4 ms·

Because 3 men from modern history are utterly insignificant to human evolution. The argument is Evolutionary Psychology, which is a rather soft science. So is

• bambax 16y ago
  From the article: "perhaps nature [designed men] to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness". Leaving aside the fact that nature does not design anything, if evolution is to select a trait that is "mostly unsuccessful", then this trait is to be incredibly successful when it actually succeeds. And in fact, Genghis Khan is the exception; other well-known world conquerors are not exceptionally prolific, casting doubt on the possibility that "unknown world conquerors" (if such people ever existed?) would have been prolific enough and numerous enough to have an impact on the human species. I'm well aware of Evolutionary Psychology, its premises and its shortcomings; it isn't "soft science" but rather "non-science" since it can't be refuted. Most of its claims may be right, or wrong, but that doesn't matter because we have no way to tell.