E. O. Wilson’s much anticipated new book, “The Social Conquest of Earth”, focuses on the human dimension of his highly controversial 2010 paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” which begins with the sentence:

Eusociality, in which some individuals reduce their own lifetime reproductive potential to raise the offspring of others,
underlies the most advanced forms of social organization and the ecologically dominant role of social insects and humans.

Since E. O. Wilson has recently stated that preserving Earth’s biodiversity against human encroachment is his “religion”, the juxtaposition of the first sentence of his paper on human eusociality’s “ecological dominance”, with his claimed “religion” of protecting biodiversity from that same “ecological dominance”, indicates that his new book on human eusociality would be an epic clash of thesis and antithesis.  One would have every reason to expect an equally epic synthesis and consilience as a fitting magnum opus to E. O. Wilson’s illustrious career.

I had particular reason to be interested in his book, since I am convinced that eusociality is not an essential, nor even desirable aspect of the human condition, and share Wilson’s strong “biophilia”.  This commitment is the product of a lifelong character development, as the study of eusociality and biodiversity has been to E. O. Wilson.  This development is worth recounting, as it bears directly on the exceptionally relevant context I bring to my reading of “The Social Conquest of Earth”:

Growing out of my youthful membership in Zero Population Growth in 1969, I wrote the world’s first massively multiplayer virtual world game—which is significant here only because it was also the first attempt to simulate application of nonterrestrial resources to terrestrial limits to growth.  A little over a decade later, as a member of the San Diego Sierra Club, I hosted annual conferences in the Laguna Mountains lodge on the topic, “What Good Are Humans?” and, as a result, was quoted by OMNI magazine as an advocate of space development because of my unusual commitment to protecting terrestrial biodiversity.  During this period a book titled “Bringing Life to the Stars” by cognitive psychologist David Duemler was dedicated to me despite the fact that, as described in that book, I differed with his promotion of utilitarianism over biodiversity.  Following on that, I embarked on a series of public policy initiatives with the aim of expanding the resources available to civilization.  This included leading a grassroots coalition to pass legislation at the Federal level requiring NASA to procure launch services from the private sector.  This, in turn led to the sincerest flattery by a rival space activist who is about to announce the first asteroid mining company backed by prominent adventure capitalists.

One might expect, given my background, that my primary interest would be in Wilson’s expansion of his often-stated objection to space development as a supposed panacea for protection of biodiversity from the encroachment by human eusociality.

That is not the case.

My primary interest was in how, given his “religious” commitment to protect biodiversity, Wilson could reconcile limiting humanity to the biosphere with his own prominent statement about human eusociality’s ecological dominance of other species.  There is absolutely no evidence that the presence of human eusociality in the biosphere is compatible with biodiversity.  Indeed, all indications point the opposite direction as we are in the midst of one of the largest extinction events in the geologic record and it is directly caused by human eusociality.  With this in mind, my own struggle has been with the practicalities of excluding technological civilization from the biosphere—most probably as part of the transition to a heliocentric resource base.  These practicalities are formidable since any residual human presence on Earth would present a clear and present danger that, simply by force of habit, a resurgent biospheric civilization would again threaten biodiversity. 

How would E. O. Wilson, this towering genius of eusociality and leading light for biodivesity preservation address the practicalities of excluding technological civilization from the biosphere—given his opinion that a transition to a heliocentric resource base is not possible?

I received “The Social Conquest of Earth” in the mail and turned immediately to the table of contents.

Nothing.

I turned to the index.

No entry for “biodiversity”, “extinction” nor anything of the sort.

I paged through the chapters scanning for anything that might indicate a great mind was taking on the profound practical difficulties of reconciling human eusociality with biodiversity preservation.

Here, from chapter “A New Enlightenment”—the last chapter of the book—is the totality of what E. O. Wilson has to say about his “religion” and its fundamental conflict with the subject of the book in conclusion:

Also evident upon even casual inspection is the rapid disappearance of tropical forests and grasslands and other habitats where most of the diversity of life exists.  If global changes caused by HIPPO (Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Pollution, Overpopulation, and Overharvesting, in that order of importance) are not abated, half the species of plants and animals could be extinct or at least among the “living dead”—about to become extinct—by the end of the century.  We are needlessly turning the gold we inherited from our forebears into straw, and for that we will be despised by our descendants.

The obliteration of biodiversity in the living world has received much less attention than climate changes, depletion of irreplaceable resources, and other transformations of the physical environment.  It would be wise to observe the following principle:  if we save the living world, we will also automatically save the physical world, because in order to achieve the first we must also achieve the second.  But if we save only the physical world, which appears our present inclination, we will ultimately lose them both.  Until recently there existed many kinds of birds we will never again see fly.  Gone are frogs we will never again hear calling on warm rainy nights.  Gone are fish flashing silver in our impoverished lakes and streams.

This content-free gesture of moralizing rhetoric is what E. O. Wilson provides us on what should have been the central topic of his magnum opus.

Clearly, E. O. Wilson has another “religion” than the one he touts.  This sort of abject neurological failure might be chalked up to age-related cognitive decline if it weren’t for the fact that it is clear that, in other areas of the book where he elaborately argues that eusociality is the epitome of virtue, he is far from brain-dead.  His religion is Civilization, not biodiversity, and the elaborate presentation of his case for human eusociality’s virtue paints a rosey picture of human mass organisms, the antedote for which may be the mirror image bias of the viscerally revolting (consider yourself warned) horror movie “The Human Centipede”.

Civilization über alles.