You are given 20 dollars in cash. You can use it as you wish, but with one condition: you have to use it to treat yourself. Now imagine getting another 20 dollars next week. This time, the rules have changed: you must use the money to treat someone else.  Which do you think will make you feel better? Contrary to many people's predictions, we tend to feel much better after spending the money on others. Whether we act it out or not, it seems that the human psyche is fine-tuned for generosity. Why? And why am I so confident about this anyway? Is the effect really a universal part of humanity? Does it take place across cultures and ages? What about those who give too much and experience a burnout? And if giving feels good, why don’t we do it more?  Lara Aknin is one of the world’s leading scientists working on generosity. Her master’s thesis led to a publication in Science — something I used to think was undoable — and she has studied generosity ever since. In this episode, Prof Aknin and I discuss: The original evidence / Cross-cultural research / Alternative explanations / Do toddlers like giving? / Why does generosity feel good? / Why don’t we give more then? / What about giving too much (or caring for someone with dementia)? / Selfish generosity? As always, we finish with my guest's reflections on humanity. LINKS You can read my essays and get the On Humans newsletter at ⁠⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feeling generous on the 2nd annviersary of On Humans? Join the wonderful group of my patrons at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or get in touch for other ways to support! Get in touch: ⁠⁠makela.ilari@outlook.com⁠⁠. MENTIONS Scholars Elizabeth Dunn | Tania Broesch | Josh V. Kane | Benjamin J. Newman | Richard Dawkins Articles Links to articles is available here. Get these and other resources at OnHumans.Substack.com. Episodes 16 | Does Poverty Make Us Selfish ~ Jacqueline Mattis 20 | Distorting Darwinism – Or Why Evolution Does Not Prove That We Are Selfish ~ Solo 22 | Do Young Children Care About Others? ~ Amrisha Vaish Keywords Psychology | Anthropology | Behavioral Economics | Prosociality | Generosity | Happiness | Warm glow | Altruism | Charity | Prosocial spending | Cross-cultural research | Reciprocity | Cultural similarities | Spending choices | Happiness experiments | Emotional well-being | Social connection | Financial generosity | Helping behavior

Where is China today? Will its rise continue to benefit the vast majority of its population? Or is Xi Jinping's increasingly repressive government committing one of the biggest blunders of modern history? This is the final episode in the China-trilogy, the product of hours of conversations I've had with ChinaTalk's Jordan Schneider and MIT professor Yasheng Huang. In part 1, we discussed the deep currents of Chinese history, shaping the country's destiny from its early technological lead to its more recent decline and stagnation. In part 2, we discussed China during and after Mao, trying our best to explain the Chinese economic miracle. In this final episode, we discuss questions about China's present and future, guided by lessons from its recent past. We touch upon issues such as: The causes and consequences of Xi Jinping's riseWhy both Chinese leaders and Western observers misunderstand China's miracle – and why this matters for the future Why China is on course towards a sudden eruption of political chaos As always, we finish with my guest's reflections on humanity. LINKS You can read my essays and get the On Humans newsletter at ⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠. Are you a long-term listener? Feeling generous today? Join the wonderful group of my patrons at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! For other episodes on economic history, see my series on the ⁠⁠⁠⁠Birth of Modern Prosperity⁠⁠⁠⁠, with Daron Acemoglu, Oded Galor, Brad DeLong, and Branko Milanovic. MENTIONS Scholars Gordon Tullock | Joseph Torigian CCP figures Hua Guofeng 华国锋 | "Gang of Four" 四人幫 | Deng Xiaoping 邓小平 | Zhao Ziyang 赵紫阳 | 习近平 China's history | Xi Jinping | Chinese miracle | China's political leadership | Xi Jinping reforms | Hu Jintao policies | China leadership generations | Chinese Communist Party | Deng Xiaoping reforms | Chinese economy | China's political control | Chinese corruption | Rural poverty in China | China's environmental policies | China economic inequality | Chinese rural income | Chinese political system | China's globalized economy | Chinese private sector | China geopolitical tensions | China-West relations | Chinese GDP growth | CCP succession | Xi Jinping succession | Autocracy in China | China's term limits | China's leadership transitions | Vietnam-China war | China's authoritarianism | Chinese economic growth | Xi Jinping's leadership style | Chinese politics and reforms | China’s environmental issues | China's green policies | Urban-rural gap

China's rise has shook the world. It has changed the lives of over a billion people in China. It has flooded humanity with cheap goods, from single-use toys to high-tech solar panels. And it has changed the logic of war and peace in the 21st Century. But how to explain China's dramatic rise? Was it due to the wisdom of China's leaders after Mao? Or was it all about foreign investors searching for cheap labor?  Both and neither, argues MIT professor Yasheng Huang. Yes, the Chinese leaders learned from the mistakes of Mao. And yes, foreign money made a difference. But there is a hidden story behind China’s rise - a story which merits our attention. This is a story with deep roots in history, but with the main act being played in the Chinese countryside during 1980’s. It is also a drama whose characters have never recovered from the tragedy that took place on the streets around Tiananmen Square during a warm summer night in 1989. This is part 2 of this 3-part mini-series "What About China", hosted by me, Ilari Mäkelä, together with ChinaTalk’s Jordan Schneider. Part 1 looked at China's deep history. Part 3 will look at China's present and future. In this part 2, we sketch the story of China's rise, meeting many colorful characters and discussing fascinating themes, such as: How did Mao shape the direction of Chinese history? Why did China become richer than India?Why was 80's a golden era for liberal Chinese?How did the 1989 crackdown at Tiananmen square paved the way for China today? 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:  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 historyWhy improvements in technology have rarely benefitted the massesWhy 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 tiny groups. These groups were not only smaller than modern cities. They were smaller than medieval towns. Indeed, hunter-gatherers often move in bands of 25 people or so. These bands might draw people from a "meta-group" of 150 people — but not more. And so, 150 people is the "maxiimum" group size natural for humans. Or so the theory goes. My guest today thinks that this is wrong.  Cecilia Padilla-Iglesias is an evolutionary ecologist who studies hunter-gatherer societies. And her work points to a very different conclusion. Yes, hunter-gatherers spend much of their time in small bands. But these bands can form much larger groups of connections, extending further and further away, even to areas with different languages. Even in the rainforest, cosmopolitanism is the norm. So what do hunter-gatherer societies look like? And are they really good models of our deep past? We discuss these and other topics in this episode, touching upon topics such as: (04:00) Living with hunter-gatherers (10:30) Fluid societies (14:20) Dunbar’s mistake  (17:20) Dawkins’ mistake (21:20) Ancient DNA of hunter-gatherers (23:20) What made H. Sapiens special?   (25:40) Mobility, diversity, and technology (28:20) Sympathy and xenophobia (34:00) Ancient DNA (again) (41:30) Jungle cosmopolitanism (43:40) Was agriculture a mistake? As always, we end with my guest's reflections on humanity. LINKS Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠ Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠ MENTIONS Names: Richard Dawkins, Kim Hill, David Reich, Andrea Migliano Books: God Delusion (Dawkins), Who We Are And How We Got Here (Reich), The Human Swarm (Moffett) Ethnic groups: Bayaka (Congo), Hadza (Tanzania), Ache (Paraguay), Agta (Philippines) Articles: For links to articles, see OnHumans.Substack.com/p/Links-for-Episode-39-Hunter-Gatherer

Infinity is a puzzling idea. Even young children ponder its various manifestations: What is the biggest number? Does the universe have an edge? Does time have a beginning? Philosophers have tried to answer these questions since time immemorial. More recently, they have been joined by scientists and mathematicians. So what have we learned? Can we finally understand infinity? And what has this quest taught us about ourselves?  To explore this topic, I am joined by philosopher Adrian W. Moore.  Professor Moore is a special guest for two reasons. First, he is a world expert on infinity, known for an excellent BBC series, "History of the Infinite". More personally, he is the head tutor of Philosophy at St Hugh’s College, Oxford, where I studied my BA in Philosophy and Psychology. It has now been ten years since Prof Moore interviewed me and, for whatever reason, accepted me as a student. I feel honoured to mark the occasion with this episode. In this episode, we discuss: (02:35) Why infinity fascinates (12:20) Greeks on infinity (20:05) A finite cosmos?  (25:00) Zeno’s paradoxes (32:35) Answering Zeno (42:35) Measuring infinities? Georg Cantor (54:05) Infinity vs human understanding (66:20) Mystics on infinity As always, we finish with Prof Moore’s reflections on humanity. LINKS Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠ Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠ MENTIONS Names: Aristotle; Zeno; Archytus; Ludwig Wittgenstein; Kurt Gödel; Alan Turing; Georg Cantor; William Blake; Immanuel Kant  Terms: Pythagoreans; Zeno’s paradoxes; calculus; transfinite arithmetic; counting numbers, i.e. positive integers; absolute infinities, or inconsistent totalities Books: The Infinite (Moore) Other scholarship: For games on infinite boards, see e.g. the work of Davide Leonessi: https://leonessi.org/

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year 2024! To celebrate the new year, Spotify sent me a bunch of data points about 2023. I was particularly interested in one question: which conversation moved people the most? I already knew which episode people played the most. (That's episode 17 with Bernardo Kastrup.) But to listen is one thing. To share with friends and family is another. The most shared episode was my conversation with Helen Fisher, titled "A Cultural Biology of Sex, Love, and Monogamy". It was one of my favourite conversations, too. Fisher offered a sweeping take on romantic love, combining fascinating anthropology with practical tips about maintaining passion in relationships. She even convinced my parents to re-design their TV arrangement... Perhaps it deserves one more share. So here you go! ___ ORIGINAL SHOW NOTES Why do we love? And how much does our culture shape the way we do so? In this episode, Ilari talks with Helen Fisher about the powers that drive and shape our romantic relationships. Ilari and Professor Fisher discuss: 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 JankowiakRobert Sternberg (see episode 7)Anderson ThompsonBertrand Russell  Technical terms and ethnic groups mentioned Ventral tegmental area VTAHypothalamusDopamine, testosterone, oxytocin, vasopressin, serotonineMonogamy (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.