It’s the book that you’re not supposed to read. A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, by Nicholas Wade. Robert VerBruggen reviews it.
An overarching theme is that while institutions matter greatly — just look at the difference between North and South Korea — it is possible that some institutions are better able to take root if certain genetic adaptations have already taken place. If human populations in some parts of the world, but not others, evolved slightly higher levels of trust, a slightly greater tendency toward nonviolence, and so on — perhaps because population density forced them to live in close proximity to each other, abandon tribalism, and develop states — that might help to explain why some populations have become unusually peaceful, democratic, and economically productive.
It seems that many people disagree with parts of the book, although they disagree with different parts. If I were Brad DeLong, I might say that this proves that the book is basically right. But I’m not and I won’t.
I think people sell the theory the wrong way. It should be written as a criticism of the people whose natures allowed the creation of stable urban environments:
“People in some parts of Europe and some parts of SE Asia were the subjects of a long-term breeding project similar to the domestication of wolves, aurochs and mouflons. Today the results of that project are all around us: people who submit to authority, comfortably accept living in near-caged conditions together with many others next to them, and perform tasks upon request for small rewards. One would say ‘wake up sheeple!’ but what good does it do to talk to a sheep?” (read aloud in one of the Matrix voices)
Ha, ha, brilliant!!
You’re right! A nifty marketing ploy if ever there was one.
Given the actual Darwinian rather than the implied Lamarckian mechanism by which populations evolve, let’s rewrite the quoted sentence:
If human populations in some parts of the world, but not others, evolved slightly higher levels of trust, a slightly greater tendency toward nonviolence, and so on — perhaps because they killed or drove away those who wanted to live alone, embrace tribalism, or resist the development of states — that might help to explain why some populations have become unusually peaceful, democratic, and economically productive.
you should also read…The Rule of Nobody…less controversial, and easy. Loved it.