For nearly 60 years, Nicholas Wade has been one of the most admired and divisive science writers in the world.
In 1967, he wrote for and edited the science journal Nature, before leaving in 1972 to work for Science, where he would stay for 10 years. He later joined the New York Times team as the science and health editor, remaining there for 30 years.
In the late ‘70s, Nicholas began authoring controversial books on the subject of evolution, genetics and the human mind. Last year, he released his latest: The Origin of Politics: How Evolution and Ideology Shape the Fate of Nations.
Why did we invite him on?
”These basic instincts don’t go away. There are certain bonds that the nation state can’t provide, and we should be very worried about what might happen without them.”
How much of our politics can we control?
It’s perhaps the most fundamental question we can explore. There’s something attractive about the notion that all of our views are always the result of nuanced and impartial reason, an unbiased weighing of the data. Believing that is assuring, but is it true?
Do we have any say over what we think? Can we change our minds if we want to?
If not, are we doomed to repeat our mistakes forever?
These are heady questions, all explored in Nicholas’ most recent work. We’ve hoped to host him for a long while, and now seemed like the perfect opportunity.
What did we learn?
”Defenders of socialism will say that it’s never been tried. It has been. The kibutzum was a fair test.”
What was the kibutzum? Emerging in Israel in the 20th century, these were unforced, open communities which adopted communist practices. Members would share in the wealth, resources and labour, they could come and go as they pleased, and measures were taken to undermine the formation of hierarchies. It was, for all intents and purposes, the socialist utopia so often promised.
”It was voluntarily agreed to, and voluntarily rejected when they saw it didn’t work. It was a great and noble idea…”
These sound like a set of circumstances any ardent communist would accept. None of the authoritarianism, state control, censorship and genocide of more well-known examples, and the freedom for individuals to enter and exit as they wish.
”The first thing they did was abolish the family, which has been the unit of humanity since the dawn of time. They separated the children from their families, only allowing them to see one another briefly at the end of the day. Then, they decided to release the woman from the patriarchy; they had whatever jobs they chose and didn’t have to depend on their husbands for anything. Then they abolished meritocratic pay - everyone got the same, regardless of how hard they worked. It was total equality, and on paper, it was ideal.”
If it were so ideal, why do we no longer hear about them? Why don’t leftists parrot the success of the kibbutz in every debate on the merits of communism?
Because, as Nicholas explains, they did what all communist communities do - fall apart.
”It required running against the grain of human nature … When the second generation came up, they weren’t indoctrinated in the ideology of the founders. They started to change things. The mothers wanted to be at home with the children, and the more prosperous workers left to enjoy better pay for their work elsewhere.”
But why? If these were voluntary and free communities, why did the members lose faith?
To Nicholas, their fate was sealed by one thing: the inalienable, unavoidable sway of human nature. Communism, he argues, runs counter to the reward system that millions of years of evolution have imbued humans with. We expect our quality of life to reflect our efforts. Pushing against that leaves everyone destitute and, more importantly, unhappy.
”The system is set up for free-loading. The only thing that stops you from slacking off is public disapproval, but only that can go so far. It’s also destabilising- if you work your heart out and you receive the same pay as the ‘skiver’, you feel you have been wronged, and indeed you have been wronged. It’s very dangerous when you don’t reward people for their merit.”
It raises a complex question: when it comes to what is and isn’t ‘human nature’, where do we draw the line?
The kibutzum didn’t come about through force. It was humans voluntarily participating with other humans in the pursuit of a higher ideal. What could be more ‘human’ than that? Why were these communities less ‘human’ than any other?
Nicholas explains that there exists in the human mind a profound tension: a desire for meritocracy and a desire for equality. We want people to be rewarded for their good work, but we also want things to be ‘fair’.
It’s a tension that can be traced back to our most primordial ancestry. Failure to recognise it comes with a high price.
”In early societies, men had to compete to survive. It wasn’t one man for every woman; it was one chief, alpha-type, with many wives. So you competed like hell. If you didn’t, you stood no chance of having a family. But we also had to be very cooperative with each other… if we failed to do so, we couldn’t defend our tribe. We’d be killed, and the woman would become property of the victor. We are the descendants of the men who survived this system.”
Nicholas goes on to explain that even within these tribes, there was meaningful difference. The most significant exists in the discrepancy between the sexes. Male and female members provided distinct features - ones which needed one another.
”The left will say that the men are no different, apart from minor biological differences. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their mind’s eyes are as different as their bodies, as evolution has shaped them for very different roles. Women are specialised for the home, relationships, raising the children, and men are specialised for defence, fighting, and organising the largest-scale institutions of society.”
To Nicholas, the shallow contrasts we often focus on are only the tip of the iceberg. Men and women don’t merely exist in the world differently - they perceive it in ways that the other can never truly understand. It can make communication difficult, but it’s also a great strength for a society that wishes to survive. Blind spots are accounted for as different strengths are played to. Any efforts to mitigate those natural differences, he suspects, end in disrepair.
”All major institutions, historically, have been set up and run by men. Are women going to do as good a job? … If positions at the head of institutions were to be selected entirely on merit, I suspect it wouldn’t be a 50:50 ratio.”
We told you he was controversial.
