On Humans Ilari Mäkelä

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 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