He positively fails to appreciate that genotypes and environments inevitably and intimately interact in the production of phenotypes. This hard-won comprehension, between the rock of genetic determinism and the whirlpool of Lamarckian environmentalism, is assumed by sociobiology. In branding sociobiology as genetic determinism, Sahlins and the left wing critics reveal the surprising degree to which they are drawn to the radical environmentalist view...
[...] In a sense, these methods investigate the teleologies of evolution, on the assumption that conditions presumed by a model actually hold in the real world and that the model equilibria are global rather than local.
But it is one thing to inquire what would happen to a system if it continued to evolve under given conditions, and another to claim in the face of constantly changing real conditions that it will necessarily reach any particular state our models conceive.
[...] Although Sahlins sees some more baleful totalitarian significance, it is not obvious to me. Nor is it obvious that we should resort to a view of evolution as free of competition (Sahlins prefers "exploitation") in light of the abundant evidence of resource competition and conflict in myriad species and communities, regardless of whether the evolutionary biological view converges with what Hobbes learned at his mother's knee.
The genetic capitalist, says Sahlins, views natural selection as powered not by the differential appropriation of natural resources, but by the differential appropriation of others' resources. The genetic capitalist, in his view, substitutes inquiry into the conditions of optimum reproduction for the description of the facts of differential reproduction. (https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.mit.edu/stable/pdf/643742.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A3b0a5a66e5196313a79ab23833b9c2b7)
"Natural science will later comprise the science of man just as the science of man will embrace natural science. We will know only one science, the science of history" (Marx)