Stay ConnectedWhere do we come from? What brings us together? Why do we love? Why do we destroy?
On Humans features conversations with leading scholars about human nature, human condition, and the human journey. From the origins of war to the psychology of love, each topic brings fresh insights into perennial questions about our self-understanding.
Support: Patreon.com/OnHumans
Articles: OnHumans.Substack.com
Focus areas: Anthropology, Psychology, Archaeology, Philosophy, Big History
Copyright: © Ilari Mäkelä
Why do wars begin? How can we avoid them? Do countries wage wars whenever it suits their own goals? Or are wars a product of failed understanding and military madmen?
These are questions at the centre of the study of war and peace. But for too long, the field of international relations has answered them by scavenging data from European history alone. To better understand the human capacity for peace, we need to understand military history more broadly.
Or so argues David C. Kang, a professor at the University of Southern California.
A Korean American scholar of international relations, Kang argues that the histories of China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam give us lessons that no reading of European countries could: lessons about neighbouring countries living in peace for centuries. Yes, there was violence. At times, there was war. But peace between these countries prevailed for stunningly long periods. And contrary to standard theories of war and peace, this wasn’t achieved by a “balance of powers” nor by the threat of a common enemy.
But is this too peaceful a picture of East Asian history? Didn’t China keep up bullying Vietnam? What about the epic wars started by Japan? What about the Mongols, the Great Wall, and China’s expansion on its Western frontier? And what, if anything, can this tell about war and peace in the 21st Century? Doesn’t the “Thucydides trap” make a war between the US and China inevitable?
We discuss these and many other questions in this fascinating episode.
I am particularly glad to bring you this episode as it brings together two of the major themes on the show this fall: the study of war and peace and the study of Asian history.
Co-hosting again is Jordan Schneider from ChinaTalk.
Check out also our “What About China” trilogy from September (episodes #44-46)!
LINKS
Kang's new book, co-authored with Xinru Ma, is Beyond Power Transitions.
You can read my essays and get the On Humans newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com.
Feeling generous? Join the wonderful group of my patrons at Patreon.com/OnHumans, or get in touch for other ways to support!
Email: makela dot ilari at outlook dot com
MENTIONS
Books
Beyond Bronze Pillars by Liam Kelley
Technical terms
Thucydides trap | Westphalian system | Balance of powers | IR (=international relations) | keju civil service |
Keywords
War | Peace | International relations | China | Japan | Korea | Social science of war | History | Military history | Humanities | Vietnam | East Asia | Thucidides trap |
Our ancestors did not wage war. Warfare emerged only when humans started settling down and storing food. Indeed, some modern hunter-gatherers still enjoy the peaceful existence that once was the natural state of our species.
Or so argued Douglas P. Fry, my guest in episode 8. I found many of his arguments convincing. For example, ancient cave art is surprisingly void of depictions of warfare. You can hear many more of his arguments in that episode, titled "Is War Natural For Humans?"
But not all scholars agree. Far from it. And I owe a voice to the other side of the debate. So here is an episode with one of the most thoughtful voices arguing for a deeper origins of war.
Luke Glowacki is a professor of anthropology at Boston University, where teaches courses on the evolution of war. And he believes that war has very ancient origins, indeed.
We had a very stimulating conversation, discussing topics such as:
(03:00) The debate: What can we all agree on? And what are the disagreements?
(12:10) Hunter-gatherers: Are they peaceful? And are they any good as models of the past?
(25:55) Archaeology: Cave paintings and broken bones
(34:55) Primatology: Chimpanzees and bonobos
(46:40) Implications: What can we learn from all this?
As always, we finish with my guest's reflections on humanity.
LINKS
Head here for links to relevant academic articles -- and the video of the chimpanzee raid!
You can read my essays and get the On Humans newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com.
Feeling generous? Join the wonderful group of my patrons at Patreon.com/OnHumans, or get in touch for other ways to support!
Email: makela dot ilari at outlook dot com
MENTIONS
Scholars
Douglas P. Fry (ep. #8) | R. Brian Ferguson #25 | Richard Wrangham #21 | Cecilia Padilla-Iglesias #39 | Jane Goodall | Manvir Singh | David Kang #49 (upcoming)
Keywords
Evolution | Archaeology | Anthropology | Primatology | Peace | Warfare | Social science of war | International relations | Biological anthropology | Cultural anthropology | Hunter-gatherers | Cave painting | Prehistory | Prehistoric violence | Prehistoric war
Daron Acemoglu has been awarded the 2024 Nobel-prize for Economic Science. This is a great testament to his impressive career. But the award was given for his early work on global inequality, together with Johnson and Robinson. The Swedish Riksbank did not pay attention to his new work on inequality within rich countries. Should we? And is his new theory even consistent with the old?
I got to ask this from Acemoglu during our 2023 interview. I thought this would be a good time to re-post his answer. In this highlight, we also discuss:
If you want to enjoy the full show, head to episode 26 of this feed.
You can also read my essay breakdown of Acemoglu's theory here. Get these and other resources at OnHumans.Substack.com.
Thank you to all the patrons who make On Humans possible! You can join the club at Patreon.com/OnHumans. You can get in touch for other ways to support at makela.ilari@outlook.com.
KEYWORDS
Economics | economic history | wage-stagnation | wage growth | inequality | economic inequality | automation | AI | robotics | US economy | German economy | Nobel-prize | labour unions | worker power | Elon Musk | Tesla | car manufacturing | co-determination | humanity
You are given 20 dollars in cash. You can use it as you wish, but with one condition: you have to use it to treat yourself.
Now imagine getting another 20 dollars next week. This time, the rules have changed: you must use the money to treat someone else.
Which do you think will make you feel better?
Contrary to many people's predictions, we tend to feel much better after spending the money on others. Whether we act it out or not, it seems that the human psyche is fine-tuned for generosity.
Why? And why am I so confident about this anyway? Is the effect really a universal part of humanity? Does it take place across cultures and ages? What about those who give too much and experience a burnout? And if giving feels good, why don’t we do it more?
Lara Aknin is one of the world’s leading scientists working on generosity. Her master’s thesis led to a publication in Science —something I used to think was undoable — and she has studied generosity ever since.
In this episode, Prof Aknin and I discuss:
The original evidence / Cross-cultural research / Alternative explanations / Do toddlers like giving? / Why does generosity feel good? / Why don’t we give more then? / What about giving too much (or caring for someone with dementia)? / Selfish generosity?
As always, we finish with my guest's reflections on humanity.
LINKS
You can read my essays and get the On Humans newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com.
Feeling generous on the 2nd annviersary of On Humans? Join the wonderful group of my patrons at Patreon.com/OnHumans, or get in touch for other ways to support!
Get in touch: makela.ilari@outlook.com.
MENTIONS
Scholars
Elizabeth Dunn | Tania Broesch | Josh V. Kane | Benjamin J. Newman | Richard Dawkins
Articles
Links to articles is available here. Get these and other resources at OnHumans.Substack.com.
Episodes
16 | Does Poverty Make Us Selfish ~ Jacqueline Mattis
20 | Distorting Darwinism – Or Why Evolution Does Not Prove That We Are Selfish ~ Solo
22 | Do Young Children Care About Others? ~ Amrisha Vaish
Keywords
Psychology | Anthropology | Behavioral Economics | Prosociality | Generosity | Happiness | Warm glow | Altruism | Charity | Prosocial spending | Cross-cultural research | Reciprocity | Cultural similarities | Spending choices | Happiness experiments | Emotional well-being | Social connection | Financial generosity | Helping behavior
Where is China today? Will its rise continue to benefit the vast majority of its population? Or is Xi Jinping's increasingly repressive government committing one of the biggest blunders of modern history?
This is the final episode in the China-trilogy, the product of hours of conversations I've had with ChinaTalk's Jordan Schneider and MIT professor Yasheng Huang.
In part 1, we discussed the deep currents of Chinese history, shaping the country's destiny from its early technological lead to its more recent decline and stagnation. In part 2, we discussed China during and after Mao, trying our best to explain the Chinese economic miracle. In this final episode, we discuss questions about China's present and future, guided by lessons from its recent past. We touch upon issues such as:
As always, we finish with my guest's reflections on humanity.
LINKS
You can read my essays and get the On Humans newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com.
Are you a long-term listener? Feeling generous today? Join the wonderful group of my patrons at Patreon.com/OnHumans!
For other episodes on economic history, see my series on the Birth of Modern Prosperity, with Daron Acemoglu, Oded Galor, Brad DeLong, and Branko Milanovic.
MENTIONS
Scholars
Gordon Tullock | Joseph Torigian
CCP figures
Hua Guofeng 华国锋 | "Gang of Four" 四人幫 | Deng Xiaoping 邓小平 | Zhao Ziyang 赵紫阳 |
习近平
China's history | Xi Jinping | Chinese miracle | China's political leadership | Xi Jinping reforms | Hu Jintao policies | China leadership generations | Chinese Communist Party | Deng Xiaoping reforms | Chinese economy | China's political control | Chinese corruption | Rural poverty in China | China's environmental policies | China economic inequality | Chinese rural income | Chinese political system | China's globalized economy | Chinese private sector | China geopolitical tensions | China-West relations | Chinese GDP growth | CCP succession | Xi Jinping succession | Autocracy in China | China's term limits | China's leadership transitions | Vietnam-China war | China's authoritarianism | Chinese economic growth | Xi Jinping's leadership style | Chinese politics and reforms | China’s environmental issues | China's green policies | Urban-rural gap
China's rise has shook the world. It has changed the lives of over a billion people in China. It has flooded humanity with cheap goods, from single-use toys to high-tech solar panels. And it has changed the logic of war and peace in the 21st Century.
But how to explain China's dramatic rise? Was it due to the wisdom of China's leaders after Mao? Or was it all about foreign investors searching for cheap labor?
Both and neither, argues MIT professor Yasheng Huang. Yes, the Chinese leaders learned from the mistakes of Mao. And yes, foreign money made a difference.
But there is a hidden story behind China’s rise - a story which merits our attention. This is a story with deep roots in history, but with the main act being played in the Chinese countryside during 1980’s. It is also a drama whose characters have never recovered from the tragedy that took place on the streets around Tiananmen Square during a warm summer night in 1989.
This is part 2 of this 3-part mini-series "What About China", hosted by me, Ilari Mäkelä, together with ChinaTalk’s Jordan Schneider. Part 1 looked at China's deep history. Part 3 will look at China's present and future.
In this part 2, we sketch the story of China's rise, meeting many colorful characters and discussing fascinating themes, such as:
MENTIONS
Modern scholars
Meijun Qian | Amartaya Sen | Branko Milanovic (ep. 32) | Zheng Wang (auth. Never Forget National Humiliation)
CCP Old Guard
Mao Zedong 毛泽东 | Deng Xiaoping 邓小平 | Xi Zhongxun 习仲勋 | Chen Yun 陈云 | Li Xiannian 李先念
CCP liberals of the 1980’s
Hu Yaobang 胡耀邦 | Zhao Ziyang 赵紫阳
CCP leaders after 1989
Jiang Zemin 江泽民 | Hu Jintao 胡锦涛 | Xi Jinping 习近平.
LINKS
You can read my essays and get the On Humans Newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com.
Are you a long-term listener? Join the wonderful group of patrons at Patreon.com/OnHumans.
For other episodes on economic history, see my series on the Birth of Modern Prosperity, with Daron Acemoglu, Oded Galor, Brad DeLong, and Branko Milanovic.
The West has ruled history — at least the way history has been written. This is a shame. To tell the story of humans, we must tell the story of us all.
So what about the rest? What themes and quirks does their history hide? And what forces, if anything, prevented them of matching Europe’s rise?
I aim to cover these topics for several countries and cultures over the next year. But I wanted to start with China. To do so, I’ve teamed up with Jordan Schneider, the host of ChinaTalk.
Our guest is MIT professor Yasheng Huang (黄亚生). Huang is the author of Rise and Fall of the EAST – one of my all-time favorite books on China’s past and present.
In this episode, we explore the deep currents shaping China’s history.
We trace the forces shaping China's early mastery of technology to its falling behind Europe in the modern era. We also discuss the surprising role that standardized exams have played in Chinese history, and why certain democratic elements in China’s past actually bolstered the emperor’s authority.
The episode covers all of Chinese imperial history, ending with a brief note on the early 20th Century. In part 2, will zoom into China’s economic miracle and its uncertain future.
NOTES
A Rough Timeline of Chinese history:
Pre–221 BCE: Disunity (e.g. Warring States)
221 BCE – 220: Unity (Qin & Han dynasties)
220 – 581: Disunity (“Han-Sui Interregnum”)
581 – 1911: Unity (Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties)
Historical figures
Emperor Wanli 萬曆帝 | Shen Kuo 沈括 (polymath) | Zhu Xi 朱熹 (classical philosopher) | Hong Xiuquan 洪秀全 (leader of the Taiping Rebellion) | Yuan Shikai 袁世凯 (military leader) | Chiang Kai-shek 蔣介石 (military leader and statesman)
Modern scholars
Ping-ti Ho 何炳棣 (historian) | Clair Yang (economist) | Joseph Needham (scientist and historian) | Daron Acemoglu | James Robinson
Historical terms
Kējǔ civil service exams | Taiping Rebellion
References
For more links and some impressive graphs, see this article at OnHumans.Substack.com.
LINKS
Are you a long-term listener? Join the wonderful group of patrons at Patreon.com/OnHumans.
For other episodes on economic history, see my series on the Birth of Modern Prosperity, with Daron Acemoglu, Oded Galor, Brad DeLong, and Branko Milanovic.
How do hunter-gatherers live? Do they wage war? Are they egalitarian? Do they really work for less?
These are fascinating questions. I’ve tried my best at covering them on the show. (You can see a list of episodes below).
But since 2023, the most controversial question has been on the role of women. Is it true that men hunt and women gather? Or is this theory, nicknamed “Man the Hunter”, a myth that should be buried for good?
I've covered this sensitive topic on the podcast and in writing. And for a moment, I thought I had it all figured out.
In late 2023, I concluded that there is no real debate, just an important reminder not to slip "from more to all". Yes, women hunt. No, they don't do it as much as men. And yes, this pattern is accepted by all serious scholars.
I was wrong.
Many scholars messaged me insisting that the debate was very real. Soon, new papers came out attacking the many headline grabbing claims of 2023.
I’ve spent a lot time in 2024 trying to get to the bottom of the topic. I’ve had conversations with several scholars on the matter.
The most interesting conversation I had with Katie Starkweather, an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at University of Illinois.
Starkweather studies women’s decision making in a variety of cultures. For years, she has been a thoughtful critic of many myths around women’s behaviour and biology. Typically, she pushed against traditionalist ideas about fixed gender roles. But she has also become a critic of the recent enthusiasm around “Woman the Hunter”. This makes her a particularly nuanced commentators on this sensitive topic.
We began this conversation by talking about the basic question: What's the current debate about? And what does should make of the evidence? (You can read my conclusion, with many more references, at OnHumans.Substack.com)
This was all interesting.
But towards the end, we also touch upon a deeper question: Does it matter? What is at stake in this debate? What are the implications for science? What about for gender equality? And what would a chimpanzee say about the topic?
As always, we finish with my guests reflection on humanity.
LINKS
Do you like On Humans? Join the group of patrons at Patreon.com/OnHumans!
Other episodes on hunter-gatherers: 6 (grandmothers), 8 (war), 14 (equality), 29 (women hunters), 35 (family), 38 (small groups?), 42 (economy)
MENTIONS
Names
Cara Ocobock (ep. 29) | Sarah Lacy | Cara Wall-Scheffler | Vivek Venkataraman (ep. 14) | Nikhil Chaudhary (ep. 35)
Articles
For more references and links, see my essay "Is 'Man the Hunter' Dead?
Ethnic groups
Aka | Inuit | Selknam | Ju/'hoansi (!Kung)
Keywords
Hunter-gatherers | Foragers | Human evolution | Human origins | Anthropology | Archaeology | Man the Hunter | Woman the Hunter | Stone Age | Palaeolithic | Sexual division of labour | Behavioral ecology
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:
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:
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:
Names mentioned
Technical terms and ethnic groups mentioned
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):
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:
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
ilari@onhumans.org
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: ilari@onhumans.org
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: ilari@onhumans.org
_____
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:
Technical terms mentioned
Names mentioned
Other links and reference
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:
____
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: ilari@onhumans.org
_____
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: ilari@onhumans.org
_______
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:
Ethnic groups mentioned
Names and technical terms
References
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:
____
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: ilari@onhumans.org
_____
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: ilari@onhumans.org
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:
_________
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: ilari@onhumans.org
_________
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.*
To get your free book, set up an Audible account via the following link
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 Vaishon 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:
_________
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: ilari@onhumans.org
_________
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.*
To get your free book, set up an Audible account via the following link.
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 freevia 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:
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
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.
How to get your free audiobook from Audible (if eligible, see terms & conditions behind the link):
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)
Season 2 is out this Saturday, 17th of June! In this final highlight from season 1, anthropologist Vivek Venkataraman talks to Ilari about living with Batek hunter-gatherers. The Batek live in the rainforests of Malaysia and are famous for being one of the most egalitarian society ever studied: things are shared, decisions are made together, and men don't dominate over women. The Batek lifestyle was inspirational in many ways, Dr Venkataraman tells, but one of their norms was particularly difficult to follow...
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):
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: ilari@onhumans.org
_________
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:
_________
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: ilari@onhumans.org
_________
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
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:
_________
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: ilari@onhumans.org
_________
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:
Technical terms
Work mentioned
Social science paints a bleak picture of unprivileged life. Poverty is certainly treated as a social problem - as a harsh condition to live in. But it is also painted as a condition which blunts humanity's capacity for altruism and virtue. Jacqueline Mattis is a psychologist who has studied altruism and prosociality in deeply deprived areas, such as majority African-American inner-city housing projects. Her work demonstrates that altruism does not vanish amongst those who struggle for survival. No, living in racialised poverty is not fun. But yes, people are still doing beautiful things daily. And they might even do so more often than in more privileged areas. Dr Mattis and Ilari discuss topics, such as: Is altruism unattainable for those without food and safety? Everyday altruism in poor areas Altruism amongst the homeless The psychological impact of catastrophes Is poverty linked to anti-social behaviour? The difficult dilemma of improving policing for African-Americans Religion and spirituality: dangerous, trivial, or important? The concept of grace Names mentioned Abraham Maslow (humanistic psychologist, famous for his "hierarchy of needs") Vitkrol Frankl (holocaust survivor, author of Man's Search For Meaning) Ta-Nehisi Coates (author of Between the World and Me) Rebecca Solnit (author of A Paradise Built in Hell) Rutger Bregman (author of Humankind) Stanley Milgram & Philip Zimbardo (founding figures in social psychology) Batja Mesquita (author of Between Us: How Culture Shapes Emotion) Christine McWayne Get in touch Email: makela.ilari@outlook.com
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 Equalityis one of the must-reads of the contemporary philosophy of political equality. And her recent essay on the history of equality and social justiceis 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:
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:
Names and work mentioned
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:
Names mentioned:
Terms
Hunter-gatherer groups mentioned:
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 conversation also explores:
Technical terms
Names
Get in touch
* 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:
Names Mentioned
Terms Mentioned
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:
Names mentioned
Technical terms and ethnic groups mentioned
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):
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:
Names mentioned
Terms mentioned
Get in touch
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:
Names mentioned
Technical terms mentioned
Extra points
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:
Ethnic groups mentioned
Names and technical terms
References
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
References
* 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:
Technical terms & ethnic groups mentioned
Names mentioned
References
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
Referenced conspiracy theories and related terms
Other technical terms:
Other names mentioned:
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:
Work mentioned and other references
Technical terms and names mentioned
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:
Technical terms mentioned
Names mentioned
Other links and reference
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
Terms mentioned
Other work cited
Other scholars to follow (Kitcher’s recommendation)
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:
Technical terms mentioned:
Names mentioned:
Other scholars to follow (Churchland’s recommendations)
Topics in this interview
Philosophy & neuroscience more generally
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.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
