Scan barcode
A review by brannigan
The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge by Matt Ridley
1.0
Years ago I read Genome by the same author and enjoyed his accessible approach to science writing. Unfortunately it seems that Ridley has forgotten how to be a science writer and instead uses his books as a way to wrap up his personal ideology and present it as hard science.
For the most part, chapters are short and reductive, mainly recycling ideas from the likes of Dawkins, Dennett and Pinker without adding anything of substance. Chapter two, for example, on the “Evolution of Morality”, is 15 pages of hand-waving while occasionally name-dropping Hume, Voltaire and (bizarrely) Adam Smith. Ridley seems to become confused as to the objective of the chapter’s focus and it abruptly ends without ever really delving into the question of the evolution of morality at all.
Ultimately it seems that Ridley has used this book as an outlet for his weird beef with the environmentalist movement. During a chapter on the evolution of religion as a man-made phenomenon, he abruptly segues into a disparagement of those who claim that global warming is increasing as a result of human activity, comparing the “blind faith” of climate change activists to that of the religious. Bear in mind that he refuses to delve into the rationale for his skepticism as it is “beyond the scope of this book”, but he does hint that “an increasing number of scientists tell [him]” that the current thinking on carbon dioxide emissions is misguided - hilariously giving credence to the very “appeal from authority” which he spends the rest of the chapter bashing.
Other arguments are laughably weak. Here is an actual quote: “what if renewable energy rolled out on a grand scale proved so environmentally damaging that it does great harm?” - firstly, what kind of backwards attitude is that? Surely the same could be said of any positive innovation - vaccines, free education, gender equality? Secondly, what possible greater harm can result from wind farms and solar panels than is already being wrought by fracking and burning fossil fuels? You can’t just throw out hypotheticals like that and not give it a proper discussion. It betrays a disappointing cowardice.
In a later chapter, Ridley includes the following quote from Martin Durkin: “it was [the Nazis’] green anti-capitalism and loathing of bankers which led them to hate Jewish people”. This flippant juxtaposition of Nazism and green leftism goes unchallenged by Ridley, and I had to look up who this authoritative Martin Durkin was: a climate change denying, minarchist television producer known for being “the scourge of the greens”. This tells you all you need to know about the level of research and analysis Ridley put into this book.
For the most part, chapters are short and reductive, mainly recycling ideas from the likes of Dawkins, Dennett and Pinker without adding anything of substance. Chapter two, for example, on the “Evolution of Morality”, is 15 pages of hand-waving while occasionally name-dropping Hume, Voltaire and (bizarrely) Adam Smith. Ridley seems to become confused as to the objective of the chapter’s focus and it abruptly ends without ever really delving into the question of the evolution of morality at all.
Ultimately it seems that Ridley has used this book as an outlet for his weird beef with the environmentalist movement. During a chapter on the evolution of religion as a man-made phenomenon, he abruptly segues into a disparagement of those who claim that global warming is increasing as a result of human activity, comparing the “blind faith” of climate change activists to that of the religious. Bear in mind that he refuses to delve into the rationale for his skepticism as it is “beyond the scope of this book”, but he does hint that “an increasing number of scientists tell [him]” that the current thinking on carbon dioxide emissions is misguided - hilariously giving credence to the very “appeal from authority” which he spends the rest of the chapter bashing.
Other arguments are laughably weak. Here is an actual quote: “what if renewable energy rolled out on a grand scale proved so environmentally damaging that it does great harm?” - firstly, what kind of backwards attitude is that? Surely the same could be said of any positive innovation - vaccines, free education, gender equality? Secondly, what possible greater harm can result from wind farms and solar panels than is already being wrought by fracking and burning fossil fuels? You can’t just throw out hypotheticals like that and not give it a proper discussion. It betrays a disappointing cowardice.
In a later chapter, Ridley includes the following quote from Martin Durkin: “it was [the Nazis’] green anti-capitalism and loathing of bankers which led them to hate Jewish people”. This flippant juxtaposition of Nazism and green leftism goes unchallenged by Ridley, and I had to look up who this authoritative Martin Durkin was: a climate change denying, minarchist television producer known for being “the scourge of the greens”. This tells you all you need to know about the level of research and analysis Ridley put into this book.