oh dear this would be funny as a spoof maybe....but not something you would expect from someone who had researched the subject.
It's a bit of a setup to justify his worldview rather than an attempt to review the human condition let alone observations based on reality. That fact that it goes against most of what the actual research tells us is telling in its self.

Socialism like any methodology works best depending on the situation and the way you measure success.
Greed is one of the drivers for our behaviour and important for our survival
Greed can be a great motivator and is a direct motivator in capitalism, and a indirect one for socialism. Or put another way.....the golden rule works best when you know everyone in your village.

The author seems to confuse tribalism and socialism, which is an extremely recent development, and not to be confused with communism or Buddhism or any other ism!
Moreover, there was no conscious decision making in our so-called pairing; no choice element, just normal biological attraction.
Something we have in common with the chimps?
The attempt to link this normal behavior to socialism, is risible!
The only truly regressive behavior to surface in recent years, and totally at odds with everything that is part of normal human behavior, is individualism, and all the harmful, greed is good behavior, that sprang from that.
Like say, the 85 most wealthy people on the planet, owning as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the rest of the entire planetary population!
This is hardly the survival of the fittest?
A decent day's work, say stacking bales of lucerne hay from dawn till dark, by hand, would kill them, as would trying to maintain their advantages, without the virtual tribe of brains, that they exploit, to their entirely unearned advantage.
I have yet to meet the truly self made man, you know, the one born in the very log cabin, he built with his own two hands!
More likely, just a patent nut job, ("eccentric") with one outstanding ambition?
To be the wealthiest person in the graveyard!?
If there's a life after this one, all we can take with us, is the love we cherish and our fondest memories.
For the greediest, there can be no real love, and their best memories, may be restricted, to just how well they conned mum and dad investors out of their tiny retirement nest eggs!
For heaven's sake, just don't get me started!
On things like, Ponsi schemes, worthless derivatives, short selling, high frequency trading, sub prime mortgages, and well the list is very long, and you get the picture?
A picture that stops normal human cooperation and replaces it with extreme capitalism and equally extreme exploitation, and a downward race to the bottom or lowest common denominator!
And that's devolution!
Rhrosty.

Just so true.

Socialism, the creed of the lazy & the incompetent.

'Humans split off from the chimpanzee line about six million years ago '
Such ignorance sprouted with such confidence. No doubt he accepts the gw myth along with this nonsense.

I guess to accept this article, one needs to define what you mean by progress ? I am not sure the definition I would favour is the ability to sit on a couch, watching Masterchef eating from a bucket of KFC is that of progress. That one has those choices perhaps is but they're only available to no more than 10% of the population, so once again, that's not really progress.

I would argue we haven't progressed much at all, our inability to evolve is the very crux of the issue. We have the mental attitude of stone age man, with access to incredibly destructive technologies that we use with little regard for the consequence, until it's too late. To my mind, that alone shows we have not progressed. Once we seemed to have a better understanding of our relationship with the biosphere, albeit civilisation collapse like Easter Island may disprove that theory but taking down one small part of humanity didn't impact the wider biosphere nor other parts of humanity simultaneously. The Kalahari Bushmen, for example, have been living that way for thousands of years, that seems the very definition of success ? They outlasted the Mongols, the Romans, the Khmer empires etc. Similarly the indigenous Australians, many 10's of thousands of years... the only thing ensuring their destruction is that we have a gun, we can put a "boot on their throats" and use a gun to ensure compliance with what we want.

Aside from an increased understanding of health care needs (germ theory etc)and increased access to information (Books, or these days the Internet), I don't think we've progressed much at all. All we have done is figured out how to offset to future generations the issues from our over consumption eg CO2e emissions, resource depletion, pollution etc

You may be able to switch your TV on and have a TV in every room but can you make a stone ax and support yourself unaided by modernities input ? Seems to me you;re very definition of progress revolves around some sort of collectivism enforced with a gun.

The author obviously has no idea as to exactly what socialism is qua political philosophy. His conclusion is the stuff of high school debating societies - the very likely source of his essay.