The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 283ed in the nineteenthcenturyby HerbertSpencer... Spencerarguedin a veryarticulate
wayfor the commonalityof theseprocessesof self-organization,andusedhis ideasto
makea theoryof sociology.”^88 Farmerpraisesthe evolutionarybiologistStephenJay
Gouldby sayingof himthat“he’s perhapsthe HerbertSpencerof our day.”^89 Thisis
ironic,giventhatGouldwasa memberof Scienceof the People—the groupthatde-
nouncedE. O. Wilson,explicitlyfor beingtoo sociallyDarwinianand implicitlyfor being
too muchlike Spencer.Anotherironyis thatbothMurrayGell-Mannand RichardDaw-
kins^90 havepubliclypraisedFarmer.I findthis ironic,as theybothdenouncedand tried
to distancethemselvesfromsocialDarwinism—the samesocialDarwinismtheyprobably
believewas startedby the HerbertSpencerwhomFarmeradmires.
Shamefully,Farmerstill uncriticallyacceptsthe worstlies aboutthe greatthinker—I
meanSpencer,not Gouldor Gell-Mann.“Oneof the factors,” Farmercontinues,“that
causedSpencer’s ideasto lose popularitywassocialDarwinism—the ideathat thosewho
werewealthyand powerfulhad becomethat waybecausetheywerenaturally‘fit,’ while
the downtroddenwereunfit—whichwas a poorextensionfrombiologicalto socialevolu-
tion,basedon a simplemindedunderstandingof howbiologicalevolutionworks.”^91 For
Farmerto havegottenthis partof Spencer’s philosophyso wrong,whilenoticingSpen-
cer’s correctnessaboutemergentcomplexity,Farmermusthavepaidmoreattentionto
Spencer’s naturalsciencewritingsthanthosethatwereon politicaleconomy.Writing
aboutcomplexitytheoryandthe SantaFe Institute,sciencejournalistandphilosophy
Ph.D.Ed RegisalsocreditsHerbertSpencerfor pioneeringin ideasaboutEmergent
Complexity.Sadly,Regis,too,misidentifiesSpenceras an apologistfor “dog-eat-dog”
cruelty.^92
AnotherComplexityTheoristto recognizeSpencer’s pioneeringworkisWiredmaga-
zinecofounderKevinKelly,whomwe quotedat lengthin the previoustwo booksof our
trilogy.DespiteKelly’s previouslymentionedsophismsaboutthe natureof invention,I
am gratefulthathe refrainsfromthe socialDarwinismsmear.He correctlynotesthat
HerbertSpencerwasonewho“understood” EmergentComplexityandthisparticular
tenetof the sociobiologists’ gene-cultureco-evolutiontheory—“that the physicalenviron-
ment,” throughnaturalselection,ultimately“shapes” the “creatures” withinit andthat,
in turn,thosesamecreaturesshapethatsame“environment.. .”^93 My greathopeis that
moresocialscientistsbenefittingfromSpencer’s workshallfollowKelly’s leadin this
instance.
A ComplexityTheorist’s Casefor FreeWill
Incidentally,the principlesof emergentcomplexityholdimplicationsfor an issuewe
examinedin BookTwo—thatof free will.Humanvolitionis itselfan emergentproperty.
Theenemiesof freewilloftenpresenttheirargumentfor determinismthroughwhat
Universityof California-SantaBarbaraneuroscientistMichaelS. Gazzanigaidentifiesas
the “causalchainclaim.” Gazzanigasummarizesit: “(1) The brainenablesthe mindand
the brainis a physicalentity;(2) The physicalworldis determined” by immutablenatural
principlesthat are predictable,and therefore“our brainsmustalsobe determined” in the
samepredictablemanner;“(3) If our brainsare determined,and if the brainis the neces-
saryandsufficientorganthatenablesthe mind,thenwe are left withthe beliefthatthe
thoughtsthatarisefromour mindalsoare determined;(4) Thus,freewillis an illusion,
andwe mustreviseour conceptsof whatit meansto be personallyresponsiblefor our
actions.”
As Gazzanigaobserves,claim 2 is actuallyuntrue.Overbillionsof years,natural
processesbuildup chainreactionsthat causeunprecedentedeventsto occur.As an exam-
ple, therewas oncea timewhenEarthdid not exist.NowEarthdoesexist.Therewas once