The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 281leastto believethat therearespontaneousforcesof society”^71 (emphasisBall’s). PhilipBall
givesno creditto Spencerfor providingthis argumentdecadespriorto Hayek.
Defendersof humanenhancementalsosometimesmisrepresentSpencer.In the previ-
ouschapter,we defendedthe rightof parentsto employgermlinebioengineeringto
improvetheirchildren’s lives,despitesuchcriticsas EdwinBlackderidingthis optionas
socialDarwinism.Oneproponentof the rightto humanenhancementverysensitiveto
the socialDarwinismaccusationis MeridianInstitutefellowandMotherJonesmagazine
contributorWalterTruettAnderson.In his 1996bookEvolutionIsn’t WhatIt Usedto Be,
Andersonlays outan impressiveargument for enhancement.This samebook also
presentsan argumentsimilarto thatof gene-cultureco-evolution,whereinAnderson
pointsout,as I did throughoutBookTwo,thatcustomscountsas evolutionaryadapta-
tions,and thereforesuchtechnologiesas germlinegeneticengineeringare whollynatural
exercisesof man’s nature.^72 In that aspect,Evolutionunknowinglyarticulatesthe casethat
WilliamGrahamSumnerpresentedinFolkways. Andersondoesnot creditSumner,and
yet, anticipatingthatcriticswillaccusehimfalselyof peddlingsocialDarwinism,W. T.
AndersonattemptsinEvolutionto distancehimselffromSpencer.We recall,fromchapter
1, W. T. AndersonquotingSpencerout-of-contextto haveit appearthatSpencerdiscou-
ragedsmallpoxvaccinationon accountof his desirethatsmallpoxwipeout the under-
privilegedof England.In W. T. Anderson’s phrasing,HerbertSpenceropposedvaccina-
tionbecausehe believed“it wouldenablepeoplewhomightotherwisehaveperishedto
surviveinsteadand reproduce.” On the matterof compulsorysterilizationand scientific
racism,Andersonalsowailsthatgovernment-imposedeugenics“waschampionedwith
equalenthusiasmby right-wingsocialDarwinistsand left-wingsocialistssuchas George
BernardShaw.”^73 Anderson’s misrepresentationof Spencervexesme. Anderson’s sup-
portfor voluntaryhumanenhancementhappensto be a consistentapplicationof the
classical-liberalprinciplesSpencerespoused.
RareShowsof Appreciationfor Spencer
Yes,the overwhelmingtrendoverthe twentiethcentury—and,as of this writing,the
beginningof the twenty-firstcentury—has beenundigestedhatredtowardSpencerand
Sumner.Still,I wouldbe remissin failingto mentionsomehistoricalfiguresstill widely
reveredin my ownage whoadoredSpencer.He was muchmorerespectedin his ownera
thanhe is in ours.In chapter1 I quotedDarwin’s praisefor Spencer.Similaraccolades
arrivefromJohnStuartMill,whoadmiresSpenceras “a thinker” of great“forceand
depth,” onewhose“value...is suchthatI can hardlyoverstate.”^74 Althoughelectrical
engineersThomasEdisonandNikolaTeslawererivalsin business,theybothsharedan
appreciationfor Spencer.Teslawas an avidreaderof Spencer’s writingson civilengineer-
ing. Teslaalsosharedsomeopinionsof Spencer’s concerningfree enterprise.The Serbian
inventorcriticizedthe NewDeal for beingparasiticof other“people’s capital.” He
thoughtit “destructiveof establishedindustries.. .” And,as an entrepreneur,Tesladid
not appreciate“the distributionof wealthby excessivetaxation.. .”^75 Edison,on the other
hand,appreciatedSpencer’s politicalphilosophy—the verysamepoliticalphilosophyfor
whichSpencerbecamereviledfromthe NewDealhence.“HerbertSpencer.. .” Edison
wrotein 1914,“... had the rightscientificideaof investigatingeconomics.He hiredthirty
clerksto run downthoselawsandsee whattheirresultswere.”^76 Uponexaminationof
whatSpencer’s clerksfound,Edisonrejectedsocialismas undesirable.^77 CreditingSpen-
cer for his outlook,the Wizardof MenloParkdecided,“I do not believethe Government
shoulddo anything” but alloweverycitizen“a freeswing” in his peacefulendeavors
“and see thateverymanis protectedin thatwhichhe produces.” Moreover,the inventor
particularlydesiredthat“the courts” pay heedto “the manwhomakesinventions” and