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 history Why improvements in technology have rarely benefitted the masses Why this changed around the 1870s. The virtuous cycle of technology, education, and prosperity We also compare the economic history of Britain and India to shed light on how colonialism has enforced age-old obstacles to prosperity. ANNOUNCEMENT I'm writing a book! It is about the history of humans, for readers of all ages. Do you want access to early drafts? Become a member on ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ MORE LINKS Want to support the show? Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠⁠  

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

Modern cities are unique. Never before have so many people lived so close to each other. But just how unique is our modern cosmopolitanism? Completely unique, says a traditional theory. Humans evolved in 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.

In this enlightening discussion, Eva Jablonka, an eminent evolutionary biologist known for her work on epigenetic inheritance, delves into the evolution of consciousness. She explores the definition of consciousness and its links to evolution. The conversation raises questions about animal consciousness and the implications for AI. Jablonka highlights the complexity of conscious experiences across species, particularly during pivotal moments like the Cambrian explosion, and discusses the future challenges for consciousness in the age of technology.