On Humans

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:  Education, Family, & Colonialism (with Oded Galor) Inventors & Engineers (with Brad DeLong) Democracy & Labour (with Daron Acemoglu) Equality & Inequality (with Branko Milanovic)  Today's episode is part 1 with Oded Galor, author ofThe Journey of Humanity: Origins of Wealth and Inequality. The original episodes are numbers 12 and 13. We discuss: The long arch of human history Why improvements in technology have rarely benefitted the masses Why this changed around the 1870s. The virtuous cycle of technology, education, and prosperity We also compare the economic history of Britain and India to shed light on how colonialism has enforced age-old obstacles to prosperity. ANNOUNCEMENT I'm writing a book! It is about the history of humans, for readers of all ages. Do you want access to early drafts? Become a member on ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ MORE LINKS Want to support the show? Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠⁠  

Over half a century, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has challenged many of our myths about parenting, attachment, and "human nature". In this conversation, we dive into her remarkable career, culminating in her new book, Father Time. [You can now order Father Time via Amazon or Princeton Uni Press] We discuss a variety of topics, from hunter-gatherer parenting to the limitations of comparing humans to chimpanzees. We also discuss "allomothers", attachment theory, and the tragedy of infanticide. We finish with a discussion on the remarkable social changes in fatherhood and the neuroscience that has enabled it. As always, we finish with Hrdy’s reflections on humanity. Timestamps (04:15) Myths (10:10) Attachment Theory  (20:50) Hunter-Gatherers (24:30) Modern Parenting  (26:00) Infanticide  (34:00) Monkey parenting (in South America) (36:10) Why we share  (40:00) Husbands, grannies, or aunties? (43:10) Father Brains ANNOUNCEMENT I'm writing a book! It is about the history of humans, for readers of all ages. Do you want access to early drafts? Become a member on Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LINKS Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠ Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ MENTIONS Terms: allomothers, mobile hunter-gatherers (i.e. immediate return foragers), matrilineal and patrilineal kin Names: Edward O. Wilson, Robert Trivers, John Bowlby, John Watson, Charles Darwin, Mary Ainsworth, Melvin Konner, Barry Hewlett, Nikhil Chaudhary (#34), Nancy Howell, Martin Daly, Margot Wilson, Amanda Reese, Judith Burkart, Carl Von Schaik, Alessandra Cassar, Ivan Jablonka, Kristen Hawkes (#6), Ruth Feldman (#3), Richard Lee

Modern cities are unique. Never before have so many people lived so close to each other. But just how unique is our modern cosmopolitanism? Completely unique, says a traditional theory. Humans evolved in 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 natural group size 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’s mistake (21:20) ANcient DNA of hunter-gatherers (23:20) What made 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 are fascinated by 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. Indeed, a whole branch of mathematics has become dedicated to the study of infinity.  So what have we learned? Can we finally understand infinity? And what has this quest taught us about ourselves?  To explore this topic, I am joined by philosopher Adrian W. Moore.  Professor Moore is a special guest for two reasons. First, he is a world expert on infinity, known for an excellent BBC series, "History of the Infinite". More personally, he is the head tutor of Philosophy at St Hugh’s College, Oxford, where I studied my BA in Philosophy and Psychology. It has now been ten years since Prof Moore interviewed me and, for whatever reason, accepted me as a student. I feel honoured to mark the occasion with this episode. In this episode, we discuss: (02:35) Why infinity fascinates (12:20) Greeks on infinity (20:05) A finite cosmos?  (25:00) Zeno’s paradoxes (32:35) Answering Zeno (42:35) Measuring infinities? Georg Cantor (54:05) Infinity vs human understanding (66:20) Mystics on infinity As always, we finish with Prof Moore’s reflections on humanity. LINKS Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠ Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠ MENTIONS Names: Aristotle; Zeno; Archytus; Ludwig Wittgenstein; Kurt Gödel; Alan Turing; Georg Cantor; William Blake; Immanuel Kant  Terms: Pythagoreans; Zeno’s paradoxes; calculus; transfinite arithmetic; counting numbers, i.e. positive integers; absolute infinities, or inconsistent totalities Books: The Infinite (Moore) Other scholarship: For games on infinite boards, see e.g. the work of Davide Leonessi: https://leonessi.org/

Why are we furless? Why do we cook our food and use spoken language? And how does climate change, sashimi, or the banks of Central America relate to human origins?  Human evolution is a deeply puzzling topic. But behind this dense mist lies many keys to our self-understanding. To guide us through the foggy territory, I am joined by Dr Ian Tattersall, a curator emeritus at the American Museum of Natural History (New York). In this episode, Dr Tattersall and I discuss: (04.00) An ancient climate change (07:20) First humans (11:20) Fire (17:50) Fish (21:40) Rocks (24:00) Evolution vs Innovation (25:30) Brain growth (36:10) Children (39:50) Language (48:20) Why? As always, we finish with Dr Tattersall's reflections on humanity. LINKS Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠ Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠ MENTIONS Names: Richard Wrangham (see ep. 21), Susan Schaller, Ildefonso, Jane Goodall, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Yuval Noah Harari  Books: Masters of the Planet (Tattersall), Man Without Words (Schaller), Sapiens (Harari) Technical terms: Oldowan tool culture (first stone tools, c. 2.5 million years ago), Acheulean hand axe (first major update in stone tools, c. 1.6 million years ago) Fossils: Lucy (3.2 million years old); Turkana Boy (aka. Nariokotome Boy, 1.6 million years old) Hominin species: Australopithecines, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens A note on hominin taxonomy: Homo habilis was traditionally considered the first human and the first maker of stone tools. Dr Tattersall is among the many critics of this old idea. According to him and many others, there is no separate tool-making species called Homo habilis. Rather, Australopithecines started making stone tools without any change in the biology of the species. Also, it is worth noting that Dr Tattersall rejects the traditional view which gives a big role for Homo erectus in the human story. In this traditional view, Turkana Boy’s species, Homo ergaster, is called an African Homo erectus. Dr Tattersall and many others argue that this is a historic hangover with little basis in the biological evidence.

We are conscious creatures. But why? Why did consciousness evolve? Can we use biology to explain the origins of feeling and meaning? Or will consciousness forever escape the grip of the scientific method?  Eva Jablonka has thought hard about these issues. An eminent evolutionary biologist, she became famous for her pioneering work on epigenetic inheritance. More recently, she has produced very original work on the evolution of consciousness with her colleague, neuroscientist Simona Ginsburg. So invited him on the show to discuss the evolution of consciousness, or what she beautifully calls "the sensitive soul". In this episode, we discuss themes such as: (03:00) What is consciousness?  (10:45) Four links between evolution and consciousness (27:30) Are robots conscious? Consciousness and vulnerability (30:45) Which animals are conscious? Consciousness and the Cambrian Explosion. (34:30) Can science fully explain consciousness? (48:00) The future of consciousness As always, we end with Jablonka’s reflections on humanity. LINKS Want to support the show? Checkout Patreon.com/OnHumans Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on OnHumans.Substack.com MENTIONS Books: Evolution of the Sensitive Soul, Picturing the Mind (both my Eva Jablonka & Simona Ginsburg) Terms: Sensitive soul, phenomenal consciousness, intentionality (i.e. "aboutness"), the Cambrian explosion, cephalopods, anthropods, vertebrates Names: Aristotle, Simona Ginsburg, Jonathan Birch, Antonio Damasio

Why do we love? What brings us together? How to heal ethnic hatred? According to my guest, the answer to all these questions lies in the human desire to grow ourselves through connecting with others. Arthur Aron is a psychologist who studies human bonding in all its forms. A pioneer in the field, he has studied topics from connecting with strangers to maintaining romance in life-long marriages. And many of his findings are ultimately hopeful. In this conversation, we discuss topics such as: (4:30) Why we love  (12:50) Tools to cultivate love (24:30) Friendships with the ethnic "other”  (31:30) Are we naturally xenophobic? MENTIONS Names: Elaine Aron, Helen Fisher, Stephen Wright Articles: For links to videos, articles, and the 36 Questions, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-35 MORE LINKS Read the On Humans newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com Support On Humans at Patreon.com/OnHumans

Can evolution shed light on our mental health? Nikhil Chaudhary thinks so. He is an anthropologist at the University of Cambridge who specialises in the links between evolution and psychiatry. In this clip, Dr Chaudhary explores the evolutionary origins of ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For our longer conversation on parenting and family life, see episode 34 of the On Humans Podcast.

We expect a lot from parents, especially from mothers. “Maternal instincts” are such, we are told, that mothers should gain almost literal superpowers from the joy of parenting.  Unfortunately, many parents face a different reality. Having children can be one of the most stressful times of life, amplified by feelings of guilt and inadequacy.  Why is this? Is this an inevitable part of the human condition? Or is the fault in our modern society? And how would we know the answer?  To address these questions, anthropologists have started comparing family lives in industrial societies with those of the last remaining hunter-gatherers.  Nikhil Chaudhary is one such anthropologist. A researcher at the University of Cambridge, he recently co-authored a remarkable paper on what we have learned about the family lives of hunter-gatherers. I invited him on the show to discuss the findings and their implications. So what is family life like amongst hunter-gatherers? Chaudhary's research paints a fascinating picture. Indeed, industrial societies can learn a lot from them. But not everything is easy for them, either. In addition to parenting, our conversation touched upon themes from monogamy and polyamory to parental grief, health spending, and the stark contrast between human and chimpanzee mothers. MORE RESOURCES If you enjoy our conversation and want to learn more about hunter-gatherer studies, see episode 14 with Vivek Venkataraman. For more information on the anthropology of monogamy and beyond, see episode 11 with Helen Fisher.  For written content on this and other conversations, subscribe to the newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com.  MENTIONS Names: Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (see upcoming episode this spring), Richard Wrangham (see episode 21), Alan Watts  Terms: Partible paternity, alloparenting, post-partum depression, the continuum concept, NHS (UK’s National Health Services), human self-domestication (see episode 21) Ethnic groups: BaYaka (both the Mbendjele in Congo and the Aka in CAR), Ache (in Paraguay), Hadza (in Tanzania), Agta (in the Philippines), Bantu peoples (the major ethnolinguistic group in most southern African countries) Articles: For links to articles mentioned in this conversation, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-34 SUPPORT You can support the On Humans podcast by becoming a member at Patreon.com/OnHumans

Happy New Year 2024! To celebrate the new year, Spotify sent me a bunch of data points about 2023. I was particularly interested in one question: which conversation moved people the most? I already knew which episode people played the most. (That's episode 17 with Bernardo Kastrup.) But to listen is one thing. To share with friends and family is another. The most shared episode was my conversation with Helen Fisher, titled "A Cultural Biology of Sex, Love, and Monogamy". It was one of my favourite conversations, too. Fisher offered a sweeping take on romantic love, combining fascinating anthropology with practical tips about maintaining passion in relationships. She even convinced my parents to re-design their TV arrangement... Perhaps it deserves one more share. So here you go! ___ ORIGINAL SHOW NOTES Why do we love? And how much does our culture shape the way we do so? In this episode, Ilari talks with Helen Fisher about the powers that drive and shape our romantic relationships. Ilari and Professor Fisher discuss: Is romantic love a modern invention? Is monogamy a social invention?  Do men care more about sex? Do women care more about romance? Why agriculture, especially with the plough, caused havoc in romantic relationships. Why divorces might be on the decline. A science-based guide for maintaining romantic relations (based on couples who are still in love after 25 years) Why (certain) antidepressants can kill the sex drive and blunt romantic love (to read more, see the end of the notes) How common is polygamy or polyandry? Where in the world do we find most "free love"? Why did homosexuality evolve? Names mentioned Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt (as recounted by Alison Gopnik in her The Gardener and the Carpenter) Bill Jankowiak Robert Sternberg (see episode 7) Anderson Thompson Bertrand Russell  Technical terms and ethnic groups mentioned Ventral tegmental area VTA Hypothalamus Dopamine, testosterone, oxytocin, vasopressin, serotonine Monogamy (serial or lifelong; social or biological) Polygamy (several wives) and polyandry (several husbands)  Tlingit (the polyandrous Inuit society with wealthy women) Oneida community (in New York State) Dig Deeper Antidepressants: To read more about the possible effects of SSRIs on sex drive and romantic love, see ⁠Tocco and Brumbaugh (2019)⁠. Below is a list of possible alternatives or complements to SSRIs (please consult with your doctor in all matters related to pharmaceuticals): Fisher herself suggested that SNRIs could be less risky than SSRIs. Theoretically, dopamine reuptake inhibitors, such as bupropion, could also counter the risks associated with SSRIs (for a review, see ⁠Zisook et al. 2006⁠). For alternative or complementary oral treatments of depression, see research on supplementation with a high dosage of Omega 3 (EPA and DHA, not ALA) (for a review, see ⁠Bhat & Ara 2015⁠). Polyamory: In the episode, Professor Fisher suggests that many Amazonian tribes have informal polyandry, i.e. women have many partners, albeit only one formal husband. However, there are ⁠non-academic sources⁠ suggesting that formalised polyandry is common in the Zo’é community in Amazon. For some of these photos of Zo’é and other Amazonian tribes, many of whom exhibit remarkably liberal attitudes to sex, see the ⁠recent Amazonia exhibition⁠ in the London Science Museum.

This is the final episode of 2023. And it is an 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 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: Can monkeys learn more egalitarian social norms? How do monkeys (or chimpanzees) react to unfairness when they are the ones benefitting? Answering the critics: is this really about social equality? Does fairness improve cooperation? Are there property rights in the primate world? Is there still something special about humans? As always, we end with my guest's reflections on human nature. I hope you enjoy the conversation! NEW OFFERING Do you prefer reading to listening? Or would you like to revisit the argument’s highlights? You can now get breakdowns of this and other episodes directly to your email. Subscribe via the On Humans SubStack or read on the web. The breakdown of this conversation is available now! NAMES Malini Suchak / Frans de Waal / Julia Neiworth / Erin Musto / Friederike Range / Jason Davies / Michael Tomasello / Felix Waerneken  LINKS For links to mentioned papers and talks, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-28. SUPPORT THE SHOW ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠ GET IN TOUCH 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 what might be the biggest question in human evolution: If a big brain is a good idea, why didn’t all other animals grow one? As always, our conversation finishes with my Herculano-Houzel’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