Is the World Better Without Free Will?
This week on the Next Big Idea podcast, Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky and I discuss: Is a world without free will a better world? Listen on Apple or Spotify, and let us know what you think — I know you have opinions on this one, folks! — in the comments below.
Do humans have free will? When you order a scoop of Chunky Monkey ice cream and decide whimsically at the last minute to change to Chubby Hubby instead, is that you, the unique individual floating between your ears, making that decision, or is it just a quirk in the patterns of the swirling atoms that comprise each of us … just the causal chain of a biological process playing itself out? If this question doesn’t interest you – reminds you of the bloviations of stoned philosophy majors in college – here’s another question that might interest you: Would the world be better if everyone believed we did not have free will? Or at least believed that we had a lot less of it?
This one is personal for me — I decided free will and science were not compatible during my sophomore year in college. This made me unpleasant dinner party company for years. But I quickly learned to stop talking about it, because most people seemed to find the topic either ridiculous or discouraging.
Many years later, my view on the topic has changed in two ways — I have become more humble before the unknown, and therefore less certain than I was years ago, and at the same time I have become more convinced that there is real benefit to this thought experiment. The near certainty that we have much less free will than we think we do should, I believe, drive us towards a more generous and empathetic approach to everyone around us.
This argument is made persuasively by Robert Sapolsky, the MacArthur "Genius" Grant winning Stanford neuroscientist in his new book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.
Robert makes the case that the closer we look, the more each of our behaviors can be explained by biology and environment. One by one, behaviors that we used to attribute to individuals – like schizophrenia or autism or dyslexia or ADHD – we now understand to be biological. And because of this change of perception, we are kind to people with these conditions, we don’t blame them, and we make efforts to help them flourish.
Schizophrenia, autism — these are conditions with names — but each of us was born into a unique collection of strengths and weaknesses that, in the end, explain our good behavior, and our bad behavior, every bit as completely. The more we learn about the human brain, the more we can explain it all. And the more we can explain it, the less logical it is to blame people for their bad behavior – and congratulate people for their good behavior – and the more logical it is to simply help each other. The more we accept that we are biological machines, Sapolsky argues, the more clear it becomes that we have an ethical obligation to design a society that empathizes with everyone — yes, even the serial killers — while making the world safe for all of us.
I know this is a heady topic, and one that some people find depressing or ridiculous or just plain weird. But worry not, there is good news in this conversation, I believe, and a lot to chew on.
Robert and I discuss:
how conditions in the womb predict anxiety disorder, depression and obesity
the behavioral impact of growing up in collectivist versus individualistic cultures
the powerful correlation between adverse childhood experiences and anti-social violence, mood disorders and substance abuse later in life
the argument for treating criminals like cars with faulty brakes – they should be taken off the road, not punished for the sake of retribution
how we evolved to enjoy the punishment of cheaters, but have nonetheless made incremental cultural reforms in the direction of more humane treatment of those who break the rules
and Robert’s personal struggles with depression, and the possible utility of depression in exploring challenging subject matter
And finally, we discuss the privilege of human consciousness, and the role of science in reinventing and reinvigorating, again and again, our sense of wonder.
Listen on Apple or Spotify, and let us know what you think — I know you have opinions on this one, folks! — in the comments below.
4th year BBA General Management at NIC
3moI really enjoyed the episode and how it brought different perspectives on free will, even if I disagree with some aspects of the idea itself. It made me wonder what his explanation would be for all those people that scored very highly on adverse childhood experiences with their biological makeup being geared for anxiety, depression, and other issues - who are now happy healthy and productive adults despite all these factors.
Team Leader: Experienced Writer, Advocate, & Analyst | Strategic Forecaster | Addicted to Learning | Dedicated to DEI Every Day | Ready to manage high-performance teams through rapidly changing environments.
3moThanks for bringing Sapolsky’s work to more people through TNBI podcast, Rufus. For people interested in this topic, I highly recommend Rufus’s interview with “Selfless” author Brian Lowery — a perfect compliment to “Determined.” In short, there is no free will (at least not in a personal sense) because there’s no real self. Who are “you?” Whatever nouns or adjectives you come up with, ask yourself if you’d still be “you” without those things. What kernel of autonomous, essential, selfhood exists that can be defined by some indelible hermetic boundary from the whole of existence? Personalities are like waves on the ocean. They look like individual entities until you try to draw a line around one, and say, “This part is the wave, and this is not” Nonsense. The wave is a function of the ocean. You are a function of the universe. If there’s any free will, it exists in the universal consciousness that doesn’t identify as “I” or “me.”
I loved this episode with Robert Sapolsky and I may be a fringe dweller in terms of free will, understanding our biological underpinnings and the affects of ACE (adverse childhood experiences) are imperative in society's journey to becoming more humane. In the case of juvenile criminal justice where I currently work as a mitigation specialist/librarian, I've seen the affects of ACE first hand. This brought to mind Peter Levine's work on the nervous system and trauma and Deb Dana's work on anchoring the Vagus nerve by understanding the role of the dorsal, sympathetic and vagal systems - all go together for me. I'm thankful to be alive in a world with people who, in spite of the many things that are broken and need rethinking, use their specific circumstances to inform, nurture and accompany others in the journey to understanding. There's a ton we can do collectively.
Bringing resources to big ideas. Learning everything I can along the way.
4moAdmittedly, this is really hard one to get your head around. But…it also seems so…binary. NO free will? Aren’t we are consitently increasingly learning that most things exist across a spectrum? Whereas I usually find your podcasts to emphasize the nuanced or complex nature of human behavior and experience, this one seems…so all/nothing. What about the interplay of genetics with epigenetics, for example? In another podcast I heard a guest say - regarding the nature versus nurture question- that we are beings whose nature depends on their nurture. What about the example of epigenetic influences turning genes on or off?! What am I missing? Why can’t there be LIMITED free will, while still allowing room for the possibility of realizing it? Maybe not completely but in various aspects of our existence?
There are many layers to this one! I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I am pretty sure Michael Kovnat Bronson Griscom Jay Haynes Bruce Searby will have opinions :)