The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 277whichevolutionarypsychologystands.In chapter2 I mentionedthe prominentbiology
journalistMattRidley.He wrotea bookentitledThe Originsof Virtuein orderto arguethat
commerceis a human-invented—and sociallyconditioned—evolutionaryadaptationthat
has enabledmankindto persistfor millennia.InOrigins’s acknowledgmentssection,Rid-
ley thanksColinTudge,GarrettHardin,evolutionarypsychologistRobertL. Trivers,and
“kin selection” coinerW. D. Hamilton.Yet Spenceris almostcompletelysnubbedfrom
the book,beingmentionedon but oneof its pages,andthismentionamountsto this
misrepresentation:“Spencerarguedthatbecausenatureis a pitilessstruggle,pitiless
strugglemustbe virtuous.” Andas we statedin chapter2, RidleyaccusedSpencerof
founding“socialdarwinism” andwentas far as falselycreditinghimfor coiningthe
phrase.
Thereis anotheraspectin whichRidleybuildsupona foundationbegunby Spencer
and Sumner.It comeswitha particularlyinnovativemannerin whichRidleyshowcases
parallelsbetweenthe realmsof biologyand culturalchange.Thisis in Ridley’s theorythat
culturalinnovationresultsfrom“ideashavingsex.” Youwill recallthatwe discussedthe
ideas-having-sextheoryin BookTwo.Notethatinsofaras SpencerandSumnerhadthe
courageto be amongthe firstto applybiologicaltheoriesin explainingeconomicsand
culturalchange,theyblazeda trailfor Ridleyto thatextent.But,as we notedin Book
Two,formerWiredmagazineeditorKevinKellyarrivedat a theoryroughlysimilarto
Ridley’s aroundthe sametime.
Ridley’s failuresto acknowledgeSpencerand Sumneris funny,giventhatThe Origins
of Virtuepurportsthat evolutionarybiologyprovesthis conclusionof the author’s—“If we
are to recoversocialharmonyandvirtue,... it is vitalthatwe reducethe powerand
scopeof the state.Thatdoesnot meana viciouswarof all againstall.... It meansa
massivedisassemblingof the publicbureaucracy.” Thebook’s finalchapterhappensto
assertthata just societyis foundedon the free“exchange” of goodsandservices“be-
tweenequals.Justas tradebetweencountriesis the bestrecipefor friendshipbetween
them,so exchangebetweenenfranchisedandempoweredindividualsis the bestrecipe
for cooperation.We mustencouragesocialand materialexchangebetweenequalsfor that
is the rawmaterialof trust,andtrustis the foundationof virtue.”^51 It wouldhavebeen
niceif Ridleycouldhaveconcededthata certainsomeonearguedthatsamecaseovera
centuryearlier—the casebeingthat naturalselectionprovesthe needfor the nightwatch-
manstate,andthatcertainsomeonebeingthe sameSpencerwhomRidleyblastedfor
extollinga “pitiless” socialDarwinism.Comparethe passageof Ridley’s just quotedto
this summaryof HerbertSpencer’s thoughtby E. O. Wilson:“HerbertSpencer,the most
ambitiousof the nineteenthcenturyevolutionists,arguedthe necessityof a non-Kantian,”
logical“approachto ethics.... He believedthatthe humannervoussystemhadbeen
modifiedthroughthousandsof generationsto createcertain...facultiesof moralintuition,
consistingof emotionsrespondingto rightandwrongconduct,but thathumannature
can be moldedby ‘the rigorousmaintenanceof the conditionof harmonioussocialco-
operation.’”^52 I am saddenedby Ridley’s failureto grantthe factthathisOriginswas
writtento provea thesisalreadyproposedby Spencerand Sumner—that the principlesof
biologicalevolution,naturalselection,andadaptationsto the naturalenvironmentcan
accountfor muchof whatoccursin the marketeconomy,and of whyit functionsas well
as it does.
Similarly, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker makes forays into evolutionary
psychology.Youwillrecollect,fromBookTwo, thathe endorsedMichaelShermer’s
evolutionarypsychologybookThe Scienceof Goodand Evil. WritinginThe NewRepublic,
Pinkerpronounces,“SocialDarwinismwasthe misnamedlaissez-fairephilosophyof
HerbertSpencer,” whichPinkerproclaimsto be, at best,“pseudoscientific.” Pinkerthen
proclaimsthat“the term”socialDarwinism“is oftenusedto smearanyapplicationof