On Humans

Agriculture changed everything. Traditionally, this “Neolithic Revolution” was celebrated for opening the gates of civilisation. Recently, it has been compared to the original sin. But whatever our take on agriculture, we should be puzzled by one thing: Why did our ancestors start to farm in the first place?

It's not like early farmers had improved lives. Quite the opposite, they worked harder and suffered from worse health. So why did so early farmers stick to it? And why did farming spread so far and wide?

Andrea Matranga thinks he has the answer. 

An economic historian at the University of Torino, Matranga links agriculture to climate change. This is not a new idea — not as such. After all, agriculture developed in lockstep with the end of Ice Ages. For years, this vague link has formed my own pet-theory on the matter.

But I never paused to reflect on the obvious problem with it. There was never an “Ice Age” in Sudan. Why didn’t humans just farm there? 

Matranga has the answer to this and many other puzzles. And surprisingly, his answer is linked to the movements of Jupiter. I will let him tell you why.

We begin this episode covering some previous theories on the origins of agriculture. Next, we dissect Matranga's theory and the evidence for it. Towards the end, we talk about the spread of farming — peaceful and violent — and note a neglected downside to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. As always, we finish with my guest’s reflection on humanity.

LINKS

You can find my summary of Matranga's theory with links to academic articles at ⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠.

Do you like On Humans? Join the group of patrons at ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠!

MENTIONS

Names

V. Gordon Childe | Jared Diamond | Mo Yan | Alain Testart | Robert J. Braidwood | Milutin Milanković | Feng He | James Scott | Richard B. Lee | Irven Devore

Terms

Neolithic | Holocene | Pleistocene | Consumption smoothing | Malthusian limit | Milankovitch cycles

Ethnic groups

Natuffians | Pacific Northwestern hunter-gatherers

Keywords

Anthropology | Archaeology | Big History | Economic History | Agricultural Revolution | Neolithic Revolution | Homo Sapiens | Sapiens | Climate change | Paleoclimatology | Seasonality | Origins of Agriculture | Neolithic Revolution | Climate Change | Hunter-Gatherers | Human Civilization | Population Growth | Sedentary Lifestyle | Subsistence Farming | Evolutionary Adaptation | State Violence | Agricultural Coercion | Ancient DNA

You are driving a car. The brakes stop working. To your horror, you are approaching a busy street market. Many people might be killed if you run into them. The only way to prevent a catastrophe is by turning fast to the right. Unfortunately, a lonely pedestrian might be killed if you do so. 

Should you turn? Many people say you should. After all, killing one is better than killing many. But following the same logic, would you kill an individual to collect their organs for people in dire need of one? In this case, too, you would kill one to save many. Yet very few are willing to do so.

Why?

These are variations of the infamous “trolley problems”. Originally formulated half a century ago, these trolley problems continue to elicit heated conversations. They have a whole ⁠meme culture⁠ built around them. Yet for years, I was not convinced of their value. They seemed to squeeze ethics into narrow funnels of “yeses" and "noes", neglecting much of real life's texture.

I have changed my mind. And I’ve done so largely thanks to Peter Railton.

A professor of philosophy at UC Michigan, Railton used to share my scepticism about the trolley problems. But he, too, changed his mind. Having in-depth conversations about them with his students, Railton came to see these problems as revealing some important about morality. Combined with recent evidence from psychology and neuroscience, Railton believes that these insights can reveal a lot about the human mind more generally.

I will let him tell you why.

SUPPORT

Do you like On Humans? You can become a member of the generous group of patrons at Patreon.com/OnHumans!

MENTIONS

Names: Philippa Foot; Judith Tarvis Johnson; Joshua Greene; Daniel Kahnemann; Amos Trevsky; Antonio Damasio; John Stuart Mill; Michael Tomasello; Philip Kitcher (see episode 2); Oliver Scott Curry; David Hume

Dilemmas & games: Trolley problems (Switch, Footbridge, Loop, Beckon, Wave), Gummy Bear task (from Tomasello et al.); Gambling Tasks (from Damasio et al.); Ultimatum Game

Terms: Utilitarianism; consequentialism; deontology; rule utilitarianism; trait utilitarianism; virtue & character ethics

Articles: Links to academic papers and more can be accessed via OnHumans.Substack.com.

Keywords: ethics, moral philosophy, morality, moral progress, trolley problem, morality, moral psychology, fMRI, neuroscience, cross-cultural psychology, behavioural economics, comparative psychology, gay rights, moral anthropology, cultural anthropology, philosophical anthropology, sharing, sociality, cooperation, altruism, prosociality, utilitarianism, deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, Chinese philosophy, daoism, taoism, Confucianism

The Industrial Revolution played in the hands of the rich. A century after James Watt revealed his steam engine in 1776, the richest 1% owned a whopping 70% of British wealth. Then things changed. Across rich countries, inequality plummeted for decades. 

Join Branko Milanovic on this quest to understand the evolution of inequality during the building of modern prosperity. Our conversation ranges from Karl Marx to the "golden age” of American capitalism and from Yugoslavia’s market socialism to China's rise.

To explore this theme with the help of graphs and visuals, see my essay at OnHumans.Substack.com.

SUPPORT THE SHOW

On Humans is free and without ads. If you want to support my work, you can do so at Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Thank you for all my existing supporters for their invaluable help in keeping the show running!

ANNOUNCEMENT

I'm writing a book! It is about the history of humans, for readers of all ages. Patreon members get access to early drafts. Chapters 1-3 are available now.

The Industrial Revolution did not create modern prosperity. Indeed, the British workers saw little or no improvements in their wages between 1750 and 1850. They did, however, experience ever-worsening working conditions.

Then things changed. Britain became a democracy. And with democracy, the economy changed, too.

Or so argues Daron Acemoglu, one of the most influential economists alive. You can either listen to the episode here, or read some highlights and commentary at Onhumans.Substack.com/

ANNOUNCEMENT

I'm writing a book! It is about the history of humans, for readers of all ages. Do you want access to early drafts? Become a member on ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

For millenia, patriarchy, population growth, and extractive elites made the world a bleak place for most humans. But there are good news, too: everything changed around 1870. And the changed happened due to the taming of the genius of people like Nikolai Tesla.

So runs the argument my guest today, Brad DeLong. I will let him explain it to you. You can either listen to the episode here, or read some highlights and commentary at Onhumans.Substack.com/

ANNOUNCEMENT

I'm writing a book! It is about the history of humans, for readers of all ages. Do you want access to early drafts? Become a member on ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

We live longer and grow taller than ever before. We are healthier and wealthier. Our ancestors could hardly have imagined a life of such prosperity. A future archaeologist would be equally puzzled. How did we become so rich so fast? What changes could have been so dramatic as to literally change the height of our species?

Our modern prosperity is not the outcome of slow and steady progress. For most of human history, there was no upward trend in the health and wealth of the average human. The big events of history rarely changed the life of the local farmer.

So what changed?

"The Birth of Modern Prosperity" is a four-part series exploring the recent revolution in the human condition. The series is composed of curated highlights from interviews with leading economic historians. Each episode introduces one leading theory about the origins of our modern experience. While doing so, they offer fresh answers to many old questions, such as: Is technological innovation a force for good? Did the Industrial Revolution benefit the masses? Is the world more or less equal than before?

The series will explore these topics from four angles: 

1. Education, Family, & Colonialism (with Oded Galor)
2. Inventors & Engineers (with Brad DeLong)
3. Democracy & Labour (with Daron Acemoglu)
4. Equality & Inequality (with Branko Milanovic) 

Today's episode is part 1 with Oded Galor, author ofThe Journey of Humanity: Origins of Wealth and Inequality. The original episodes are numbers 12 and 13.

We discuss:

• The long arch of human history
• Why improvements in technology have rarely benefitted the masses
• Why this changed around the 1870s.
• The virtuous cycle of technology, education, and prosperity

We also compare the economic history of Britain and India to shed light on how colonialism has enforced age-old obstacles to prosperity.

ANNOUNCEMENT

I'm writing a book! It is about the history of humans, for readers of all ages. Do you want access to early drafts? Become a member on ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

MORE LINKS

Want to support the show? Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠⁠

Over half a century, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has challenged many of our myths about parenting, attachment, and "human nature".

In this conversation, we dive into her remarkable career, culminating in her new book, Father Time.

[You can now order Father Time via Amazon or Princeton Uni Press]

We discuss a variety of topics, from hunter-gatherer parenting to the limitations of comparing humans to chimpanzees. We also discuss "allomothers", attachment theory, and the tragedy of infanticide. We finish with a discussion on the remarkable social changes in fatherhood and the neuroscience that has enabled it.

As always, we finish with Hrdy’s reflections on humanity.

Timestamps

(04:15) Myths

(10:10) Attachment Theory 

(20:50) Hunter-Gatherers

(24:30) Modern Parenting 

(26:00) Infanticide 

(34:00) Monkey parenting (in South America)

(36:10) Why we share 

(40:00) Husbands, grannies, or aunties?

(43:10) Father Brains

ANNOUNCEMENT

I'm writing a book! It is about the history of humans, for readers of all ages. Do you want access to early drafts? Become a member on Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

LINKS

Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠

Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠⁠

MENTIONS

Terms: allomothers, mobile hunter-gatherers (i.e. immediate return foragers), matrilineal and patrilineal kin

Names: Edward O. Wilson, Robert Trivers, John Bowlby, John Watson, Charles Darwin, Mary Ainsworth, Melvin Konner, Barry Hewlett, Nikhil Chaudhary (#34), Nancy Howell, Martin Daly, Margot Wilson, Amanda Reese, Judith Burkart, Carl Von Schaik, Alessandra Cassar, Ivan Jablonka, Kristen Hawkes (#6), Ruth Feldman (#3), Richard Lee

Modern cities are unique. Never before have so many people lived so close to each other. But just how unique is our modern cosmopolitanism?

Completely unique, says a traditional theory.

Humans evolved in tiny groups. These groups were not only smaller than modern cities. They were smaller than medieval towns. Indeed, hunter-gatherers often move in bands of 25 people or so. These bands might draw people from a "meta-group" of 150 people — but not more. And so, 150 people is the "maxiimum" group size natural for humans. Or so the theory goes.

My guest today thinks that this is wrong. 

Cecilia Padilla-Iglesias is an evolutionary ecologist who studies hunter-gatherer societies. And her work points to a very different conclusion. Yes, hunter-gatherers spend much of their time in small bands. But these bands can form much larger groups of connections, extending further and further away, even to areas with different languages. Even in the rainforest, cosmopolitanism is the norm.

So what do hunter-gatherer societies look like? And are they really good models of our deep past? We discuss these and other topics in this episode, touching upon topics such as:

(04:00) Living with hunter-gatherers

(10:30) Fluid societies

(14:20) Dunbar’s mistake 

(17:20) Dawkins’ mistake

(21:20) Ancient DNA of hunter-gatherers

(23:20) What made H. Sapiens special?  

(25:40) Mobility, diversity, and technology

(28:20) Sympathy and xenophobia

(34:00) Ancient DNA (again)

(41:30) Jungle cosmopolitanism

(43:40) Was agriculture a mistake?

As always, we end with my guest's reflections on humanity.

LINKS

Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠

Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠

MENTIONS

Names: Richard Dawkins, Kim Hill, David Reich, Andrea Migliano

Books: God Delusion (Dawkins), Who We Are And How We Got Here (Reich), The Human Swarm (Moffett)

Ethnic groups: Bayaka (Congo), Hadza (Tanzania), Ache (Paraguay), Agta (Philippines)

Articles: For links to articles, see OnHumans.Substack.com/p/Links-for-Episode-39-Hunter-Gatherer

Infinity is a puzzling idea. Even young children ponder its various manifestations: What is the biggest number? Does the universe have an edge? Does time have a beginning?

Philosophers have tried to answer these questions since time immemorial. More recently, they have been joined by scientists and mathematicians.

So what have we learned? Can we finally understand infinity? And what has this quest taught us about ourselves? 

To explore this topic, I am joined by philosopher Adrian W. Moore. 

Professor Moore is a special guest for two reasons. First, he is a world expert on infinity, known for an excellent BBC series, "History of the Infinite". More personally, he is the head tutor of Philosophy at St Hugh’s College, Oxford, where I studied my BA in Philosophy and Psychology. It has now been ten years since Prof Moore interviewed me and, for whatever reason, accepted me as a student. I feel honoured to mark the occasion with this episode.

In this episode, we discuss:

(02:35) Why infinity fascinates

(12:20) Greeks on infinity

(20:05) A finite cosmos? 

(25:00) Zeno’s paradoxes

(32:35) Answering Zeno

(42:35) Measuring infinities? Georg Cantor

(54:05) Infinity vs human understanding

(66:20) Mystics on infinity

As always, we finish with Prof Moore’s reflections on humanity.

LINKS

Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠

Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠

MENTIONS

Names: Aristotle; Zeno; Archytus; Ludwig Wittgenstein; Kurt Gödel; Alan Turing; Georg Cantor; William Blake; Immanuel Kant 

Terms: Pythagoreans; Zeno’s paradoxes; calculus; transfinite arithmetic; counting numbers, i.e. positive integers; absolute infinities, or inconsistent totalities

Books: The Infinite (Moore)

Other scholarship: For games on infinite boards, see e.g. the work of Davide Leonessi: https://leonessi.org/

Why are we furless? Why do we cook our food and use spoken language? And how does climate change, sashimi, or the banks of Central America relate to human origins? 

Human evolution is a deeply puzzling topic. But behind this dense mist lies many keys to our self-understanding. To guide us through the foggy territory, I am joined by Dr Ian Tattersall, a curator emeritus at the American Museum of Natural History (New York).

In this episode, Dr Tattersall and I discuss:

(04.00) An ancient climate change

(07:20) First humans

(11:20) Fire

(17:50) Fish

(21:40) Rocks

(24:00) Evolution vs Innovation

(25:30) Brain growth

(36:10) Children

(39:50) Language

(48:20) Why?

As always, we finish with Dr Tattersall's reflections on humanity.

LINKS

Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠

Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠

MENTIONS

Names: Richard Wrangham (see ep. 21), Susan Schaller, Ildefonso, Jane Goodall, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Yuval Noah Harari 

Books: Masters of the Planet (Tattersall), Man Without Words (Schaller), Sapiens (Harari)

Technical terms: Oldowan tool culture (first stone tools, c. 2.5 million years ago), Acheulean hand axe (first major update in stone tools, c. 1.6 million years ago)

Fossils: Lucy (3.2 million years old); Turkana Boy (aka. Nariokotome Boy, 1.6 million years old)

Hominin species: Australopithecines, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens

A note on hominin taxonomy: Homo habilis was traditionally considered the first human and the first maker of stone tools. Dr Tattersall is among the many critics of this old idea. According to him and many others, there is no separate tool-making species called Homo habilis. Rather, Australopithecines started making stone tools without any change in the biology of the species. Also, it is worth noting that Dr Tattersall rejects the traditional view which gives a big role for Homo erectus in the human story. In this traditional view, Turkana Boy’s species, Homo ergaster, is called an African Homo erectus. Dr Tattersall and many others argue that this is a historic hangover with little basis in the biological evidence.

We are conscious creatures. But why? Why did consciousness evolve? Can we use biology to explain the origins of feeling and meaning? Or will consciousness forever escape the grip of the scientific method? 

Eva Jablonka has thought hard about these issues. An eminent evolutionary biologist, she became famous for her pioneering work on epigenetic inheritance. More recently, she has produced very original work on the evolution of consciousness with her colleague, neuroscientist Simona Ginsburg. So invited him on the show to discuss the evolution of consciousness, or what she beautifully calls "the sensitive soul".

In this episode, we discuss themes such as:

(03:00) What is consciousness? 

(10:45) Four links between evolution and consciousness

(27:30) Are robots conscious? Consciousness and vulnerability

(30:45) Which animals are conscious? Consciousness and the Cambrian Explosion.

(34:30) Can science fully explain consciousness?

(48:00) The future of consciousness

As always, we end with Jablonka’s reflections on humanity.

LINKS

Want to support the show? Checkout Patreon.com/OnHumans

Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on OnHumans.Substack.com

MENTIONS

Books: Evolution of the Sensitive Soul, Picturing the Mind (both my Eva Jablonka & Simona Ginsburg)

Terms: Sensitive soul, phenomenal consciousness, intentionality (i.e. "aboutness"), the Cambrian explosion, cephalopods, anthropods, vertebrates

Names: Aristotle, Simona Ginsburg, Jonathan Birch, Antonio Damasio

Why do we love? What brings us together? How to heal ethnic hatred?

According to my guest, the answer to all these questions lies in the human desire to grow ourselves through connecting with others.

Arthur Aron is a psychologist who studies human bonding in all its forms. A pioneer in the field, he has studied topics from connecting with strangers to maintaining romance in life-long marriages. And many of his findings are ultimately hopeful.

In this conversation, we discuss topics such as:

(4:30) Why we love 

(12:50) Tools to cultivate love

(24:30) Friendships with the ethnic "other” 

(31:30) Are we naturally xenophobic?

MENTIONS

Names: Elaine Aron, Helen Fisher, Stephen Wright

Articles: For links to videos, articles, and the 36 Questions, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-35

MORE LINKS

Read the On Humans newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com

Support On Humans at Patreon.com/OnHumans

Can evolution shed light on our mental health?

Nikhil Chaudhary thinks so. He is an anthropologist at the University of Cambridge who specialises in the links between evolution and psychiatry. In this clip, Dr Chaudhary explores the evolutionary origins of ADHD, depression, and anxiety.

For our longer conversation on parenting and family life, see episode 34 of the On Humans Podcast.

We expect a lot from parents, especially from mothers. “Maternal instincts” are such, we are told, that mothers should gain almost literal superpowers from the joy of parenting. 

Unfortunately, many parents face a different reality. Having children can be one of the most stressful times of life, amplified by feelings of guilt and inadequacy. 

Why is this? Is this an inevitable part of the human condition? Or is the fault in our modern society? And how would we know the answer? 

To address these questions, anthropologists have started comparing family lives in industrial societies with those of the last remaining hunter-gatherers. 

Nikhil Chaudhary is one such anthropologist. A researcher at the University of Cambridge, he recently co-authored a remarkable paper on what we have learned about the family lives of hunter-gatherers. I invited him on the show to discuss the findings and their implications.

So what is family life like amongst hunter-gatherers? Chaudhary's research paints a fascinating picture. Indeed, industrial societies can learn a lot from them. But not everything is easy for them, either.

In addition to parenting, our conversation touched upon themes from monogamy and polyamory to parental grief, health spending, and the stark contrast between human and chimpanzee mothers.

MORE RESOURCES

If you enjoy our conversation and want to learn more about hunter-gatherer studies, see episode 14 with Vivek Venkataraman. For more information on the anthropology of monogamy and beyond, see episode 11 with Helen Fisher. 

For written content on this and other conversations, subscribe to the newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com. 

MENTIONS

Names: Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (see upcoming episode this spring), Richard Wrangham (see episode 21), Alan Watts 

Terms: Partible paternity, alloparenting, post-partum depression, the continuum concept, NHS (UK’s National Health Services), human self-domestication (see episode 21)

Ethnic groups: BaYaka (both the Mbendjele in Congo and the Aka in CAR), Ache (in Paraguay), Hadza (in Tanzania), Agta (in the Philippines), Bantu peoples (the major ethnolinguistic group in most southern African countries)

Articles: For links to articles mentioned in this conversation, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-34

SUPPORT

You can support the On Humans podcast by becoming a member at Patreon.com/OnHumans

Happy New Year 2024!

To celebrate the new year, Spotify sent me a bunch of data points about 2023. I was particularly interested in one question: which conversation moved people the most? I already knew which episode people played the most. (That's episode 17 with Bernardo Kastrup.) But to listen is one thing. To share with friends and family is another.

The most shared episode was my conversation with Helen Fisher, titled "A Cultural Biology of Sex, Love, and Monogamy". It was one of my favourite conversations, too. Fisher offered a sweeping take on romantic love, combining fascinating anthropology with practical tips about maintaining passion in relationships. She even convinced my parents to re-design their TV arrangement...

Perhaps it deserves one more share. So here you go!

___

ORIGINAL SHOW NOTES

Why do we love? And how much does our culture shape the way we do so?

In this episode, Ilari talks with Helen Fisher about the powers that drive and shape our romantic relationships. Ilari and Professor Fisher discuss:

• Is romantic love a modern invention?
• Is monogamy a social invention? 
• Do men care more about sex? Do women care more about romance?
• Why agriculture, especially with the plough, caused havoc in romantic relationships.
• Why divorces might be on the decline.
• A science-based guide for maintaining romantic relations (based on couples who are still in love after 25 years)
• Why (certain) antidepressants can kill the sex drive and blunt romantic love (to read more, see the end of the notes)
• How common is polygamy or polyandry? Where in the world do we find most "free love"?
• Why did homosexuality evolve?

Names mentioned

• Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt (as recounted by Alison Gopnik in her The Gardener and the Carpenter)
• Bill Jankowiak
• Robert Sternberg (see episode 7)
• Anderson Thompson
• Bertrand Russell 

Technical terms and ethnic groups mentioned

• Ventral tegmental area VTA
• Hypothalamus
• Dopamine, testosterone, oxytocin, vasopressin, serotonine
• Monogamy (serial or lifelong; social or biological)
• Polygamy (several wives) and polyandry (several husbands) 
• Tlingit (the polyandrous Inuit society with wealthy women)
• Oneida community (in New York State)

Dig Deeper

Antidepressants: To read more about the possible effects of SSRIs on sex drive and romantic love, see ⁠Tocco and Brumbaugh (2019)⁠. Below is a list of possible alternatives or complements to SSRIs (please consult with your doctor in all matters related to pharmaceuticals):

• Fisher herself suggested that SNRIs could be less risky than SSRIs. Theoretically, dopamine reuptake inhibitors, such as bupropion, could also counter the risks associated with SSRIs (for a review, see ⁠Zisook et al. 2006⁠).
• For alternative or complementary oral treatments of depression, see research on supplementation with a high dosage of Omega 3 (EPA and DHA, not ALA) (for a review, see ⁠Bhat & Ara 2015⁠).

Polyamory: In the episode, Professor Fisher suggests that many Amazonian tribes have informal polyandry, i.e. women have many partners, albeit only one formal husband. However, there are ⁠non-academic sources⁠ suggesting that formalised polyandry is common in the Zo’é community in Amazon. For some of these photos of Zo’é and other Amazonian tribes, many of whom exhibit remarkably liberal attitudes to sex, see the ⁠recent Amazonia exhibition⁠ in the London Science Museum.

This is the final episode of 2023. And it is a very odd episode.

My guest is Gregory Forth. He is an anthropologist who specializes in the biological theories of indigenous peoples.

Forth was doing this work on the Flores Island, Indonesia, during the 2003 discovery of a new hominin species: Homo floresiensis. This was an exciting discovery for many. But Forth was, in his own words, "gobsmacked".

In his own studies, Forth had been puzzling over a species the local people called lai ho'a, a creature that was not quite human and not quite monkey. It was something in between. According to the local people, the lai ho'a live deep in the local rainforest. They are difficult to see. But people do see one occasionally. They are about a meter in height, just as Homo floresiensis. And they walk on two legs – a feature that separates humans from other mammals.

So what should we make of all of this? Could Homo floresiensis, or its descendants, still be alive? Or is this just another fantasy in the realm of cryptozoology? And what would it be like to encounter a species that is half human, half ape? What rights would they get? How would it challenge our ideas about "humanity"?

This is my attempt at making sense of this peculiar case. I hope you enjoy it!

READ MORE

To read the full story in detail, I highly recommend Forth’s thoughtful and non-sensetationalist book, ⁠Between an Ape and Human: An Anthropologist on the Trail of a Hidden Hominoid.

I am now publishing episode breakdowns, essays, and much more. Read online or sign up for the newsletter on ⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠! 

SUPPORT

Please consider supporting the show on Patreon.com/OnHumans.

MENTIONS

Ethnic groups: Lio People (on Flores), Southeast Asian “Pygmies” (i.e. indigenous people with very short stature)

Hominin species: Homo floresiensis, Austrolopithecine, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo denisovans, Homo sapiens

Capitalism can cause massive economic inequalities. Indeed, a century after Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, the richest 1% owned a record-breaking 70% of England’s wealth. Not surprisingly, this era saw the rise of a very different economic theorist: Karl Marx. [You can see this and many other graphs here.]

But does capitalism have to increase inequality? If so, why was the golden age of American capitalism an era of rapidly decreasing inequality? Was this “Great Levelling” a natural product of capitalist development, as theorised by Simon Kuznets? Or was it a historical anomaly resulting from the two world wars and political interventions, as argued by Thomas Piketty?

Yet more questions emerge if we take a more global outlook. Was the Great Levelling within rich countries but a veil behind which they plundered the Global South, making capitalism an inherent engine of global inequality? If so, why has global inequality reduced during the recent era of globalised capitalism?

There are very few people who can judge these questions with the same nuance and understanding as Branko Milanović. Milanović is a leading scholar of global inequality. But he is also a particularly sensitive commentator on capitalism. Born in communist Yugoslavia, Milanović has a rare ability to look at capitalism from an arms-length, without indoctrinated faith but also with a deep appreciation of the limits of its alternatives. 

I hope you enjoy our conversation!

VISUAL DATA

We discuss a lot of numbers in this episode. You can find a lot of relevant graphs in my Substack post:

https://onhumans.substack.com/p/the-evolution-of-inequality-under

To follow Milanović's own work, and get a lot of more graphs, see his many books and his blog "Global Inequality" at https://branko2f7.substack.com/

SUPPORT

I hope you enjoy the conversation. If you do, consider becoming a supporter of On Humans on ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

MENTIONS

Names: Karl Marx, Alexis de Tocqueville, Brad DeLong (see episode 18 & season 1 highlights), Simon Kuznets, Arthur Berns, Thomas Piketty,  Gabriel Zucman, Emmanuel Saez, Jason Hickel, François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Vilfredo Pareto

Names: Gini coefficient, Kuznets-curve, Mondragon (a Spanish cooperative), homoploutia (when the rich both own capital and work for an income) 

Books: Visions of Inequality (Milanovic), Capital (Marx), Capital in the 21st Century (Piketty), Global Inequality (Milanovic), Capitalism, Alone (Milanovic)

The tension between science and religion is perhaps the greatest tension of our age. Is the world fundamentally made of atoms, quarks, and quantum fields? Or is the material world but a secondary realm, lesser in meaning to the kingdom of God?

There are many iterations of this tension. But there are also bridge-builders; thinkers who want to bridge science and religion — or at the very least, science and spirituality. My guest today is one of them.

Donald Hoffman is a vision scientist, who has come to the dramatic conclusion that space and time are not fundamental. They are, according to him, just parts and parcels of our perception. Therefore objects, molecules, and atoms are not fundamental. Consciousness is.

We explored the scientific case for Hoffman's theory in episode 30. In this 2nd part, we explore its relationship with spirituality.

What if Hoffman is right? Should we live our lives any differently? What is the meaning of life in a world without space or time? Do we find God behind Hoffman's mathematics?

You can enjoy this conversation without listening to the previous one.

ESSAYS AND NEWSLETTER

You can now find breakdowns and analyses of new conversations from ⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠.

SUPPORT

I hope you enjoy the conversation. If you do, consider becoming a supporter of On Humans on ⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠. 

MENTIONS

Names: Albert Einstein, Rupert Spira, Dalai Lama (H.H. the 14th), Joseph Dweck

Terms: Canor's hierarchy, entropy

The world is governed by objective laws of physics. They explain the movements of planets, oceans, and cells in our bodies. But can they ever explain the feelings and meanings of our mental lives?

This problem, called the hard problem of consciousness, runs very deep. No satisfactory explanation exists. But many think that there must, in principle, be an explanation.

A minority of thinkers disagree. According to these thinkers, we will never be able to explain mind in terms of matter. We will, instead, explain matter in terms of mind. I explored this position in some detail in episode 17.

But hold on, you might say. Is this not contradicted by the success of natural sciences? How could a mind-first philosophy ever explain the success of particle physics? Or more generally, wouldn't any scientist laugh at the idea that mind is more fundamental than matter?

No — not all of them laugh. Some take it very seriously.

Donald Hoffman is one such scientist. Originally working with computer vision at MIT's famous Artificial Intelligence Lab, Hoffman started asking a simple question: What does it mean to "see" the world? His answer starts from a simple idea: perception simplifies the world – a lot. But what is the real world like? What is “there” before our perception simplifies the world? Nothing familiar, Hoffman claims. No matter. No objects. Not even a three-dimensional space. And no time. There is just consciousness.

This is a wild idea. But it is a surprisingly precise idea. It is so precise, in fact, that Hoffman’s team can derive basic findings in particle physics from their theory. 

A fascinating conversation was guaranteed. I hope you enjoy it. If you do, consider becoming a supporter of On Humans on ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠. 

ESSAYS AND NEWSLETTER

You can now find breakdowns and analyses of new conversations from ⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠. Subscribe to the newsletter to get every new piece to fresh from the shelf.

MENTIONS

Names: David Gross, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Edward Whitten, Nathan Seiberg, Andrew Strominger, Edwin Abbott, Nick Bostrom, Giulio Tononi, Keith Frankish, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Roger Penrose, Sean Carroll,  Swapan Chattopadhyay

Terms (Physics and Maths): quantum fields, string theory, gluon, scattering amplitude, amplituhedron, decorated permutations, bosons, leptons, quarks, Planck scale, twistor theory, M-theory, multiverse, recurrent communicating classes, Cantor’s hierarchy (relating to different sizes of infinity... If this sounds weird, stay tuned for full episode on infinity. It will come out in a month or two.)

Terms (Philosophy and Psychology): Kant’s phenomena and noumena, integrated information theory, global workspace theory, orchestrated objective reduction theory, attention schema theory

Books: Case Against Reality by Hoffman, Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker

Articles etc.: For links to articles, courses, and more, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-30

How natural is a sexual division of labour? Very natural, claims a popular theory. Indeed, it was the secret to our success: men evolved to hunt, women to forage. This allowed women to focus on childcare while staying economically productive; after all, one can gather food with children. Men, on the other hand, could focus on high-risk hunting. At the end of the day, everyone could have steak and veggies for dinner.

But why exactly do we say this? Is this based on solid evidence? Or are we simply projecting our gender roles onto the human past?

A recent piece in Scientific American argued that this theory is outdated and should be "buried for good". As you might imagine, some heated discussion ensued. This is understandable. But I felt that much of the science was lost under the storm. To clean things up, I invited one of the authors, Cara Ocobock, to discuss the paper on the show.

I hope this can clarify the argument. It might even clear some of the unnecessary controversy. At the very least, this was a very stimulating discussion! I learned a lot of things, from the remarkable lifestyle of female Neanderthals to how oestrogen helps in muscle recovery. 

I hope you enjoy the conversation! If you do, consider becoming a supporter of On Humans on Patreon.com/OnHumans. 

ESSAYS AND NEWSLETTER

Do you prefer reading to listening? You can now find breakdowns of new conversations from OnHumans.Substack.com. (This conversation's breakdown is now available!)

MENTIONS

Scholars: Sarah Lacy, Cara Wall-Sheffler, Vivek Venkataraman (ep. 14), Frank Marlow, Kristen Hawkes (ep. 6), Angela Saini, Richard Wrangham (ep. 21)

Terms: archaeology, physiology, paleoanthropology, Holocene, Pleistocene, atlatl (spear-thrower), CT scanning, lactation, testosterone, oestrogen 

Ethnic groups and places: Martu (Australia), Agta (Philippines) Inuit, Batek (Malaysia), Çatalhöyük (Turkey)

Books: Patriarchs (Saini), Why Men (Lindisfarne & Neale), Dawn of Everything (Graeber & Wengrow)

For articles and other links, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-29

Thank you, as always, for listening!

“Why do we care about equality? Is it an invention of the European Enlightenment? Or is it something rooted in human nature?”

These questions launched episode 15 with philosopher Elizabeth Anderson. Titled “A Deep History of Equality”, our conversation ranged from Pleistocene hunter-gatherers to Chinese communism. 

Today’s episode continues the quest. But this time, we go further and contrast humans to other apes and monkeys. 

My guest is the primatologist Sarah Brosnan. Her research is famous for a wildly popular video clip of a monkey who, frustrated by unequal treatment, throws a cucumber at the experimenter. You might have seen the video. Do watch it if you have not. It's only 58 seconds long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

I saw this clip years ago. It resonated with something in me. But what exactly? Why should we care about monkeys throwing cucumbers? Are the critics right who say that this has nothing to do with human values?

It was an honour to discuss this with Prof Brosnan herself. We start by exploring cucumber throwing (i.e. "inequity aversion") in a variety of species. We then move to topics such as:

1. Can monkeys learn more egalitarian social norms?
2. How do monkeys (or chimpanzees) react to unfairness when they are the ones benefitting?
3. Answering the critics: is this really about social equality?
4. Does fairness improve cooperation?
5. Are there property rights in the primate world?
6. Is there still something special about humans?

As always, we end with my guest's reflections on human nature.

I hope you enjoy the conversation!

NEW OFFERING

Do you prefer reading to listening? Or would you like to revisit the argument’s highlights? You can now get breakdowns of this and other episodes directly to your email. Subscribe via the On Humans SubStack or read on the web.

The breakdown of this conversation is available now!

NAMES

Malini Suchak / Frans de Waal / Julia Neiworth / Erin Musto / Friederike Range / Jason Davies / Michael Tomasello / Felix Waerneken 

LINKS

For links to mentioned papers and talks, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-28.

SUPPORT THE SHOW

⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠

GET IN TOUCH

[email protected]

The human brain is sometimes called the "most complex thing in the universe”. It allows us to study ourselves, other animals, and the cosmos itself. Indeed, we often think of our brain as the pinnacle of animal evolution.

But what do we actually know about the human brain? How different is it from the brain of an elephant? A chimpanzee? A raccoon? And if our brain is not the biggest in the animal kingdom (it is not), then what, if anything, makes it worth the hype?

To discuss this topic, I am joined by the Brazilian neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel. An associate professor at Vanderbilt University, Herculano-Houzel has done more than perhaps any living human to help us understand these questions. And her work has a wonderful capacity to explain why the human brain is so remarkable, but simultaneously, why it still fits within the broader patterns we see in other animals. (That’s unlike the elephant, the raccoon, or the chimpanzee. Their brains are truly special, she says.)

Herculano-Houzel’s work also suggests an answer to one of the biggest question in human evolution: If a big brain is a good idea, why didn’t all other animals grow one?

As always, the conversation finishes with my guest's reflections on humanity.

Thank you, as always, for listening!

(You can also keep scrolling down to find some useful bits, such as useful links and lists of terms, names, and numbers mentioned in the episode conversation. Or do you prefer reading to listening? Or wish to get back to some highlights? From the 5th of October onwards, you can also read a breakdown of this conversation on Substack⁠.)

LEARN MORE

To get longer show notes (plus essays based on the episodes), subscribe to On Humans on Substack.

https://OnHumans.substack.com/

To get highlights in video format, check out On Humans on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/@OnHumansPodcast

Patreon supporters can access more bonus material.

⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠

MENTIONS

Technical terms

The (cerebral) cortex / The cerebellum / Neurons / Stereology / The grandmother hypothesis (see episode 6)  

Names

Harry Jerison

Numbers

Neurons in the whole brain of humans (86 billion) and elephants (257 billion)

Neurons in the cerebral cortex of humans (16 billion), great apes (6-8 billion), elephants (5-6 billion), dolphins & whales (1-4 billion, based on estimations), baboons (2- 3 billion), t-rex (2-3 billion based on estimates), smaller monkeys (1-3 billion), raccoons (over 1 billion), crows (a notch less than 1 billion)

Links

T-rex video: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1tEnm53zDs⁠

Herculano-Houzel’s TED talk (viewed almost 4 million times): ⁠https://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain?language=en⁠

SUPPORT THE SHOW

You can support the show for free by sharing episodes, subscribing to the show, and rating it on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

To show some serious support, join the group of wonderful people supporting the show financially.

⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

How literally can we be in "synch" with someone?

Very literally, said my guest in episode 3. Originally titled “A Musical Biology of Love”, this was a fascinating episode with jazz musician and neuroscientist Ruth Feldman. We recorded the episode one year ago, almost to the day. I have thought a lot about it ever since. So here it is again, with remastered audio and a new introduction. Original show notes are below. Enjoy!

____

SUPPORT THE SHOW

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠⁠⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_____

Can biology expand our appreciation of love? What is the relationship between jazz and neuroscience? What does it mean to be in "synch" with someone? 

Ruth Feldman is a professor of neuroscience at Reichman University, Israel, with a joint appointment at the Yale Child Story Centre. A jazz musician before being a neuroscientist, Feldman combines musical ideas of synchrony into her research on the neurobiology of attachment, bonding, and love.

Ilari and Professor Feldman discuss topics such as:

• Why study the biology of love
• What happens in the brain when we love
• Brain-to-brain synchrony: How love (and friendship) can synchronize our brains with each other
• Oxytocin with loved ones, strangers, and enemies
• Post-partum depression
• Parental love in gay dads
• Females and males as primary caregivers
• The relationship between brain-to-brain synchrony and oxytocin
• Empathy within and beyond group boundaries with Israeli and Palestinian youth
• Attachment theory, attachment problems, and ways to overcome them

Technical terms mentioned

• Oxytocin
• Brain oscillations (i.e. brain waves)
• EEG (a method to study brain oscillations)
• Neuropeptide
• ⁠Kangaroo care⁠ (after premature birth)

Names mentioned

• Wallace Stevens (American poet)
• Emmanuel Levinas (French philosopher)
• John Bowlby (founder of the attachment theory)

Other links and reference

• ⁠Brain-to-brain synchrony⁠
• Gay dads: ⁠original research⁠ & ⁠TIME Magazine article⁠
• ⁠Intervention with depressed moms⁠

Machines allow us to do more work with less effort. They sound like an obviously good thing. But there is a tension here. New gadgets and new technologies - new simple “machines” - have been invented throughout history. But it looks like the living standard of the average person did not change for most of that time.

So what happened to all the extra output from new technologies? And how is this relevant to our age of computers, robots, and AI? 

To discuss these themes, I am joined by MIT professor Daron Acemoglu. Acemoglu is a true legend in his field. In 2015, he was ranked the single most cited economist of the past 10 years. And his most famous book, Why Nations Fail, (co-authored with James Robinson) is known by many students of economics as the only history book they ever had to read. 

But today’s conversation is not about Why Nations Fail. It is about Acemoglu’s new book, Power and Progress: Our 1000-Year Struggle Over Technology (co-authored with Simon Johnson).

In many ways, this is a typical Acemoglu book: it is a doorstopper that uses an array of historical lessons to draw messages for the present. And as before, it asks economists to take democratic politics more seriously.

But in other ways, this is quite different from his previous books. For me, it felt much darker – especially in its portrayal of rich countries such as the US. But Acemoglu affirmed to me that he is still an optimist. He even tells me that the reason is related to the theme of this podcast series... I will let him tell you why.

We discuss topics such as:

• Why have so many machines failed to benefit the common folk? 
• Why things changed for the better in the late 1800s - and why my past guests are wrong about the reasons?
• Have we started backsliding again? 
• Does this explain the political turmoil of today - especially in the US?
• Why Acemoglu is not against technological progress - but has a message to tech leaders 
• What has his work in economics taught Acemoglu about humanity?

____

SUPPORT THE SHOW

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠⁠⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_____

Oded Galor (episodes 12 & 13), Brad DeLong (episode 18) / Josh Ober / Ian Morris / Samuel Bowles / Herbert Gintis /John Hicks / H. J. / Robert Allen / Habakkuk / Joel Mokyr / Elon Musk / Pascual Restrepo

Other terms and references

Malthusian dynamics (of population growth “eating away” any increases in production) 

Chartists and Luddites (19th Century British political movements)

To complete a trilogy on the anthropology of war, here is episode 8 from the archives. Enjoy!

SUPPORT THE SHOW

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠⁠⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_______

Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short”. Recently, various scholars have claimed that Hobbes was basically right: our ancestors lived in a state of constant raiding and chronic warfare. Indeed, some have suggested that as many as 15% of ancestral humans died due to war. And the claims are made with the utmost confidence.

But there is something disturbing about this confidence. The earliest archaeological records of war are only c. 14,000 years old. And many anthropologists working with modern-day hunter-gatherers claim that they tend to be remarkably peaceful. 

The literature around this question is dense and difficult to penetrate. This episode aims to make it a notch more accessible. 

Douglas P. Fry is an anthropologist and a leading scholar on the topic. He has written extensively about the origins of war in books such as War, Peace and Human Nature. His papers on the matter have been published in top journals such as Science. And his conclusions might be surprising to many.

In this discussion, Ilari and Professor Fry talk about:

• The archaeological evidence for the origins of war.
• Why do some hunter-gatherers wage war? Why does Fry think that most of them do not? And why is the data in ⁠Better Angels of Our Nature⁠ so misleading - even fabricated?
• How common is lethal violence in mammals more generally? 
• How violent was the human Pleistocene (over 11,700 years ago)? Does it matter?

Ethnic groups mentioned

• Pacific Northwest hunter-gatherers (hunter-gatherer groups well-known for having complex “civilisation”, including social hierarchies, warfare and slavery)
• Calusa (a complex hunter-gatherer group in Florida)
• Tiwi (Australian hunter-gathers who are atypical for having clans and a high level of lethal violence)
• Andaman Islanders (in the Bay of Bengal)
• Iñupiaq (the warring Inuit group, which was not named in the discussion)

Names and technical terms

• Herbert Manscher
• Jane Goodall (primatologist who recorded so-called Gombe wars in chimpanzees)
• Steven Pinker 
• Samuel Bowles 
• Leslie Sponsel 
• Christopher Boehm
• C. Darwent, J. Darwent 

References

• Misreported “war deaths” in Better Angles of Out Nature (⁠Fry & Söderberg 2019⁠) and lethal violence in hunter-gatherers (⁠Fry & Söderberg 2013⁠)
• Lethal violence in mammals (⁠Gomez et al. 2016⁠) and in archaeological skeletons (⁠Haas & Piscitelli)⁠ 
• Cooperation in a spatial prisoner’s dilemma (⁠Aktipis 2004)⁠
• Peace systems (⁠video⁠ & ⁠the Nature article⁠)

Is war natural for humans? This question launched episode 8 of this podcast. In that episode, anthropologist Douglas Fry argued that war is a new phenomenon. Yes, history is full of wars. But war arrived on stage only 10-15 thousand years ago – or in many areas, much later. And while war is undoubtedly part of human capacity, it is hardly our hardwired inclination. 

But what about chimpanzees, I asked him. They wage war. And according to many chimpanzee experts, they gang up on strangers whenever they can do so with ease. Does this not show that humans, too, are biologically programmed for feuding, raiding, and eventually, warfare? Is it not the case, then, that peace is a social invention – war the biological norm?

No, Fry answered. But to understand why, he told me, I must wait until his colleague releases a book on the topic. 

That book is out now. Chimpanzee, War, and History is written by Fry’s long-time collaborator, R. Brian Ferguson. It goes through every chimpanzee killing on the record. And it argues that chimpanzee violence has been deeply misunderstood. The book was detailed, dense, and important. It was an eye-opener for me. So it was a pleasure to have Professor Ferguson come on the show to talk about it. 

We touched upon questions such as:

1. How often do chimpanzees kill others? 
2. Why do chimpanzees kill others (when they do)?
3. Is human impact the only reason for chimpanzee wars?
4. Do chimpanzees and humans enjoy violence?
5. Does war go forever back? 

____

SUPPORT THE SHOW

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: ⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_____

Scholars mentioned 

Albert Einstein / Sigmund Freud / Michael Ghiglieri / Richard Wrangham; episode 21 / Brian Burkhalter / Leslie Sponsel / Douglas Fry; episode 8

Chimpanzee groups

Kahama and Kasakela group (in Gombe) 

K- and M-groups (in Mahale)

Ngogo (in Kibale)

Other links 

Video of a chimpanzee raid (narrated by David Attenborough)

Essays, articles, and other materials by R. Brian Ferguson are available on his personal website

What does war do to the human psyche? It can traumatise. It can cause grief. It can normalise violence and make demons out of the enemy. But difficult times can also elevate our care and compassion. And while much of the new solidarity is focused on those on “our side”, the helping hand does not always stop at the border.

Or so argues anthropologist Greta Uehling, the author of Everyday War (2023). Building on over 150 interviews with Ukrainian civilians and ex-combatants, Uehling’s work brings depth and nuance to the topic - a topic often simplified by naive contrasts between peaceful care and brutal violence. Profoundly optimistic in ways, Uehling is still far from romanticising war. Rather, she paints a humane picture of people finding meaning from the challenges of violent conflict.

Dr Uehling sat down with Ilari to discuss various stories and lessons from Ukraine. As always, the episode finishes with Dr Uehling's own views on humanity.

Mentioned scholars

Yuval Noah Harari / Paul Ricoeur / Hans-Georg Gadamer

Names of the Ukrainian respondents have been altered to protect their identity

_________

SUPPORT THE SHOW

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: ⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

Humans are odd in many ways. But perhaps the oddest of our features is our upright posture. We walk on two legs. And we are the only mammal to do so. 

So why do we walk upright? And why does it matter? 

Jeremy DeSilva is a fossil expert and a professor of paleoanthropology at Dartmouth College. He is also the author of a remarkable book, aptly titled First Steps: How Upright Walking Made Us Human

[An audio version of First Steps is now offered to you for free from Audible! See links and eligibility below.]

DeSilva’s treatment of the subject is sweeping: while tracing the journey of human posture, he draws remarkable links between bipedalism and many facets of the human condition from difficult births to complex language and from lower back pains to the beauty of friendships.

In this episode, we talk about questions such as:

1. What Darwin got right and wrong about the role of walking in human evolution
2. When and why did we start walking upright?
3. Why the common picture of human evolution is wrong - and what would be a better picture
4. Why walking makes us fragileHow our ancestors survived bone fractures - and this is a big deal
5. Why human birth is so difficult
6. Why walking is so good for us: introducing the “myokines”
7. What studying the human journey has taught DeSilva about our species

_________

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_________

Names mentioned

Charles Darwin / Ian Tattersall / Donal Johanson / Mary Leakey / Sherwood Washburn / Richard Wrangham (ep 21) / Kristen Hawkes (ep 6) / Holly Dunsworth / Daniel Lieberman 

Mentioned hominin species

Sahelanthropus / Ardipithecus / Auroren tugenensis / Austrolepithecus (e.g. Lucy) / Homo habilis / Homo erectus / Homo sapiens

Read more

Check out the books below to dig deeper! You can now get one of them for free as an Audible audiobook.*

1. First Steps by Jeremy DeSilva
2. Ancient Bones by Madelaine Böhme
3. The Improbable Primate by Clive Finlayson

To get your free book, set up an Audible account via the following link

⁠https://amzn.to/3qMMshw⁠

You gain one free credit which you can use for a book of your choice.

* Offer is not available for current Audible customers.

Here is a common view on human development: In the beginning, children can only think about themselves. Slowly, they learn to care about others — or more cynically, they learn to pretend that they care about others. Variations of this view have been promoted by thinkers from Sigmund Freud to Richard Dawkins. This view has then been used to make predictable conclusions about ethics: human morality is either a social construct —  fearfully internalized — or a clever tactic, used by selfish individuals to reap the benefits of teamwork. 

But what evidence do we actually have about young children’s motivations? Do they genuinely not care about others? 

To discuss these questions I have Dr Amrisha Vaish on the show. Vaish is a developmental psychologist at the University of Virginia, famous for her work on pro-social motivations in young children. We discuss issues such as:

1. How spontaneous is it for young children to help others?
2. Why do children help others? Do they want praise or do they genuinely care about others?
3. How early does empathy emerge? 
4. Different forms of empathy; or the subtle difference between matching others’ emotions versus caring about others’ emotios?
5. What should parents do to help children grow to be more caring?
6. Neurodiversity and empathy in autism
7. Is anyone born a psychopath? 
8. Where does mundane cruelty (e.g. to animals) come from?
9. The difference between sympathy and guilt; and why does the latter emerge later?
10. What decades of studying young children has taught Vaish about our species

_________

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: Patreon.com/OnHumans

Get in touch: [email protected]

_________

Scholars mentioned

Sigmund Freud / Felix Waerneken / Michael Tomasello / Robert Hepach / Joan Grusec / Maayan Davidov / Daniel Batson / Audun Dahl / Celia Brownell / Martin Hoffman / Jan Engelman / Vikram Jaswhwal / Paul Bloom / Peter Singer / Richard Dawkins / Jean Decety / Scott Barry Kaufman / Simon Baron-Cohen 

Books mentioned

Altruism in Humans (by Daniel Batson) / The Last Manchu (Memoirs of Emperor Puyi) / Transcend (by Scott Barry Kaufman)

Read more

The books below are curated for those interested in learning more about the topic. Listeners of the On Humans podcast are eligible to get one of them for free as an Audible audiobook.*

1. Becoming Human (Michael Tomasello)
2. Just Babies (Paul Bloom)

To get your free book, set up an Audible account via the following link.

https://amzn.to/3qMMshw

You gain one free credit which you can use for a book of your choice.

* Offer is not available for current Audible customers. However, current customers can access Becoming Humans for free via Audible's PLUS catalogue.

What would a Neanderthal think about our species? What about a chimpanzee? When compared to our cousins, how friendly or violent are we?

Richard Wrangham is a chimpanzee expert and professor of human biology at Harvard. He is one of the most important evolutionary anthropologists alive and truly one of the dream guests for this podcast. It was a great honour to have him on the show. We discuss topics such as:

1. What makes studying chimpanzees interesting
2. Why you could not put 100 chimps on a plane (and not see a fight)
3. What about bonobos?
4. The goodness paradox: or why Wrangham thinks that humans are both a remarkably friendly and a relatively violent ape.
5. Are humans a child-like ape?
6. Why human skulls resemble dogs, not wolves
7. What five decades of research have taught Wrangham about humans

Mentioned scholars

Jane Goodall / Takayoshi Kano / Martin Surbeck / Michael Wilson / Kim Hill / Victoria Burbank / Brian Hare / Dimitri Belyaev / Lyudmila Trut / Adam Wilkins / Tecumseh Fitch / Stephen Jay Gould / Michael Tomasello / Christopher Boehm / Douglas P. Fry / Amar Sarkar

Mentioned papers

• Neural crest cells
• Neurobiology of aggression

Further reading and a FREE audiobook offer:

Below is a list of further book recommendations written for the general audience. You might be eligible to get one of these books for free from Audible. 

• Reason For Hope (by Jane Goodall). A mix of a scientific memoir and a philosophical inquiry. Read beautifully by the author.
• How to Tame a Fox (by Lyudmila Trut and Lee Dugatkin). Story of the remarkable experiment on domesticated foxes.
• The Chimpanzee Whisperer (by David Blissett and Stany Nyandwi). The story of a man who learns to pant-hoot with chimpanzees.

How to get your free audiobook from Audible (if eligible, see terms & conditions behind the link):

1. Start an Audible account or re-activate your old one using this link: https://amzn.to/3qMMshw.
2. Once your account is live, you will get one free credit. You can use this on the book of your choice. 

BECOME A SPONSOR?Please consider becoming a monthly donor via Patreon! Patreon.com/OnHumans

GET IN TOUCH

Email: ilari@onhumansorg

A suggestive timeline of human evolution (estimated years ago) 

• c. 6 million years ago: Last common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos 
• 4 — 3 million years ago: Australopithecines
• 2.5 — 1.5 million years ago: Homo habilis (arguably the first human)
• 2 million — 100 thousand years ago: Homo erectus (first “proper” human according to Wrangham)
• 600 thousand — 300 thousand: Homo heidelbergensis (evolving to Neanderthals and us)
• 300 thousand — today : Homo sapiens 

Season 2 is kicking off on the 17th of June! In the meanwhile, we have time for a couple of more highlights. This one is from episode 18 with economic historian Brad Delong, author of Slouching Towards Utopia.

In this highlight from season 1, Ilari talks with economist Oded Galor about how factors such as soil quality can explain cultural differences, such as variations in the level of patriarchy. For the full episode and show notes, see episode 13. For the first episode with Galor, see episode 12.

Season 2 is out in June! Do consider subscribing to stay updated. 

In this highlight from season 1, Helen Fisher discusses her research with couples deeply in love after 20 years of marriage. The clip also includes Fisher's 7 science-based tips for fostering romantic relationships, and a cautionary note on SSRI (not SNRI) antidepressants.

Dig deeper

To read more about the possible effects of SSRIs on sex drive and romantic love, see ⁠Tocco and Brumbaugh (2019)⁠. Below is a short list of some possible alternatives and/or complements to SSRIs (please consult with your doctor in all matters related to pharmaceuticals):

• Fisher herself suggested that SNRIs could be less risky than SSRIs. Theoretically, dopamine reuptake inhibitors, such as bupropion, could also counter the risks associated with SSRIs (for a review, see ⁠Zisook et al. 2006⁠).
• For alternative or complementary oral treatments of depression, see research on supplementation with a high dosage of Omega 3 (EPA and DHA, not ALA) (for a review, see ⁠Bhat & Ara 2015⁠).

In this highlight from season 1, Kristen Hawkes presents an intriguing hypothesis about the human past. According to Hawkes, ancient climate changes pushed our ancestors away from the rainforests. On the savannas, teamwork was finally rewarded.

For more notes and links, see the original episode 6 (Are Grandmothers the Key to Our Evolutionary Success).

Season 1 is over. Season 2 is coming. In the meanwhile, please enjoy some highlights from the archives.

This highlight revisits episode four, where Ilari talks with psychiatrist and neuroscientist Gregory Berns about his recent book, Self Delusion.  In this flashback, Berns explains why he thinks psychiatry has been led astray by "medicine envy" and why we misunderstand many of the root causes of mental illness.

For more show notes and links, see the original episode.

In the final episode of season 1, Ilari addresses one of the underlying themes in many of the season's episodes: Darwinism. Is Darwinism dangerous? Is Darwinism linked to vicious ideologies? Does Darwinism prove that we are all selfish?

These questions have been addressed in many of this season's episodes (most notably episodes 1 and 2, but also 6, 8, and 11). In this short solo episode, Ilari connects some dots by reading his essay Distorting Darwinism, published in the Skeptic Magazine. Topics include:

• The early links between Darwinism and far-right ideologies

• Why do even professional evolutionists make rookie mistakes when explaining human behaviour.

• Richard Dawkin's U-turn on human nature

• Are all males naturally inclined to mate with a harem of females?

• Why human desires come in “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful”

• The problem with “scratch an altruist and watch a hypocrite bleed”

• Survival of the friendliest: from silver foxes to human self-domestication

• Conclusions: ”Not everything evolution teaches us is nice and jolly. But we must stay alert at the perilous ease in which selfishness, ruthlessness, and deceptiveness seep into evolutionary theorising, even when not appropriate.”

_________

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_________

Names mentioned

Charles Darwin / Herbert Spencer / William Jennings Bryan / Richard Dawkins / Edward Fox / Robert Sapolsky (author of Behave, 2017) / Michael Ghiselin / Jonathan Haidt / Frans de Waal / Dmitri Belyaev / Lyudmila Trut / Brian Hare / Richard Wrangham

Technical terms

Scopes Monkey Trial (famous legal case in 1925 regarding the teaching of evolution in Tennessee high schools) / Social Darwinism / Self-Domestication 

The idea of Universal Basic Income (UBI) is simple: Everyone should have an income. And that they should have it whether they work or not. Indeed, its simplicity has made UBI an attractive policy suggestion for many on both the left and the right. But sometimes the practical virtues of UBI can distract us from the deeper significance of this idea.

Karl Widerquist is an economist and political philosopher who has campaigned for UBI since the 90s. And he thinks that it is a practical idea. But he also thinks that it can remedy something deeper than government bureaucracies. He thinks that it can remedy our social contract. For Widerquist, UBI is our best tool to navigate the difficult waters between elitist liberalism and oppressive communism. Yet somewhere beyond those waters lies a genuinely free society. And he thinks we can get there very soon. 

This is an important argument. But it is also a very stimulating one. Indeed, Widerquist‘s treatment of the topic takes us from the biases of John Locke to the hunting grounds of medieval peasants.

In this discussion, Dr Widerquist and Ilari discuss topics such as:

• Why UBI has friends on both sides of the political divide
• Why UBI is needed for a (genuinely) free society
• Modern poverty and the problem with "negative vs positive freedoms"
• Why modernity is not a land of the free (or how the masses lost access to the means of food production)
• The freedoms of our ancestors, from hunter-gatherers to peasants
• The problem with "owning" natural resources
• John Locke's mistake
• The role of the enclosure movements (in Europe) and colonialism (outside of Europe)
• Why Widerquist is not a Marxist
• UBI vs the Nordic welfare state
• What happened in Finland when the government tested a UBI
• Why UBI promotes respect, kindness, and unselfishness.

_________

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_________

Technical terms mentioned

Universal basic income or UBI (also known as Basic Income Guarantee) / Negative income tax (similar in outcome to a UBI) / Positive vs negative freedoms / The enclosure movement

Names mentioned

Milton Friedman / Isaiah Berlin / Thomas Paine / Henry George / Herbert Spencer / Gerald Allan Cohen / Michael Otsuka / John Locke / Thomas Hobbes / Jean-Jacques Rousseau / David Hume

Mentioned work

• Isaiah Berlin lectures
• Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Theory (Widerquist & McCall 2017)
• Prehistory of Private Property (Widerquist & McCall 2021)

Most histories of the 20th century focus on world wars and ideological conflicts. Others focus on the fall of European empires. Yet others focus on the slow but inevitable progress of social justice movements.

Important themes.

But according to Brad DeLong, the real story of “the long 20th century” (1870-2010) is an economic story. It is the story of how humanity, for the first time in its existence, was able to generate prosperity for the masses–so much so that it became technically possible to eradicate poverty altogether.

DeLong is an economic historian and the author of the magisterial “Slouching Towards Utopia”. In the book, he argues that the so-called “2nd Industrial Revolution” of 1870 changed the human condition in unprecedented ways. During the course of the long 20th century, fewer and fewer humans had to stay on the farm. More and more humans could enjoy a comfortable life. And the speedy development of new technologies meant that most humans saw their professions undergo a revolution in every generation–something that caused great material prosperity, but also social dislocation and a search for ideologies to confront the changing social realities.

In many ways, DeLong tells a happy story of unprecedented victories for humanity at large. Yet humanity did not reach utopia. And alas, DeLong argues that the material boom ended in 2010. (The episode doesn’t discuss this latter claim. But if you are curious: DeLong’s argues that 2010 was marked by a sluggish recovery from the Great Recession, a looming climate catastrophe, and a populist turn against the ideologies that had energised the economic growth of the long 20th century.)

In this discussion, Prof DeLong and Ilari discuss questions such as:

• Why 1870 was a landmark moment for the humanity
• How poor was the average person before 1870?
• What allowed the economic revolution of 1870 - and how Nikola Tesla symbolises the era.
• Did the world become less exploitative after 1870?
• The difficulties in judging the merits of “capitalism”
• What did Marx and Engels get right? And what not?
• Was imperialism a fuel or a drag on the economic boom in Europe and US?
• Why global inequalities became so large throughout the 20th Century?
• Why local inequalities (within rich countries) became smaller throughout the 20th Century - until 1970s.
• How economics explains the rise of ideologies from socialism to fascism and from civil rights to feminism

_________

Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program.

Visit: ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_________

Names mentioned

Eric Hobsbaum / Francis Fukuyama / Jason Hickel / Dylan Sullivan Marshall Sahlsin / John Maynard Keynes / Oded Galor / Nate Rosenberg / Nikola Tesla, inventor / George Westinghouse / Eli Whitney, inventor / Friedrich Engels / Karl Marx / Friedrich von Hayek / Milton Friedman / Gary Gerstle / Ronald Reagan / Margaret Thatcher

Papers mentioned

Capitalism and Extreme Poverty (Sullivan & Hick 2023)

Technical terms

Malthusianism / Demographic transition / Creative destruction (after the ideas of Joseph Schumpeter) / The Kuznets curve / Elastic and inelastic supply and demand 

Our mental lives are full of purpose and feeling. Yet the world is governed by laws of physics which seem to lack a sense of either purpose or feeling. So how do we explain consciousness in terms of matter? 

The problem of consciousness is at the forefront of many dialogues between philosophy and science. So how deep is it?

Dr Bernardo Kastrup argues that it is very deep indeed. Or rather, it is a pseudo-problem that arises from us attacking it incorrectly. 

Kastrup's argument is as surprising as it is simple. He claims that we should never have tried to explain consciousness in terms of matter.  After all, the only thing we really know is that consciousness exists. "Matter" is but a concept we create to explain some aspects of our empirical experiences. So we should take consciousness as the starting point. 

What follows is a radical reimagining of much of common philosophical sense. It can feel challenging and mind-bending. Maybe it is the wrong path. But it is a path that for too long has been neglected as an unscientific option at the fringes of rational sanity. Kastrup is well-positioned to defend this "idealist" position with scientific rigour. Before becoming a professional philosopher he worked as a computer scientist at CERN - the world’s leading research institute in fundamental physics. Kastrup is pro-science and pro-empiricism. But he believes that to be genuinely empirical, we have to accept that all we ever know about the world is how the world looks, feels, or appears. It is here that our theory of everything should start from.

Dr Kastrup and Ilari discuss topics such as:

• What is metaphysical materialism?
• Why materialism was historically useful?
• Why materialism is not nearly as intuitive as it sounds like?
• The hard problem of consciousness
• Is materialism compatible with quantum physics?
• Is materialism compatible with neuroscience of altered states (e.g. psychedelics)?
• Making sense of idealism 
• Idealism does not mean that the world is all “my” imagining (cf. Berkeley)
• Does the world have a Will? (cf Schopenhauer)
• What about neutral monism (often associated with so-called “panpsychism”)?
• Why the world is meaningful (according to idealism)
• Why rocks and lakes are not conscious (even according to idealism)
• Is there anything special about human consciousness?

Technical terms

• Metaphysical materialism and physicalism (treated here as synonyms)
• Idealism (in metaphysics)
• Dualism (in metaphysics)
• The hard problem of consciousness
• Occam’s razor (“make your theory as simple as possible”)
• Einstein’s razor (“make your theory as simple as possible, but not simpler”)
• Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID, previously known as Dissociative Personality Disorder)

Work mentioned

• You can find links to all mentioned work and more on Kastrup's columns on DID, psychedelics, and fundamental physics, published by the Scientific American.

Why do we care about equality? Is it an invention of the European Enlightenment? Or is it something rooted in human nature? If so, why does equality require constant fighting for?

Elizabeth Anderson is a philosopher at the University of Michigan. She is one of the essential egalitarian theorists of our times. Her essay What's the Point of Equality is one of the must-reads of the contemporary philosophy of political equality. And her recent essay on the history of equality and social justice is a tour-de-force on using the long view of history to shed light on our contemporary condition. 

In this episode, Prof Anderson talks with Ilari about topics such as:

• Are humans a naturally egalitarian species?
• Can human nature explain the logic of social justice movements?
• The ancient roots of democracy (beyond Athens)
• How Native American critique of European society shaped the French Enlightenment

The conversation then turns to the question of modernity. The 2nd half touches upon topics from 19th Century utopian communes to 20th Century Marxism, including:

• Challenges with anarchism, communalism, and Marxism.
• Is social democracy the answer?
• Are social benefits about pitying the poor?
• Are taxes on the rich about envying the rich?
• Economic equality versus other forms of equality

Names and work mentioned

• Christopher Boehm (author of Hierarchy in the Forest)
• David Graeber & David Wengrow (authors of Dawn of Everything)
• Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus (authors of The Creation of Inequality)
• David Stasavage (author of The Decline and Rise of Democracy)
• Adam Smith (18th Century Scottish philosopher)
• Nathaniel Hawthorne & Louisa May Alcott (19th Century American authors)
• Thomas Piketty (author of Capital & Ideology, A Brief History of Equality, and Capital in the 21st Century)
• Väinö Linna (author of Under The North Star)
• Isabel Ferrares (author of Firms as Political Entities)
• John Rawls (20th Century American philosopher)
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (18th Century Swiss philosopher)

What was life like before agriculture? Was it "nasty, brutish, and short?" Or was it quite peaceful and relaxing, making agriculture the "worst mistake in human history"? 

There are plenty of theories about our ancestral lives. And these are not just neutral hypotheses about a past epoch. They are often used as an origin story of our species. They shape the way we think of ourselves, our natural inclinations, and the virtues or vices of civilisation. 

But how can we go beyond origin myths? Is there a science of the past? 

For a long-time, it was common to use modern-day hunter-gatherers as a model of the past. This method has been popularised by books such as Sapiens. But recently, this method came under serious attack by another bestseller, Dawn of Everything, whose authors argue that the project is largely futile. But is it? Are there any methods to study our ancestral past?

Dr Vivek V. Venkataraman is a hunter-gatherer expert who recently wrote a clarifying piece on this for The Conversation. He joins Ilari to discuss topics such as:

• What books like Sapiens or Dawn of Everything get right and wrong
• Why there is no such a thing as a “hunter-gatherer lifestyle” - but we can still learn something from modern-day hunter-gatherers.
• Dr Venkataraman’s experience of living with an egalitarian hunter-gatherer community (the Batek in Malaysia)
• Were our ancestors egalitarian?
• How archaeology helps anthropology
• Beyond the "story of the seed": How climate change and population density explain more than agriculture
• Some speculation about war and violence in the Pleistocene (see also episode 8)

Names mentioned:

• Thomas Hobbes & Jean-Jacques Rousseau
• Richard Wrangham (author of The Goodness Paradox)
• Christopher Boehm (author of Hierarchy in the Forest)
• Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs, & Steel)
• Yuval Noah Harari (author of Sapiens)
• David Wengrow and David Graeber (authors of Dawn of Everything)
• Marshall Sahlins (author of the essay, The Original Affluent Society)
• Karen & Kirk Endicott (author of The Headman Was A Woman)
• Peter Turchin (referenced paper on complexity)
• Douglas P. Fry (see episode 8)
• Richard Dawkins (author of God Delusion)
• John McPhee (author)
• Kim Sterelny (philosopher of science)

Terms

• Göbekli Tepe
• Pleistocene (the era ending c. 11 700 years ago, starting c 2 million years ago)
• Intensification
• Scalar stress
• Self-domestication (see e.g. Survival of the Friendliest)

Hunter-gatherer groups mentioned:

• !Kung (a group of San Bushmen, also known Ju/’hoansi) in the Kalahari Desert
• The Hadza in Tanzania
• The Ache in Paraguay
• The Batek in Malaysia
• The Northwestern Pacific hunter-gatherers of US and Canada
• The Calousa of Florida

Wealth on planet Earth is not evenly distributed. Indeed, our country of birth predicts a huge amount of our access to food and technology. 

Although such differences have always existed, they have become dramatically accentuated in the past two centuries. During the early 1800s, the average income of a person living in the richest region of the world was 3 times higher than that of a person living in the poorest region. Today, it is 15 times, or even 100 times higher.*

To understand the human condition today, we have to understand our economic geography. This is the theme of the 2nd part of Oded Galor’s remarkable book, Journey of Humanity (see also episode 12). 

In this 2nd episode on Journey of Humanity, Ilari and Professor Galor discuss topics such as:

• The deep impact of colonialism
• Could Europe have industrialised without oppressing the rest of the world?
• Why are some colonial "spinoffs" rich (e.g. the US) and others are not (e.g. Brazil)?
• Political institutions (e.g. capitalism, liberal democracy), especially the differences between inclusive vs extractive institutions
• How the Black Death transformed Europe.
• How cultural norms are shaped by geography (e.g. the quality of the soil)
• The costs and benefits of a diverse society

The conversation also explores:

• How to use this historical outlook to build a better future: solutions for low- and middle-income countries.
• What to do about the current inequalities within nations?
• Will we survive the 21st century?

Technical terms

• Malthusian trap (where increases in wealth are “eaten away” by increases in population size)
• Human capital (i.e. investment in the skills of the population)
• Extractive vs inclusive institutions (terms popularised in economics by the work of Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson in Why Nations Fail)
• Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights in England (1688)
• The middle-income trap (based on the observation that only 14 countries have been able to go from "middle-income" to "high-income" status since 1960. In 2019, these were dominated by the East Asian economies of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, but joined by Chile, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Malaysia, Malta, Portugal, Seychelles, and Spain [e.g. Lee 2019])

Names

• Kenneth Pomerantz (author of The Great Divergence)
• James II of England, Louis XIV of France, William of Orange
• Karl Marx
• Thomas Piketty

Get in touch

• Feedback? Guest suggestions? Just want to say "hi"? It would be great to hear from you! Feel free to drop a casual line anytime to makela dot ilari at outlook dot com.

* The exact number depends on how we define an "area". The estimates are from Journey of Humanity and are discussed in episode 12.

If you take a moment to reflect on the economic condition of our species, you are likely to be puzzled over two mysteries. 

One is the mystery of wealth: How is it that humanity has been able to generate such a dramatic increase in wealth (e.g. in access to food, transportation, and medical technology)?

The other is the mystery of inequality: Why is this wealth so unevenly distributed? Why are certain countries able to offer historically unprecedented standards of wealth to the majority of their population, while some countries still struggle with dire poverty? 

In his truly remarkable book Journey of Humanity - the Origins of Wealth and Inequality, economist Oded Galor sets out to explain both of these mysteries.

There will be two On Humans -episodes dedicated to this topic. The first one focuses on the grand story of economic growth in human history, searching for an explanation for the recent boom in humanity’s overall wealth. This will be followed by another episode, which searches for the reasons behind the global inequalities that plague the modern world - and asks what to do about them.

In this first episode, Ilari and Prof Galor discuss:

• The long stagnation: Why humans did not get much richer (or poorer) for many millennia
• The modern growth regime: How the overall wealth in the world has increased dramatically but unevenly
• Was agriculture the "worst mistake in human history"?
• How and why did humans escape the Malthusian trap?
• The surprising effects of the industrial revolution on education, child labour, and fertility

Names Mentioned

• Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs, and Steel)
• Yuval Noah Harari (author of Sapiens)
• David Graeber (co-author of Dawn of Everything)
• Robert Solow (author of Growth Theory)
• Daron Acemoglu (co-author of Why Nations Fail)
• Thomas Piketty (author of Capital in the 21st Century)
• Thomas Robert Malthus (British clergyman and economist, 1766-1834)

Terms Mentioned

• Neolithic Revolution (i.e. the beginning of agriculture)
• Phase transition (e.g. water heating gradually but reaching a “phase transition” at 100 degrees Celsius)
• Potato blight (leading to the Irish Potato Famine, 1845-1852)

Ilari is taking some time off for Christmas and New Year. Instead of new episodes, this holiday season features some highlights from this fall's conversations.

This highlight revisits episode 1, where Ilari and Patricia Churchland discuss free will and neurophilosophy. For links and references, see the original episode.

Ilari is taking some time off for Christmas and New Year. Instead of new episodes, this holiday season features some highlights from this fall's conversations.

This highlight revisits episode 3, where Ruth Feldman explores the tricky relationship between the neurobiology of love and xenophobia. The discussion also touches upon early attachment as a source of our capacity to bond with others. 

This discussion includes studies on building relationships between Israeli and Palestinian youth, as well as studies on the capacity of fathers, including gay fathers, in providing equal care as primary caregivers. For links and references, see the original episode.

Ilari is taking some time off for Christmas and New Year. Instead of new episodes, this holiday season features some highlights from this fall's conversations.

This highlight revisits episode 2, where Philip Kitcher explores the relationship between secular humanism and religion. For links and references, see the original episode. 

Why do we love? And how much does our culture shape the way we do so?

In this episode, Ilari talks with Helen Fisher about the powers that drive and shape our romantic relationships. Ilari and Professor Fisher discuss:

• Is romantic love a modern invention?
• Is monogamy a social invention? 
• Do men care more about sex? Do women care more about romance?
• Why agriculture, especially with the plough, caused havoc in romantic relationships.
• Why divorces might be on the decline.
• A science-based guide for maintaining romantic relations (based on couples who are still in love after 25 years)
• Why (certain) antidepressants can kill the sex drive and blunt romantic love (to read more, see the end of the notes)
• How common is polygamy or polyandry? Where in the world do we find most "free love"?
• Why did homosexuality evolve?

Names mentioned

• Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt (as recounted by Alison Gopnik in her The Gardener and the Carpenter)
• Bill Jankowiak
• Robert Sternberg (see episode 7)
• Anderson Thompson
• Bertrand Russell 

Technical terms and ethnic groups mentioned

• Ventral tegmental area VTA
• Hypothalamus
• Dopamine, testosterone, oxytocin, vasopressin, serotonine
• Monogamy (serial or lifelong; social or biological)
• Polygamy (several wives) and polyandry (several husbands) 
• Tlingit (the polyandrous Inuit society with wealthy women)
• Oneida community (in New York State)

Dig Deeper

Antidepressants: To read more about the possible effects of SSRIs on sex drive and romantic love, see Tocco and Brumbaugh (2019). Below is a list of possible alternatives or complements to SSRIs (please consult with your doctor in all matters related to pharmaceuticals):

• Fisher herself suggested that SNRIs could be less risky than SSRIs. Theoretically, dopamine reuptake inhibitors, such as bupropion, could also counter the risks associated with SSRIs (for a review, see Zisook et al. 2006).
• For alternative or complementary oral treatments of depression, see research on supplementation with a high dosage of Omega 3 (EPA and DHA, not ALA) (for a review, see Bhat & Ara 2015).

Polyamory: In the episode, Professor Fisher suggests that many Amazonian tribes have informal polyandry, i.e. women have many partners, albeit only one formal husband. However, there are non-academic sources suggesting that formalised polyandry is common in the Zo’é community in Amazon. For some of these photos of Zo’é and other Amazonian tribes, many of whom exhibit remarkably liberal attitudes to sex, see the recent Amazonia exhibition in the London Science Museum.

In this episode, a philosopher of science from Cambridge offers us a cautiously optimistic guide to the science of happiness. Dr Anna Alexandrova, the author of A Philosophy for the Science of Well-being, and Ilari discuss questions such as:

• What do happiness questionnaires measure?
• Are rich countries happier than poorer ones?
• Should the science of happiness measure concepts such as “flourishing”? Or focus on simple questions like “how satisfied are you with your life”?
• Why psychologists and economists are averse to qualitative measures? When is this a problem?
• Why are some scholars so pessimistic about the science of happiness?
• Dr Alexandrova's experience of growing up in the Soviet Union and post-soviet Russia
• Is Ilari actually from the world’s happiest country?

Names mentioned

• Dan Hayburn (philosopher at St Louis University)
• Max Weber (sociologist 1864-1920)
• Polly Mitchell (philosopher at KCL)
• Thomas Kuhn (philosopher of science, 1922-1966)
• Johanna Thoma (philosopher at LSE)
• Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway (authors of Merchants of Doubt)
• Mark Fabian (political theorists at Cambridge)
• Jeffrey Sachs (economist at Columbia University)

Terms mentioned

• Utilitarianism
• Easterlin paradox
• World Happiness Report
• WELLBY (measure adopted by the UK government)
• “Participatory methods” (in construct validation)
• Turn To Us (UK-based anti-poverty charity)

Get in touch

• Form: https://on-humans.podcastpage.io/contact
• Email: makela dot ilari at outlook dot com

What is it like to be a non-human animal? Can neuroscience tell us the answer?

In one of the most famous philosophy essays of the 20th century, Thomas Nagel suggested that we can never use science to know what it is like to be another animal, say, a bat. Neuroscience can describe bat physiology. But it can never tell us “what it is like to be a bat”.

Gregory Berns is an animal neuroscientist. As you might guess, he disagrees with Nagel.

Berns is a pioneer in using fMRI scanning on dogs (who in his lab, participate voluntarily). And Berns believes that studying the dog brain can tell us what it is like to be a dog - or at least, give us a hint.

In this discussion, Ilari and Prof Berns discuss:

• Do dogs love their owners? The origins and findings of the Dog Project.
• Would Nagel actually disagree with Berns’ conclusions?
• Is attributing human emotions to dogs a form of anthropomorphism?
• The Panksepp vs Barrett debate in affective neuroscience: Are emotions hardwired to our brain? Or are they dependent on concepts and language?
• Animal welfare and speciesism: Are some species "special" in relevant ways? How do Prof Berns and Ilari approach the issue of animal welfare in their diets?

Names mentioned

• Rene Descartes (French philosopher, 1596-1650)
• Thomas Nagel (20th Century, 1937-)
• Jeremy Bentham (British philosopher & utilitarian, 1748-1832)
• Jaak Panksepp (Estonian-American neuroscientist, 1943-2017)
• Lisa Feldman Barrett (American neuroscientist, 1963-)
• Hal Hertzhog (anthrozoologist)

Technical terms mentioned

• fMRI (brain scanning technology)
• PET (brain scanning technology)
• Chemotaxis
• Claustrum
• Brain stem

Extra points

• Get in touch: email [email protected] or form https://on-humans.podcastpage.io/contact
• Ilari’s bonus recommendation (not a paid promotion): Gourmet-level insect foods from YumBug https://www.yumbug.com/shop

Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short”. Recently, various scholars have claimed that Hobbes was basically right: our ancestors lived in a state of constant raiding and chronic warfare. Indeed, some have suggested that as many as 15% of ancestral humans died due to war. And the claims are made with the utmost confidence.

But there is something disturbing about this confidence. The earliest archaeological records of war are only c. 14 000 years old. And many anthropologists working with modern-day hunter-gatherers claim that they tend to be remarkably peaceful. 

The literature around this question is dense and difficult to penetrate. This episode aims to make it a notch more accessible. 

Douglas P. Fry is an anthropologist and a leading scholar on the topic. He has written extensively about the origins of war in books such as War, Peace and Human Nature. His papers on the matter have been published in top journals such as Science. And his conclusions might be surprising to many.

In this discussion, Ilari and Professor Fry talk about:

• The archaeological evidence for the origins of war.
• Why do some hunter-gatherers wage war? Why does Fry think that most of them do not? And why is the data in Better Angels of Our Nature so misleading - even fabricated?
• How common is lethal violence in mammals more generally? 
• How violent was the human Pleistocene (over 11,700 years ago)? Does it matter?

Ethnic groups mentioned

• Pacific Northwest hunter-gatherers (hunter-gatherer groups well-known for having complex “civilisation”, including social hierarchies, warfare and slavery)
• Calusa (a complex hunter-gatherer group in Florida)
• Tiwi (Australian hunter-gathers who are atypical for having clans and a high level of lethal violence)
• Andaman Islanders (in the Bay of Bengal)
• Iñupiaq (the warring Inuit group, which was not named in the discussion)

Names and technical terms

• Herbert Manscher
• Jane Goodall (primatologist who recorded so-called Gombe wars in chimpanzees)
• Steven Pinker 
• Samuel Bowles 
• Leslie Sponsel 
• Christopher Boehm
• C. Darwent, J. Darwent 

References

• Misreported “war deaths” in Better Angles of Out Nature (Fry & Söderberg 2019) and lethal violence in hunter-gatherers (Fry & Söderberg 2013)
• Lethal violence in mammals (Gomez et al. 2016) and in archaeological skeletons (Haas & Piscitelli) 
• Cooperation in a spatial prisoner’s dilemma (Aktipis 2004)
• Peace systems (video & the Nature article)

We often treat love as a single emotion. But simple questions like “how much do you love me?” can be misleading. Love is not a single dimension. It is a multitude. To really understand romantic bonds, a more nuanced vocabulary is needed.

Robert Sternberg is famous for creating such vocabulary.

Sternberg is a professor at Cornell University, where he teaches legendary classes on topics like intelligence (beyond IQ), wisdom, creativity, and of course, love and hate. But he is more than your average psychology professor: he is the 2nd most cited psychologist alive.*

In this discussion, Sternberg joins Ilari and his co-host, Blake Robertson, to discuss the elements of love and hate, and how to use these insights to create a better world.

Names & technical terms mentioned

• John Bowlby’s attachment theory
• Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences
  • Alison Gopnik (quoted from conversation with Ezra Klein)
  • Agatha Christie
• Joan Crawford
• Anthony Ray Hinton, the author of The Sun Does Shine
  • Henry Hays, the only KKK member in the 20th Century to suffer capital punishment due to lynchings by the KKK.

References

• The Triangular Theory of Love (1986 paper)
• Triangular Theory Tested in 25 Countries (2021 paper)
• LoveMultiverse.com (website by Karin & Robert Sternberg)
• Dutton & Aron high bridge -experiment (1974 paper)
• Nature of Hate (book by Robert Sternberg & Karin Sternberg)

* After Martin Seligman, excluding neuroscientists and behavioural economists. Based on Google Scholar profiles in November 2022.

Humans live long, much longer than any of our closest relatives. For human females, this means living a large part of adulthood without being able to produce new offspring. This is an evolutionary puzzle. Indeed, menopause is exceedingly rare in the animal kingdom, typical only in humans and some species of whales.

Kristen Hawkes has a theory to explain this puzzle. Hawkes is an evolutionary anthropologist, best known for her pioneering role around the so-called “grandmother hypothesis”.

In this episode, Ilari and Professor Hawkes discuss two aspects of the grandmother hypothesis. First, why would humans have evolved to survive menopause? And second, why is this a big deal? What were the cascading changes that surviving the menopause arguably triggered?

The conversation touches upon many topics, such as:

• Grandmother hypothesis: the basics
• Rapid birth intervals in humans
• Pair bonding and romantic partnerships
• Role of fathers (and grandfathers)
• Brain size and brain development
• The “social appetite” in humans
• Humans vs chimpanzees: why are humans less competitive and more cooperative
• Climate changes and human origins

Technical terms & ethnic groups mentioned

• The Hadza (Tanzania)
• The Ache (Paraguay)
• Pliocene (5.3 million – 2.6 million years ago)
• Australopithecus (Wikipedia)
• Altricial (undeveloped, immature) vs precocial (well-matured early on) (Wikipedia)
• Mau Mau rebellion (a 1950’s rebellion against British rule in Kenya which included systemic torture by British colonial officers, Wikipedia)

Names mentioned

• Jane Goodall 
• Nicholas Blurton Jones
• James (Jim) O’Connell
• Geoff Parker
• Richard Wrangham
• Sherwood Washburn
• Sarah Blaffer Hrdy
• Barbara Finlay

References

• A 1998 overview of the grandmother hypothesis (by Kristen Hawkes) 
• Calories produced by mothers and grandmothers in the Hadza (by Kristen Hawkes)
• Distorting Darwinism (by Ilari)

Why do conspiracy theories seduce the minds of so many? 

Michael Shermer is a historian of science, best-selling author, founder of the Skeptic Society, and the host of a popular science podcast, Michael Shermer Show. His most recent book, Conspiracy, explores the causes and consequences of human gullibility regarding conspiracies. 

Ilari and Dr Shermer discuss the psychological reasons behind conspiracy theories, and what to do about them. This discussion touches upon topics from QAnon to flat earth, and from the 2020 election to the war in Ukraine. 

All of this does raise a question, though. What if we are both wrong? What if it is the conspiracists who have the truth? How would we know? Beyond just conspiracies, this discussion touches upon the very promise and danger of scientific scepticism. In the end, Ilari and Dr Shermer explore the very limits of the territory, in which we should use science as our guide. This is a discussion that ultimately relates to the role that science can play in moral progress - a topic explored by Shermer in his 2015 book, The Moral Arc.

Referenced works

• Whitson and Galinsky’s experiment on pattern recognition
• See also: A meta-analysis of similar experiments, which is critical of the original findings, but does find some similar effects
• Princeton study on rejection and conspiratorial tendencies
• Poll on 33% of Americans believing in 5G Dakota Crash is from work by Chrisopher Bader
• Ivan Krastev’s interview with Ezra Klein

Referenced conspiracy theories and related terms

• JFK Assassination
• January 6th Insurrection and the claim that the 2020 election was rigged
• The claim that Emmy Awards in 2004 and 2005 were rigged when the Apprentice lost against Amazing Race.
• QAnon
• OJ Simpson trials
• Flat earth -theories
• Holocaust denials
• 5G Dakota Crash

Other technical terms:

• Bayesian thinking 
• Type II and Type I errors (in statistics)
• Theraplay
• Is-ought gap (similar to the naturalistic fallacy)

Other names mentioned:

• Edward Snowden
• Carl Sagan
• Bill Bar
• Deepak Chopra
• Thomas Sowell

We like to box things into neat categories. We like to box ourselves into a ‘Self’, a ‘Me’, an independent ‘Soul’, caged away from the rest of the world by the bags of our skin. When something goes wrong in our mental health, we like to box the issue into neat buckets of mental health disorders and search for an answer from within this individuated cage. On the other hand, we like to think of the ‘Self’ as a solid, unified, and permanent ‘Me’, making any fundamental change to ourselves difficult.

What if this is all a mistake?

Today’s guest is Gregory Berns, a psychiatrist and a professor of neuroscience at Emory University. His most recent book, published today on the 18th of October, is titled 'Self Delusion: The Neuroscience of How We Invent – and Reinvent – Our Identities'. (Order the book from Basic Books or Amazon. )

Ilari and professor Berns discuss topics such as:

• Does Berns agree with Buddha and David Hume about the illusionary nature of self?
• Why would a psychiatrist care about this issue?
• The neuroscience of how fictional stories shape who we are
• Dissociative identity disorder (DID, also known as multiple personality disorder, MPD)
• Can social pressure change what we see?
• Is it problematic to think of mental health problems as neat buckets? Or should we think of them on a continuum?
• Bern’s answer to ‘what is missing from our biological approach to mental health?’
• Why does it feel right to locate the soul in the heart, rather than the brain?
• Internal family systems therapy (IFST)

Work mentioned and other references

• Metaphors We Live By (George Lakoff & Mark Johnson) 
• Bowling Alone (By Robert D. Putnam)
• Bern’s et al. on fiction and the brain
• Bern’s et al. on the neuroscience of conformity
• Paper on 3rd person memory & depression 

Technical terms and names mentioned

• David Hume
• Resting-state fMRI (Wikipedia)
• Dissociative Identity disorder DID (Wikipedia)
• Conformity & Solomon Ash’s classic studies
• DSM (a major diagnostic manual for mental health)
• Internal family system therapy (IFST, in the episode, mistakenly called internal family dynamics therapy)
• Cognitive behavioural therapy

Can biology expand our appreciation of love? What is the relationship between jazz and neuroscience? What does it mean to be in "synch" with someone? 

Ruth Feldman is a professor of neuroscience at Reichman University, Israel, with a joint appointment at the Yale Child Story Centre. A jazz musician before being a neuroscientist, Feldman combines musical ideas of synchrony into her research on the neurobiology of attachment, bonding, and love.

Ilari and professor Feldman discuss topics such as:

• Why study the biology of love
• What happens in the brain when we love
• Brain-to-brain synchrony: How love (and friendship) can synchronize our brains with each other
• Oxytocin with loved ones, strangers, and enemies
• Post-partum depression
• Parental love in gay dads
• Females and males as primary caregivers
• The relationship between brain-to-brain synchrony and oxytocin
• Empathy within and beyond group boundaries with Israeli and Palestinian youth
• Attachment theory, attachment problems, and ways to overcome them

Technical terms mentioned

• Oxytocin
• Brain oscillations (i.e. brain waves)
• EEG (a method to study brain oscillations)
• Neuropeptide
• Kangaroo care (after premature birth)

Names mentioned

• Wallace Stevens (American poet)
• Emmanuel Levinas (French philosopher)
• John Bowlby (founder of the attachment theory)

Other links and reference

• Brain-to-brain synchrony
• Gay dads: original research & TIME Magazine article
• Intervention with depressed moms
  • Intervention with Israeli and Palestinian teenagers
  • Ruth Feldman Lab's website

Is there a tension between biology and philosophy? Why should Homo sapiens care about ethics? What, if anything, does evolution tell us about human nature?

To discuss these topics, Philip Kitcher joins your host, Ilari Mäkelä.

Philip Kitcher is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Columbia University. He is the author of numerous books, such as Living With Darwin and The Ethical Project.

Ilari and professor Kitcher discuss topics such as:

01.35: Kitcher's theory of morality as a social technology designed to solve problems resulting from the fragility of human altruism. 

20.07: What is Kitcher’s argument against sociobiology / evolutionary psychology? Is it still relevant? Does evolution prove that we are all selfish?

42.43: What is secular humanism? What is the value of religion? What can secular humanists learn from religion?

Names mentioned

• David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes
• Amia Srinivasan (contemporary Oxford philosopher, see her review of Ethical Project in LRB)
• Bertrand Williams (late Cambridge philosopher)
• Stephen Jay Gould (late Harvard palaeontologist)
• Richard Lewontin (late Harvard biologist)
• E. O. Wilson (late Harvard biologist)
• David P. Barash (contemporary evolutionary biologist)
• Richard Alexander (contemporary evolutionary anthropologist)
• John Bowlby (late psychologist and founder of the attachment theory)
• Johanna Haarer (Nazi propagandist)
• Michael Ghiselin (evolutionary biologist, famous for the quote: “scratch an altruist and watch a hypocrite bleed”)
• Dan Dennett (contemporary philosopher and atheist, interviewed by Sean Carroll)
• Immanuel Kant (referenced from his thesis about the primacy of ethics over religion)
• Robert Frost (poet)
• Richard Dawkins (contemporary biologist and atheist)
• Sam Harris (contemporary writer, atheist, and podcaster)
• Christopher Hitchens (late journalist and atheist)

Terms mentioned

• Consequentialism
• Homo querens

Other work cited

• Siberian silver fox -experiment

Other scholars to follow (Kitcher’s recommendation)

• Kwame Anthony Appiah
• Nancy Cartwright
• Martha Nussbaum
• Elizabeth Anderson
• Susan Neiman

Why do we care for others? Why did morality evolve? Is unselfish behaviour possible in a Darwinian world? Patricia Churchland joins to discuss these topics with your host, Ilari Mäkelä.

Author of Conscience: Origins of Moral Intuition, Patricia Churchland is an emerita professor of Philosophy at UC San Diego.

Ilari and Professor Churchland discuss topics such as:

1. Warm-bloodedness and morality
2. Psychological egoism vs unselfish behaviour
3. Neurobiology of care: Oxytocin, cannabinoids, opioids
4. Elements of morality: How much of morality is about care, vs problem-solving, cooperation, and social learning?
5. Churchland’s criticism of Western moral philosophy
6. Neurophilosophy: is studying the brain all that useful?
7. Free will: does studying the brain show that free will does not exist?

Technical terms mentioned:

• Endothermy (i.e. warm-bloodedness)
• Cortex
• Oxytocin, vasopressin
• Endogenous opioids and cannabinoids
• Utilitarian ethics
• Kantian ethics (i.e. deontology)
• Metta meditation
• Vitalism

Names mentioned:

1. Christophe Boesch (chimpanzee adoption)
2. Peggy Mason (helping behaviour in rats)
3. Sue Carter (oxytocin and stress)
4. David Hume & Adam Smith
5. Mencius (early Confucian philosopher) [For Ilari’s article on Mencius, see An Empirical Argument for Mencius' Theory of Human Nature] 
6. The Dalai Lama (H.H. the 14th)
7. Simon Blackburn (contemporary Cambridge philosopher)
8. Dan Bowling (placebo and oxytocin)
9. Olivia Goldhill (review of Conscience for the New York Times)
10. Lidija Haas (review of Conscience for the Harper Magazine)

Other scholars to follow (Churchland’s recommendations)

Topics in this interview

• Frans de Waal
• Owen Flanagan

Philosophy & neuroscience more generally

• Nick Lane (genetics and evolution)
• Ann-Sophie Barwich (neurophilosophy of smell)
• Gregory Berns (soon to appear on the podcast)
• Ned Block (philosophy of cognition)

This is the On Humans Podcast, with your host, Ilari Mäkelä.

The On Humans Podcast will feature in-depth conversations about the science and philosophy of what it means to be human.  Where do we come from?  What are we seeking for?  Why do we love? Why do we destroy? 

Deep-dives with leading academics, we'll explore these and other questions by focusing on disciplines from the science of happiness, to the psychology of love, and from the anthropology of war to the evolution of morality. 

Subscribe. Stay tuned. Take care.