E.O. Wilson saw the world in a new way

> Asocial species don't have "greed", because it means nothing for one individual to "hoard" against another.

You mean Eusocial[1]? Individuals of an asocial species would want to maximize its 'own' chances of survival at all cost, i.e. greed. Ants, bees are eusocial species and to quote Wilson, “One ant is no ant”.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality

It depends on what kind of geek you are. "The Ants" is perhaps my favourite non-fiction book of all time - at the time it was written it was a fair account of the total sum of human knowledge of ants. It's beautifully written and incredibly complete, and although it's now a bit dated, it's still the best reference to ants if you're interested in them. For a broader summary of Wilson's intellectual project I recommend "Consilience" - a wonderful synthesis of almost all his ethical and scientific interests.

Consilience: The unity of knowledge

His life, the studies he undertook quietly over protracted periods of time . . . there is no "one book" . . . his mind was a burrowing mind . . . If you appreciate logic, well-reasoned arguments and objective observations --the scientific method personified -- you will savor anything related to his endeavors.

You are incorrect, but I understand your skepticism.

You can check out by finding more about Dawkins-Wilson debates and all graduate level evolutionary biology textbooks. Wilson group selection theory does not add anything to inclusive fitness.

Animal Behavior, Dustin R. Rubenstein, John Alcock, Sinauer Associates is an imprint of Oxford University Press, Year: 2018, ISBN: 1605355488,9781605355481

> Although most social evolutionary biologists use the individual selection perspective derived from kin selection theory, David Sloan Wilson and others have complained that the preference for kin selection theory stems from prejudice against the rejected Wynne-Edwardsian version of group selection (Wilson and Wilson 2007). But as Stuart West and his colleagues have pointed out, kin selection theory is widely accepted primarily because it has helped so many researchers develop testable hypotheses for puzzling social behaviors exhibited by creatures as different as termites, bacteria, amoebae, and humans (West et al. 2011). Nonetheless, other researchers have continued to attack kin selection theory. For example, Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and E. O. Wilson claimed that kin selection theory should be discarded altogether in favor of an alternative mathematical approach (Nowak et al. 2011). Yet few researchers agree with this idea, for reasons spelled out by Andrew Bourke (Bourke 2011a) and a team led by David Queller (Liao et al. 2015), as well as those outlined by more than 100 behavioral biologists in a response to Nowak and his colleagues’ paper (Abbot et al. 2011). Thus, inclusive fitness theory continues to be a guiding framework for understanding cooperation, altruism, and the evolution of sociality more broadly, primarily because it produces clear, testable hypotheses, something that the concept of group selection largely fails to do.

This can be explained with inclusive fitness as Dawkins points out.