The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 279Industrialcivilizationdoes,though,givesomeonemoreoptionsto associatewitha larger
varietyof peoplesto his liking,ratherthanjust relativesfromone’s owntribalvillage.
Incidentally,Diamondis incorrectabouttherebeingmoresocialharmonywithinsuch
tribesthanwithinindustrialsociety.NormanJohnGrenvillePounds,that historianI cited
in BookTwoabouttribesandthe IndustrialRevolution,notesthattribalsocietieshave
had theirsharesof intense“internaljealousiesand feuds.”^59 AlthoughSumnerwouldnot
havesharedDiamond’s PC assessment,DiamondprofitsfromSumner’s workin this
contextas well.Herein 1997,DiamondinveighedagainstWesternethnocentrismjust as
Sumnerhad 91 yearsantecedentto Diamond.Not evenon this minorpointdoesSumner
receiveany creditfromthe PC professorswhoborrowso heavilyfromhis scholarship.
Free-marketeconomistFriedrichA. von Hayeklikewisecameto the sameconclusions
aboutgene-cultureco-evolutionwhiledisavowingintellectualdebtsto the nineteenth-
centuryindividualswhoarrivedat this sameconclusionmuchearlier.Hayekcongratu-
lateshimselffor recognizingthatnaturalselectiondeterminesthe life spansof product
linesandsocialcustoms—everyformof “evolution,culturalas wellas biological,is a
processof continuedadaptation... to contingentcircumstances.. .” AndHayekcontin-
ues thatto “understandour civilisation,one mustappreciatethat” throughouthistory,
mosthumansocialcustomsarosefrommostancienthumanbeings“conformingto cer-
taintraditionalandlargelymoralpractices.. .” (emphasisHayek’s). Andthe full impor-
tanceof thesecustomsis somethingthatmostmen“usuallyfail to understand.. .” And
yet suchcustomscan “spreadby meansof an evolutionaryselection... of thosegroups
thathappento followthem.... Thisprocessis perhapsthe leastappreciatedfacetof
humanevolution.”
Andthenaccepting,at facevalue,everythinghe wastoldaboutnineteenth-century
free-marketevolutionistslike Spencerand Sumner,Hayekcommendshimselffor having
rejectedwhathe falselybelievestheyespoused.“WhatI havesuggestedaboutmorals
and tradition,abouteconomicsand the market,and aboutevolution,obviouslyconflicts
with... the old SocialDarwinism,” which,thankfully,is a beliefthat “is no longerwidely
held.. .” Hayekcautionsthathe has no respectfor suchsocialDarwinists—”Social
Darwinismis wrongin manyrespects.. .” Thoughhe doesnot namenames,he is
frustratedwith“those‘socialscientists’ whoin the nineteenthcentury... did a lasting
disserviceto the advanceof the theoryof culturalevolution,whichtheyindeedbrought
intodiscredit.” Soundingjust like RothschildandTudgeandE. O. Wilson,Hayekcom-
plainsthatleft-wing“studentsof humanaffairsoftenuse the inappropriateness” and
“plainmistakes” of “SocialDarwinismas a pretextfor rejecting” any andevery“evolu-
tionaryapproach” to socialscience.^60
Thereare probablymoreexamplesof this phenomenonthanI can list in a singlebook.
I willnamea fewmore.In theirevolutionarypsychologybookWhyWe Get Sick:The
Scienceof DarwinianMedicine, psychiatristRandolphM. Nesseandacademicecologist
GeorgeC. Williams(b. 1926)followin the footstepsof Spencerandotherfree-market
bionomicistsin applyingthe mostup-to-datediscoveriesaboutevolutionto the studyof
humansociety.^61 Akinto sundryothersocialscienceacademicians,NesseandWilliams
takean implicitwhackat SpencerandSumnerwhentheywarntheirreadersthattheir
“enterprisehas nothingto do witheugenicsor SocialDarwinism.” Fromthe late 1800sto
early1900s,“... SocialDarwinistideologyhelpedto justifywithholdingmedicalcare
fromthe poorandlettingcapitalistgiantsbattleirrespectiveof effectson individuals.
Thesebeliefswereintimatelylinkedto thoseof the eugenicists... Suchideologyhas long
ago earneda well-deservedill repute.”^62 Notsurprisingly,blurbsof praisefor this book
arrivefromevolutionarypsychologistswhocarenot to correcttheseauthorsaboutthe
SocialDarwinismsmear:E. O. Wilson,SarahBlafferHrdy,and RichardDawkins.^63 Two
of them—WilsonandHrdy—join thoseotherrenownedevolutionarypsychologists,Mi-