On Humans

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

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

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

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

I hope you enjoy our conversation!

VISUAL DATA

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

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

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

SUPPORT

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

MENTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESSAYS AND NEWSLETTER

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

SUPPORT

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

MENTIONS

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

Terms: Canor's hierarchy, entropy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESSAYS AND NEWSLETTER

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

MENTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESSAYS AND NEWSLETTER

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

MENTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, as always, for listening!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you enjoy the conversation!

NEW OFFERING

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

The breakdown of this conversation is available now!

NAMES

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

LINKS

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

SUPPORT THE SHOW

⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠

GET IN TOUCH

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, as always, for listening!

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

LEARN MORE

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

https://OnHumans.substack.com/

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

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

Patreon supporters can access more bonus material.

⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠

MENTIONS

Technical terms

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

Names

Harry Jerison

Numbers

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

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

Links

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

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

SUPPORT THE SHOW

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

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

⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

On Humans is one year old today! To celebrate, I am announcing some novel ways for you to consume this content. Some of these are operational already. Some will start soon. All will benefit from your support today. Check these out!

Thank you as always for listening. Without your attention, this work would not be worthwhile.

Novel offering and ways to support:

Subscribe to On Humans on YouTube! This way, you will be notified of the upcoming video content. This also helps me massively in getting the attention of the YouTube algorithm.

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

Subscribe to On Humans on Substack! You will get longer show notes and essays based on the interviews. Delivered straight to your inbox (if you like that).

https://onhumans.substack.com/

Financial support

Become a supporter on Patreon to show some serious love AND receive pre-publication prefaces to each episode.

⁠https://www.patreon.com/OnHumans⁠

Interested in more serious learning? Consider the Learning Track (available via Patreon or email negotiation) and turn the podcast into a more structured university-style learning experience around themes that interest you. This includes monthly seminar-style video calls with me.

For details, get in touch with me to:

[email protected]

You can also send me a one-off gift via PayPal. My account is linked to:

[email protected]

Thank you for all your support!

Take care,

Ilari

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

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

____

SUPPORT THE SHOW

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

Visit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠⁠⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_____

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

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

Ilari and Professor Feldman discuss topics such as:

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

Technical terms mentioned

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

Names mentioned

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

Other links and reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We discuss topics such as:

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

____

SUPPORT THE SHOW

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

Visit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠⁠⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_____

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

Other terms and references

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

Chartists and Luddites (19th Century British political movements)

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

SUPPORT THE SHOW

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

Visit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠⁠⁠⁠

Get in touch: [email protected]

_______

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

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

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

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

In this discussion, Ilari and Professor Fry talk about:

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

Ethnic groups mentioned

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

Names and technical terms

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

References

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