29.05.2025

Not a bright idea

An unwillingness - or inability - to deal with the root causes of the climate crisis has resulted in a frantic search for technological fixes. However, argues Jack Conrad, that comes with all manner of dangers

Last year was the first on record to exceed 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. The average figure was 1.6°C.¹ There is, moreover, a good chance too that average global temperatures will exceed the 1.5°C limit for the “entire five-year 2024-2028 period”.² That is what the solemn pledges agreed by governments in Paris 2016 at Cop 21 have come to.

From here on in 2°C seems like an odds-on certainty, especially with Donald Trump, America pulling out of the Paris agreement and his ‘drill, baby, drill’ message to big oil. Indeed there are serious warnings that, with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations going from 280 parts per million in preindustrial times to 430ppm today³, climate feedback will soon kick in and catapult temperatures to 3°C, 4°C and beyond. Enough, it is authoritatively reckoned, to bring about “civilisational collapse” sometime between 2070 and 2090.⁴ That is within the lifetime of our younger readers.

Understandably then, having spent decades lurking in the shadows of secret military research,⁵ there has been a renewed interest in geoengineering (also known as climate engineering or climate intervention). That is the “deliberate large-scale manipulations of the planetary environment with the aim to counteract anthropogenic climate change”.⁶ Geoengineering - specifically its Solar Radiation Management variant - is by far the most controversial of the techno-fixes on offer, not least because it does nothing to tackle the underlying problem of greenhouse gas emissions and would, in all probability, produce all manner of unintended negative side effects.

There are other proposed SRMs on the table. Eg, deploy a giant, 2,000-kilometre-diameter sunshade in space - estimated cost around $5 trillion (plus). Then there is building massive cloud-generating machines; whitening low-level clouds by spraying them with seawater; and, far more prosaically, painting roads, buildings and roofs white.

Marine geoengineering is another grand-scale option, with the advantage that it does remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Adding iron or other nutrients to surface waters would stimulate the growth of algae (phytoplankton), which during their life-cycle absorb carbon. With their death they sink to the bottom where their carbon is locked away in the silt and mud. Incidentally I have written elsewhere about the range of techno-fixes: electric vehicles, nuclear power, hydrogen, biofuel and carbon capture and sequestration.⁷ But, here, in this article, I shall concentrate on SRM.

Legit research

Nowadays, the SRM techno-fix is enthusiastically pushed by the billionaire class: Bill Gates, Elon Musk, George Soros, Peter Thiel, Richard Branson and Dustin Moskovitz. Organisations such as the Environmental Defense Fund, Degrees Initiative, Quadrature Climate Foundation and the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering exist to promote their SRM agenda. Governments in the US, China, Russia and the UK provide backing for SRM research too.

It was, for example, recently announced that the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) will fund £56.8 million worth of experimental projects with a view to studying “climate-manipulating technologies” that could potentially restore the planet to health.⁸

This, remember, under a Labour government which, at least in the form of Ed Miliband, continues to parade before the world its - legally binding - commitment to reaching net zero by 2050 (Climate Change Act 2008). A political consensus nowadays derided by Nigel Farage and Reform UK and which is being rapidly walked away from by Kemi Badenoch and the Tories. And, of course, where the Tories go, Sir Keir will probably follow: triangulation more than suggests such a course. Former Labour prime minister Sir Tony Blair has perhaps already given the game away, when he declared that existing global approaches to tackling climate change “aren’t working”⁹ (although it was later claimed that his modestly named Tony Blair Institute for Global Change supports the 2050 target¹⁰).

True, in objective terms £56.8 million is a pittance. However, it sends an unmistakable message: geoengineering is a legit area of research, because it holds out, if not a solution, at least the possibility of mitigation, when it comes to human-induced climate change.

There are five Aria research categories: studying ways to thicken ice sheets; assessing whether marine clouds could be brightened to offset damage to coral reefs; understanding how cirrus clouds warm the climate; theoretical work on whether a sunshade deployed in space could cool portions of Earth’s surface; looking at whether millions of tons of sulphur dioxide particles could be seeded into the stratosphere in order to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes by reflecting solar radiation back into space - the latter option being first suggested in the early 1960s by the Soviet Union’s (and at that time the world’s) leading climatologist, Mikhail Budyko.

He issued a number of warnings about the inevitability of accelerated global climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels on an unprecedented scale. Although anthropogenic climate change had long been recognised, “what was new was the discovery of major climate feedback, such as the melting of Arctic ice and the disruption of the albedo effect, as reflective white ice was replaced with blue seawater, increasing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the planet and ratcheting up global average temperature”.¹¹

Back in 1974, Budyko suggested the possibility of sending up specially modified high-flying aircraft, which would release sulphur particles (forming sulphate aerosols) into the stratosphere. By mimicking the effect of major volcanic eruptions, solar radiation would be diminished. An idea which the Dutch Nobel laureate, Paul Crutzen, famously explored in a 2006 Climatic Change paper.¹²

By the way, the climate impact of volcanic eruptions is nowadays an accepted scientific fact. Eg, after perhaps a thousand years of dormancy, Indonesia’s Mount Tambora started to rumble and then exploded in April 1815. Huge amounts of ash and aerosols plumed up into the atmosphere and darkened the sun - 1816 was famously the ‘year without summer’. Global average temperatures are thought to have dropped by 3°C (there were dreadful crop failures in Europe and North America and all manner of social consequences).¹³

While Crutzen deployed the term, ‘geoengineering’, he never actually advocated such a course. Presumably he knew better. Despite that, his work spawned a veritable swarm of research institutes, global networks, conferences, computer simulations, government consultations and feasibility studies such as Aria … and many, not least Bill Gates, are gagging to put geoengineering into practice on a planetary scale. After all, geoengineering cannot be really tested on the micro-scale proposed by Aria. To deliver reliable results, geoengineering has to tangibly effect the land, the sea and the skies. Either way, there is a lot money sloshing around to promote researchers and university departments, buy up climate publications and establish an army of well-funded advocacy groups.

By using whole fleets of planes to seed the upper atmosphere with sulphur particles the claim is that solar radiation will be reflected back into outer space and reduce temperatures on Earth by a few fractions of a degree. A stop-gap which would give capitalism enough time to come to the rescue with the green technologies needed to wean the system away from fossil fuels.

Probably the likes of Gates and Soros are motivated by a genuine desire to prevent civilisational collapse. But there are, of course, those who see a good business opportunity when it presents itself.

Eg, Stardust, the Israel-US start-up led by CEO and co-founder Yanai Yedvab, a former deputy chief scientist at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, the agency which oversees the country’s clandestine nuclear programme. Stardust’s prospective clients seem to be governments. As the climate crisis goes from one tipping point to another, the belief is that governments will have no choice but to opt for geoengineering. Stardust would “sell them the tools” needed to meet their climate goals.¹⁴

Faulty logic

As might be expected, there is a huge number of scientific and scientifically informed critics. A couple of examples will, though, suffice.

Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of planetary physics at Oxford university, and Michael Mann, distinguished professor at the University of Pennsylvania, jointly savage the SRM idea. “In essence,” they say, “we have broken the climate by releasing gigatonnes of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide, and solar geoengineering proposes to ‘fix’ it by breaking a very different part of the climate system.”¹⁵

Elizabeth Kolbert, a Pulitzer prize-winning author, pinpoints the faulty logic of the would-be SRM geoengineers: “If control is the problem, then, by the logic of the Anthropocene, still more control must be the solution.”¹⁶ In effect, the modern geoengineers want to treat greenhouse gas emissions in the same way as the Victorian engineer Joseph Bazalgette dealt with London’s sewage crisis following the notorious 1858 ‘great stink’ - so bad was the smell emanating from the Thames that there was talk of suspending parliament and moving it to Oxford or St Albans. Not insignificantly, Bill Gates proudly says in his recent(ish) book: “I think more like an engineer than a political scientist, and I don’t have a solution to the politics of climate change.”¹⁷

Of course, the climate system is vastly more complex than the River Thames: everything is connected to everything else. Physics, biology, chemistry, human society and political economy form an interconnected and interacting whole. So, in all probability, if one (or a number) of the SRM pseudo-solutions for climate change was implemented, it would, surely, let loose a Pandora’s box of demons.

For example, there is the danger that the results of SRM geoengineering might well prove to be irreversible. After all carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Hence, if the SRM programme of seeding the upper atmosphere is finally ended, there exists the distinct possibility of a temperature spike, which would be “two to four times larger” than would otherwise have been the case.¹⁸ So not inconceivably geoengineering could trigger a climate crisis far worse than the one already given a ‘code red’ by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Geoengineering would, almost certainly, if all initially goes well, serve as an ideological smokescreen. Governments might well seize upon geoengineering as a way to stop temperatures rising to 4°C or 5°C. And, saved from the immediate prospect of climate catastrophe, big business carries on as before, emitting more and more greenhouse gases, as it furiously pursues its overriding objective: M-C-M'.

Hence, the 2050 goal of net zero lies abandoned and temperatures stabilise at 2.5°C or 3°C. Meanwhile, though, there is more and more carbon in the atmosphere, rainfall is reduced, the seas become ever more acidic, the recovery of the ozone layer is slowed or reversed and the loss of biodiversity continues apace (as warned by the editors of Scientific American back in 2008).¹⁹ In short, geoengineering does nothing to bring the planet back to good health. On the contrary, mother Earth gets sicker and sicker.

Rival national interests represent another obvious problem. What would China do if the US unilaterally placed a giant sunshade above its territory in near space? Surely, diplomatic protest would be swiftly joined by military action in what would be seen as an act of war. Because China is a big power both economically and militarily, that is very much the expectation. According to the academics, David Keith, Peter Irvine and Joshua Horton, supporters of SRM geoengineering: “Military action to stop SRM deployment by a powerful state would likely only be launched by another powerful state or states, potentially triggering a systemic war.”²⁰

With the same thought in mind, what would Russia do if the US starts seeding the upper atmosphere with sulphur dioxide and stops the Arctic melting that promises to bring vast new economic opportunities in Siberia, including a summer, ice-free, northern shipping route joining the Baltic to the Pacific by 2035? One option would be to go for what Keith, Irvine and Horton call counter-measures or ‘counter-geoengineering’ against what can all too easily be seen as an American attempt to stop Russia taking legitimate advantage of the opportunities presented by global warming. Would Russia sit idly by, as the US acted to ‘save the world’? Or would it rapidly increase its emissions of greenhouse gases as a counter-measure?

There would, in short, have to be an agreement between the big powers over any use of SRM technology - not inconceivable, but far from guaranteed.

What about the smaller powers? Would they be consulted? Would they be able to exercise a veto? What would Myanmar, Brazil or Zaire do if American parked a giant sunshade over their territory? What about seeding the upper atmosphere in a way that shifted existing weather patterns and led to their still verdant tropical forests turning into desert? Certainly without clear international agreements, “there’s a real risk that powerful nations - or even wealthy individuals - could go it alone, deploying geoengineering to serve their own interests”.²¹

Such dangers are known knowns. But, there are unknowns. Surveying the sorry results of past efforts to ‘solve nature’s problems’, Michael and Joyce Huesmann argue, not unreasonably, that humans cannot “substantially modify natural world systems without creating unanticipated and undesirable consequences”.²²

Accelerationists

There are too those on the ‘left’ who advocate techno-fixes: ie, accelerationists such as Nick Land, Paul Mason, Alex Williams, Nick Smicek, Aaron Bastani and Leigh Phillips (a list of ‘lefts’ which includes not a few ‘former lefts’ now). Instead of recognising the inherent limits of nature, they urge us to identify with what technological-industrial world capitalism has created and ‘embrace our Frankenstein monsters’.

This, predictably, includes geoengineering. Peter Frase, author of Four futures: life after capitalism (2016), proposes that the left should retake the so-called Promethean idea of mastering the world. His “grand future” includes “terraforming our own planet, reconstructing it into something that can continue to support us and at least some of the other living creatures that currently exist - in other words, making an entirely new nature”. In the name of recognising that “we are, and have been for a long time, the manipulators and managers of nature”, he calls for us to accept that geoengineering is inevitable. If we do not do that, “the bourgeoisie will simply carry out their work without us”.²³

Naturally, that sort of approach leads the accelerationists into ridiculing those who warn against geoengineering and its unintended consequences. There is much talk of ‘doom-mongers’, ‘Luddism’ and ‘technophobia’. Instead, technology is held out as the means of overcoming climate change, third-world poverty, scarcity, etc, etc. Technology is even credited with a miraculous ability to deliver “fully automated luxury communism”.²⁴

It is not that we dismiss technology. Nothing of the kind. But we do not delude ourselves that technology is an autonomous driver of human progress. Capitalists certainly use technology, in all manner of forms, as a commodity in order to sell to us the latest ‘must haves’. Technology is also used to spy on us, as a weapon to oppress us and as a way to weaken us by replacing human labour with dead labour (and thereby stopping or breaking our trade union organisations).

Missing from the accounts of the accelerationists is any notion that, in order to restore humanity’s metabolic relationship with nature, overcome global inequality and realise a society based on the principle of “each according to their need”, it is first necessary to organise the working class into a revolutionary party.

Class politics is ever so passé for the accelerationists, ever so 20th‑century. For them it is relentless economic growth and encouraging the forward march of technology. That, not working class self-activity, is what undermines capitalism and holds out the prospect of human freedom. Through supercomputers, through embracing automation, through whizz-bang space rockets, through mining asteroids, through following the “leading-edge” political vanguard of Alexis Tsipras and Pablo Iglesias, we are promised a 10-hour working week, more equality and all manner of tawdry luxury commodities - yes, taken from an article that is over five years old.²⁵

The whole, almost instantly dated, utterly banal, ‘left’ accelerationist programme clearly owes far more to Eduard Bernstein, HG Wells and Isaac Asimov than Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Not that orthodox(ish) Marxism can be entirely excused. Here is what Leon Trotsky, still near the pinnacle of political power in 1924, wrote about refashioning nature:

The present distribution of mountains and rivers, of fields, of meadows, of steppes, of forests and of seashores cannot be considered final. Man has already made changes in the map of nature that are not few nor insignificant. But they are mere pupils’ practice in comparison with what is coming. Faith merely promises to move mountains; but technology, which takes nothing ‘on faith’, is actually able to cut down mountains and move them. Up to now this was done for industrial purposes (mines) or for railways (tunnels); in the future this will be done on an immeasurably larger scale, according to a general industrial and artistic plan. Man will occupy himself with re-registering mountains and rivers, and will earnestly and repeatedly make improvements in nature. In the end, he will have rebuilt the Earth - if not in his own image, at least according to his own taste. We have not the slightest fear that this taste will be bad.²⁶

Trotsky was hardly alone in promoting such a thoughtless, blasé, so-called Promethean, approach to nature in the early 20th century. Not that you will find anything like that in the writings of Lenin or Bukharin. In point of fact they showed some real appreciation of the need to respect and protect nature.²⁷ Nonetheless, what Trotsky wrote was very much of its time. After all, what Trotsky preached about nature, Joseph Stalin put into practice - not in order to realise some global artistic grand design: rather, more mundanely, to provide the state (and in due course, its citizens) with more and more use-values.

Stalin

However, this could not be achieved with genuine socialist planning, which relies on the active participation, the positive control, of the associated producers. The bureaucratic elite pursued the interests of the state (along with its own narrow self-interest).²⁸ As a result, the post-1928 Soviet Union proved to be a malfunctioning society. It was not a mode of (re)production, but an ectopic social formation.

Attempting to overcome the irrationalities, the chronic low productivity, the massive waste, the authorities - first and foremost Stalin - turned to all manner of techno-fixes. Surely an object lesson for the ‘left’ accelerationists, when it comes to climate change.

Leave aside the radioactive waste littered over Kazakhstan, the open-cast mining, the oil spills and the ruinous industrial practices which caused choking air pollution, poisoned rivers and killed lakes. Let us focus on agriculture. One can see why Marx argued that what is needed for rational agriculture is either the “small farmer living by his own labour or the control of associated producers”.²⁹ Expropriating the peasants through forced collectivisation in the late 1920s and early 1930s caused agricultural production to crash. The cities went hungry. The countryside starved. Millions died.

However, joining together the country’s peasant farms even without the necessary tractors and combines meant that the regime would never again be held to ransom by the richer peasants, the kulaks. Throughout the 1920s they had held back grain, when prices were considered too low. The state had to respond, either by increasing prices (and thereby denying industry, the army, etc) or by sending out special armed detachments to seize grain supplies.

But collectivisation merely collectivised primitiveness. The peasants were, to all intents and purposes, re-enserfed. They were state helots. When tractors and combines eventually came on stream, productivity remained notoriously low. Collective farm members had to be allocated individual plots to grow fruit and vegetables for their own consumption and for sale in special, private, markets established in the towns and cities. Despite lacking machinery, productivity on the individual plots was far higher than on the kolkhozi and sovkhozi.

As one of many techno-fixes, in the second half of the 1940s Stalin proposed his ‘Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature’ - a super-ambitious response to the 1946 drought, which in 1947 left an estimated half to one million dead. Huge bands of land were to be forested in the southern steppe to provide a network of shelterbelts. Rivers feeding into the Aral Sea were to be diverted - once the world’s fourth largest lake, it has now virtually disappeared. Irrigation canals, reservoirs and countless ponds were going to upgrade the thin soils. Trofim Lysenko’s “elite strains of seed”, so went the presumption, would ensure fabulously high yields.

Lysenko, of course, contemptuously dismissed the Mendelian theory of gene inheritance as an example of “metaphysics and idealism”.³⁰ Instead he upheld a neo-Lamarckian doctrine of crops passing on environmentally acquired characteristics, such as cold resistance and drought resistance.

This was vigorously opposed in Britain by the CPGB’s scientific superstar, JBS Haldane (much to the chagrin of the official leadership faction).³¹ Haldane was famously one of the originators of the Darwinian-Mendelian synthesis³² and eventually resigned from the CPGB in 1950. A great loss.

Lysenkoism had been elevated into official doctrine in the Soviet Union. Those who disagreed were viciously denounced, dismissed from academic posts and often ended up in the gulag. That or they were simply shot. The message was clear: politics, not scientific facts - certainly not nature - was in command. In 1948, Lysenko made his notorious speech to the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences. He rhetorically asked: “What is the attitude of the central committee of the party to my report?” He answers: “the central committee has examined my report and approves of it (Stormy applause. Ovation. All rise).” The “most chilling passage in all the literature of the 20th century science”, writes Stephen Jay Gould.³³

The Great Plan ended in complete failure. The trees were of the wrong kind, went untended and died. The crops were of the wrong kind too, and froze or wilted. Topsoils were quickly exhausted and were washed away by rain or blown away on the winds (they contained, of course, the highest concentrates of organic matter and microorganisms). All negative and unintended consequences.

Stalin’s approach was continued by his successors. Their techno-fixes failed too, they could not save the Soviet Union and it finally collapsed in December 1991.

However, to support a billionaire-backed version of the Great Plan, albeit in the name of accelerating some kind of socialism or communism - when nowadays the world faces runaway climate change, when there is the distinct danger of civilisational collapse - well, that is to serve capitalism as useful idiots.

1. climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2024-first-year-exceed-15degc-above-pre-industrial-level.↩︎

2. wmo.int/news/media-centre/global-temperature-likely-exceed-15degc-above-pre-industrial-level-temporarily-next-5-years.↩︎

3. www.co2.earth/daily-co2. The same source considers the ‘safe’ level be around 350 ppm (ppm = parts per million).↩︎

4. actuaries.org.uk/news-and-media-releases/news-articles/2025/jan/16-jan-25-planetary-solvency-finding-our-balance-with-nature.↩︎

5. See www.chathamhouse.org/2022/02/geoengineering-reining-weather-warriors.↩︎

6. www.wcrp-climate.org/ci-overview.↩︎

7. J Conrad ‘Delusions of techno-fix’ Weekly Worker August 1 2024: weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1502/delusions-of-techno-fix.↩︎

8. J O’Callaghan ‘Controversial geoengineering projects to test Earth-cooling tech funded by UK agency’ Nature May 7 2025.↩︎

9. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx20znjejw1o.↩︎

10. institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/the-climate-paradox-why-we-need-to-reset-action-on-climate-change.↩︎

11. J Bellamy Foster - mronline.org/2018/07/24/making-war-on-the-planet-geoengineering-and-capitalisms-creative-destruction-of-the-earth.↩︎

12. See PJ Crutzen ‘Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma’ Climatic Change No77, July 25 2006, pp211‑19.↩︎

13. See W Behringer Tambora and the year without summer: how a volcano plunged the world into crisis Cambridge 2019; G D’Arcy Wood Tambora the eruption that changed the world Princeton NJ 2015; scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/mount-tambora-and-year-without-summer.↩︎

14. undark.org/2025/03/17/stardust-geoengineering-profitable.↩︎

15. The Guardian March 12 2025.↩︎

16. E Kolbert Under a white sky: the nature of the future London 2021, p32.↩︎

17. B Gates How to avoid a climate disaster: the solutions we have and the breakthroughs we need New York NY 2021.↩︎

18. CH Trisos et al ‘Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination’ Nature Ecology and Evolution March 2018.↩︎

19. Editors ‘The hidden dangers of geoengineering’ Scientific American Vol 299, No5, November 2008.↩︎

20. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EF000864.↩︎

21. www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/geoengineering-why-dimming-the-sun-isnt-a-bright-idea.↩︎

22. M Huesmann and J Huesmann Techno-fix: why technology won’t save us or the environment Gabriola Island BC 2011, pxxv.↩︎

23. P Fraze Four futures: life after capitalism London 2016, pp91-119.↩︎

24. A Bastani Fully automated luxury communism London 2019.↩︎

25. www.vice.com/en/article/luxury-communism-933.↩︎

26. L Trotsky Literature and art - see: www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/ch08.htm.↩︎

27. Under Lenin, Soviet Russia stood for the “most audacious approach to nature conservancy in the 20th century”. Although he wanted to massively increase the country’s productive potential, he thought that nature had to be preserved and protected. Agencies were instructed to set aside vast swathes of land, where commercial development, including tourism, would be banned. These ‘zapovedniki’, or natural preserves, were intended for nothing but ecological study. Scientists sought to understand natural biological processes better through these “living laboratories”. This would serve pure science and it would also have some ultimate value for Soviet society’s ability to interact with nature in a rational manner. For example, natural pest elimination processes could be adapted to agriculture (L Proyect ‘Ecology in the former Soviet Union’ - www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/ecology/ussr_ecology.htm).

    As for Bukharin, although there is an element of triumphalism in his writings on nature, the fifth chapter of his Historical materialism (1925), begins with this pertinent observation: “Human society is unthinkable without its environment. Nature is the source of foodstuffs for human society, thus determining the latter’s living conditions. But nothing could be more incorrect than to regard nature from the teleological point of view: man, the lord of creation, with nature created for his use, and all things adapted to human needs. As a matter of fact, nature often falls upon the ‘lord of creation’ in such a savage manner that he is obliged to admit her superiority” (N Bukharin Historical materialism: a system of sociology Mansfield Centre CT 2013, p104).↩︎

28. For my critique of Soviet bureaucratic socialism and the degradation of nature see The little red climate-book London 2023, pp33-38.↩︎

29. K Marx Capital Vol III, Moscow 1971, p121.↩︎

30. TD Lysenko The situation in biological science Moscow 1951, p24.↩︎

31. See: www.marxists.org/archive/haldane/works/1940s/lysenko.htm. For Haldane’s MI5-bugged exchanges with CPGB tops, see blogs.ucl.ac.uk/sts-observatory/2017/07/26/science-and-the-cold-war-at-ucl-1-surveillance.↩︎

32. JBS Haldane The causes of evolution London 1932. The title deliberately included the plural See: jbshaldane.org/books/1932-Causes-of-Evolution/haldane-1932-causes-of-evolution-flat.pdf.↩︎

33. SJ Gould Hen’s teeth and horse’s toes New York NY 1983, p135.↩︎