This book begins with a rather difficult glossary, then goes on to confront the reader with sentences that have opening clauses such as "Embedded in Spenglerian cyclicity..." The book does lighten up after a while (or perhaps the reader simply becomes accustomed to the style), but at the very least it seems fair to say that Morris doesn't underestimate the intellect of his readers. He has written an interesting book about the Burgess Shale that reviews familiar facts and adds some illuminating new material.
Morris's prose does get out of hand from time to time, making dark hints or arch asides with no explication, leaving the reader thinking "and exactly what would THAT be?" (A case in point is his footnote reference to "the poisonous ideas of such individuals as Derrida." Who? What?)
Still, most of the book is coherent and informative - particularly if you give up on reading the footnotes and stick with the main text.
The book does annoy in its relentless disparaging of Steven J. Gould, not because Morris dares to disagree with the role of punctuated equilibrium and (more importantly) contingency, but because of his condescending and not altogether consistent dismissal of the larger implications that flow from Gould's ideas. In the first chapter, Morris tells us that Gould's "arid manifesto" is "unequivocal. The likelihood of Man evolving on any other planet is extraordinarily unlikely." This is a philosophical criticism because Morris doesn't like what he thinks Gould implies by this. Since Morris never plainly explains, it is hard to be sure, but evidently he feels that Gould's view says that the human race has no larger meaning and needn't take any responsibility for things because we're just a chance, and highly unlikely, event.
Personally, I never took that message from anything written by Gould (he's one of the most engagingly literate humanists I read) but Morris certainly has the credentials to form a knowledgeable opinion otherwise. What annoys is that Morris closes his book with a somewhat intellectually messy essay noting that it is at least statistically possible that humans are unique and therefore we have a special responsibility to our planet. Let me get this straight: if GOULD says humanity is a unique, wondrous event, then Gould is the proponent of some evil, nihilistic philosophy. But if MORRIS says we're unique, it is cause for celebration, humility, and stewardship. Oh well - at least Morris compels you to think, even if you wish his own thoughts were a bit clearer.
