0:00

We made USAA insurance for

0:02

veterans like James. When he found out how

0:04

much USAA was helping members save,

0:06

he said, It's time to switch. We'll help you

0:08

find the right coverage at the right price. USAA.

0:12

What you're made of, we're made for. Restrictions

0:14

apply.

0:23

Hello. Hello. And welcome to Philosophy

0:26

for Our Times, bringing you the world's leading

0:28

thinkers on today's biggest ideas. I'm

0:30

Margarita, a researcher here at the IAI.

0:32

And I'm Amari, one of the producers

0:35

and senior researcher at the IAI. Today,

0:38

we've got Ancient Traits in a Modern World, featuring

0:40

Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology

0:42

at the University of Oxford, Sunitra Gupta, Research

0:45

Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute

0:48

at Oxford, Anders Sandberg, and Philosopher

0:50

of Biology, Sabrina Smith. This took

0:52

place in 2023 at the How the

0:54

Light Gets In Festival in Hay, the philosophy festival

0:57

produced by the team here at the IAI. So

0:59

Amari, tell us a bit about this debate.

1:01

So this debate explores whether

1:03

our neurobiology is at odds with the

1:06

modern world. I think one of

1:08

the interesting things that you'll get from

1:10

this debate is the sort of

1:12

division that we have between the

1:15

philosopher on the panel, Sabrina Smith,

1:17

who challenges the very idea that we can know

1:19

what it was like previously, what

1:22

our architecture biological

1:24

structures were like, and Anders Sandberg,

1:26

who presents a very positive case for our

1:28

ability to adapt and evolve

1:31

as one of the best species that

1:33

ever existed, and who are

1:35

already enjoying the benefits

1:38

of this new world that we've created,

1:41

against the sort of scepticism

1:43

of Sunitra Gupta, who thinks that

1:46

very much like the lion waiting

1:48

in the bush, we all are

1:51

anxious about it because of the

1:53

structures in our brains.

1:54

Amazing, and we'll get into that

1:56

in just a moment. But remember, if you enjoyed

1:59

today's episode, Don't forget to like and subscribe

2:01

on your platform of choice and visit Ii.tv

2:04

for hundreds more podcasts, videos,

2:06

and articles from the world's leading thinkers. Let's

2:09

now hand over to our host for this debate, Knessh

2:11

Taylor. Hi,

2:14

welcome, welcome, welcome everybody.

2:16

Welcome to day one of how the light gets

2:18

in. We are here this evening

2:20

to discuss ancient traits in the modern world.

2:24

So we see the remarkable

2:26

evolution of the human brain as one

2:28

of the driving factors behind our success

2:30

as a species. Our neurobiology

2:33

evolved though to solve challenges

2:36

in a drastically different world to

2:38

the one that we find ourselves in today. Might

2:41

our evolved traits once advantageous

2:44

now be our Achilles heel? For

2:47

human aggression, inventiveness,

2:49

and a determination to overcome enemies

2:52

once evolutionarily effective now

2:55

actually risk resource, technology,

2:57

and nuclear crises, each with

2:59

the potential to bring our species to an end. So

3:03

is our paleolithic hardware no longer equipped

3:05

to the contemporary world we have helped

3:08

to create? Can we find ways

3:10

to change our behavior before it is too late?

3:13

Alternatively, should we see it as inevitable

3:15

that all species become extinct and

3:18

our turn may be closer than we

3:20

imagine? Or

3:22

is this all misguided and evolution

3:24

has dealt us a brilliant hand

3:27

to cope with the challenges of the 21st century life? So

3:30

to help us address this, our wonderful speakers,

3:34

we have Suneetra Gupta, who is an acclaimed

3:36

novelist, novelist, excuse me

3:38

essayist, and also scientist.

3:41

She's currently professor of

3:43

theoretical epidemiology at the University

3:45

of Oxford. She has won many

3:48

esteemed awards, including the Scientific Medal

3:50

by the Zoological Society of London and

3:52

the prestigious Royal Society Roslyn

3:55

Franklin Award for her research. Sabrina

3:58

Smith is one of the most exciting philo-

5:53

An

6:03

example of where something

6:06

that we're hardwired to do actually

6:08

can lead to the development of what

6:10

I call a doxer, which is a story that

6:12

you can't

6:13

challenge. And I

6:15

think that has serious problems. Another

6:17

good example of what the kind

6:20

of wiring, hard wiring that happened

6:23

during these periods where we

6:26

had a very different lifestyle is that it

6:28

was, again, hugely adaptive to

6:31

be able to signal to members

6:33

of your tribe that you would do

6:35

the right thing, that you weren't going to

6:38

take the antelope that you

6:40

just killed and run off with it.

6:42

So there was tremendous

6:44

value to signaling

6:46

your virtue. And

6:49

that now, of course, has transmuted into

6:51

a way that, well,

6:54

something which is both

6:57

valuable but also has its downsides

6:59

in the same way that storytelling is

7:02

obviously still a valuable attribute

7:04

but has its downsides. And so,

7:06

of course, signaling virtue

7:07

has many

7:10

downsides.

7:13

These are not inconsiderable, as

7:16

we've seen particularly in

7:19

various forms, but certainly in the last three

7:22

years as the pandemic

7:25

unfolded. So

7:25

I think there are these social

7:28

traits. So I'll just leave it with those two. Storytelling

7:31

and signaling virtue,

7:34

both of which can, on the one hand,

7:36

be good in that storytelling

7:38

is a fundamental

7:39

way in which we transact our

7:41

interactions. It's a fundamental

7:44

way in which we live our lives. Signaling

7:47

virtue or reassuring people

7:49

can be

7:51

the currency

7:53

of empathy, which is a good thing, but it

7:55

can also be performative and

7:57

have other downsides. I

8:00

think most of our neurobiology has upsides

8:03

and downsides, but there's two examples.

8:06

Perfect. Thank you so much. Sabrina,

8:09

what do you think? Is neurobiology

8:11

inadequate to deal with the challenges of the 21st century?

8:15

So the first

8:17

thing to note is that in

8:19

the belly of that question, there is a presupposition.

8:23

And that presupposition is that we

8:25

have facts about

8:27

contemporary human or

8:29

contemporary neurobiology,

8:32

and we have facts about

8:34

the neurobiology of our ancestors

8:38

some 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.

8:41

Those are empirical claims.

8:44

Those are empirical claims that we can put to

8:46

the test. It turns out we

8:48

actually do not have facts available

8:51

to us about

8:53

what precisely the biological

8:56

constitution of our ancestors

8:58

were. We have

9:01

and do make inferences

9:04

based on certain

9:09

kinds of preferences that we have.

9:12

I'm smiling because the

9:14

sorts of inferences, even amongst scientists,

9:19

that we find are inferences

9:22

that accord very often with

9:24

already presuppositions

9:26

that they already have. So if

9:28

you believe that there is a

9:31

link, an unbreakable

9:33

link, between the neurobiological

9:36

structures installed in our

9:38

ancestors

9:40

that gave rise to the psychology

9:42

that they had, that

9:44

allowed them to perform as well as they performed,

9:47

and we know they performed well because we

9:49

are the recipients of their having done

9:51

so. But we

9:53

don't know the facts of

9:56

how they performed, but if you

9:58

already believe that they... has

10:00

been an unbroken

10:03

connection between them

10:05

and us, then

10:07

it's very easy to make the inference

10:09

that our neurobiology

10:12

is ill-equipped

10:13

to the contemporary world.

10:15

I see nothing. I'm

10:17

not a neurobiologist. I'm a philosopher

10:19

of biology.

10:21

But there's no evidence that I

10:23

know of that tells us

10:25

anything about the facts of our ancestors'

10:27

psychology.

10:29

We do know that

10:33

our ancestors did some very

10:35

successful things, and

10:37

we here are doing

10:39

some very successful things.

10:41

Here's the thing to note. Evolution

10:44

is disinterested

10:46

with our projects, but we are

10:48

interested in our projects. We

10:51

have tools, cognitive,

10:54

psychological tools, to

10:56

fashion the kind of world that we want to

10:58

fashion. And insofar

11:01

as the ways in which we're doing

11:04

living is inconsistent

11:06

with the lives of our ancestors, it's

11:09

not because we have facts that tell us so.

11:12

It's because we hypothesize that

11:14

it's likely that they wouldn't have done those

11:16

things. So it's an open question.

11:19

Where do we stand? It's an open question whether

11:22

our neurobiology, contemporary

11:24

human

11:25

neurobiology, is

11:27

ill-equipped for

11:29

the contemporary world, because

11:31

that view presupposes

11:34

that that neurobiology was laid

11:36

down for an ancient world and therefore

11:39

cannot function in this world.

11:41

To my mind, we are functioning.

11:44

To my mind, our biology, our neurobiology,

11:47

is serving us. So the

11:50

argument needs some more

11:52

connections. From our ancestors

11:55

to us, we need

11:55

to connect some more. We're

12:00

getting a positive, yeah, look at that, all right.

12:02

Anders, what do you think? I

12:05

think, I really like the way

12:07

Sabrina laid it out here, but at the

12:09

same time, I think we can go even deeper than

12:12

our neurobiology to think about basic biology

12:15

to see that at least there's some mismatches.

12:18

So when I'm sitting here and looking at all your faces,

12:21

my blood pressure goes up. I get adrenalin

12:24

pumping from my veins. This leads

12:27

to a faster blood clotting. It's very

12:29

effective if I needed to run away

12:31

from a tiger. It's less useful

12:33

for being entertaining on a stage in a

12:35

panel and making witty remarks and

12:38

actually answering questions well, because

12:40

in particular, that higher arousal

12:43

level is making my brain typically go

12:45

into a stimulus response mode.

12:48

It's easier to come up with something deep when

12:51

you're really relaxed and when you can

12:54

think creatively about it. However,

12:57

my adrenal glands in that system was

12:59

probably set up for situations where my ancestors

13:02

had to deal with running away from a lot of stuff

13:04

for a very long time. Today,

13:06

I rarely run away from the

13:09

dangerous animals. I mostly run towards

13:12

buses. That's the closest I get to that

13:14

situation. And even that,

13:16

I could probably have used my phone to notice that

13:18

I should have left a bit earlier or take a later

13:20

bus. What's going on is I'm

13:23

not exactly matched here, and that higher blood

13:25

pressure is, of course, going to do rather bad things

13:27

to my overall body over time

13:29

if I don't control that. This is

13:31

a kind of mismatch. It's not a major

13:34

one, but there are others that might be more

13:36

disturbing. It might be, for example,

13:38

that we develop tendencies towards cruelty

13:41

to take pleasure in somebody else's misfortune

13:43

to make it a little bit easier to police

13:47

each other, because as a group, we need

13:49

to enforce our norms. We actually need

13:51

to punish people who are gonna go against

13:53

the norms to make it less likely

13:55

that people break the norms. That

13:58

is generally not nice if it's somebody you... know.

14:00

But at the same time, it might be. And I think this

14:03

is a guess, and it might not even be true. You

14:05

could imagine that evolution found this mutation,

14:07

but sometimes you take a delight in punishing the

14:09

wrongdoer. But

14:11

that's not a good moral emotion. Cruelty

14:14

has created some of the most horrible things

14:17

ever. It can become very maladaptive. And

14:19

I think we have a lot of luggage like that, things

14:21

that made sense in some societies,

14:24

not necessarily in some remote environment

14:26

of evolution adaptation that didn't exist. But

14:28

maybe even earlier later, it

14:31

might be very well that we inherited some

14:33

things from the early part of agriculture, some

14:36

things from the early Iron Age, and

14:38

then of course we laid on top of a lot of culture.

14:41

So I think we can quite often

14:43

find that when we want to make things

14:45

better, we might ask,

14:47

why didn't nature give us that? And

14:49

sometimes it's just because the trade-offs have changed.

14:52

We could probably afford today to have bigger,

14:55

more energy intensive brains than we have

14:57

all to have simply because in

14:59

the past, food was scarce. Now

15:01

we have an opposite problem. And

15:04

we could imagine that once the trade-offs

15:06

change, we might really want to modify

15:08

this. And some of the trade-offs, like nuclear

15:10

weapons and existential risks from technology,

15:13

are very different from the trade-offs that would have

15:15

faced us as a small tribe on the

15:17

savannah. There are also some things that evolution

15:20

simply can't do. Making billions

15:22

of diamond or radio transmitters, that's

15:25

not something we can ask evolution to. But

15:27

most importantly, we

15:28

do have different goals

15:29

from evolution. I might

15:31

want to spend time researching

15:34

and doing things rather than having a lot of tits. I

15:37

might want to use the contraceptives,

15:40

which is from an evolutionary standpoint rather a

15:42

bad thing. But from my

15:44

personal human perspective, a good thing.

15:47

So I do think we have a bit

15:49

of divergence in many respects. Not

15:51

all, but in no means all from

15:54

what evolution wants. And evolution

15:56

is a pretty hard lesson.

15:57

Actually, Anders, thank you

15:59

so much. to raising the point of evolution. So

16:02

that was kind of going to be my first theme in this context.

16:04

So as you said, there's assumptions being

16:06

made here about what the role of evolution

16:09

is, and some idea that we are at its

16:12

mercy, but also that we've left it behind.

16:15

So the first theme was,

16:18

well, you might tell me it's an assumption, but I

16:20

mean, it is, right? Human

16:23

beings have ascended past the point

16:25

of evolutionary pressures, obviously.

16:28

We use contraceptives. We have C-sections.

16:30

We have modern medicine and technologies. We seem

16:33

to have this narrative of having left evolution behind.

16:36

And that sort of leads us to a place where

16:38

we feel we must rely upon technologies

16:41

to continue sort of curating

16:43

the cultures that we live in, and the world that we

16:45

live in, and our bodies within that. That's the sort

16:47

of direct relationship that's at

16:49

least presented to us, right? Human beings

16:52

are beyond evolution. Therefore, we are responsible

16:54

for what we do. Is that something that

16:57

you would agree with, this sort

16:59

of idea that evolution's where

17:01

else is the grasp of evolution now? No.

17:04

Excellent. I

17:06

don't know. Tell me more.

17:10

Evolutionary

17:10

forces

17:13

utilizes the raw

17:16

materials available

17:19

to fashion organisms.

17:21

If the raw materials

17:24

are organisms like

17:26

us, with all

17:29

the accoutrements that we have in

17:31

the modern world, then our evolutionary

17:34

trajectory will be as

17:36

they eventuate. So we

17:38

typically tend to think of evolution as

17:40

sort of natural, and raw,

17:43

and brute, and sort of, I

17:46

say to my students, I say it's sort of ugga

17:49

bugga-ish. It's not fancy. It's

17:51

really primitive. People lived in caves,

17:54

et cetera, et cetera. But that's vulgar

17:58

evolution. All

18:00

that's required is

18:02

that

18:04

new organisms are born,

18:07

traits

18:08

are laid down on account

18:10

of new organisms being born, organisms

18:13

die, organisms

18:16

leave their environment

18:19

and dissipate elsewhere. It

18:23

doesn't matter what the conditions

18:25

are as long as you

18:27

have reproductive

18:30

events taking place. That's

18:33

sufficient, that's

18:35

sufficient for evolution to take

18:37

place.

18:41

We're not like our ancestors 200,000 years

18:43

ago, 300,000 years ago, we're not like them in

18:47

many respects. We know this

18:49

not because we have the facts,

18:52

it's simply because we know,

18:54

well we do have some

18:56

facts. We have facts of

18:58

the sort, they didn't live in buildings

19:01

with right angles.

19:06

When we excavated the fossil rocket

19:09

we found no buildings, we

19:11

found no medicines, no

19:14

manufactured pills for

19:16

depression,

19:16

etc., etc. So

19:19

we have some sense of the sort of ways

19:21

in which their lives were constructed, were

19:23

delimited. The fact

19:26

that our lives are more shiny,

19:28

more pretty,

19:29

etc., etc., does not

19:31

mean that we have left them behind. It

19:33

means that we have become the

19:35

version of ourselves

19:38

given the resources that we have available

19:40

to us. Is evolution's thing acting

19:42

on us? You better believe it. We should

19:45

expect

19:46

the new people 200,000, 300,000 years from now to

19:48

look back and to say strange

19:50

things

19:53

about us who we inhabited this time.

19:56

So evolution won't

19:57

stop all else being equal.

20:00

if we don't do the sorts of things that

20:03

will decimate organic matter from

20:05

the planet. All things

20:07

considered, evolutionary forces

20:10

selection will continue, new organisms

20:12

will

20:13

come about, and they

20:15

will have to do so on the basis

20:18

of what is made available to them.

20:21

So if it turns

20:21

out that

20:24

women, for instance,

20:26

female human beings who birth

20:29

children,

20:30

after a certain period

20:32

of time, stop birthing children

20:35

and are, for the most part, having

20:37

C-section,

20:38

then there will be a difference in

20:41

the

20:41

reproductive events in the future. But

20:44

that doesn't mean that evolution will stop. It

20:46

means that evolution will have to act

20:48

on those differences. Fascinating. Sanetra,

20:51

what was your feeling on this?

20:53

Evolution occurs through...

20:55

Well, specifically, actually, not just the

20:58

story, actually. This is what I think about this. Is

21:00

it a story or is it the truth that we have

21:03

left evolution behind? And does

21:05

our story regarding our relationship with evolution

21:07

perhaps need to change? To

21:10

understand that, Sabrina is saying, you have

21:12

to think about what do you mean by evolution as

21:14

an evolutionary biologist? I think of evolution

21:16

as natural selection. So

21:18

there is variation and

21:21

there

21:22

is selection for those

21:24

who are better at surviving

21:26

and particularly reproducing. It's

21:28

very straightforward in that sense. And

21:31

so for us, evolution occurs

21:33

very slowly. And as Sabrina said,

21:35

it's very

21:36

hard to document. One of the few

21:39

examples we have of evolution

21:41

having occurred in the human species is

21:44

the rise in sickle cell anemia

21:46

in parts of Africa.

21:48

And this is specifically selected

21:50

for by malaria.

21:52

Malaria, sickle cell anemia

21:55

protects you against death from malaria. It's

21:57

a very strong selective force.

21:59

It's caused a rise in frequency of

22:02

sickle cell. But when we talk

22:04

about narratives being hardwired

22:08

to love good stories or to virtue

22:10

sickle, we are

22:13

speculating to a very high level and

22:15

that's exactly what you highlighted. But

22:18

all of these

22:21

events in humans occur in a very short

22:23

time scale. If you look at pathogens, you

22:25

get them antibiotics within five years, you've

22:28

got antibiotic resistant bacteria.

22:31

So these things happen on

22:34

a different time scale and for

22:36

humans and are very complex and that's exactly

22:38

what you're saying. They're complex, they're

22:41

hard to document and

22:45

provided this competition, someone

22:48

is going to win. And so that is what

22:50

we're seeing as evolution is really

22:52

just a continuous race amongst

22:55

people with diverse abilities

22:58

and those things are

23:00

under different selection pressures. When you start

23:03

having C-sections, then people

23:05

like me are still here to

23:07

talk about

23:10

evolution, whereas both

23:12

I and my two daughters probably have died with

23:15

a C-section being available.

23:17

But does that mean that's actually changed

23:20

the human race? Oh, I'm

23:22

not allowed to use that word.

23:25

You know, have we really, in

23:27

what way has that affected evolution? Which

23:29

traits has it actually affected?

23:33

Maybe we've got bigger brains now because

23:36

obviously

23:37

birth is one of

23:38

the big constraints to having bigger brains,

23:40

but those things will take a long

23:43

time to play out. We're talking about a multi-dimensional

23:45

landscape in which selection is

23:48

acting. So it's very difficult

23:50

to make its simplest action, I think.

23:52

And I think that's what we're all seeing, to say

23:54

we are posting pollution. The natural

23:57

forces of selection have...

23:59

been altered, but that does not mean

24:02

that

24:03

we are evolving. I would agree that

24:06

the selective pressure on humans

24:08

has been reduced a lot because we have been

24:10

working very hard to make health care better,

24:13

to save each other from various things

24:15

that would have selected against many kinds

24:17

of people. And I think we are rightly

24:20

doing so and we're going to keep on

24:22

pushing that. But that means that

24:24

there are going to be other selection pressures. After

24:27

all, there are probably some genes that predispose

24:30

you towards playing in traffic. And

24:32

they are selected against, since the invention

24:34

of cars, relatively strongly. So

24:37

if nothing else changes, we should expect

24:40

over a bunch of generations to

24:42

get people to be a bit more careful in traffic.

24:45

In practice, of course, this is not going to happen

24:47

because traffic is going to change. Maybe

24:49

we get autonomous cars. Maybe we figure

24:52

out better ways of transportation. So

24:54

actually, the selection pressures given

24:57

by human culture change so rapidly

24:59

that the biological and genetic evolution

25:02

can't keep up. Of course, as a

25:04

transhumanist, I immediately say, yeah, but we

25:06

can start adding stuff. We can

25:09

make ourselves, in some sense, cultural artifact.

25:11

We could not just select ourselves,

25:13

but even more importantly, maybe add genes

25:16

or modify things. But

25:18

even that doesn't necessarily

25:20

get to the full width of evolution because

25:23

survival of a fittest

25:24

is really a kind of tautology. It

25:26

means, really, survival of the survivors.

25:29

Whoever reproduces well is going to

25:31

be more common in the future. So we couldn't imagine

25:34

some kind of wildly utopian

25:36

world where nobody dies.

25:38

In that world,

25:40

who is going to become the dominant group

25:42

of people? Well, the ones that reproduce

25:44

most, for whatever reason. I have some friends

25:46

who are really worried that in the future, we're all going

25:49

to become Catholics or Mormons or Hutterites

25:51

because they have a lot of kids. And

25:53

I usually reassure them, look, have you seen

25:56

how many people in those groups who live

25:58

and get different views? because as

26:01

humans we also change our minds. Maybe

26:04

over really long periods of time we even

26:06

evolved to have fixed religious identities,

26:09

but that's a pretty bizarre scenario

26:11

and assumes that nothing really

26:13

changed. And that is of course never

26:16

true for us humans. We have enough of a frontal

26:18

lobe, enough ability to change our behavior,

26:20

and also enough weird complexity

26:22

that emerges from our interactions to

26:25

keep this rather interesting. The

26:27

problem is of course rather interesting can

26:29

be very much in the sense of that infamous

26:32

Japanese saying, may

26:34

you live in interesting times, because

26:37

many of the emergent behaviors we do can

26:39

produce pretty devastating effects for ourselves

26:41

on the planet. Again we

26:44

might say maybe we want to evolve bigger

26:46

brains and be better able to solve things, but

26:48

we need those brains nowish rather

26:51

than in a few millennia.

26:53

Now that's interesting. I'm

26:56

already getting the sense that you all

26:58

agree that we haven't actually left evolution

27:00

behind, which is at least a news flash

27:02

to me or the program writers, because

27:05

I do think that's generally the sort of vibe

27:07

that we talk about. You're all saying

27:09

we don't actually have to change our bodies. There's

27:12

nothing too overcome. It's all happening. We're

27:14

still within the cradle of evolution. But should we

27:16

be using technology to continue changing

27:18

our environment, looking at changing

27:21

our bodies to make the kind of adaptions

27:23

that we want to make? I mean the reality

27:25

is fair enough evolution might still be happening, but

27:27

we do have technologies that can alter outcomes,

27:30

reproductive outcomes, and therefore we do have

27:32

a bit more

27:34

of a strong and cognizant grasp on the wheel

27:36

of evolution, let's say. So even

27:39

if we haven't left it behind, how

27:42

should we be turning that steering wheel? Should we be turning

27:44

it? Should we be turning it

27:46

using external technologies in the

27:49

worlds that we create? Like, for

27:51

example, we talked about reproductive

27:53

stuff, right? Contraceptions, C-sections, things

27:55

like that. They are societal,

27:58

environmental changes that we make. even we've

28:01

manifested, right? So should we be doing

28:03

those or should we actually be leaning more into,

28:05

for example, addressing the physical stuff

28:07

that Anders was talking about, like, you

28:09

know, tuning human bodies to be less

28:13

cortisol sensitive, less stressed, say,

28:15

for example, or using those kinds of technologies.

28:18

What are your feelings on that? Do

28:20

we continue changing things? Do we not?

28:22

I see no reason why we

28:24

shouldn't. Of course, not all changes

28:27

are good, right? So I

28:29

think we have to decide as a society what

28:32

kind of world do we want to live

28:34

in? That's a question we have to ask ourselves. And

28:36

then we go about and we design the world in accord

28:39

with our preferences. There's sort

28:43

of a kind of category issue

28:46

going on with respect to the question.

28:49

Because on the one hand, the questions are about

28:51

sort of individual preferences

28:54

and individuals doing

28:56

stuff. And on the other hand, the question

28:58

is also about evolutionary

29:00

consequences,

29:02

right? We know

29:05

that when we talk about evolution, we

29:07

ought always to

29:09

be talking about population. Because evolution

29:12

is only ever applicable to populations

29:15

of organisms. So it's

29:17

entirely possible that

29:20

all of us in here could change ourselves

29:23

in radical ways and

29:25

it has no consequence for the human

29:27

species. Because what's required

29:30

for evolution to continue, it

29:32

doesn't require all of us to reproduce.

29:35

It requires enough

29:37

reproducibility. And so all

29:39

of us here could decide

29:41

we're going to get rid of our reproductive parts

29:44

and evolution of the human species.

29:47

Not be effective. So

29:49

we want to sort of set aside the individual

29:52

preferences and

29:54

pursuits that people

29:57

might have from the population.

29:59

consequential stuff

30:02

that can result in evolutionary changes.

30:06

And we might ask ourselves, do

30:08

we want to be fundamentally

30:10

different as human beings? And

30:12

therefore, do we want to

30:14

institute the kinds of policies that

30:16

will steer our evolutionary path

30:19

in particular directions? Now,

30:21

I don't know if we would be successful. Frankly,

30:24

I think even then, evolution is tethered

30:26

to us coming along and it will just

30:28

roll with us.

30:29

But I think the question framed

30:32

at the populational level

30:34

is more applicable, is

30:36

the proper way we need to frame it if we're

30:39

going to talk about evolution. If we're

30:41

not interested in

30:43

laying down the laws for

30:45

all of us to do stuff, then it really doesn't

30:47

matter if individual ones of us decide

30:49

to live our lives a certain way.

30:51

I don't think we can steer evolution.

30:53

I think it's a heuristic thing that we can steer

30:56

evolution. I don't know that it's desirable.

31:00

I think we should act on principles of compassion

31:03

rather than thinking about where are

31:05

we heading. At the moment, some

31:08

of these technologies are

31:10

really, when they're best

31:12

harnessed to do that, they

31:14

reduce human suffering. And

31:17

I think that it's important

31:19

to acknowledge that

31:22

evolution is so complex that

31:25

where we will be as a

31:27

species in thousands of years

31:31

is something that we

31:33

cannot control, or

31:36

in the sense that we can't even

31:38

anticipate where we'll go. And

31:42

it's trumped anyway, for me anyway. It

31:45

is trumped by considerations of who

31:47

is suffering

31:48

now. And that's

31:51

where we harness technology to

31:53

solve those problems. We're not gonna say, oh, you

31:56

know what, I'm gonna deny,

31:59

I'm gonna stop CC.

31:59

because

32:01

you know I've made a mathematical

32:03

model and that shows

32:05

that in 300 years time our brains will be

32:07

too big and our

32:09

heads will start falling off. So

32:11

you're not going to do that because we want,

32:15

our primary desire and I think,

32:17

you

32:17

know, there is a neontological

32:20

basis saying we want to be compassionate, we

32:22

want to reduce human suffering. So

32:25

I think

32:26

in that context, oh can we,

32:29

which is not to say that we shouldn't look to the future

32:31

of the planet, but in terms of can

32:34

we mold ourselves as a species to be

32:37

able to

32:38

tackle the next crisis

32:42

is

32:44

just a bit hubristic. Well

32:47

I'm generally in favour of hubris quite

32:49

often so I think

32:52

it's worth doing. At least some of us should

32:54

be trying it and then the rest of you can check was

32:56

that a good idea? Oh no, absolutely

32:58

not. Oh let's borrow that. That was

33:01

not hubris at all. We were believers in that

33:03

all along. But the tricky

33:05

part here is of course thinking

33:08

about the current people. I completely agree we need

33:10

that compassion. We also need to care about

33:13

future generations. I am very much

33:15

of a long-termist. I think the long-term future

33:17

of humanity matters.

33:19

But I'm not certain I care much about

33:21

the long-term future of the human species.

33:24

We could, tonight, right now decide

33:26

we inside this tent are

33:28

going to only reproduce with each other. We're

33:31

going to form our own

33:31

species and we're going to... That took a really weird time,

33:33

I have to say. But

33:37

imagine

33:37

that we also managed to convince our kids, etc.,

33:39

to keep on doing it. Eventually

33:41

we would be... for no particular

33:44

reason than creating kind of a

33:46

hormone, how the light gets in

33:48

to us. Now that

33:51

is something we in principle could do. We're

33:54

not, fortunately, not going to do it. Or maybe

33:56

sadly, I don't know. But

33:58

the part is... Yes, that's

34:01

genetic divergence. What

34:03

moral value does it really have? And it

34:05

doesn't seem to have that much value. But

34:07

I do

34:07

care about the idea that ideas,

34:10

culture, human values, and

34:12

compassion, and many of the beautiful things

34:14

we have which originated

34:16

because of evolution in its normal form continue

34:19

very, very, very far in the future. And that

34:21

might require infrastructures

34:24

of advanced technology. That might be involved in genetic

34:26

engineering and uploading into computers. And

34:28

all the other fun stuff I like to think about.

34:32

But it doesn't have that

34:33

much to do with the species. And

34:35

I think actually caring too much about the biological

34:38

species quite often is dangerous

34:40

and misleading. The fun

34:42

part is, of course, that this thinking

34:45

is a very separate form of evolution. It's the evolution

34:47

of our ideas, our ways of

34:49

running our culture. And we can change

34:51

that. A person's life can be

34:54

changed by a single sentence. Somebody tells

34:56

them. That makes the real, oh, I was

34:58

wrong. I should be going in this direction

35:01

instead. That never happens with animals. That

35:04

is kind of a unique thing with our species. And

35:06

we want to treasure that and hone it and probably

35:08

be good at understanding what sentences.

35:11

We ought to listen to which one. We ought to discard, et cetera.

35:15

That aspect, I think, is getting

35:17

closer to what we really want

35:19

to go into for the future.

35:21

I'm going to take a moment to go

35:23

back to that first question for a second

35:25

here. I should say, I don't think

35:27

I've held the audience, but I'm a biologist.

35:30

I'm a developmental biologist and a

35:31

reproductive biologist, but this is totally not my

35:33

area.

35:34

My interpretation of this

35:36

question was also loaded,

35:38

but I thought it was to do with this

35:40

idea that we

35:43

are the anxious ape, right?

35:45

That somehow our biology is

35:47

no longer compatible, as Anders was saying, with

35:50

the world that we're creating. And

35:53

I think I want to ask, completely

35:56

going off script here, I want to ask all

35:58

of you a question.

35:59

which is do

36:02

you think that compassion

36:05

and violence is innate to

36:07

human beings? Like is

36:09

that something that is because

36:12

my interpretation of this question is is our

36:15

neurobiology inadequate to deal with the challenges

36:17

of the 21st century to me means oh

36:20

I'm a human being I'm a homo sapiens I can't

36:22

control the fact that I have violence like I

36:25

have violence in me right I have

36:27

violence in me and therefore I am

36:30

all anxiety within me and therefore I'm no

36:32

longer I'm maladapted to the environment that

36:34

we have created and then all these other

36:37

questions follow which is okay so should I be changing

36:39

myself or should I be changing the environment

36:41

but can I just go back to the premise and ask

36:44

do you actually believe

36:44

that we have

36:47

these tendencies

36:48

ingrained in us and if

36:51

so what does that mean for for

36:53

what we've been discussing here? innate

36:56

yeah it's not a term that

36:58

appears in my idiolect and

37:01

I teach a course and

37:03

I try to get it out of my students

37:05

and and that's because it's a

37:07

very it's a very simple

37:10

it's slippery notion

37:13

we tend to mean

37:15

something roughly like we've

37:17

acquired some capacities

37:19

from this position it was laid down it's

37:22

non malleable doesn't matter what we do

37:25

we can't help it it's there and

37:27

it will manifest

37:30

whatever we try to do I don't really

37:32

understand that and when I

37:34

speak to biologists the

37:36

biologists things that I have

37:39

they think that that notion is bankrupt

37:41

we can talk about developmental

37:43

processes for instance that

37:46

will eventuate all

37:48

else being equal in a particular

37:51

kind of organism but

37:53

the

37:53

business of being an organism

37:57

is contingent

37:59

there are all

37:59

all these contingent factors that

38:02

organisms face during their developmental

38:04

trajectories. So whatever

38:07

the body plans are, those

38:10

plans might be steered one

38:13

way or the other. And so this

38:15

notion of innate,

38:17

that vulgar notion of innate,

38:19

just doesn't

38:21

seem to comport with the facts of biology.

38:24

Now the question is, do I

38:26

think that human beings can and

38:28

do violence? Clearly

38:30

we do. We're successful at it.

38:32

So we have a

38:34

taste for

38:35

it, you might say. We have the disposition.

38:37

We have the wetware. We

38:39

can do it, and we have been doing it. It's

38:41

also the case that we should suppose

38:43

that our ancestors were

38:46

not kumbayaing with each other,

38:49

that they too likely engage

38:51

in

38:52

what we might call violent actions. So

38:55

how

38:56

badly things went, we don't know, because

38:58

we weren't there. So the fact that

39:00

we can do those things is consistent

39:02

with us being biological systems. It's

39:05

a different issue though, whether we want

39:07

to say that we can do them

39:10

to something about selection

39:12

forces.

39:13

And right there, I think

39:15

I'm getting off the bus. I don't

39:17

want to get on the bus to talk

39:19

about selection

39:21

for traits, good or bad, simply

39:24

because these traits

39:27

are for some reason important to us. I

39:29

want to try and trace to the extent that I can

39:32

whether we can provide a robust

39:34

biological

39:35

story for claiming,

39:37

for saying that this particular trait was

39:39

under selection. But I will say that

39:41

we have this thing, this wetware, that

39:44

allows us to do all sorts of crazy

39:46

stuff, as well as really good

39:48

stuff. It's the stuff that we can do.

39:51

Biology evolution gave that

39:54

to us. But I don't think it means that

39:56

evolution meant

39:57

for us to be killers or killers.

39:59

Harmors or lovers. I

40:02

actually don't think so. I'm going to agree with

40:04

that entirely. I see violence empathy,

40:07

compassion, all these things as part of the

40:10

human condition and

40:12

even though I'm an evolutionary biologist when I

40:14

want to understand them, I

40:16

watch A Clockwork Orange. I don't

40:19

go and start passing the human

40:22

genome or looking for you know, what might have happened

40:24

or reading the

40:27

various and just stories there are about how

40:29

this is adaptive and that is

40:31

not. So I completely agree

40:34

that you know there because what's important

40:36

for us is to understand violence.

40:40

What do we do about it? It is clearly

40:43

innate in the not in the

40:46

sort of genetic sense, but it is there

40:48

and we need to deal with that and what's

40:50

the best way to deal with that? And I don't think trying

40:54

to trace its evolutionary genealogy

40:59

is necessarily is more

41:02

useful than watching Clockwork

41:04

Orange. So that's

41:06

one thing I want to say soon. I'm just agreeing

41:08

with

41:08

you and saying it through. The other

41:10

thing I want to bring up is this notion of being

41:14

maladapted and trying to

41:16

minimize that. All

41:18

organisms are maladapted.

41:21

There's nothing wrong

41:23

with being maladapted.

41:25

That's what we are. That's what we always

41:28

will be. The human

41:30

condition is about

41:32

dealing with being maladapted.

41:35

So I think it's

41:38

except

41:42

being maladapted and

41:46

to deal with that through poetry

41:49

and arts.

41:52

I

41:55

think that's really interesting, but I kind

41:57

of want to be like but surely

41:59

there's nothing.

41:59

thing about human beings that indicates

42:02

that we are acceptors. Surely

42:03

the thing that we are signed a

42:05

plastic tent in a field with lights and electricity

42:08

indicates that there's something also about

42:10

rejecting that maladaptive or trying to fight

42:12

against human... No, we

42:13

want to do better. We want to

42:16

improve the human condition. So as

42:18

I said, we should be guided by compassion. But

42:20

it's not because we want to be better adapted,

42:23

as it were. Right. It's a sort of determinism,

42:26

some holds determinism. I

42:29

get that.

42:31

But at the same time, when we try

42:33

to do that, we introduce new interesting

42:35

problems. At least I'm having problems

42:37

with the glare from the lamps. It's very good for

42:40

you, but it's kind of annoying my eyes. Okay,

42:42

I can imagine a new little maladaptive. I want to

42:44

have the eyes that can handle that

42:46

or something. But that's a part of the lamp.

42:49

Yeah, exactly. I'm trying. So

42:51

there are ways around it. And that is something

42:53

we do quite often using our thinking

42:55

and our plasticity. When

42:58

we get to violence, it's interesting notice that yes,

43:01

even small kids lash out. But

43:04

then we teach them that's bad. Would

43:06

you like the other

43:07

kids doing bad to you in the playpen?

43:09

And gradually

43:10

they might even hopefully learn this.

43:12

And gradually we learn how to control

43:14

our violent impulses. We might learn our

43:16

compassion and refine that in various ways. The

43:19

problem I see with the Umar violence

43:22

is adaptive, as it were. Right.

43:24

It's a sort of determinism.

43:25

Okay.

43:28

Some holds determinism.

43:28

I get that.

43:30

But at the same time, when we

43:32

try to do that, we introduce new

43:34

interesting problems. At least I'm having

43:37

problems with the glare from the lamps. It's very

43:39

good for you, but it's kind of annoying my eyes.

43:41

Okay, I can imagine a new little maladaptive.

43:43

I want to have the eyes that can handle

43:45

that or something. But that's a part

43:47

of the lamp. Yeah, exactly. I'm trying.

43:50

So there are ways around it. And that is

43:52

something we do quite often using our

43:55

thinking and our plasticity. When

43:58

we get to violence, it's interesting notice. Yes,

44:01

even small kids lash out. But

44:03

then we teach them, that's bad. Would

44:06

you like the other

44:06

kids doing that to you in the playpen?

44:09

And gradually,

44:09

they might even hopefully learn this.

44:12

And gradually, we learn how to control

44:14

our violent impulses. We might learn our

44:16

compassion and refine that in various ways. The

44:19

problem I see with human violence

44:21

is actually the violence of

44:23

lashing out is

44:24

kind of OK. It's individually

44:26

potentially dangerous when you're

44:28

close to another person. But the kind of violence

44:30

we do as a species on entire

44:32

populations, that's super dangerous.

44:35

But it's generally not done in a

44:37

mode of lashing out with strong

44:39

activation in amygdala and

44:42

midbrain aggression centers. Instead,

44:45

it's going to be done by a cold calculation

44:48

of our geopolitical interests.

44:50

Are

44:50

we really supporting that side or that side?

44:52

Let's do some game

44:53

theory here. And that's where we put the

44:55

nukes. At that point, you get

44:57

a very different approach. It's no

45:00

longer violent, in a sense.

45:02

It's maybe just pure calculation.

45:05

Quite often, I think there are interesting emotions

45:08

in the background. A lot of international relations

45:10

is explained in terms of prestige. Different

45:12

countries deeply want to have high

45:15

prestige, which is very strange, because

45:17

while we individually feel rewarded when

45:19

we're feeling that we're high in the

45:22

social status, it's less obvious

45:24

that we can do this as an entire country. That

45:27

seems to be a pretty powerful

45:29

explanation of what happens in the international

45:31

policy. And that then leads to

45:33

people taking rational steps to safeguard

45:36

the natural interest. And that's why we get mutual

45:38

assured destruction. Where discussions about

45:41

literal doomsday bombs are not entirely

45:43

off the table, but a little bit too expensive

45:46

for the US Soviet military

45:48

budget in the 1960s to preserve

45:50

it wasn't

45:50

good enough within the continental ballistic

45:53

missile. That's a very weird situation.

45:55

Here, instead of some

45:56

maniac wanting to lash out and destroy

45:58

the world, getting the world. closed the destruction.

46:01

It was people trying to save God's natural interests.

46:04

That is a part where I think we might

46:06

want to do better. But we probably need to

46:08

do better not just by compassion but better kinds

46:10

of game theory and incentives to get the sensible

46:13

leaders and ways of running our big societies.

46:16

I feel like that comes back to your point about

46:18

stories. Human

46:20

beings are often portrayed

46:23

as this, the violent ape. It's

46:25

not just modern politics. It's Neanderthals.

46:27

We out-competed them. Supposedly that

46:29

was the narrative for many years that we killed them. We didn't

46:31

deliberately out-compete them. They just

46:34

didn't do as well.

46:35

Okay, but my point is like a

46:37

lot of the ... I mean, very

46:39

academic. I enjoy that.

46:40

But one of the narratives

46:43

is that human beings ... This sort

46:45

of interfaces to what I was saying about the violence point.

46:47

The idea is somehow that human beings ...

46:50

One of the popular narratives about humans and human

46:52

success has been their violence is

46:54

the root of their success. We out-competed

46:57

the Neanderthals. We did better. We won.

47:00

We removed them. Of course, now there's work

47:02

to show that there wasn't a breeding and whatnot and all

47:04

this sort of thing. But this idea also that you're

47:07

saying about how human

47:09

beings do violence can be very different,

47:11

whether it's on the personal scale of violence. When

47:13

we say violence, we think that, I hate you,

47:16

I kill you, I do these things. But human

47:18

beings do violence upon other species

47:20

in very different ways. Actually,

47:22

in what you said, even, we just did better than them.

47:25

What is better? What is better in the sense that ... We left

47:27

more offspring.

47:28

Okay. So

47:30

we reproduced better than them. Okay.

47:32

We had a better time. We resisted bugs better.

47:35

Numbers again. Numbers again.

47:37

But

47:39

maybe also, maybe we did

47:42

better at getting food. Maybe we were better

47:44

hunters. Maybe we used other species

47:46

better. And I think in this last little section,

47:48

I'm curious to see how you

47:51

all think about this idea of the

47:54

violence that human beings kind of do

47:56

upon other species on the planet,

47:58

whether that's ... You know, well, no, that's animals,

48:01

right? Animals, plants, other things. How

48:03

do we, you touched upon this in your last

48:05

point, Anders, like, how do we address

48:07

that? And

48:09

is there an argument for

48:12

it can't be helped, that's what human beings

48:14

do?

48:14

I think it can't

48:16

be helped that we have been doing it in the past,

48:18

but now we should try to know better.

48:21

That's going to take a while to become better

48:23

at it. I actually do think that just because

48:26

we're ecologically super successful right

48:28

now, I mean, in our weight class,

48:30

we're the most common, large

48:32

animal on the planet. Domestic

48:35

animals outnumber all the other

48:38

vertebrates on land, et cetera. So

48:40

in some sense, yeah, right. We are

48:42

winning the evolutionary race here,

48:44

at least

48:44

for the time being. But I think many

48:46

of us feel like, actually, we feel

48:49

compassion for animals. Actually, factory

48:52

farming seems to produce a lot of

48:54

pain and suffering. Maybe we should, instead

48:57

of valuing things in terms of maximizing

48:59

the number of offspring, might say, okay, let's

49:02

keep the case strategy and having better

49:05

offspring and better lives, making

49:07

sure that there is more welfare and more

49:09

wellbeing of this planet, not just for us, but

49:11

for others. At this point, evolution might

49:14

say, wait a minute, that's kind of a stupid strategy,

49:16

you know, you could have many more offspring. But

49:19

we might say, yeah, we actually

49:21

want to handle this our way now, evolution,

49:23

thank you. We actually might

49:26

want to have a planet where there

49:28

is less violence. Why? Because

49:31

we think it's immoral, partially because of our

49:33

evolved compassion, partially because

49:35

cultural ideas, like

49:37

reflecting and thinking that there is maybe

49:40

a thing like being a cow

49:42

or a chicken, and they don't seem to

49:45

have great lives in many cases. So maybe

49:47

we should actually do something about that. So

49:49

I do think we can become better.

49:51

That's not necessarily

49:52

evolving better in a genetic sense, but

49:54

maybe in a cultural sense,

49:57

the structures we construct,

49:59

some of them are technological.

49:59

some are legal, a lot of them are

50:02

just ideas and stories. So I

50:04

think that more than violence, the real

50:06

problem we face is greed.

50:09

And greed, I think, is

50:10

a form of natural selection,

50:14

which I would categorise as sort

50:17

of runaway, a

50:19

classic example is runaway sexual selection,

50:22

where you start growing bigger and bigger antlers

50:24

and trying to attract your meat, and you

50:26

end up with what I call grotesque outcomes.

50:30

And greed

50:30

is a grotesque outcome,

50:32

I think, that we've witnessed, which could

50:34

be explained within the natural

50:36

selection framework. And a lot

50:39

of what we think, which becomes,

50:42

translates as cruelty, and

50:44

it appears to endorse

50:47

or derive from the innate, whatever

50:49

kind of innate violence. And

50:52

it is actually just a manifestation of greed.

50:55

How did greed evolve? I

50:57

mean, I think greed has

50:59

evolved as a form of runaway sexual, I mean,

51:01

that kind of selection, but that selection

51:03

has actually played out at the level of

51:06

market rather than genes. So

51:09

I think that we should be, the model of

51:11

natural selection does apply to our

51:14

current situation, but

51:17

the actual unit of natural selection is

51:19

possibly not the gene.

51:20

I think that's really an interesting

51:22

point. But the question

51:25

is about the neurobiology thing. So

51:27

I want to push you here. Do

51:29

you, so, is being

51:31

greed, having greed

51:34

part of being human, is it hardwired

51:37

in? Is it not surely

51:40

an extension of a natural

51:42

impulse to take what you need

51:44

to survive? Quite possibly,

51:47

and that's why it has to be attenuated

51:49

and checked by the social contract

51:51

itself. So that's why we need to

51:54

teach children not to

51:56

be greedy, that you

51:58

will do better.

51:59

on average, if you instead of being greedy,

52:02

you engage in this sort of

52:05

social structure

52:06

that regulates your greed. It

52:09

might also be that in an environment of

52:11

scarcity, there is no reason

52:13

not to try to amass resources

52:16

if they're around, because it's so rare

52:19

that you get too much resources. There

52:21

was no evolutionary pressure to put

52:23

a limiter for that. There are maybe physical

52:26

things about satiety in the stomach.

52:29

One we got culture needed to evolve

52:31

cultural ways of kind of patting down the greed

52:33

so we could share things in the tribe. But

52:36

I think evolution might just not have bothered

52:39

adding in a stop for the greed.

52:41

It's a little bit like aging. There was never

52:43

really a reason for evolution to

52:46

do something about aging, because very few

52:48

people survived to old age. So there was no

52:50

selection pressure there.

52:51

Building an organism is a very

52:53

expensive business, right? Evolution

52:56

could not and cannot afford to

52:58

lay down traits for every possible

53:00

contingent ways that human

53:02

beings could be. And I'm

53:05

inclined to say, you know, sure,

53:07

we practice greed. We are

53:10

capable of being terrible with

53:12

our greedy habits. It's something

53:14

that we do successfully. I

53:17

don't know whether

53:17

I would want to say it's

53:20

an evolved tendency that it was specifically

53:22

selected for. What I would say is

53:24

that the conversation here is making

53:26

me think that there is sort of a tension

53:29

between the

53:30

ground of evolution, the ground of

53:32

biology, and the sort

53:34

of values that human beings have and

53:37

would like to have. And sometimes

53:40

these are not compatible, because for

53:42

evolution to continue, all you need is new

53:45

organisms, numbers game. It's a numbers

53:47

game. And it doesn't matter how they come about.

53:50

They could come about through terrible means. But

53:53

of course, we have values, we have preferences,

53:55

and we think that some things are not on the table.

53:58

The problem of killing, you talked about killing.

53:59

killing is something that we cannot

54:02

get away from.

54:03

We have to kill as a

54:05

matter of fact in order that

54:08

we can continue to stay in homeostasis.

54:10

We kill animals. We

54:13

kill plants. Plants are

54:15

murdered by us. And we must

54:18

in order that we survive. And it

54:20

just doesn't seem as if this is a – we

54:22

could possibly – we could come up with a possible

54:25

solution for this predicament we find

54:27

ourselves in. So, sure, the

54:30

facts about

54:31

biology and evolution

54:33

and what's required are sort

54:35

of brute and objective and out there.

54:38

And then there are some facts about how

54:40

we want to live as human

54:41

beings. And some of those facts,

54:44

if we build our lives on the basis of those

54:46

facts, it means that we will have to change our practices.

54:49

And I think that that too

54:50

is consistent with us being evolved

54:53

creatures.

54:53

Can we please thank our incredible panel

54:56

for their time? Thank

55:23

you.