The time has come to explore the principles on which human nature has been constructed and the social structures that derive from the behaviors built into the human genome.
—Nicholas Wade, The Origins of Politics (46)
Nicholas Wade worries that we are establishing cultural norms and political structures that depart significantly from traditions consistent with evolutionary biology and psychology.
Two fateful conflicts between politics and human nature are currently underway. One is that the social cohesion necessary to maintain America’s multiracial society is steadily fraying.
The other is the global decline in birth rates, which will eventually lead to the demise of nearly every country outside Africa (1)
Like other species, humans have a set of instincts and drives shaped by evolution.
The desire to reproduce and successfully raise children may not dominate our waking thoughts, but it is the primary motivator for our actions throughout our lives. (53)
We can link some of our behavior to evolutionary prehistory.
A notable connection between early armies and modern armies is acting in unison. Moving your body in sync with others creates a sense of unity and common purpose. War dances were definitely held for this reason. The modern military equivalent is marching on the drill ground. (62)
Wade argues that our moral beliefs have evolutionary origins.
A society cannot function unless its members feel compunction about harming or killing each other. Therefore, in the process of evolution, a moral concept was instilled in our minds that such actions are prohibited. (85)
The same is true of social institutions in general, he says. Humans have built large-scale social structures,
It does so by exploiting features of human nature such as kinship, religion, war, the instinct to follow rules and punish transgressors, and the desire to pass on wealth and status to children. (97)
What happens when culture is too inconsistent with our deep desires? Wade discusses the social experiment of Israel’s kibbutzim, which attempted cultural change that could not be sustained.
The kibbutzim regained its footing only after abandoning two major policies that were contrary to human nature: the abolition of the family and the separation of work and pay. (12)
Other cultural changes proved more effective. Replacing polygamy with monogamy reduced intragroup violence and strengthened group solidarity against outgroups. By replacing tribal societies with formal political structures, societies were able to expand their economies and increase their wealth. These effects had survival value.
Wade argues that gender differences are natural and important.
As expected from a long evolutionary history of specialization, men and women have different aptitudes and interests. Societies that substantially redistribute these natural choices according to feminist or other ideologies risk increasing social tensions and disrupting the natural distribution of talent within the society. (109)
He argues that the push to place women in higher positions in organizations, especially universities, is having a negative impact.
Almost all social institutions were created by men. This is because men are always interested in forming coalitions with other men for reasons of governance and defense…
Therefore, the idea that men, on average, are better adapted to running organizations than women is a reasonable hypothesis, but it has not yet been proven…
As of 2021, two-thirds of university administrators were women. The primary role of these shadow groups is to reduce the success of white men in applying for faculty positions. They have also issued requirements for “safe spaces” and audio codes to make campuses resemble as closely as possible a safe and optimal environment for women…
There is little evidence that today’s feminized universities prioritize the pursuit of knowledge…
Institutions that promote women to leadership positions for reasons other than merit risk falling into the same turmoil that has led to the collapse of so many once prestigious universities. (117–119)
Such claims are inflammatory. However, I would like to note that Helen Andrews said something similar at the Fall 2025 conference. See also my review of Warriors and Worriers by Joyce Benenson.
Wade posits that liberal and conservative political beliefs are scattered throughout humanity because of different circumstances.
Groups expanding into new areas would benefit if the “liberal” allele became more common in the population and was encouraged to continue exploring. But suppose your new territory is full of dangers, such as hostile neighboring groups or a changing climate. In such a situation, “conservative alleles would begin to become more common among the population because the chances of survival would increase for those who practice prudent, traditional practices.” (158)
In the final chapter, Wade distances himself from the seemingly conservative implications of the evolutionary perspective.
Politics must govern and promote change, not just the preservation of values and traditions. An evolutionary perspective provides no basis for favoring conservative over liberal politics. (211)
But he concludes with a plea to pay attention to our evolutionary inheritance.
The evolutionary mismatch between human nature and culture continues to grow, creating severe stress…
Lasting solutions can only be found within the framework of human nature. This course of action, whatever its vulnerabilities and shortcomings, is the best that evolution could devise to construct human society and ensure its survival. Politics and culture may be able to moderate these behaviors for the better. But overextension tears apart the natural bonds that maintain the fabric of society. (213)
If I had written a book on these subjects, I would have been more careful with my “often, but not always” stance.
Cultural experiments that go against evolutionary instincts often fail, but not always (we have found ways to overcome nepotism). Women’s approaches to cooperation and competition are often different from men’s approaches, but not always (personality differences are prevalent between women and men, and may be as large or larger than the average difference between the sexes). Evolutionary mismatches are often exacerbated by liberal policies, but this is not always the case (one could argue that dramatic income inequality is an example of a phenomenon in which evolutionary mismatches are exacerbated by conservative policies).
However, we should not dismiss Mr. Wade’s speculation out of hand.
