266 Chapter 11
whiteEuropeancolonialistsseizedon Darwin’s ideaof naturalselectionto justifytheir
exploitationof dark-skinnednatives.Theyhadno troubleconvincingthemselvesthat
“survivalof the fittest” meantit was the whiteman’s dutyto subduethe “inferior” races.
Germanphilosophersbelievednature’s brutalstrugglesfor speciessurvivalmeantan
inevitablebattlefor supremacyagainstnations.Theyurgedthe establishmentof a strong
centralgovernmentto buildthe militarymachinerequiredfor futurewars.To a large
degree,the GermanmilitarismthatprecededWorldWarI can be tracedto a “scientific”
logicthat pervertedthe meaningof Darwin’s work.... To GermansocialDarwinists,the
French,British,and Slavic“races” wereinferiorformsof humanity.Rothschildthusconcludesthatthe “pervertedlogic” of the nineteenth-century’s free-
marketevolutionismultimately“led to one of the greatesttragediesof humanhistory—
the Naziholocaust.” ThenRothschildgetsto the point—as an outgrowth“of this horrify-
ing result,biologybecamea taboosubjectfor economicthinkers.Manystill closetheir
mindsto the ideathat the insightsof modernbiology,properlyapplied,mightexplainthe
complexitiesof the economy.”
Rothschildis rightthatfor mostof the twentieth-century’s latterhalf,mainstream
economistshaveshiedawayfromdrawingprudentcomparisonsbetweeneconomicsand
biologyfor fear of beinglabeledsocialDarwinianapologists.But as withalmosteveryone
else,this engineer-turned-business-consultanterrswhenhe buysintothe accusationsof
RichardHofstadter’s acolytesthatSpencerandSumner’s biology-centriceconomictheo-
ries sanctionedor inspiredanyof the spoliativeeugenicistevilsthathe named.In so
doing,Rothschildcommitsa hypocriticalinjusticeon multiplecounts.Firsthe espousesa
biology-centriceconomictheoryincrediblysimilarto the onethatSpencerthoughtup
overa centurybeforehim.Then,to preemptany attemptby criticsto classifyhim withthe
samesocialDarwiniststrawmanthattheyhavealreadyemployedto demeanSpencer,
Rothschild inconsiderately repeats mainstream academia’s misrepresentations about
what biology-centricfree-marketeconomistslike SpencerandSumneractuallysaid.
Rothschildbellowsthatit waswith“Darwin’s newtheoryof evolutionthentowering
overthe intellectuallandscape” thatfree-market“politicalwriters”—whomRothschild
brands“quacks”—havesoughtto “reinforcetheirargumentsby claimingto haveproof
for theirideasin Darwin’s treatise.... Sadly,the nameof one of the greatestmenin the
historyof sciencewasbesmirchedby involuntaryassociationwitheveryhalf-bakedideo-
logueseekingto justifyhis notionas ‘scientificallycorrect.’”^16
Rothschild’s commentsare envelopedby ironies.Firstis that,by acceptingthe straw-
mandepictionsof the nineteenth-century’s free-marketevolutionistsas authentic,it is
RothschildwhohimselfbesmirchesSpencerandSumnerin associatingthemwithevery
“half-bakedideologue” whoespouseda governisteugenicistpolicy.Rothschildhas lots
of company,unsurprisingly.Rememberfromchapter1 thatthe libertarianCatoInsti-
tute’s BrinkLindseydisparagedSumneras a socialDarwinistdespitethe fact thatLind-
sey himselfcomparesthe untamedmarketto an ecosystem.The secondironyis that,due
toBionomics’s ownargumentsin favorof a mostlycapitalistmixed-economyand againsta
largerencroachmentof regulations,Rothschild’s governistcriticsignoreeverylast one of
his disclaimers about opposing old-fashioned nineteenth-century social Darwinism.
Rothschild’s anti-capitalistcriticspropoundthat his messageremindsthemof socialDar-
winismanyway.HencepoliticallyprogressivejournalistPaulinaBorsook,whohatesthe
IndustrialRevolutionstill morethanRothschildhatesit, sneersat Rothschild’s thesis.She
refusesto entertainwhatshe dismissesas the “peculiarlocusof fake-obiology,technolo-
gy, andlibertarianismrepresentedby Bionomics... I can’t beginto speculateif it’s a
harbingerof socialDarwinisthorrorsto come... But the nexttimeyouheareconomics
talkedaboutin termsof nichesandpredatorsandevolution,knowthatwhatyou’re
mostlyhearingis the languageof the free market,and not verymuchMotherNature.”^17