Thirty Theses - The Anarchist Library

174 Pages·2014·0.63 MB·English

Thirty Theses
Jason Godesky
2006
Contents
Whatarethese? 4
Thesis#1:Diversityistheprimarygood. 5
Thesis#2:Evolutionistheresultofdiversity. 8
Thesis#3:Humansareproductsofevolution. 12
Thesis#4:Humanpopulationisafunctionoffoodsupply. 15
Thesis#5:Humansareneithergoodnorevil. 21
Thesis#6:HumansarestillPleistoceneanimals. 26
Thesis#7:Humansarebestadaptedtobandlife. 37
Thesis#8:Humansocietiesaredefinedbytheirfood. 41
Thesis#9:Agricultureisdifficult,dangerousandunhealthy. 47
Myth#1:Agricultureisthepathofleastresistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Myth#2:Agriculturecreatesamorestableandsecurefoodsupply. . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Myth#3:Agricultureleadstogreaterhealthandnutrition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Myth#4:Agricultureallowsmoreleisuretimeandagenerallyhigherqualityoflife. . 49
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Thesis#10:EmergentelitesledtheAgriculturalRevolution. 52
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Thesis#11:Hierarchyisanunnecessaryevil. 59
Thesis#12:Civilizationmustalwaysgrow. 65
Thesis#13:Civilizationalwayspursuescomplexity. 68
Thesis#14:Complexityissubjecttodiminishingreturns. 74
Agricultureandresourceproduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Informationprocessing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Sociopoliticalcontrolandspecialization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Overalleconomicproductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Technologicalinnovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2
Thesis#15:Wehavepassedthepointofdiminishingreturns. 83
Agricultureandresourceproduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Informationprocessing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Sociopoliticalcontrolandspecialization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Overalleconomicproductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Technologicalinnovation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Thesis#16:Technologycannotstopcollapse. 92
Thesis#17:Environmentalproblemsmayleadtocollapse. 99
TheHoloceneExtinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
GlobalWarming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Diamond’sDozen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Erosionofsoil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Depletionofnaturalresources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Pollutionoffreshwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Environmentalpollution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Overpopulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Thesis#18:PeakOilmayleadtocollapse. 114
Thesis#19:Complexityensurescollapse. 122
Thesis#20:Collapseisaneconomizingprocess. 124
Thesis#21:Civilizationmakesussick. 129
Thesis#22:Civilizationhasnomonopolyonmedicine. 135
Thesis#23:Civilizationhasnomonopolyonknowledge. 140
Thesis#24:Civilizationhasnomonopolyonart. 146
Thesis#25:Civilizationreducesqualityoflife. 150
Thesis#26:Collapseisinevitable. 155
Thesis#27:Collapseincreasesqualityoflife. 158
Thesis#28:Humanitywillalmostcertainlysurvive. 162
Thesis#29:Itwillbeimpossibletorebuildcivilization. 167
Thesis#30:Thefuturewillbewhatwemakeofit. 173
FutureoftheThirty 176
3
What are these?
Weallhavebasicassumptionsabouttheworld,humannature,andtherelationshipbetween
the two. We are taught certain perspectives as children, and this recieved wisdom forms the
commongroundforcommunication.Ultimately,whenweseethewholepicture,ourmajordis-
agreements are squabbles over details. Should gays be allowed to marry? We assume here a
commonunderstandingofwhat“marriage”means.Shouldweraiseorlowertaxes?Weassume
thelegitimacyofgovernment,andoftaxesatall!
What happens when the disagreement occurs at an even more basic level? Like, whether or
notourcivilizationisevenagoodthing?
Thecaseiscomplex,butintruthnomorecomplexthanour“commonground”ofunexamined,
recievedwisdom.Inmanycases,itismuchless complex.Butitis different.Sinceformingthese
ideas, I have faced an increasing obstacle in communication. Unspoken, differing assumptions
force me routinely to return to the same arguments again and again. So I resolved some time
agotocrystalizemyphilosophyintoasingle,comprehensivework,whichcouldfromabasefor
furthercommunication.
Therehavebeenseveralfailedattemptsatthis,themostrecentbeing“TheAnthropikCanon.”
The Thirty Theses recycles much of my previous work, but extends and elaborates on all of it,
aswell.Thisismylatestattempttodevelopacomprehensivetreatmentofmycorephilosophy,
reducedtothirtypronouncementswhichIindividuallydefend.
You are also watching the writing of an “open source” book in real time. These will become
theroughdraftstoafinalbookversionthatwillbepublishedbytheTribeofAnthropikanddis-
tributedonline,includingthroughthiswebsite.Yourcomments,criticismsandquestionsabout
theseentrieswillbeaddressedandincorporatedintothefinalwork.
JasonGodesky
Technoshaman,TribeofAnthropik
28July2005
4
Thesis #1: Diversity is the primary good.
Humans are social animals, and also capable of abstract, independent thought. The combina-
tion requires some form of social standards. Bees think with a single hive mind, and solitary
animals do not encounter one another often enough to require a rigid system of morality and
ethics. Without social norms, however, human society would break down. We have evolved in
such societies, and require other humans to live. A single human, on his own, has little chance
ofsurvival.
Some rules are nearly universal, such as the injunction against murder. Society cannot long
endureifeveryoneismurderingoneanother.Othertaboosarelesscommon;theft,forexample,
is generally found only in those societies where resources are limited in some regard. Rules of
morality and ethics vary widely from culture to culture, adapted to given circumstances. Our
ethicsandmoralityareanothermeanswehaveofadaptingtonewanddifferentenvironments.
Basicrulesofbehaviorarerequiredforoursurvival,andconscienceisanadaptationwehave
evolvedtocontinueourexistence.Suchaconsciencemustatoncebedeeplyfelt,andculturally
constructed.Itmustbeadaptedtothoserules,taboos,andguidelinesagivensocietyrequiresina
givenplaceandtime,butbetoodeeplyfelttobeignored.Thehumanbrainisincrediblymalleable,
madetobeadaptedtotheculturalcontextitfindsitselfin.Enculturationisapowerfulprocess
whichshouldneverbeunderestimated.Whatyoulearnasachildcanneverbecompletelyshaken;
itbecomesaninextricablepartofwhoyouare,asintrinsictoyourbeingasyourDNA.
As necessary as ethics may be, that does not make them correct. Nor does the depth of our
conviction.I,likemostWesterners,feelaverystrongrevulsionatthethoughtofpedophilia,for
example.Yet,intheculturalcontextoftheEtoro,theMarind-ani,and10–20%ofallMelanesian
tribes1,itistheonlyacceptableformofsex.WhileIcringeatthethought,Ihavenoargumentthat
itis“wrong”beyondmygutfeelingofdisgust—aresultofmyenculturation.AsmuchasIprefer
monogamous,heterosexualrelationships,itwasmonogamousheterosexualswhocommittedthe
Holocaust.ThereisnosimilaractinMelanesianhistory.
The arbitrary nature of such ethical rules led many of our early ancestors to posit the final
authorityforsuchdecreeswithdivinewill.Thisisgoodandthatisnotbecausethegodssaidso,
endofstory.Thismadethingsnice,neatandeasy.Intheearlydaysofpolytheism,thisworked
nicely. Worshippers of Apollo and Ra alike could live in peace with one another. Most polythe-
istswerewillingtoacceptthegodsofanotherasequallyrealastheirownpantheon.Religious
warsandintolerancewerequiteuncommon;afterall,what’sonemoregod?Earlyreligionwas
inextricably bound to politics, and so ancient states would enforce worship of the state gods —
often including the emperor or king — alongside one’s own gods. Usually, this was not a prob-
lem; again, what’s one more god? Even monolatry — the worship of a single god, amidst the
acknowledgementofmany—wasnotmuchofaproblem.RaismygodandApolloisyours,but
1www.gettingit.com
5
we’rebothworshippingthesun.Iworshiptheocean,andyouworshiptheharvest,butbothare
equallyreal.
Itwastheemergenceofmonotheismthatfirstposedaseriouschallenge.Ifonlyonegodexists,
then all other gods are false. If this is also combined with a charitable disposition towards the
restofmankind,crusades,missionaries,andotherattemptstosavetheheathensfromtheirerror
ensue.Inaworldwheremoralityisdeterminedbythewillofthegods,suchaconflictcomesto
ahead.
Ifmoralityfollowsfromdivinewill,aretherenoethicsforatheists?Andwhatoftheheathens?
Yet,theseindividualsstillhavepangsofconscienceasacute—andsometimesmore—thantheir
monotheistic cousins. This led to many philosophers trying to find some other basis for ethics,
besidesdivinewill.Suchphilosophiesgenerallycomeinoneofthreetypes.
Thefirstharksbacktotheolddaysofthedivinewill;deontologicalethics2 focusesonduties
we are required to either fulfill or refrain from. The seminal figure of this school is Immanuel
Kant, who formulated the categorical imperative. Kant argued that an act is ethical if it could
be done by everyone without breaking down society. This was later refined by Sir David Ross3
withhisprimafacie values—thingsthatsimplyaregoodwithoutquestion.Individualactscan
then be judged by how well they comply to those values. The past fifty years have seen the re-
emergence of “virtues,” as found in ancient philosophy. The four Stoic virtues of temperence,
fortitude,justiceandprudenceworkinamannersimilartoRoss’svalues—actsmaybejudged
byhowwelltheyclingtothesevirtues.
Bothofthesesystemssharethesameflawastheancientsystemsofethics;theycannotexist
apartfromdivinerevelation.Evenifthereissuchagodhandingdownsuchethicalsystems,how
can we ever be sure which of us has the “true” revelation? Every culture has different values,
virtues, morals and ethics. Each believes that its way is the right way. Simply reiterating that
positionisnotsufficient,andallclaimstothesuperiorityofone’sownscripturerequireoneto
firstacceptthesuperiorityofone’sownscripture.
Unliketheforegoingsystems,however,consequentialistethicslikeJohnStuartMill’s4 theory
of Utilitarianism5 do the best job of creating an ethical system independent of divine powers.
Utilitarianismtries tomaximizethe utility —roughly,the “happiness”— of allparties involved.
An action is “right” insofar as it makes everyone more satisfied, more happy, than they were
before.Thisisnotsimplehedonism,asthewelfareofallmustbeconsidered—yourfamily,your
friends,yoursociety.SittingathometrippingonacidisnotanethicalactioninUtilitarianism,for
asmuchasitmayraiseyourownutility,itcarrieswithitaslightnegativeimpactoneveryone
in the form of your support for a global network of drug dealers and smugglers connected to
variousformsofcrime,oppressionandterrorism.
Utilitarianism is often disparaged in philosophical circles, with counter-examples as the fol-
lowing.Takeathousandpeople,andsomemagicalmeansofmeasuringutilitynumerically.One
ofthemisextremelyannoying.Killinghimwoulddrophisownutilityfromitscurrent“100”to
zero,whileraisingeveryoneelse’sfrom“100”to“101.”Thatmeansthattheoveralleffectofutility
wouldbe999–100=899.Ergo,killingannoyingpeopleisaverygoodthing!
2www.encyclopedia4u.com
3www.uwmanitowoc.uwc.edu
4www.utm.edu
5www.utilitarianism.com
6
Obviously,Utilitarianismneedssomeothergoalthatmere“happiness,”butwhat?Onceagain,
werunupagainstthewallofneedingtodecipherthedivinewill.Everyonehastheirownideas,
beliefs,dogmasandscriptures.Howcanwepossiblyknowwhatthegodsdesireofus?
Perhapsonegoodstartistostoppouringoverthetextstheysupposedlyinspired,andinstead
looktotheonlythingweknowforcertaincamefromthem(iftheyexistatall):theworldaround
us.Itturnsouttheuniversehasbeenscreamingasingle,consistentvalueatusfromthebeginning
oftime.
From a single, undifferentiated point of energy, the universe unfolded into hundreds of ele-
ments,millionsofcompounds,swirlinggalaxiesandcomplexitybeyondhumancomprehension.
Theuniversehasnotsimplybecomemorecomplex;thatissimplyaside-effectofitsdrivetowards
greaterdiversity.
So,too,withevolution.Weoftenspeakofevolutioncouchedintermsofprogressandincreas-
ing complexity. There is, however, a baseline of simplicity. From there, diversity moves in all
directions. If evolution inspired complexity, then all life would be multi-celled organisms of far
greatercomplexitythanus.Instead,mostorganismsareone-celled,simplebacteria—yet,stag-
geringlydiverse.Asorganismsbecomemorecomplex,theybecomelesscommon.Thegraphis
not a line moving upwards — it is a point expanding in all directions save one, where it is con-
finedtoabaselineofsimplicity.Fromourperspective,wecanmistakeitfor“progress”towards
somecomplexgoal,butthisisanillusion.Evolutionisaboutdiversity.
Physics and biology speak in unison on this point; if there are gods, then the one thing they
havealways,consistentlycreatedisdiversity.Notwogalaxiesquitealike;notwostarsinthose
galaxiesquitealike;notwoworldsorbitingthosestarsquitealike;notwospeciesonthoseworlds
quitealike;notwoindividualsinthosespeciesquitealike;notwocellsinthoseindividualsquite
alike; no two molecules in those cells quite alike; no two atoms in those molecules quite alike.
Thatisthepre-eminenttruthofourworld.Thatistheonebitofdivinewillthatcannotbeargued,
becauseitisnotmediatedbyanyhumanauthor.Itisallaroundus,etchedineverylivingthing,
everyatomofouruniverse.Theprimacyofdiversityisundeniable.
With that, we can suppose another form of consequentialist ethics, like Mill’s Utilitarianism,
butwithadifferentmeasureof“good.”Itisnothappiness,butdiversitythatshouldbeourmea-
sure.Diversityoflife,ofthought,ofaction.
So,killingtheannoyingpersonbecomes“bad”;asannoyingasheis,headdsdiversitytothe
group.Nordoesthisgivelicensetoeverythingunderthecauseofincreasingdiversity.Ourown
civilization is a unique data point, but its existence requires the expansion of its markets and
influence.Itgobblesupotherculturestocreatenewcustomers.Thoughitisitselfanotherpoint
ofdiversity,itrequiresmanyotherpointstobesacrificed.Itsoveralleffect,likesittingathome
onacid,isprofoundlynegative.
7
Thesis #2: Evolution is the result of diversity.
Theconceptofprogressisactuallyrathernew.Mostprehistoricandancientpeoplessawhis-
tory as a constantly repeating cycle, incompatible with any notion of advancement or degra-
dation. The first conceptions of linear time are found only in the historical era. Confucius, the
GreeksandtheJewsallbelievedthattheworldwas,infact,becomingworse.Inthis,theydidcon-
cieveofhistoryaslinear,butastheopposite ofprogress.TheGreeksheldthatthefirst,“Golden
Age” had been the best era, with each succeeding age diminished from its predecessor’s glory.
In Judaism, the “Fall of Man” in Genesis paints humanity in a fallen, exiled state. Later Jewish
prophetsoutlinedamessianicandeschatologicaltimelinewhichextendedthisintoanon-going
societal free-fall that would end only by divine intervention with the Messianic Age. This final
hopeoftheMessianicAgesowedthefirstseedsoftheideaofprogress.
Inmanyways,wecanthankChristianityfortheconcept.InreconcilingtheirbeliefinJesusas
themessiah,andtheveryobviouslyunfulfilledpredictionsoftheEschatonandtheMessianicAge,
Christiansbegantodevelopamoreprogressiveconceptofhistory.TheirChristologyimmediately
separateshistoryinto“beforeChrist”and“afterChrist.”TheymarkthepassageofyearsasAnno
Domini-the “Year of Our Lord.” Since the New Covenant is, in the Christian mind, immediately
superior to the Old — as Paul argues in his Letter to the Galatians — we already have fitted all
ofhistoryintoabroadsweepofprogress.Theconditionofmankindwasimprovedbythelifeof
Christ.Historyhasprogressed.
The concept proved adaptable to changing memetic environments. The Enlightenment was
a response to the superstitious worldview that preceded it, and like so many philosophical re-
sponses, was prone to attempts to counter-balance its opponents by going equally far in the
oppositedirection.TheEnlightenmentdefinedhumanityasuniqueforitsfacultyofReason,and
celebratedthatReasonastheseatofmankind’s“redemption”fromitsstateofignoranceandsav-
agery.TheEnlightenmentpromisedanoptimisticfuture,wherehumanitytriumphedoverevery
obstacle in its way thanks to the unstoppable power of Reason. As E.O. Wilson described it in
Consilience:
Inevitable progress is an idea that has survived Condorcet and the Enlightenment.
It has exerted, at different times and variously for good and evil, a powerful influ-
ence to the present day. In the final chapter of the Sketch [for a Historical Picture
of the Progress of the Human Mind], “The Tenth Stage: The Future Progress of the
HumanMind,”Condorcetbecomesgiddilyoptimisticaboutitsprospect.Heassures
thereaderthatthegloriousprocessisunderway:Allwillbewell.Hisvisionforhu-
manprogressmakeslittleconcessiontothestubbornlynegativequalitiesofhuman
nature. When all humanity has attained a higher level of civilization, we are told,
nationswillbeequal,andwithineachnationcitizenswillalsobeequal.Sciencewill
flourish and lead the way. Art will be freed to grow in power and beauty. Crime,
8
poverty,racismandsexualdiscriminationwilldecline.Thehumanlifespan,through
scientificallybasedmedicine,willlengthenindefinitely.
Though the Enlightenment placed its faith in Science, rather than in deities, this belief in
progress remains no less a leap of faith for it. The idea of progress — particularly of human-
ity’s constant self-improvement through the application of Reason — became as fundamental a
belief for the secular humanists as the redeeming power of Christ was for the Christians they
proceeded. The beliefs fulfilled similar needs, as well, by promising similar outcomes — even if
brought about by entirely different processes. Both comforted their believers with the promise
that the current misery was only temporary, and that a new, better day was waiting on the
horizonforthosewhosoldieredon.
Little wonder, then, that when Darwin challenged the conceit of our species’ superiority by
suggesting we were mere animals, those that did not reject the evidence entirely instead com-
fortedthemselveswiththemythofprogress.Inthepopularmind,theword“evolution”became
nearly a synonym for “progress,” the process by which species “improve” themselves. In fact,
evolutionhasnothingtodowith“progress”atall.
Evolution,technicallydefined,ismerelyachangeinallelefrequencyinapopulationovertime.
Inonegeneration,15%haveagivengene;inthenext,itisonly14.8%.Iteratedovergenerations,
thismayleadtothecompleteextinctionoftheallele.TheideaofevolutionpredatesDarwin,as
suchchangeisimmediatelyobservableandundeniable.Darwinmadetwocontributionstothis;
the first was defining the first mechanism for evolution in the process of natural selection, the
secondhiscontentionthatsuchevolutionsatisfactorilyexplainstheoriginofspecies.
Since the Neolithic, herders have practiced artificial selection with their livestock. If a given
cowproducesmoremilkthantheothers,orismoredocileandeasytocontrol,thenyousimply
givethatcowmoretimewiththebulls,sothatshewillhavemorechildren.Thenextgeneration
oftheherdwillhavemoredocilecowsthatproducemoremilk.Theherderhasartificiallyselected
fortraitshedesires.Overenoughgenerations,thiscouldleadtotheentireherdbeingdocileand
producingmoremilk.
Darwin’s concept of natural selection merely suggests that this can also happen without the
consciousguidanceofaherder.Agiraffewithaslightlylongerneckmaybeabletoreachfoliage
in trees more easily. He will be better and more easily fed, giving him more time to dally with
the ladies and concieve young, who are also more likely to have slightly longer necks. Over
enoughgenerations,thiscouldeasilyexplainthemodernstateofthegiraffe,thesameasartificial
selectionsufficientlyexplainsthestateofthemoderncowherd.Thedifferencebeing,nosingle
entitywasconsciouslyguidingthegiraffestothatend.
TheseedsofthesethoughtswereplantedduringDarwin’stimeaboardtheBeagle.Duringthis
time, he visited the Galapagos Islands, and noted both the similarities and differences of birds
on those islands to birds on the mainland. He noted the similarities suggesting they had once
beenasinglespecies,andthedifferencesspecificallyadaptedtotheGalapagos’uniqueecology.
Darwinallowedtheimplicationsofhisnaturalselectiontoplayout.Iftwopopulationsofagiven
speciesareseparated,eachwillcontinuechangingwitheachgeneration,butnowseparated,their
changes will diverge. Over sufficient generations, the two groups will become too divergent to
interbreedanylonger.Twonewspecieswillhaveformed.
In its truest essence, then, evolution is nearly irrefutable. “Survival of the fittest,” is a true
shorthand, if we understand “fittest” to refer to the ability to produce young, as well as being
9
severelyrestricted toa givenlocale.In this case,it becomes atautology; if acreaturepossesses
sometraitthatwillmakeitmorelikelytohaveyoung,thenitismorelikelytohaveyoung.The
controversycomesfromtheimplicationofthisstatement.Iftrue(andhowcoulditnotbe?),then
allthediversityoflifecanbeaccountedforinanaturalfashion.Godscanstillbeinvokedifone
insists;evolutioncouldbeseenasG-d’spaintbrush,orGenesisasapoeticaccountofevolution,
as all but the most hardline, fundamentalist Christians believe, but they are not necessary. The
existenceoflifeitselfisnolongeraprooffortheexistenceofG-d.
Evolution,then,issimplyaconsequenceofdiversity.Allorganismsaresubjectto“dumbluck,”
and untold heritages of the world were pre-emptively snuffed out by rocks falling at the most
inopportunemoments.Yet,thediversityofpopulationsoforganismsplayedwiththeprobability
ofthatdumbluck.Fallingstonesdidnotkilltheswiftandtheslowinequalmeasure.Treeswith
flame-retardantseedsinheritedtheearthafterenoughforestfireshadgonethrough.Evolution
happens,astheinevitableconsequenceofadiverseworld.AsDawkinsabstracteditinTheSelfish
Gene,thediversityofpossiblechemicalreactionsmeantthat,eventually,areactionwouldoccur
that reproduced itself. Such a reaction would have a higher probability of occuring again, as it
was no longer relying on pure chance to do so. Anything that reproduces itself — even ideas —
aresubjecttonaturalselectionandevolution.
What,then,isthe“goal”ofevolution,ifwecanspeakofsuchathing?Themarriageofevolu-
tionandprogresshasleftmanywiththenotionthatevolutionisdrivingtowardssomeendpoint,
thatweareprogressingeverclosertosomeperfectstate.Usually,thisisformulatedasevolution’s
drive towards greater complexity. Such a “drive” towards complexity, however, is ultimately a
mirage,anillusioncreatedbytheuniquemyopiaofourscale.
Thereisacertainbaselineofsimplicityforallthings.Noatomcanbesimplerthanhydrogen,
for example. There is a baseline for DNA where, if it were any simpler, it would not be able
to reproduce itself, and thus would no longer be DNA. There is a baseline, somewhere around
thecomplexityofthevirus—whetheraboveorbelowisamatterofsomedebate—whereany
moresimplicitywouldyieldsomethingnolongeralive.Fromthisbaseline,thereisnowhereto
gobutup.Diversityspreadsoutinallpossibledirections.Thereisinfinitediversityinthespace
that is equally simple, hugging close to the baseline. Diversity also moves up, towards more
complex.Ifweweretographsuchdispersion,itwouldnotlooklikeanarrowshootingupinto
the stratosphere of complexity; it would be a hemisphere against a solid floor, with its radius
constantlygrowing.
The evidence for this view is clear and intuitive. If evolution drives ever greater complexity,
ratherthansimplydiversity,whythenisthevastmajorityoflifeonearthsinglecelled?Instead,
this distribution of life — with almost all of it existing at lower orders of complexity, and the
numbers of species diminishing as we climb into greater levels of complexity — is exactly the
hemisphereofdiversity.Nowheredoweseethestraightlineof“progress,”unlesswetrackonly
ourown,specificevolutionarypath,andignoreeverythingelse.Ifwestareattheradiuspointing
straightupandignoretherestofthehemisphere,then,andonlythen,canweconvinceourselves
thatevolutionisabout“progress.”
ConsiderthecaseoftheNeandertal.Larger,strongerandfasterthannormalhumans,oursuc-
cess (and their failure) was once attributed to their inferior intellect. In fact, their brains were
noticeablylargerthanourown.Whilethismaysimplybeamatterofennervatingmuscletissue,
it means their physical faculties were at least the equal of our own, if not superior. Culturally,
theonlyevidenceofadaptationtochangingstimuluswehaveinthePaleolithicistheChâtelper-
10