Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by sense_of_history
The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge by Matt Ridley
Matt Ridley does not shy away from using the big words: in this book he aspires to offer nothing less than a general theory of evolution, for which Darwin's of course is a source of inspiration but only limited to the field of biology. Ridley wants to go much further, and just as Einstein formulated a general theory of relativity after his special one, also formulate principle(s) that cover the evolution of everything. Yes, everything.
His approach is appealing: “if there is one dominant myth about the world, one huge mistake we all make, one blind spot, it is that we all go around assuming the world is much more of a planned place than it is. As a result, again and again we mistake cause for effect”. And his hypothesis is that “far more than we like to admit, the world is to a remarkable extent a self-organising, self-changing place. Patterns emerge, trends evolve.” Frankly, I couldn't agree more, so that was very promising.
The whole book is an elaboration and illustration of the above thesis, in very different domains (politics, economics, technology, culture, etc.). And, of course, his hypothesis makes sense: many developments are the result of complex, intertwining and interlocking changes and decisions at very different levels. Indeed, in their zeal to provide an insight into history, historians often give the impression that developments were initiated by high-level decisions (monarchs, presidents, business tycoons, geniuses, etc.) and then ran their course, always controlled from above, though sometimes adjusted or thwarted by other (also consciously designed or directed) decisions. From a narrative point of view, this topdown angle offers attractive stories that bring structure and coherence to the chaos of historical factual material.
Ridley likes to go against the grain, and his reasoning certainly makes sense, for example when it comes to the evolution of technology. This indeed often is the result of small changes, hunches and adaptations by an entire army of scientists, engineers, craftsmen and sometimes downright amateurs. Just look at the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries, or the industrial revolution itself: of course, the contribution of the known Great Names, certainly not is to be neglected, but behind them hides a whole bunch of lesser figures, whose very small adjustments or small insights into a related sector or area of knowledge caused a shift that made larger strides possible. But – typical for this book – is that Ridley immediately draws the conclusion that scientific research directed from above (state or large corporations) yields absolutely nothing and is simply wasted (tax) money.
The same reasoning in the field of economics, where Ridley predictably swears by the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith. Again, that invisible hand is relevant, as economic history proves. But to immediately link to this that every government intervention and every steering (also by 'croony capitalism') almost always ends badly is simply nonsense. Top-down interventions are simply a reality, and to say that their impact is nil (or in the worst case just negative) is to close your eyes to that reality.
Ridley follows the same procedure in almost all areas he covers: adjusting the relatively one-sided top-down story, subsequently stating that only the bottom-up process is relevant, and thus denying the light of the sun. I agree that someone who wants to shed a different light on history may exaggerate a little, overexpose things a bit, but losing all sense of proportion makes your story largely incredible, and that is certainly the case here. It's a pity, because this book contains quite a few views and ideas that are enticing. Clearly the libertarian temperament of Ridley has affected him a bit too much. Or is it the political or other agenda, for instance when he accuses the ecological movement of being born out of the eugenetics movement, or when he propagates bying bitcoins and other cryptocoins as (not-government controlled) money of the future? It's a pity such an inventive thinker spins out of control.
His approach is appealing: “if there is one dominant myth about the world, one huge mistake we all make, one blind spot, it is that we all go around assuming the world is much more of a planned place than it is. As a result, again and again we mistake cause for effect”. And his hypothesis is that “far more than we like to admit, the world is to a remarkable extent a self-organising, self-changing place. Patterns emerge, trends evolve.” Frankly, I couldn't agree more, so that was very promising.
The whole book is an elaboration and illustration of the above thesis, in very different domains (politics, economics, technology, culture, etc.). And, of course, his hypothesis makes sense: many developments are the result of complex, intertwining and interlocking changes and decisions at very different levels. Indeed, in their zeal to provide an insight into history, historians often give the impression that developments were initiated by high-level decisions (monarchs, presidents, business tycoons, geniuses, etc.) and then ran their course, always controlled from above, though sometimes adjusted or thwarted by other (also consciously designed or directed) decisions. From a narrative point of view, this topdown angle offers attractive stories that bring structure and coherence to the chaos of historical factual material.
Ridley likes to go against the grain, and his reasoning certainly makes sense, for example when it comes to the evolution of technology. This indeed often is the result of small changes, hunches and adaptations by an entire army of scientists, engineers, craftsmen and sometimes downright amateurs. Just look at the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries, or the industrial revolution itself: of course, the contribution of the known Great Names, certainly not is to be neglected, but behind them hides a whole bunch of lesser figures, whose very small adjustments or small insights into a related sector or area of knowledge caused a shift that made larger strides possible. But – typical for this book – is that Ridley immediately draws the conclusion that scientific research directed from above (state or large corporations) yields absolutely nothing and is simply wasted (tax) money.
The same reasoning in the field of economics, where Ridley predictably swears by the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith. Again, that invisible hand is relevant, as economic history proves. But to immediately link to this that every government intervention and every steering (also by 'croony capitalism') almost always ends badly is simply nonsense. Top-down interventions are simply a reality, and to say that their impact is nil (or in the worst case just negative) is to close your eyes to that reality.
Ridley follows the same procedure in almost all areas he covers: adjusting the relatively one-sided top-down story, subsequently stating that only the bottom-up process is relevant, and thus denying the light of the sun. I agree that someone who wants to shed a different light on history may exaggerate a little, overexpose things a bit, but losing all sense of proportion makes your story largely incredible, and that is certainly the case here. It's a pity, because this book contains quite a few views and ideas that are enticing. Clearly the libertarian temperament of Ridley has affected him a bit too much. Or is it the political or other agenda, for instance when he accuses the ecological movement of being born out of the eugenetics movement, or when he propagates bying bitcoins and other cryptocoins as (not-government controlled) money of the future? It's a pity such an inventive thinker spins out of control.