Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century: Evolution and the Challenge of Modern Life (aff). New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2021. 301 pages.
This book is different from what I typically read. It was written by two liberals who view life through an evolutionary lens. They came into public view when they taught at Evergreen State College. In 2017, campus riots erupted in response to some of the couple’s views and ultimately led to their departure. It was a tragic moment in American culture as students reacted violently to perceived threats.
The authors purport that evolution can provide answers for people as they navigate life. They believe that the earth has experienced 3.5 billion years of adaptive evolution, yet they claim change is occurring so rapidly today that humanity is having difficulty adapting quickly enough. In this book, they attempt to offer answers from evolutionary theory. It is interesting that they come to many conclusions that do not fit with many prevailing societal opinions today.
The authors note that “. . . humans are extraordinarily well adapted to, and equipped for, change” (xxii). They present an ambitious goal for their book: “Ultimately, in this book and with those models, we seek a single, consistent explanation of the observable universe that has no gaps, takes nothing on faith, and rigorously describes every pattern at every scale” (xiii). At the outset, it appears they have bitten off more than they can chew.
The authors note that “Our species’ pace of change now outstrips our ability to adapt. We are generating new problems at a new and accelerating rate, and it is making us sick—physically, psychologically, socially, and environmentally” (xv). They suggest that “Most of the best ideas that our species has generated, the most important and powerful ideas, have been the result of a group of people who had different but consilient talents and visions, non-overlapping blind spots, and a political structure that allowed for novelty” (4). They add, “The only way to course correct is to understand the true nature of what we are, what we might be, and how we might apply this wisdom to our benefit” (5).
They applaud the advances of humanity. They note that “We enjoy the competitive advantage of being specialists, without paying the usual costs of a lack of breadth” (6). “In nearly every case, when minds come together, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” (7).
They discuss customs and traditions and how age-old wisdom is embedded within them. They suggest that “When times are good, people should be reluctant to challenge ancestral wisdom” (9). Interestingly, they confess, “There is little agreement at present on how well things are going” (10). They suggest, “As our world becomes increasingly complex, though, the need for generalists grows. We need people who know things across domains, and who can make connections” (11).
In a moment of candor, the authors acknowledge, “Some of what evolution has produced is, indeed, ugly: infanticide, rape, and genocide are all products of evolution” (13). This assessment is probably an understatement. If the overriding rule of evolution is “survival of the fittest,” then theft, war, and dictatorships can also be laid at the feet of evolution. If there is no God to whom we are accountable and there is no life beyond this one, then it makes little sense for the strong not to grasp whatever they can.
Though the authors are self-professed liberals, they suggest that “Any expensive and long-lasting cultural trait (such as traditions passed down within a lineage for thousands of years) should be presumed to be adaptive” (17).
The authors take a traditional evolutionary view of humanity. They write, “We are also, still and forever, fish” (25). They note, “Dinosaurs are not extinct. Birds are dinosaurs” (25). They add, “Twenty-five to thirty million years ago, apes evolved from monkeys, and we are them” (32). The authors point out that WEIRD countries (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), have unique experiences often unknown in other parts of the world (40). For example, appendicitis is a disorder unique to the WEIRD world (47).
They argue that “scientism” is often mistaken for “science” (65). This book is, in part, their effort to use science to refute many false assumptions based on “scientism.” They have a number of opinions that run contrary to common practice today. They note that people who avoid the sun have a higher mortality rate than those who seek it (66). Meeting pain with medication interferes with the natural feedback system (70).
At times they make statements that are politically “incorrect” but biologically accurate. They note that males are fundamentally stronger than females and that if an entirely female army fought against a male army, the males would win (105). They note, “The differences between the sexes are a reality, and while they can be cause for concern, they are also very often a strength, and we ignore them at our peril” (105). They state, “No mammals (or birds) have ever been known to change sex” (107). They claim that sex changing does not happen, though people can modify their gender (111). They argue that gender is more fluid than sex (111). They state, “Men will never ovulate, gestate, lactate, menstruate, or go through menopause” (112). They challenge, “If women adopting some of the worst traits of men is our evidence of equality and freedom, we need to reinvestigate our values” (118).
The authors note that at times people confuse a “proxy” for the real thing (119). So, for example, playing with dolls and wearing pink is a proxy for girls. It is not what makes them girls, but it is often characteristic of girls. Because a male likes to play with dolls and wear pink does not in fact make him a female. They have mistaken a proxy for the real thing.
They regard pornography as “sexual autism” (120). They define love as “a state of the emotional mind that causes one to prioritize someone or something external as an extension of self” (123). They claim that evolution has diverged toward monogamy as the superior system (128). They claim that “Monogamy is the mating system with the greatest potential for cooperation and fairness” (129). They also note that when couples sleep together early in their dating relationship, the odds are much higher that it will not last (135). They conclude, “In spite of its stodgy reputation, monogamy is the best mating system. It creates more competent adults, reduces the tendency to engage in violence and warfare, and fosters cooperative impulses” (136). It is fascinating that these liberal evolutionary biologists have discovered that much of what the Bible says about marriage is, indeed, true.
They also discuss the fact that culture changes more quickly than our genes do (138). For that reason, many people are struggling to adapt in a rapidly changing culture.
They claim that grief is “recalibrating our brains for a world without one of its central pieces” (142). They also note that “Humans are not blank slates, but of all organisms on earth, we are the blankest” (146).
The authors have much to say about parenting, which is poignant considering they essentially lost their tenured professorships because Gen Z students felt threatened by their different views. They are clearly appalled by the way many of today’s children are being reared.
They suggest, “Spending time as children allows animals to learn about their environment. Therefore, stealing childhood from the young—by organizing and scheduling their play for them, by keeping them from risk and exploration, by controlling and sedating them with screens and algorithms and legal drugs—practically guarantees that they will arrive at the age of adulthood without being capable of actually being adults” (147). They continue, “Childhood gives us the flexibility in a changing world. Across cultures in which play has been observed, even very young children who are allowed to engage in open-ended play in potentially dangerous areas with no adult supervision tend to resolve disputes quickly among themselves, and rarely have accidents” (148).
They contend that “Our societal pendulum has swung too far to one side—to protecting children against all risk and harm—such that many who come of age under this paradigm feel that everything is a threat, that they need a safe place, that words are violence. . . It is imperative that children experience discomfort in each of these realms: physical, psychological, and intellectual. Absent that, they end up full-grown but confused about what harm actually is. They end up children in bodies of adults” (149). The authors point out that this type of parenting can affect every part of a child’s life. They note that “. . . children who chew soft, processed foods have smaller faces as adults than those who grew up chewing hard, tough food” (150). They claim that “Humans are anti fragile. We grow stronger with exposure to manageable risks, with pushing boundaries” (152). Yet, they also note that it is important for parents to bond tightly with their children when they are young. Doing so gives them confidence to face the many challenges that lie ahead (153). They note, “There is nothing in our millions of years of evolutionary history that should lead an infant to feel secure alone in a room” (153).
The authors note that static rules do not work with children (154). They suggest that parents “Give them real work to do, not busy work. Do not make false threats” (154). They make interesting observations about the rise of autism in children (157). They argue that screen time has produced devastating effects on children. They observe, “Because rough and tumble play no longer suits our delicate sensibilities as a culture, we prefer to drug our children into submission” (159). They note that most schools are better suited to the ways girls learn (159). They add, “having quiet and compliant students suits schools that have too many children and too few resources” (160). They warn, “If you are on social media in middle school, your identity is bound to be confused and confusing” (161). Interestingly, they suggest that “Not only is school rare in human history—so is teaching” (167). They note that most cultures have not “outsourced” teaching (168). As a result, “A part of what school is, is parenting that has been outsourced” (170).
The authors pound home the theme that “Humans are anti fragile; exposure to discomfort and uncertainty—physical , emotional, and intellectual—is necessary” (173). They warn, “Modern school tends to protect against individual tragedies while facilitating the larger, societal ones” (173). “Risk and potential go hand in hand. We need to let children, including college students, risk getting hurt. Protection from pain guarantees weakness, fragility, and greater suffering in the future” (175). They note, “Insight and growth do not happen when you are comfortable with what you know” (178).
The authors point out that “Rites of passage thus coordinate society with respect to what is expected of individuals at various stages of development” (188).
The authors attack much of post-modern thought. They note, “One of the most astounding conclusions of some postmodernists is that all reality is socially constructed” (194). They ask, “How do you come to be this confused, to believe that all reality is socially constructed? Have little experience in the real world” (194). They note, “Every opinion is not equally valid” (194). They continue, “Movement increases wisdom. So, too, does exposure to diverse views” (195). In their time at Evergreen College, students angrily reacted to people who held or promoted views divergent to their own. Gen Z felt threatened by the mere fact that there were people on campus who disagreed with them. The authors clearly see the inherent danger of such thinking.
Interestingly, they suggest that “The fact that we believe in bad luck, but not in good luck, makes it more difficult to learn from our mistakes” (196). They make an interesting observation that in a study of people born between 1900 and 2000, it was found that one’s birth month had an effect on at least 55 different conditions (217). They note that religion is an efficient encapsulation of past wisdom” (219). They see value in wisdom that has been passed down through the ages, and they recommend being slow to dispense with it.
As the authors observe what is happening in society, they are clearly alarmed. But as evolutionists who believe it takes millions of years for species to adapt, they struggle to offer pragmatic solutions. They suggest, “Where to turn to find salvation? In simple terms, consciousness” (226). They warn, “We are headed for a collapse. Civilization is becoming incoherent around us.” (227). They add, “We are not served by ignoring what we are—brutal apes, by one measure” (230).
They note that society is attempting to address divergent concerns, both for freedom and justice. They caution, “No society can be both the freest and the most just” (232). Clearly, there must be a compromise. They confess that liberals are their “political kin” (233). They admit, however, that liberals “are particularly prone to underestimating diminishing returns and unintended consequences” (233). Conservatives, according to them, “are particularly prone to underestimating negative externalities and the finite nature of resources” (233). They admit, “Our throughput society depends on insecurity, gluttony, and planned obsolescence. It’s how we keep the lights on” (237). They acknowledge that society tends to grasp short-term solutions without seriously considering long-term consequences.
They conclude by warning, “We are hurtling toward destruction” (241). Their solution? “The problem is evolutionary. So is the solution” (243).
This book was interesting to me. I like to examine how people who do not have a Christian worldview see life. In this case, it is clear that they recognize many of the problems society is currently facing. They have the boldness to speak against much of the prevailing thinking. Yet they are also bound within their evolutionary viewpoint. They unwittingly make it clear that, without God, society struggles to make critical adjustments. Perhaps over hundreds of millions of years, species can adapt. But when society sees alarming problems among today’s youth, it cannot wait a million years before addressing it. Their case is somewhat self-defeating. Their worldview calls for hundreds of millions of years to adapt, yet society is on the verge of destruction today.
It was interesting to see how even evolutionary science affirms much of what the Bible teaches, demonstrating that all wisdom is ultimately God’s wisdom.
This book is not for everyone. Some might struggle with the evolutionary approach. Some might find the scientific and biological explanations beyond their technical grasp. But for those wanting to see how evolutionary scientists view today’s societal changes, this book may be an insightful read.
Rating: 2
