280 Chapter 11
chaelShermerand NilesEldredge,in publiclyacclaiminganothersociobiologytext,Evo-
lutionfor Everyone, by DavidSloanWilson.^64 Youmayrecall,fromBookTwo,D. S.
Wilson’s putdownsof Spencerand AynRand.AndwhileD. S. Wilson’s bookEvolutionfor
Everyoneaccuses“Rand’s disciples” of dismissingtheirideologicalopponentsas foolish,
D. S. WilsonhimselfarbitrarilydismissesSpencerfor havinggovernisteugenicistsenti-
mentsthatthe realSpencerhadnot actuallyexpressed.D. S. Wilsondoesthis withthe
tacitapprovalof scientistcelebritieswhoimplicitlyfollowSpencer’s teachings.It is high
timethatSumnerand Spencerbe givendue recognitionfor pioneeringin manyof evolu-
tionary psychology’s key concepts, whether the twenty-firstcentury’s evolutionary
psychologistswouldpreferto admitthis or not.
Somewordsmustalso be givenconcerningSpencer’s pioneeringworkin the theoryof
EmergentComplexity,alsoknownas the theoryof ComplexAdaptive Systemsand
whichis peopledby ComplexityTheorists.As mentionedin BookTwo,the theorycon-
cernshowa systemthat beginsas relativelysimplecan change,stimulatedby a few small
and relativelysimplesteps,intoa systemof elaboratecomplexity.As Spencerenunciated
thisprogression,“Theadvancefromthe simpleto the complex,througha processof
successivedifferentiations,is seenalikein... everysingleorganismon its surface;it is
seenin the evolutionof Humanity,whethercontemplatedin the civilizedindividual,or
in the aggregationof races;it is seenin the evolutionof Societyin respectalikeof its
political,its religious,andits economicalorganisation;andit is seenin the evolutionof
all” the “endlessconcreteand abstractproductsof humanactivity.”^65
Hereis an exampleof howmuchComplexityTheorytakesafterideasalreadypromul-
gatedby Spencer.Onepartisanof ComplexityTheory—PaulOrmerod,a professorand
boardmemberofThe Economistmagazine—writesthat“conventionaleconomicsis mis-
takenwhenit viewsthe economyandsocietyas a machine,whosebehavior... is
ultimatelypredictableand controllable.On the contrary,humansocietyis muchmorelike
a livingorganism—a livingcreature,whosebehaviourcan onlybe understoodby looking
at the complexinteractionsof its individualparts.”^66 Wherehavewe heardthis before?
Ormerodgivescreditto F. A. Hayekand JosephA. Schumpeterfor arguing,decadesprior
to himself,that the economyis an ecosystem,^67 but no acknowledgmentis paidto Spencer
or Sumner.
Sadly,unawareof whatSpencerand Sumnertrulystoodfor, ComplexityTheoristsdo
theirbestto distancethemselvesfromthosepioneeringintellectuals,a weaknessthat
ComplexityTheoristssharewithevolutionarypsychologistsandtwentieth-centuryfree-
marketeconomists.PhysicistandSciencemagazinecorrespondentM. MitchellWaldrop
writesthatComplexityTheoristswishto avoid“the stigmafromthe timeof socialDar-
winismin the nineteenthcentury,whenpeopleweredefendingbothwarandgross
inequityon the groundsof ‘the survivalof the fittest.’”^68 Suchfree-marketevolutionists
as Spencerare thereupondenouncedby ComplexityTheorists—again,by practitionersin
a fieldpioneeredby Spencerhimself.Take 1969 physicsNobellaureateMurrayGell-
Mann(b. 1929),whoco-foundedthe verythinktankmostfamousfor studyingemergent
complexity,the SantaFe Institute.^69 Gell-Mannclarifiesthathe doesnot wantthe theory
of emergentcomplexityto go downthe sameroadas its primitiveforebear,free-market
evolutionism.Thushe pontificates,“TheNaziracialtheoriesare,of course,a horrible
exampleof misapplyingmetaphorsfromscience.Nineteenth-centuryideasof socialDar-
winismare anotherexample.”^70 Moreignoranceis betrayedby anotheradvocateof Com-
plexityTheory—Ph.D.physicistand chemistPhilipBall.Ball implicitlydenouncesSpen-
cer whenhe inveighsaboutthe nineteenth-century’s laissez-faire“liberals” who“es-
pousedpseudo-Darwinianargumentsfor eugenics.. .” Ironically,despitehis ownobvi-
ous hatredfor free-marketeconomics,this samePhilipBall admitsthatFriedrichA. von
Hayekwascorrectin arguingfor the existenceof spontaneousorder—”Hayekis rightat