The Human Web: A Bird's-Eye View of World History

Part 9 differs from other sections of the book in that the authors share their thoughts individually. The structures of each author’s sections have an inverse relationship to one another. J. R. McNeill’s thoughts connect to the Introduction, which shares the inspiration for The Human Web, by beginning his consideration of flows of energy, structure, and complexity with the history of the universe. He then moves inward, asserting that the same patterns observed in the history of the universe characterize the history of life and humanity. Conversely, William H. McNeill begins with humans and moves outward to living organisms and the biosphere to highlight parallels in evolutionary patterns.

What ties the two sections together is the authors’ concerns with human complexity. The younger McNeill describes human history as “an evolution from simple sameness to diversity toward complex sameness” (322). Although he highlights that “human history, like the history of the universe and the history of life, shows an evolution toward complex structures, created and maintained by energy flows” (320), he also contends that human history is distinct in the way that the “selective pressure for complexity has been stronger than in biological or cosmic evolution” (329). His attention to the ways that more complex human societies destroy and absorb simpler ones connects Part 9 to earlier sections of the book where the authors demonstrate that a major impact of globalization and growing webs is a loss of diversity, whether ecological, linguistic, cultural, religious, political, or economic. This emphasizes the book’s thematic concern regarding The Development and Impact of Globalization.

The older McNeill likewise emphasizes human complexity through his comparison of humans to other living organisms and the biosphere. He describes the emergence of nucleated bacterial and multicell organisms:

Initially, they either preyed upon or were eaten by their future partner in what became a patterned symbiosis, advantageous to both parties because it assisted joint survival. The eventual result [...] was an almost unimaginable complexity of specialization and of functions within the tissues of multicelled organisms. Similar complexity and specialization among human beings, built initially upon modified predation and subsequently modulated by custom, was and remains the hallmark of cities and civilization (325).

He adds that the biosphere contains “complex patterns of cooperation and conflict” (325). William H. McNeill’s emphasis on symbiosis and specialization contrasts with J. R. McNeill’s emphasis on “a narrower range of traits, beliefs, institutions” (322) and societies decimated by the “new uniformity” of globalization.

Accordingly, their suggestions for the survival of humanity seem in opposition too, not merely to each other’s but also to their determination about the way that growing complexity has impacted humanity. Although J. R. McNeill emphasizes the loss of diversity, his key to survival is to increase similarities by reducing social inequality. While William H. McNeill suggests that the globalizing process conferred mutual advantage and joint survival to the more powerful and less powerful entities locked in the interaction, his key to long-range survival is to increase diversity by reestablishing primary communities and invigorating them with “shared meanings, shared values, and shared goals” (326).

Together, both authors’ conclusions imply a return to conditions that existed before humans’ intense participation in the global web. However, they are clear that they do not suggest disintegration of the web but rather a reworking of the dynamics within it. William H. McNeill warns that the alternative to reconciling the cosmopolitan web and diverse primary communities is “collapse of the existing web” (326), and he outlines the consequences of such a collapse. J. R. McNeill notes, “We will have biological evolution, as well as cultural evolution, in our own hands. A great deal will depend on just whose hands” (323), implying better and worse choices for who holds power.