In a recent Royal Society publication, economist Timothy M. Waring, philosopher Zachary T. Wood, and evolutionary biologist Eörs Szathmáry tell us that we must evolve “global cultural traits” or face ruin, due to the ecological crises of the current “Anthropocene era,” when humans dominate the planet:

We estimate that our species does not exhibit adequate population structure to evolve these traits. Our analysis suggests that characteristic patterns of human group-level cultural evolution created the Anthropocene and will work against global collective solutions to the environmental challenges it poses. We illustrate the implications of this theory with alternative evolutionary paths for humanity. We conclude that our species must alter longstanding patterns of cultural evolution to avoid environmental disaster and escalating between-group competition. We propose an applied research and policy programme with the goal of avoiding these outcomes.

Waring Timothy M., Wood Zachary T. and Szathmáry Eörs 2024 Characteristic processes of human evolution caused the Anthropocene and may obstruct its global solutions Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B3792022025920220259 http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0259 Open access.

The article, part of a theme issue of the Royal Society’s Transactions, “Evolution and sustainability: gathering the strands for an Anthropocene synthesis” is written in a curious blend of bureaucratese (“success in climate change requires a much lower level of cooperation (agreement to use certain energy sources) and could unfold relatively rapidly via cooperation between societies”) and evolutionspeak (“human evolution is driven by group-level cultural evolution in the very long term”).

In fairness, despite the dense fog such prose creates, the authors’ principal intent comes through clearly: They want a “single global society or global-scale individual” — the latter being an ETII (Evolutionary Transition of Individuality – I), who is happy with the single global society.

Evolution as mythological background

Evolution provides a sort of mythological background to the authors’ sensed frustration at the lack of a single global society or world government:

“Finally, if our interpretation of the ETII hypothesis is valid, the problem of the Anthropocene is not just that humanity needs to solve collective environmental challenges at an unprecedented scale. It is that the central patterns of human evolution may prevent us from doing so.”

Waring, Obstruct its global solutions

They want to take this refractory natural evolution of ours in hand and, despite our inclinations, evolve toward the new order:

Hypothetically, a completed ETII would produce cultural superorganisms: societies with total and complete cooperation, including, presumably, the group-level reproductive centralization observed in eusocial insects. If an ETII were to complete, the transition might unfold over thousands to millions of years across this planet or many. However, the ETII may fail. Its core feedback mechanism of evolutionary competition between human groups in a shared environment could drive humanity to extinction through multiple scenarios (figure 2, top, population structure problem). By comparison, success in climate change requires a much lower level of cooperation (agreement to use certain energy sources) and could unfold relatively rapidly via cooperation between societies. However, solving global climate change does require social coordination at a global scale…

Waring, Obstruct its global solutions

Who is going to evolve us toward the hive mind or any subset thereof? Government, of course: “the sustainable regulation of a planetary biosphere would appear to require a refined and complex set of technical and legal systems and behaviours, and would include and enforce cooperation between groups.”

But, the researchers announce tremblingly, we might fail in the quest: “Finally, if our interpretation of the ETII hypothesis is valid, the problem of the Anthropocene is not just that humanity needs to solve collective environmental challenges at an unprecedented scale. It is that the central patterns of human evolution may prevent us from doing so.” Not surprisingly, they propose a research program pretty much guaranteed to show that their analysis and recommendations are correct.

No doubt Waring et al. will be added to the literature favoring the broad expansion of the powers of central government. Curiously, the authors cite the COVID-19 pandemic, along with climate change and nuclear weapons, as an example of a problem for which they recommend such an expansion. They seem oblivious to the possibility that the mere mention of the catastrophic government response to COVID-19 will send many readers running flat out in any other direction.

No human evolution

More generally, the Waring et al. paper prompts a thought. Whatever may have happened beforehand, during the current “Anthropocene” (the term is not yet officially classified), there has been no human evolution at all. The Epic of Gilgamesh from four thousand years ago — about a king who did not want to die — can be read today as conventional literature.

And what if it is true that “evolution” over the longer term has made us naturally wary of projects that would make our lives more like those of bees and ants (eusocial insects)? The authors are likely right; that wariness is probably baked in and unlikely to be “evolved” in a different direction under pressure from authorities. For that matter, we can account for the human preference for freedom without reference to any evolution theory at all…

Thus, it’s not even clear why those who want global government should need an evolutionary myth to sell the idea. More likely, the evolution proponents need to make a case that gives them a stake in a political idea that is trending in the circles of power.