circles? The title of this book could just as easily be Against Mechanism or, more torturously, Against Natural Selection as the Defining Explanation for Evolution and Human Consciousness. The seeds this book planted in me slowly bore fruit and have helped guide my entire perspective on human existence, on nature and the animal kingdom, on life itself.
The Great Chain of Life starts quietly, as Krutch evaluates the basic forms of life, and rejects the idea that these little beings are even "basic". He introduces the reader to the marvelous, microscopic Volvox and its creation of sex and death as intrinsic to life. His central idea percolates for a while and then is more frequently, openly stated: nature moves life forward by encouraging and embracing difference; not only allowing but promoting the development of attributes and activities that have nothing to do with simple survival skills nor with survival of the fittest. Attributes and activities like consciousness in the human and in other animals, like play and joy and affection, like the ability to contemplate the greatness of the universe or the ability to write this relatively insignificant review.
Krutch spends much time in admiring the insect world while also defining that world against the so-called higher orders. The insect kingdom is one he sees as endlessly fascinating, but fixed, finished. The ant, with its perfectly mechanized society that has existed unchanging for millennia, is an evolutionary dead end. Later, he describes the dandelion, which has gradually eliminated the need for reproduction and differentiation, as a terrible potential for the future. The author sees evolution as a process that does not have as its goal total mechanization and the erasure of difference.
He takes a bit of a break in one chapter to define hunting for sport as a perfect example of pure evil. I agreed then and I agree now. He is not a zealot: he's aware that a person can hunt for sport and yet not be an evil person. But his feelings of scorn and anger about this activity are very clear:
The Great Chain of Life starts quietly, as Krutch evaluates the basic forms of life, and rejects the idea that these little beings are even "basic". He introduces the reader to the marvelous, microscopic Volvox and its creation of sex and death as intrinsic to life. His central idea percolates for a while and then is more frequently, openly stated: nature moves life forward by encouraging and embracing difference; not only allowing but promoting the development of attributes and activities that have nothing to do with simple survival skills nor with survival of the fittest. Attributes and activities like consciousness in the human and in other animals, like play and joy and affection, like the ability to contemplate the greatness of the universe or the ability to write this relatively insignificant review.
Krutch spends much time in admiring the insect world while also defining that world against the so-called higher orders. The insect kingdom is one he sees as endlessly fascinating, but fixed, finished. The ant, with its perfectly mechanized society that has existed unchanging for millennia, is an evolutionary dead end. Later, he describes the dandelion, which has gradually eliminated the need for reproduction and differentiation, as a terrible potential for the future. The author sees evolution as a process that does not have as its goal total mechanization and the erasure of difference.
He takes a bit of a break in one chapter to define hunting for sport as a perfect example of pure evil. I agreed then and I agree now. He is not a zealot: he's aware that a person can hunt for sport and yet not be an evil person. But his feelings of scorn and anger about this activity are very clear:
Most wicked deeds are done because the doer proposes some good to himself. The liar lies to gain some end; the swindler and the thief want things which, if honestly got, might be good in themselves. Even the murderer may be removing an impediment to normal desires or gaining possession of something which his victim keeps from him. None of these usually does evil for evil's sake. They are selfish or unscrupulous, but their deeds are not gratuitously evil. The killer for sport has no such comprehensible motive. He prefers death to life, darkness to light. He gets nothing except the satisfaction saying, 'Something which wanted to live is dead. There is that much less vitality, consciousness, and, perhaps joy in the univese. I am the Spirit that Denies.' When a man wantonly destroys one of the works of man we call him Vandal. When he wantonly destroys one of the works of God we call him Sportsman.Mid-book, in one great leap, he moves from the world of the microscope and the insect to the contemplation of awareness in those "higher" animals - or rather, the ability of such animals to be aware of a much larger world around them. That was an exciting transition, and one he uses to surpisingly extol the values and virtues of civilization - as long as "civilizing" includes the recognition of individuality. In his words, "...freedom is an attribute of individual men, while necessity governs the behavior of the group." Krutch is basically saying that ability to differentiate amongst ourselves in thought and action - and by "ourselves" he is speaking not just of humans, but of the entire animal kingdom, and not just of momentary, situational, or individual differentiation but also, most importantly, of evolutionary differentiation - that that is the actual goal of evolution. I agreed then and I agree now. Let's all evolve together - but differently!
February 16, 2017
This book is very interesting and makes many good points about nature. But it tends to err toward rambling and the author makes many mistakes. It should be noted that Joseph Wood-Krutch is not a scientist, but a writer and philosopher, a point he makes himself several times. Often he goes back and forth between two extreme theories, for example mechanism and vitalism, without acknowledging the possibility of a middle ground or even a different theory all together. In making the point that Darwin’s theory of natural selection doesn’t account for everything, it sometimes feels as if he thinks Darwin’s theory can’t account for anything. He’s determined, desperate even, to find absolute answers to questions, rather than recognizing grey areas that most scientists would be happy to recognize – although he seems to think that scientists always fall on one end of the spectrum or another.
He makes sweeping generalizations about biological scientists, assuming that they are only interested in lab work and that they have no sense of wonder or appreciation when it comes to life. He seems to think that they are obsessed with physical properties and scientific explanations, implying that there is no science to emotions or awareness, which of course is not true. I agree with him that scientists need to go out into the world and observe nature as it is. I am no fan of laboratory experiments. And many, many scientists would agree, making his statements about scientists, particularly biological scientists, incorrect. Perhaps at the time he wrote this book there was a rise in laboratory work, and perhaps the argument between mechanism and vitalism was prominent. But generalizations are never helpful. There are always exceptions.
The epilogue to the book is a complete disaster. He seems to have suddenly decided that birds are the greatest of all creatures. He says that in the way individual men can be spokesman for their race or nation, birds are the spokesmen for all animals. Aside from the implication that humans aren’t animals, this also implies that there aren’t distinct species within the animal world that deserve recognition each on their own, but rather that any animal could represent the whole of the animal kingdom. He uses a quote that says birds are “alive more intensely” than any other creature, including humans. So now instead of placing humans at the top of the hierarchy of living things, it will be birds? That’s equally absurd. And then he states that despite the monkey being more intelligent than the bird, “it is difficult to believe that even in liberty a monkey is as joyous as a bird or that he has the bird’s special gift for gladness.” Has he ever observed a monkey, in captivity or the wild? If we’re using the same traits as basis for assuming happiness, then monkeys are just as, if not more so, vocal and playful as birds, therefore one would suppose they are just as joyful. Of course, we have no way of knowing for sure whether animals are happy or not, but why anthropomorphize one creature and not another? Monkeys are far more similar to humans than birds, but he seems convinced that because birds sing, they are more similar. Yet humans (and monkeys) have completely different anatomical vocal systems than birds! Another error can be found in this statement: “Even today [birds] are less persecuted than any other small creature. Fewer people who see a bird say of it – as they tend to say of any other small animal they happen upon – ‘Here is a little creature who is alive and wants to live. Therefore let us kill it at once.’” This is completely contradictory to a previous chapter about hunting for sport that primarily focuses on the shooting of birds for pleasure.
But really, there’s no reason to be surprised at this placement of some species over others in terms of perceived “human” traits. Earlier on, despite making excellent points about the development of civilization, communication, and agriculture in insects long before man even existed, he still seems convinced that insects are nothing but machines operating on pure instinct. He seems ready to acknowledge any animal having awareness and consciousness except insects. This is upsetting to me because insects are already the most undervalued animals. Many people don’t even see them as animals, despite their clear taxonomic placement within the animal kingdom. It seems at first that Joseph Wood-Krutch has set out to show that even single-celled organisms are more complex than we imagine and that all living things deserve equal recognition. But I should have know by the title of the book, “The Great Chain of Life”, that he is still set in the typical way of thinking, that there is a hierarchy among living things. But in reality, that “Great Chain” is actually a web. No animal is better than any other in any way. Every species has evolved to fit its own needs. In his most out-of-place chapter, titled “Devolution”, which is not even a scientific term, he speculates that because dandelions are sexless, that one day all living things will be sexless. He has fallen into the assumption that “survival of the fittest” means one species over another. Of course, competition between species is a real thing, but natural selection does not have some sort of end-goal for one master way of life. The fact that some plants are asexual does not mean one day all organisms will be, just because this seems to be a more effective way of survival. All organisms have developed in different ways and natural selection occurs within a population. Since there are no, say, monkeys that are asexually reproductive, monkeys will never suddenly develop that trait. And there’s no logic to support the idea that dandelions will out-compete monkeys. And even if dandelions outcompete other plants, particularly flowers, a change in the appearance and functions of plants does not equal “de-evolution.”
The questions I found myself asking when I finished this book were probably not the sort of questions Joseph Wood-Krutch imagined his readers would come away with, but here they are: Did anyone read this before it was published? Did he consult a single scientist? Were his editors only focused on grammatical errors and not on readability and consistency? If you read this book, and I’m not trying to discourage anyone from doing so, you must remember, as previously mentioned, this writer is not an expert. Use it as a starting point to think about life and evolution, but do not take everything written is true. Of course, one could argue that it is an outdated book, but I’m certain there are scientific books from the same time period that are better written and researched. Your best bet is to read something modern, but even modern writers could make similar mistakes to Wood-Krutch. If you want philosophy, read Wood-Krutch or others like him, but if you want facts, seek out something from a scientist with good standing in the particular field you’re reading about.
He makes sweeping generalizations about biological scientists, assuming that they are only interested in lab work and that they have no sense of wonder or appreciation when it comes to life. He seems to think that they are obsessed with physical properties and scientific explanations, implying that there is no science to emotions or awareness, which of course is not true. I agree with him that scientists need to go out into the world and observe nature as it is. I am no fan of laboratory experiments. And many, many scientists would agree, making his statements about scientists, particularly biological scientists, incorrect. Perhaps at the time he wrote this book there was a rise in laboratory work, and perhaps the argument between mechanism and vitalism was prominent. But generalizations are never helpful. There are always exceptions.
The epilogue to the book is a complete disaster. He seems to have suddenly decided that birds are the greatest of all creatures. He says that in the way individual men can be spokesman for their race or nation, birds are the spokesmen for all animals. Aside from the implication that humans aren’t animals, this also implies that there aren’t distinct species within the animal world that deserve recognition each on their own, but rather that any animal could represent the whole of the animal kingdom. He uses a quote that says birds are “alive more intensely” than any other creature, including humans. So now instead of placing humans at the top of the hierarchy of living things, it will be birds? That’s equally absurd. And then he states that despite the monkey being more intelligent than the bird, “it is difficult to believe that even in liberty a monkey is as joyous as a bird or that he has the bird’s special gift for gladness.” Has he ever observed a monkey, in captivity or the wild? If we’re using the same traits as basis for assuming happiness, then monkeys are just as, if not more so, vocal and playful as birds, therefore one would suppose they are just as joyful. Of course, we have no way of knowing for sure whether animals are happy or not, but why anthropomorphize one creature and not another? Monkeys are far more similar to humans than birds, but he seems convinced that because birds sing, they are more similar. Yet humans (and monkeys) have completely different anatomical vocal systems than birds! Another error can be found in this statement: “Even today [birds] are less persecuted than any other small creature. Fewer people who see a bird say of it – as they tend to say of any other small animal they happen upon – ‘Here is a little creature who is alive and wants to live. Therefore let us kill it at once.’” This is completely contradictory to a previous chapter about hunting for sport that primarily focuses on the shooting of birds for pleasure.
But really, there’s no reason to be surprised at this placement of some species over others in terms of perceived “human” traits. Earlier on, despite making excellent points about the development of civilization, communication, and agriculture in insects long before man even existed, he still seems convinced that insects are nothing but machines operating on pure instinct. He seems ready to acknowledge any animal having awareness and consciousness except insects. This is upsetting to me because insects are already the most undervalued animals. Many people don’t even see them as animals, despite their clear taxonomic placement within the animal kingdom. It seems at first that Joseph Wood-Krutch has set out to show that even single-celled organisms are more complex than we imagine and that all living things deserve equal recognition. But I should have know by the title of the book, “The Great Chain of Life”, that he is still set in the typical way of thinking, that there is a hierarchy among living things. But in reality, that “Great Chain” is actually a web. No animal is better than any other in any way. Every species has evolved to fit its own needs. In his most out-of-place chapter, titled “Devolution”, which is not even a scientific term, he speculates that because dandelions are sexless, that one day all living things will be sexless. He has fallen into the assumption that “survival of the fittest” means one species over another. Of course, competition between species is a real thing, but natural selection does not have some sort of end-goal for one master way of life. The fact that some plants are asexual does not mean one day all organisms will be, just because this seems to be a more effective way of survival. All organisms have developed in different ways and natural selection occurs within a population. Since there are no, say, monkeys that are asexually reproductive, monkeys will never suddenly develop that trait. And there’s no logic to support the idea that dandelions will out-compete monkeys. And even if dandelions outcompete other plants, particularly flowers, a change in the appearance and functions of plants does not equal “de-evolution.”
The questions I found myself asking when I finished this book were probably not the sort of questions Joseph Wood-Krutch imagined his readers would come away with, but here they are: Did anyone read this before it was published? Did he consult a single scientist? Were his editors only focused on grammatical errors and not on readability and consistency? If you read this book, and I’m not trying to discourage anyone from doing so, you must remember, as previously mentioned, this writer is not an expert. Use it as a starting point to think about life and evolution, but do not take everything written is true. Of course, one could argue that it is an outdated book, but I’m certain there are scientific books from the same time period that are better written and researched. Your best bet is to read something modern, but even modern writers could make similar mistakes to Wood-Krutch. If you want philosophy, read Wood-Krutch or others like him, but if you want facts, seek out something from a scientist with good standing in the particular field you’re reading about.
August 18, 2022
Eek. While I expected the text to be dated in certain respects, he really steps into it in Ch. 8 on the "civilized animal". There were signs before that point, but he really digs into a human culture/animals parallel in that chapter that is particularly cringeworthy. He does recognize that biological racism is a bunch of hooey, but then turns around and espouses a whole lot of cultural racism. DNF at pg 128 (67%).
Read
October 15, 2009 This book wrote about life origin . life can distinguish consumer, producer and decomposer these three kind. Animals are higher life in the world, they also can distinguish three kind mammal, carnivore and herbivore.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews