The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 275and “race.” Hence,the physiologicalfeaturesthat distinguishone “race” fromanotherare
not as big a factorin moderntimesin decidingwhichfamilialgroupsare “fittest” in
perpetuatingtheirgenes.^38
SteveOlsonfurtherdetailshowenvironmentalconditionsin the StoneAgedid more
thancausepeoplesof separateregionsto formdistinctive“racial” physicalfeatures.Ad-
ditionally,suchenvironmentalconditionsinfluencethe customsand activitiesof various
cultures.Olsondiscusses,for instance,the impactthat the climateof the Ice Agehad from
20,000B.C.to 16,000B.C.Thisclimatechangeencouragedhumanbeingsto migratefrom
northernEuropeto southernEurope,wheretheywouldfindshelterin a cavernand hone
theirskillsat paintingon its walls.Olsonrelateshow,whenthe Ice Agebeganto end
around13,000B.C.,the newchangein climateencouragedmento lose theirproficiencyin
paintingwhiletakingup otheractivities.^39 Predictably,whenhe appliesthe scienceof
naturalselectionas his guidein studyinghumansociety,ethnography,andparticularly
the reasonswhyparticularculturalcustomswaneor flourish,Olsonis merelycontinuing
in the socialsciencetraditionpioneeredby SpencerandSumner.Olson’s discussionof
howa location’s environmentalcircumstances“select” whichcustomslive or die, paral-
lels the driftof Sumner’sFolkways.
But,as usual,in lieu of botheringto readSumnerand Spencerin context,Olsonsimply
acceptsthe Hofstadter-inspiredfalsehoodsas indisputableand parrotsthem.In so doing,
he reapsthe benefitof the sciencethatSumnerand Spencerco-foundedas he downplays
Spencer’s andSumner’s contributionsto socialscience.In a bookpublishedby no less
thanthe NationalAcademyof Sciences,OlsondrubsSpencerfor being“one of the earliest
andmostardent” of the “evolutionaryethicists” he cursesfor conninghumanity.He
cursesSpencerand otherfree-marketersfor extendingevolutionarytheoryinto
the socialand economicrealms.Theyadvocatedan extremeformof economiclaissez-faire,
in whichthe strongshouldprosperand the weakbe brushedaside.In its variousguises,
thisphilosophyhas cometo be knownas SocialDarwinism,thoughit owesmoreto
Spencerthanto Darwin....
At the normativelevel,SocialDarwinismadvocatesthatpeopleacquiesceto or even
encouragethe workingsof evolution,as expressedin its competitivenature.... Some
peoplemayuse it to arguefor free marketeconomiesin whichthe governmentplayslittle
or no role.For instance,as primeministerof Britain,MargaretThatcherhas beenreported
as saying,“Whatwe needare Darwinianprinciples.”...
SocialDarwinismcan be faultedon a numberof grounds,accordingto [Universityof
Guelphprofessorof historyandphilosophyMichael]Ruse.For onething,in its most
competitiveforms,it is simplyimmoral.“Moralitydoesnot consistin walkingoverthe
weakand the sick,the veryyoungand the veryold,” Rusesays.“Someonewhotellsyou
otherwiseis an ethicalcretin.”Olson’s implicationis thatSpencerandSumnermusthavebeen“ethicalcretins.” Olson
thentries—as ColinTudge,E. O. Wilson,andCharlesLumsdenhavetried—to extricate
fromevolutionarypsychology’s reputationany notionthatit has any allegianceto Spen-
cer andSumner.HenceOlsondeclares,“Biologistshavealsocometo a muchbroader
viewof evolutionthanthat espousedby Spencerand otherSocialDarwinists.”^40
In Placeof Gratitude,TheyReceiveScorn
Themostappallingexampleof ingratitudeto SpencerandSumneron the partof
sociobiologistsis the caseof the manwhocoinedsociobiologyin the firstplaceand,in the
1970s,revivedthe disciplineof applyingknowledgeaboutevolutionarytheoryto the
socialsciences—EdwardO. Wilson.E. O. WilsonandCharlesLumsdenseemto assume
thattheycompletelyoriginatedthe gene-cultureco-evolutiontheory.Specifically,I mean