The Kindness Paradox

A conversation about human nature and civilization

Are human beings naturally good or evil, selfish or kind, violent or peaceful? Does civilization make people more moral or less? Would we be happier or less happy living in premodern conditions than in modern mass societies?

These are some of the deepest and most enduring questions facing our species, and the focus of many centuries’ worth of books, papers, and late-night heated discussions. A recent addition to the genre is Rutger Bregman’s book Humankind, which defends the view that humans are naturally good. Soon after the book came out, I was interviewed about it by James Marriott for an article he was writing for The Times. In the end, the article only included a few sentences from the interview, which is the way these things usually work. But it was a fun exchange, so I thought I’d present it in full here. Hope you enjoy it!

---

James Marriot: “Do you believe humans are kind and altruistic animals and why/why not?”

Steve Stewart-Williams: We are and we’re not. It’s a little like asking if H₂O is a liquid. It is in certain circumstances, but not in others; sometimes it’s a solid or a gas. Likewise, humans are kind and altruistic in certain circumstances, but in others we exhibit less noble tendencies, from indifference to hatred to violence.

It might sound like I’m saying it’s all down to the environment, but I’m not. Humans come factory equipped with the brain areas involved in caring and empathizing, and with the brain areas involved in hatred and aggression. But these brain areas – these evolved propensities – are activated by environmental circumstances. They have to be; the only alternative would be that they’re activated permanently or at random, neither of which would very useful. Instead, we have an evolved tendency to react to the environment in ways that were typically adaptive for our ancestors.

Certainly, humans are capable of much greater kindness and altruism than any other animal. But we’re also capable of much greater evil. It’s the double-edged sword of being an intelligent, hyper-cultural species. The trick is to create environments that amplify our good side and stifle the bad.

---

---

JM: “Do you believe that civilization has made human beings less kind and altruistic?”

SSW: You can certainly point to periods in history when people have engaged in much greater cruelty and viciousness than would be possible in hunter-gatherer conditions. Inquisitions and concentration camps come to mind.

Overall, though, I think civilization has made us kinder and more altruistic. As Peter Singer has argued, as civilization expanded, so did our moral circle – that is, the range of individuals we feel deserve our moral concern. People in modern societies don’t just care about their nearest and dearest or their tribe; we also often care about strangers living on the other side of the world, about human rights, and even about the welfare of other animals. As our societies have become larger and more interdependent, we’ve updated our moral software.

On top of that, as markets have made us wealthier, we’ve arrived at a place where we no longer have to spend all our time worrying about where our next meal is coming from, and can start worrying about other stuff instead – stuff like extreme poverty and the environment. People on the edge of survival don’t have the luxury of worrying about things like that.

---

---

JM: “Do you think there’s any good evidence we were happier and kinder when living in hunter gatherer societies as opposed to more complex social structures?”

SSW: In some ways, maybe, but in many ways the evidence points in the opposite direction. There are lots of myths in this area – myths about hunter-gatherers barely having to work, for example, or living in peace and harmony with each other and with nature. The sad fact is that it wasn’t easy being a hunter-gatherer. Hunter-gatherers had to work hard to survive and to get enough food, and were much more likely to die by violence than people living today. They also had much higher rates of child mortality, and losing a child is one of the most terrible things that can happen to a person – as, of course, is dying oneself as a child. It’s easy to romanticize the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

JM: “What do you make of the idea that the invention of agriculture changed human nature for the worse?”

SSW: Well, I don’t think it changed human nature much; we’re basically the same animal we were before the agricultural revolution. But agriculture did change human behavior and the quality of human life, in some ways for the better and in some ways for the worse. Initially, agriculture may have been worse for most people. Living in more tightly packed, sedentary groups meant more disease, and agriculturalists were often malnourished and short-lived. But agriculture laid the foundation for the modern world which, for all its faults, does have a lot going for it: less violence, less child mortality, less extreme poverty, greater cooperation, and so on. It’s a mixed bag, but I don’t think most people would want to turn back the clock.

• Here’s a link to the Times article.

• And here’s a link to Rutger Bregman’s Humankind.

  ---