On Humans

Helen Fisher, a Cultural Biology expert, discusses romantic love, monogamy, and maintaining passion in relationships. Topics include the evolution of romantic love, neuroscience behind relationships, animal pair bonding, and the impact of SSRIs on love. The conversation also explores mating systems, divorce patterns, and the historical significance of the plow in human society.

This is the final episode of 2023. And it is a very odd episode.My guest is Gregory Forth. He is an anthropologist who specializes in the biological theories of indigenous peoples. Forth was doing this work on the Flores Island, Indonesia, during the 2003 discovery of a new hominin species: Homo floresiensis. This was an exciting discovery for many. But Forth was, in his own words, "gobsmacked". In his own studies, Forth had been puzzling over a species the local people called lai ho'a, a creature that was not quite human and not quite monkey. It was something in between. According to the local people, the lai ho'a live deep in the local rainforest. They are difficult to see. But people do see one occasionally. They are about a meter in height, just as Homo floresiensis. And they walk on two legs – a feature that separates humans from other mammals.So what should we make of all of this? Could Homo floresiensis, or its descendants, still be alive? Or is this just another fantasy in the realm of cryptozoology? And what would it be like to encounter a species that is half human, half ape? What rights would they get? How would it challenge our ideas about "humanity"?This is my attempt at making sense of this peculiar case. I hope you enjoy it!READ MORETo read the full story in detail, I highly recommend Forth’s thoughtful and non-sensetationalist book, ⁠Between an Ape and Human: An Anthropologist on the Trail of a Hidden Hominoid. I am now publishing episode breakdowns, essays, and much more. Read online or sign up for the newsletter on ⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠! SUPPORTPlease consider supporting the show on Patreon.com/OnHumans. MENTIONSEthnic groups: Lio People (on Flores), Southeast Asian “Pygmies” (i.e. indigenous people with very short stature)Hominin species: Homo floresiensis, Austrolopithecine, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo denisovans, Homo sapiens

Capitalism can cause massive economic inequalities. Indeed, a century after Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, the richest 1% owned a record-breaking 70% of England’s wealth. Not surprisingly, this era saw the rise of a very different economic theorist: Karl Marx. [You can see this and many other graphs here.]But does capitalism have to increase inequality? If so, why was the golden age of American capitalism an era of rapidly decreasing inequality? Was this “Great Levelling” a natural product of capitalist development, as theorised by Simon Kuznets? Or was it a historical anomaly resulting from the two world wars and political interventions, as argued by Thomas Piketty?Yet more questions emerge if we take a more global outlook. Was the Great Levelling within rich countries but a veil behind which they plundered the Global South, making capitalism an inherent engine of global inequality? If so, why has global inequality reduced during the recent era of globalised capitalism?There are very few people who can judge these questions with the same nuance and understanding as Branko Milanović. Milanović is a leading scholar of global inequality. But he is also a particularly sensitive commentator on capitalism. Born in communist Yugoslavia, Milanović has a rare ability to look at capitalism from an arms-length, without indoctrinated faith but also with a deep appreciation of the limits of its alternatives. I hope you enjoy our conversation!VISUAL DATA We discuss a lot of numbers in this episode. You can find a lot of relevant graphs in my Substack post: https://onhumans.substack.com/p/the-evolution-of-inequality-underTo follow Milanović's own work, and get a lot of more graphs, see his many books and his blog "Global Inequality" at https://branko2f7.substack.com/SUPPORTI hope you enjoy the conversation. If you do, consider becoming a supporter of On Humans on ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠. MENTIONSNames: Karl Marx, Alexis de Tocqueville, Brad DeLong (see episode 18 & season 1 highlights), Simon Kuznets, Arthur Berns, Thomas Piketty,  Gabriel Zucman, Emmanuel Saez, Jason Hickel, François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Vilfredo ParetoNames: Gini coefficient, Kuznets-curve, Mondragon (a Spanish cooperative), homoploutia (when the rich both own capital and work for an income) Books: Visions of Inequality (Milanovic), Capital (Marx), Capital in the 21st Century (Piketty), Global Inequality (Milanovic), Capitalism, Alone (Milanovic)

The tension between science and religion is perhaps the greatest tension of our age. Is the world fundamentally made of atoms, quarks, and quantum fields? Or is the material world but a secondary realm, lesser in meaning to the kingdom of God? There are many iterations of this tension. But there are also bridge-builders; thinkers who want to bridge science and religion — or at the very least, science and spirituality. My guest today is one of them. Donald Hoffman is a vision scientist, who has come to the dramatic conclusion that space and time are not fundamental. They are, according to him, just parts and parcels of our perception. Therefore objects, molecules, and atoms are not fundamental. Consciousness is.We explored the scientific case for Hoffman's theory in episode 30. In this 2nd part, we explore its relationship with spirituality.What if Hoffman is right? Should we live our lives any differently? What is the meaning of life in a world without space or time? Do we find God behind Hoffman's mathematics? You can enjoy this conversation without listening to the previous one.ESSAYS AND NEWSLETTERYou can now find breakdowns and analyses of new conversations from ⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠. SUPPORTI hope you enjoy the conversation. If you do, consider becoming a supporter of On Humans on ⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠. MENTIONSNames: Albert Einstein, Rupert Spira, Dalai Lama (H.H. the 14th), Joseph DweckTerms: Canor's hierarchy, entropy

The world is governed by objective laws of physics. They explain the movements of planets, oceans, and cells in our bodies. But can they ever explain the feelings and meanings of our mental lives? This problem, called the hard problem of consciousness, runs very deep. No satisfactory explanation exists. But many think that there must, in principle, be an explanation.A minority of thinkers disagree. According to these thinkers, we will never be able to explain mind in terms of matter. We will, instead, explain matter in terms of mind. I explored this position in some detail in episode 17.But hold on, you might say. Is this not contradicted by the success of natural sciences? How could a mind-first philosophy ever explain the success of particle physics? Or more generally, wouldn't any scientist laugh at the idea that mind is more fundamental than matter?No — not all of them laugh. Some take it very seriously. Donald Hoffman is one such scientist. Originally working with computer vision at MIT's famous Artificial Intelligence Lab, Hoffman started asking a simple question: What does it mean to "see" the world? His answer starts from a simple idea: perception simplifies the world – a lot. But what is the real world like? What is “there” before our perception simplifies the world? Nothing familiar, Hoffman claims. No matter. No objects. Not even a three-dimensional space. And no time. There is just consciousness. This is a wild idea. But it is a surprisingly precise idea. It is so precise, in fact, that Hoffman’s team can derive basic findings in particle physics from their theory. A fascinating conversation was guaranteed. I hope you enjoy it. If you do, consider becoming a supporter of On Humans on ⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠. ESSAYS AND NEWSLETTERYou can now find breakdowns and analyses of new conversations from ⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠. Subscribe to the newsletter to get every new piece to fresh from the shelf.MENTIONSNames: David Gross, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Edward Whitten, Nathan Seiberg, Andrew Strominger, Edwin Abbott, Nick Bostrom, Giulio Tononi, Keith Frankish, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Roger Penrose, Sean Carroll,  Swapan ChattopadhyayTerms (Physics and Maths): quantum fields, string theory, gluon, scattering amplitude, amplituhedron, decorated permutations, bosons, leptons, quarks, Planck scale, twistor theory, M-theory, multiverse, recurrent communicating classes, Cantor’s hierarchy (relating to different sizes of infinity... If this sounds weird, stay tuned for full episode on infinity. It will come out in a month or two.)Terms (Philosophy and Psychology): Kant’s phenomena and noumena, integrated information theory, global workspace theory, orchestrated objective reduction theory, attention schema theoryBooks: Case Against Reality by Hoffman, Enlightenment Now by Steven PinkerArticles etc.: For links to articles, courses, and more, see https://onhumans.substack.com/p/links-for-episode-30

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!)MENTIONSScholars: 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-29Thank you, as always, for listening!

In this thought-provoking discussion, primatologist Sarah Brosnan dives into her groundbreaking research on fairness and inequity aversion in monkeys. She explores the famous cucumber-throwing experiment, linking monkey frustrations with human social inequalities. The conversation covers topics like the potential for monkeys to adopt egalitarian norms and how fairness enhances cooperation. Brosnan also examines whether animals have concepts of property rights and what these behaviors reveal about human moral evolution, prompting a fascinating exploration of our shared nature.

Suzana Herculano-Houzel, a Brazilian neuroscientist and associate professor at Vanderbilt University, dives into the intricacies of the human brain. She discusses how our brain isn't necessarily the largest but is unique due to its neuron count. Herculano-Houzel unpacks the myth of brain size correlating with intelligence and highlights fascinating brain comparisons across species, especially elephants. She also links diet and cooking to brain development, ultimately questioning why not all animals evolved larger brains despite the advantages.

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: ilari@onhumans.org _____ 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 SHOWPlease 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: ilari@onhumans.org_____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 RestrepoOther terms and referencesMalthusian dynamics (of population growth “eating away” any increases in production) Chartists and Luddites (19th Century British political movements)