On Humans

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.NOTESA 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 scholarsPing-ti Ho 何炳棣 (historian) | Clair Yang (economist) | Joseph Needham (scientist and historian) | Daron Acemoglu | James RobinsonHistorical termsKējǔ civil service exams | Taiping Rebellion ReferencesFor 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)MENTIONSNamesCara Ocobock (ep. 29) | Sarah Lacy | Cara Wall-Scheffler | Vivek Venkataraman (ep. 14) | Nikhil Chaudhary (ep. 35)ArticlesFor more references and links, see my essay "Is 'Man the Hunter' Dead?Ethnic groupsAka | Inuit | Selknam | Ju/'hoansi (!Kung)KeywordsHunter-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.LINKSYou 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!MENTIONSNamesV. Gordon Childe | Jared Diamond | Mo Yan | Alain Testart | Robert J. Braidwood | Milutin Milanković | Feng He | James Scott | Richard B. Lee | Irven DevoreTermsNeolithic | Holocene | Pleistocene | Consumption smoothing | Malthusian limit | Milankovitch cyclesEthnic groupsNatuffians | Pacific Northwestern hunter-gatherers KeywordsAnthropology | 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.SUPPORTDo you like On Humans? You can become a member of the generous group of patrons at Patreon.com/OnHumans!MENTIONSNames: 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 HumeDilemmas & games: Trolley problems (Switch, Footbridge, Loop, Beckon, Wave), Gummy Bear task (from Tomasello et al.); Gambling Tasks (from Damasio et al.); Ultimatum GameTerms: Utilitarianism; consequentialism; deontology; rule utilitarianism; trait utilitarianism; virtue & character ethicsArticles: 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

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 BrainsANNOUNCEMENTI'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/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LINKSWant to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠⁠MENTIONSTerms: allomothers, mobile hunter-gatherers (i.e. immediate return foragers), matrilineal and patrilineal kinNames: 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.LINKSWant to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠MENTIONSNames: Richard Dawkins, Kim Hill, David Reich, Andrea MiglianoBooks: 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 infinityAs always, we finish with Prof Moore’s reflections on humanity.LINKSWant to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠MENTIONSNames: 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 totalitiesBooks: 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.LINKSWant to support the show? Checkout ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠MENTIONSNames: 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 consciousnessAs always, we end with Jablonka’s reflections on humanity.LINKSWant to support the show? Checkout Patreon.com/OnHumansWant to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on OnHumans.Substack.comMENTIONSBooks: 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, vertebratesNames: Aristotle, Simona Ginsburg, Jonathan Birch, Antonio Damasio

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 RESOURCESIf 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. MENTIONSNames: 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-34SUPPORTYou can support the On Humans podcast by becoming a member at Patreon.com/OnHumans

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 MORETo 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! SUPPORTPlease consider supporting the show on Patreon.com/OnHumans. MENTIONSEthnic 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-underTo 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/SUPPORTI hope you enjoy the conversation. If you do, consider becoming a supporter of On Humans on ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠. MENTIONSNames: 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 ParetoNames: 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 NEWSLETTERYou can now find breakdowns and analyses of new conversations from ⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠. SUPPORTI hope you enjoy the conversation. If you do, consider becoming a supporter of On Humans on ⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠. MENTIONSNames: Albert Einstein, Rupert Spira, Dalai Lama (H.H. the 14th), Joseph DweckTerms: 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 NEWSLETTERYou 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.MENTIONSNames: 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 ChattopadhyayTerms (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 theoryBooks: Case Against Reality by Hoffman, Enlightenment Now by Steven PinkerArticles etc.: For links to articles, courses, and more, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-30

“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=-KSryJXDpZoI 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 OFFERINGDo 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 LINKSFor links to mentioned papers and talks, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-28.SUPPORT THE SHOW⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠GET IN TOUCHilari@onhumans.org