The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 273termin-groupand,whetherhe is cognizantof it or not, his anthropologicalconceptionof
thattermoriginatedwithSumner.^33 Shermer’s verypointis a repetitionof the one from
Folkwaysaboutantagonisticcooperation.WhatdoesSumnerreceivein exchange?Re-
memberthatjust a few pagesago,ShermerdenouncedHerbertSpencer-influenced“so-
cial Darwinists” whobarfedout somehorrendous“economicdoctrines.”^34 Giventhat
Sumnerwas influencedby Spencerand promotedSpencer’s economicdoctrines,theSkep-
ticpublisher’s derisiontowardeconomicsocialDarwinistsis an implicitslapat Sumner.
And,as we rememberfromchapter1, Berrebyrefusesto acknowledgeSumner’s value.
By repeatingthe socialDarwinismcliché, Shermerevincesin his ownargumentwhat
is, at best,ignoranceaboutthe theoriesof SpencerandSumner.Thiswouldnot trouble
me as muchas it doesexceptthat,to restatea pointfromBookTwo,Shermerreceivedhis
Ph.D.for beingan experton the historyof scientificthoughtand theories.Moreprecisely,
his Ph.D.dissertationwason the philosophyof a manwhosetheorieswereheavily
influencedby HerbertSpencer,AlfredRusselWallace.^35 Thisis galling.Someonecannot
trulyunderstandAlfredRusselWallace’s philosophyin the absenceof understanding
HerbertSpencer’s influenceon it. Yet Shermeris creditedas an authorityon Wallace.As
the theoriesof Spencerand Sumnerare partof the historyof scientificthoughtand of his
owndissertationtopic—as are the theoriesof the eugenicists—Shermer,morethanmost
intellectuals,oughtto knowand acknowledgethat Spencerand Sumnerdid not wantthe
strongto crushthe weak,andthatthereneverwasa generalmovementin favorof a
congenitallyruthlesssocialDarwinism.
ExcavatingSociobiology’s Ancestors
To my sorrow,the practitionersof evolutionarypsychologyare no betterthanthe
evolutionaryeconomistsin termsof acknowledgingthe extentto whichtheirowndisci-
plinewaspioneeredby HerbertSpencerand WilliamGrahamSumner.A casein pointis
thatof the prestigioussciencejournalistSteveOlson(b. 1956).He pennedan otherwise
interestingsociobiologytomeMappingHumanHistory. Thisworkexplicates,just as Sum-
ner did decadesprior,that naturalselectionstill occursamonghumanbeingsand that by
meansof geographictopographyandotherenvironmentalfactors,naturalselectionaf-
fectswhichhumansocialcustomssurviveor die out.MappingHumanHistorycontains
theoriesabouthowthe naturalselectioncycleaccountsfor whatare presentlyregardedas
racialdifferences.The reasonwhywhites,blacks,and EastAsianslookso differentfrom
one anotherpertainsto howeachgroupadaptedto its geographichabitatin the Stone
Age.Olsongivesa particularlyplausibleexplanationfor hownaturalblondesandred-
headscameto exist.
Thefirsthumanbeingsoriginatedin eastAfrica,andthe groupof personslivingin
our era whomostcloselyresemblethesefirsthumansare probablythe !KungSan (a.k.a.,
the KalahariBushmen).Theyhadaboutthe sameheightandbuild,andhadbrownish
bronze(as opposedto “black”) skin.As humanbeingsspreadthroughoutAfricaand
migratedto othercontinents,the vastmajorityof our ancestorshadthis brownishskin
color.Duringthe StoneAge,the peoplesof northernEurope—the Swedes,Norwegians,
Finns,Dutch,Icelanders,andDanes—inhabiteda coldnorthernclimatequitesimilarto
thatof Eskimos.However,a significantdifferencebetweenthe environmentsof the far
northof the Americasand the far northof Europeaccountsfor whythe Nordicshavean
appearancedistinctfromEskimos.The Eskimosmasteredan environmentwhereinthey
couldeat fish richin VitaminD, and VitaminD protectedthemfromcontractingrickets.
But suchVitaminD wasmuchharderto comeby in northernEuropebackthen.At some
pointa mutationoccurredthat enabledsomenorthernEuropeansto survivethis Vitamin
D deficiency—thismutationbeinglighter-coloredskinthatattractedmoreVitaminD