On Humans

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