I will just quote one of the comments on that piece as my initial response. I think I have seen this before but gonna give it a quick read to make sure its the same brand of gordian pseudo logic and appeal to philosophy that I remember. This fella thinks so but am gonna go look. Cuz thats what polite people do when sent new info.

Interesting. The author raises a lot of interesting facts, points of view, and even value judgments. He is publishing in the face of a religious opposition, an unacknowledged “church” or “faith community” he terms Egalitarianism. It is as good a label as any for the dominant philosophical “faith” governing Occidental civilization, presently. In that sense, it is refreshing to see. This is a challenge that needs to be raised. Superstitious orthodoxy is no friend of science, or even the health of human community and society.

That said, the author is not strictly publishing a scientific position in this work. This is a work of competing religious/philosophical/sociological nature, embodying value judgments about the facts and science upon which the work expounds. It is a challenge to the reigning orthodoxy, the reigning religious worldview, but it is, nonetheless a competing religion/philosophy. If you want to understand this, just read Chapter 29. The author’s “reasons” are not strictly science; they are philosophy, sentiment, religion and aesthetic preferences. The author would like you to believe that the work is entirely dispassionate science, but this claim is patently not true. The reader will have to come to his own conclusions about the author’s normative judgments, as well as conclusions about the veracity and accuracy of the science, but I personally believe that it is better that these topics were discussed openly, and with as much honesty as possible than see them summarily banished from the arena of human discourse as heresy, anathema, and taboo by the Church of Egalitarianism.