Athena: 00:00:04 Have you been zombified by hunger? Dave: 00:00:07 Totally. Oh yes. All the time. And it really affects my behavior. Right. If I'm hungry, like even in small scale. So how about you? Athena: 00:00:17 I know that. That's why I always keep snacks around. So when you come into my office, I can feed them to you. And, uh, and then you're, you're really pleasant to be around actually, if you're fed. Dave: 00:00:32 [Laughter] And so that's what we're talking about today, right? It's people zombified by hunger. [Athena agrees] In a serious way, so. Athena: 00:00:39 Yes! Welcome to the Zombified Podcast. We are your source for fresh brains. I'm your host Athena Aktipis, psychology professor at ASU and chair of the Zombie Apocalypse Medicine Alliance. Dave: 00:00:52 And I am your co-host, Dave Lundberg-Kenrick, media outreach program manager at Arizona State University and brain and food enthusiast. Athena: 00:01:02 Yes, we love brains. And, food too, really, yeah. [Laughter] Dave: 00:01:08 Um, so who are we talking to today? Athena: 00:01:10 So today we talked to Cathryn Townsend who is an anthropologist who has studied food and famine and how humans respond to famine, not just on an individual level, but also on a societal level. Dave: 00:01:30 All right. And she's looking at the Ik, you said she lived with the Ik for a while? Athena: 00:01:35 Yeah. So she lived with, um, the Ik in Uganda. They're a small group of Hunter-gatherers who also do a little bit of farming. Um, and they've had a really challenging past, because, uh, they had a period of famine. Um, and actually during that period of famine, there was another anthropologist who was there who saw their behavior and thought that they were kind of, uh, like their society was just a selfish society because of, um, the lack of sharing that was happening. But that was of course the case because they had nothing to share, you know, there just was not enough to go around. So, so Cathryn has, um, spent time with the Ik now, and, uh, has found that they actually are very cooperative and they share, it's part of their culture. Um, it's very important to them. Um, and that really kind of challenges this way that the Ik have been portrayed, not just in Colin Turnbull's writing, but in lots of other writing since then, like, uh, Richard Dawkins talks about the Ik and the selfish gene as an example of like how human culture can, um, you know, lead to like selfishness sometimes and calls them, you know, out as sort of this example of, you know, loveless and unfriendly, uncharitable people, so. Dave: 00:03:02 So, so it's really sort of a fascinating look at how having no food can, can change us. But then also it sounds like it's a little bit of a hopeful thing? Athena: 00:03:13 Yeah. You know, and that's the thing about this episode is on one hand, it's really depressing, right? Because it's about like, what happens to us, you know, as humans, um, if we're starving, if we're truly famished. But it's also a story about what, you know, that sort of this resilience of humans and human societies, um, to come back from these horrible times, you know? When there wasn't enough to feed the elderly, and feed children, and so many people died because of lack of food. That now, you know, several decades later, um, their sharing norms and their, you know, cooperative culture has completely come back. Um, so, you know, so if we're thinking about like post Zombie apocalypse, can we rebuild society? I think this is a, a hopeful example. Dave: 00:04:09 Well, good! Well, I can't wait to hear it. Athena: 00:04:12 Yeah. So let's hear from this week's fresh brain, Cathryn Townsend. Intro: 00:04:19 [Psychological by Lemi] Athena: 00:04:54 Cathryn, well let's begin by just having you introduce yourself in your own words. Cathryn: 00:05:01 Okay. Hi, there Athena. Uh, I'm an anthropologist with a background in social anthropology, and I have been working on the Human Generosity Project, um, working with a group of people called the Ik. And the Ik were famous, or infamous rather, in, um, the kind of uh scientific and popular discourse due to an ethnography that was written by, uh, an anthropologist called Colin Turnbull. Athena: 00:05:33 But before that, why don't you share your name? [Athena and Cathryn laugh] Actually, if you don't mind, maybe we can start over, just say your name. Cause I won't say "this is Cathryn Townsend blah blah blah." Cathryn: 00:05:43 This is the intro? Athena: 00:05:45 Yeah. So it'll be like we'll start and then you'll say, yeah. [Cathryn agrees] Um, and you can, if you want, you can say, you know, anything about your history that you want to say. And then I'll ask you about all the content. So you don't have to jump into everything. You can just kind of say who you are and what you do, and then we'll do the rest. [Cathryn agrees]. Okay. Excellent. Cathryn: 00:06:07 Fair enough. Athena: 00:06:09 Welcome to Zombified. Let's start by having you introduce yourself in your own words for everybody who's listening. Cathryn: 00:06:17 Hello there. Okay. Um, my name's Cathryn Townsend and I'm a social anthropologist and I've been working with hunter-gatherers and former hunter-gatherers in Africa and, um, especially focused on, uh, issues like social egalitarianism and cooperation. Athena: 00:06:37 Awesome. And how did you get into anthropology and in particular studying hunter-gatherers and people in small scale societies? Cathryn: 00:06:48 Oh gosh. Uh, now that's a really interesting question. I think it's because, um, you know, when I was going into doing an undergraduate course, I didn't, I'd never even heard of anthropology. So, you know, um, I didn't even do my undergraduate in anthropology, but I did it in South Africa in, um, English communication and history. And in the history of South Africa, we learned a lot about some of the indigenous hunter-gatherers in South Africa and their egalitarian politics. And that was just uh, I don't know, an intrinsically interesting kind of subject for me. [Athena: yeah, so w--] And so I've had a kind of interest in it since a very early age. Athena: 00:07:31 And what about the egalitarian politics was interesting to you? Is there an example or characteristics of the egalitarian politics? Cathryn: 00:07:41 I think maybe there was a sort of romantic side of me. I'm one of those people that I, myself, um, have a very egalitarian kind of outlook in life and, um, you know, people in the modern world, um, there, there are a lot of hierarchies. So I was just sort of really fascinated by that kind of counter example, really, um, different, a different form of cooperation that I hadn't heard so much about. And I-I became really interested from there. Athena: 00:08:09 Yeah. And so cooperation is different in communities where there's more egalitarianism? Is that part of it? Cathryn: 00:08:15 Um, yeah, so I-I would I would think so. I mean, my interest in cooperation really, uh, came out of working within an, egalit-- or formerly egalitarian hunter-gatherer community. So, um, for my PhD work, I had worked with the Baka who are a group of Congo Basin hunter-gatherers and many, um, Baka people uh have now adopted non-hunter-gatherer lifestyles, uh, different subsistence strategies have been integrated into the market economy and so on. And this changes the way that the Baka operate. So they, you know, they do less sharing and they do more economic transactions now, for example. Athena: 00:08:59 Okay. More keep track of who owes what- [ Cathryn agrees] Cathryn: 00:09:02 Right yeah. So, and sharing is is one of the key elements of what makes a society egalitarian, because if you're sharing extensively, um, part of that is that it prevents people from accumulating property, um, at a different rate to other people. So it kind of keeps the wealth, um, in the society kind of evenly distributed so that they have like a low Gini index, for example. Athena: 00:09:31 Right. That makes sense. Yeah. And so recently, more recently you've worked with the Ik as part of the Human Generosity Project. [Cathryn says "that's right, yeah"] So we've known each other [Cathryn laughs] for quite a long time [Cathryn agrees] because, uh, we worked together on the Human Generosity Project, and I was hoping maybe you could say a little bit about the Ik and who they are and why they're such a interesting example, um, of a hunter-gatherer society. Cathryn: 00:10:03 Okay. So yes, uh, the Ik, many people who are of my generation- I'm in my forties, uh, and older will, um, remember the Ik Because they were quite famous, not just in anthropology, but more broadly. And that's because a particular anthropologist, Colin Turnbull wrote an ethnography based on his field work experience with them in the 1960s. Um, and then he published this ethnography, which became very popular in the 1970s, called "The Mountain People." And it became a best-seller really, and it generated a lot of interest. And in it, he described the people as being really very selfish, uh, loveless, being, you know, just people that had a culture where they, um, where the culture didn't allow them to cooperate in the way that other people did. And he saw this as being a kind of degenerative culture. So they were, um, you know, really seen as being this group of people that epitomized the kind of selfish side of human nature and, you know, um, some big science, scien-, uh, popular science writers have kind of, um, bought into that story. Athena: 00:11:25 Right. Including Richard Dawkins, right? Cathryn: 00:11:26 That's right. Yeah. So in The Selfish Gene he kind of makes this sort of reference uh to the, Ik and that keeps on getting republished in the same form, even though, you know, really some, um, some literature has come out in the interim that really indicates that, you know, maybe we should be a bit more critical about those kinds of assessments, um, of Ik society, including my own stuff that's coming up. But there has been some other stuff before that. So, Athena: 00:11:54 Yeah so, what is the story behind what was going on for the Ik during the period that Colin Turnbull was there? Cathryn: 00:12:04 Right. So there was something very specific that, uh, that happened and, um, it was a very severe famine. So they are living in an environment that is harsh, that is subject to, you know, periodic droughts. And in the time- in the years that Turnbull happened to come in and and do his research, he hadn't had a lot of experience with them before and there hadn't been a lot of research done before that time. But there was- it happened to be when there was a particularly severe drought and this led to a very severe famine as well. So people were dying at the time. And, um, really what was happening was that there was this a kind of, um, societal breakdown. People, you know, were too weak and malnourished, uh, to actually function normally as social agents at the time. [Athena agrees] And that's pretty apparent from actually his own work. It was just his interpretation of it that, you know, it was slightly problematic [Athena agrees], maybe a bit more than slightly. Athena: 00:13:10 Right, so, so they were all essentially starving. So it's hard for people to help take care of each other [Cathryn agrees] when they can't even feed themselves. Cathryn: 00:13:18 If people within a very wide area, um, are in- find themselves in a position where, you know, everyone in that community is equally disadvantaged and they are really struggling, then not only is it difficult for them to share- share and cooperate- because they don't have the energy, the energy for that, you don't have enough nourishment, but also there isn't anything to share. You know, there's-there's nothing to transfer, there's nothing they can really do. And because they didn't have good cooperative, uh, relationships with neighboring groups either that kind of [Athena agrees] compounded the situation. Athena: 00:14:00 And they historically had a really challenging time even before that, right. Because they used to migrate and follow herds of animals, right. So they could hunt more [Cathryn says "that's right"] and they got more constrained [Cathryn confirms] because of political issues. Cathryn: 00:14:17 Yes. And Turnbull was aware of this. I mean, part of the-the kind of, uh, research into their former lifestyle was done by him. And it's clear that the Ik people, though now today they are doing mixed subsistence, so they, they have gardens of maize and some other crops that they do in the wet season, that in the past, they relied a lot more on, um, a mobile lifestyle of hunting and gathering. So really this became more restricted due to, uh, colonial borders going up. So they in a, um, multi sort of border area where they, you know, they live on, at the moment, on a mountain range where you've got Uganda on the one side and you've got Kenya on the other side and then nearby, there's also South Sudan. So traditionally they would have actually moved in, uh, in a migration annual pattern, um, through all of those countries. But then when the colonial situation arose, uh, there started to be borders and enforcement of border kind of, uh- [Athena agrees] And they couldn't really do that. And then in addition to that, um, there became more, uh, pressure from neighboring pastoralist people like the Turkana and, um, the Dodoth in Uganda who were moving into those territories as well. [Athena agrees] There was a conservation park that, um, was initially created by, by the British who, um, with the colonial power in Uganda. And, um, they opened that park up originally as a kind of hunting area. And then when Uganda got its independence, it became a wildlife park. But, um, prior to that, the Ik had used that as one of their major hunting grounds. So that, and attacks from neighbors sort of led to them retreating into this mountain range as their, you know, as a more restricted kind of environment. Athena: 00:16:24 And that environment just didn't have the ability to support as many people. Cathryn: 00:16:30 Right, so, um, you know, if you're relying a lot on foraging, especially in the dry season, you need a fairly large terrain to be able to make that possible because you need to exploit different resource patches [Athena agrees]. And move between them. You know, when one resource patch, um, is, um, harvestable, you need to move into that resource patch and exploit it. And then when you've exploited all the resources that are seasonable, then you move on to a different resource patch that comes into fruition. So that's you know generally how foragers work. Athena: 00:17:07 Yeah, so what's your sense of, you know, what happens to people in these situations where they are like literally starving? Does it change like fundamental things about how they're operating? Um, you know, is it like, would you go so far to say that when people are starving, they're zombified to a certain extent? Cathryn: 00:17:32 [Cathryn laughs] Yes, well absolutely because all you can think of is your belly, um. That's your primary need, um, and anything just to get that energy into your body so that you can continue functioning and continue to survive. Uh, that's going to be your primary aim. Of course. So, you know, you, you, you can't focus on the other things that we normally do when we have, when our energetic needs are met, there's just this overriding need to, to get enough nourishment. So, yeah, I think that, that, you know, would be a kind of thing that changes your behavior and changes what you're thinking about and changes your psychology even, um, at the moment that you're, you know, you're having chronic starvation basically. Athena: 00:18:19 Right. And we're talk- we're not just talking about, you know, feeling hungry, we're talking about people who lost so much body fat, that they were at the risk of dying. Right? [Cathryn confirms] And so you go into a whole different physiology when- Cathryn: 00:18:34 That's right. Yeah. And, you know, um, I think, you know, people had to make very harsh decisions about helping close relatives, sharing food with close relatives, um, and even their children really, you know, uh. If someone doesn't- and the elderly- if someone doesn't really have a chance of surviving, then is there even any point to sharing with them? You know, there might've been decisions like that to make. I don't know, I'm being a bit speculative, but reading into some of the sort of events that Turnbull describes where parents abandoned their children, or, um, the elderly were kind of left to die of starvation. Um, it might, it may be that, you know, people don't even- if you're really starving, you don't even make those calculations, uh, consciously. [Athena agrees]. It's just that you're so focused on your own needs that... [Athena agrees] Yeah. Athena: 00:19:36 You literally don't have the bandwidth for anything else. Cathryn: 00:19:39 That's right. Yeah. And I-I suspect that that's the case. But, you know, if you were to sort of make those calculations, then perhaps there would be some kind of logic to also, uh, you know, not, not, uh, putting energy into people, even if they're closely related to you, if there's not that much chance of those people surviving anyway. Athena: 00:20:07 Sort of... a triage issue, right? Like in any sort of disaster context, like if there's, um, medical needs, right? And there are people who are likely to die even if you give them a lot of medical care. [Cathryn agrees] And then there are people who are likely to, um, have a much bigger change in their ability to survive if you give them medical care, [Cathryn agrees] right. Like there's a process by which, you know, even hospitals [Cathryn says "Oh gosh, yeah"] and you know, um, you know, doctors who are, you know, in the field or like in battlefield medicine, right. There's a whole process for that where you, you know, if there are limited resources for caring, you have to- Cathryn: 00:20:51 Make tough decisions [Athena agrees]. Right, right. So, yeah, I hadn't really thought about that in terms of triage and how medical attention is given to different people in disaster kind of contexts or tricky contexts, but yes, exactly. So there's this sort of logic to it, um, which is, is harsh, but, you know, you have to allocate resources in a way that makes sense, really. Athena: 00:21:17 Yeah. And sometimes it's not just a matter of need, but also a matter of like the ability of that help to make a difference [Cathryn agrees] for that person. Cathryn: 00:21:26 And I mean, that might be, uh, a part of how people calculate need as well in that if the resource supplied isn't really going to make a difference, then you don't have a need for that resource necessarily. [Athena says "interesting" and agrees] Yeah. Yeah. So, but yeah, in terms of zombification, I don't know exactly how that would work. Uh, you know, I suspect that people just did not have the, um, the capacity to even make those, those kinds of calculations very clearly in their minds. Um, that most of what was happening was just a function of people behaving as indiv- more individualistically in that kind of context. And if you look at how people behave in famine circumstances, you know, cross-culturally, if you look at the great famines in the world and what is known, uh, historically about those situations that you get that kind of, you get that more individualistic behavior. So for example, uh, there's this phenomenon of famine cannibalism, and that's not actually just peculiar to humans either, other species do it as well. When, you know, there's a, a lack of nourishment in the environment then, um, people and other kinds of animals will start uh eating the, you know, members of their own species, which they wouldn't do in other contexts. [Athena agrees] So, yeah, and it could even include, you know, organisms or people who are related to you, uh, which doesn't really, you know, wouldn't ordinarily, you know, improve your fitness, but in that context, it's a kind of trade-off that you have continued survival and- Athena: 00:23:17 So there are examples from human famines, of- Cathryn: 00:23:20 Of, uh, of parents even, you know, um, eating their own children [Athena says "Wow"] and so on. Yes. Athena: 00:23:27 And that's presumably something that really only happens when there is such an extreme starvation, that- Cathryn: 00:23:36 Right. It's life or death. So what do you do? Um, I wouldn't say that that's the most common reaction, but it's [Athena says "Hopefully not"] [laughter], but it has been known to happen. Yes. Athena: 00:23:47 And it's not just like one isolated [Cathryn says "In the great famines"] case. Cathryn: 00:23:51 No, there, there are reports of, you know, quite credible reports of that kind of activity happening, kind of criminal underworld of, uh, you know, stuff going on and, and specific cases that, that happened in different places in Europe and in Asia. Um, there's, there's a lot of kind of work that's been done on those areas. So, yeah. Athena: 00:24:13 So then if we kind of think about the Ik case in relation to that broader literature on people's behavior and famines, that really puts it in perspective. [Cathryn agrees] Cathryn: 00:24:24 It puts it in perspective because actually the Ik behavior is relatively mild by comparison. What Turnbull describes is actually relatively mild. So he describes a, a particular case where an infant was left and you know was left on, uh, on its own and was taken by a predator. And then that predator, I think it was a hyena, uh, was later hunted and consumed by, um, by the same people. Um, you know, the same group of people who that infant belonged to. And that kind of really sparked some revulsion on the part of Turnbull, and I can- and I can kind of understand that he must have also been pretty traumatized and, you know, [Athena agrees] had a lot of emotions to deal with, which affected his interpretation of the scenario. But that was, that's the kind of, um, that was something that caused him to really judge the Ik, um, you know, one of the most extreme things that he saw. And I think that, that in comparison to actual cannibal famine, cannibal behavior in other contexts, it really does put it in perspective. So it's actually relatively a, a mild incident, you know, uh, the Ik people weren't killing each other and, you know, they weren't doing th-they were never really violent in that way towards one another. Athena: 00:25:55 Yeah, so where do you think the judgmentalism came from on Turnbull's part? Cathryn: 00:26:02 Um, well, I think it's always hard as an anthropologist to sort of, you know, um, try and empathize completely. If you empathize too much, then you, you really are in a position where it's difficult to continue and to do research and to sort of put your research as the priority. So you empathize, but you also sort of try and maintain some kind of methodological objectivity, um, if I can call it that. And I think he was trying to do that and also just trying to remain- to survive himself and, you know, remain fairly comfortable. And that led him to, to be, um. I think that the people he was working with really resented him for his behavior and for, you know, not doing more to maybe help them out at the time. So there was a conflict there that may have, you know, made him defensive in a way about his own behavior. [Athena says "Interesting"] I know, it's interesting to think about, I can't, I'm projecting because I know fieldwork is hard, but who knows exactly what, you know, made him interpret things in that way. I think part of it, as well is, you know, his theoretical position was that he was expecting everything, all the behavior that he observed to be the outcome of culture and not thinking very clearly about how, you know, human behavior is, not just culture, it's not the same thing. There are actually other things that can affect behavior. And so if, if there's something very strong that's happening in the environment, then that is going to cause changes in behavior that aren't necessarily the results of culture. And I don't think he had thought that through, uh, that well either. So there, there may be a combination of, um, emotional and theoretical kind of issues that made him come to this rather extreme interpretation and to his, uh- at the end of the book, he kind of advocates for the Ugandan government to have, uh, taken Ik society and broken it apart so that this evil culture of selfishness could no longer continue because he saw the culture as being something that was destructive to Ik individuals, basically. Um, which is a very odd position for an anthropologist to be arguing for. Athena: 00:28:29 Yeah. So despite the fact that they were clearly starving, he was still attributing the behaviors that he saw to them having a culture of selfishness. Cathryn: 00:28:41 Yes. I-I think definitely you can, you know- and even when he sort of, um. I think after he wrote the book, he also, you know, thought about it a little bit more and he even rethought things, that he'd- he started to think a little bit more about famine and you know, what effects that might have. But he didn't let go of that idea, ever really, that, you know, um, the Ik behavior could be explained in terms of culture. [Athena agrees] And I think part of that as well, um, was that he didn't really, he doesn't seem to have really understood Ik culture or, um, really gotten to know the cultural institutions very well or understood, you know, basic things about the language. Athena: 00:29:27 Yeah maybe you could say a little bit more about that because that then ties in with your own work, [Cathryn agrees] cause you, how long did you spend with them? Cathryn: 00:29:36 I was there for a year and I've done some subsequent visits and I have to say the Ik language is a very difficult language to learn and I've struggled with it myself, but it, it's fairly obvious that Turnbull didn't have the knowledge of the language that he pretended to have actually, which is problematic. And he doesn't seem to have really, you know, tried to understand what kind of cultural institutions people might've had, what words they might've had which would indicate that they do in fact have, uh, ideas about generosity and so on. So one of the Ik adages that they have, something that people say all the time, is "Tamora Morung", which means "it's good to share," and they have this, you know, they have this word "Tamora," which "means to share." And they have connotations about that, which is very much about need-based transfers and about giving to people who are in need when they're in need. And he doesn't seem to have kind of really thought about the fact that those, you know, that word exists in the Ik people's language. And, you know, if they had this culture of selfishness, where did that come from? You know, he thinks that due to the circumstances that they found themselves in that the culture had adapted to making them more selfish. But I think that's a problematic way of thinking about things as well. Athena: 00:31:02 Right. And there are some other aspects of their culture, too, that speak to this. Cathryn: 00:31:07 Yeah. Yeah. So they've got, um, this belief in, um, the kitchawik, they've got a variety of different nature spirits that, um, are around in the environment and the kitchawik in particular, the literal translation of kitchawik is "children of the earth." And they are spirits that kind of hide themselves in, places in the forest and in the ground and in wet places as well. And they're sometimes visible, they can make themselves visible, but they're normally invisible. But they are sort of omniscient and all-knowing, and they really observe human behavior and they can even observe human thoughts somehow. And, uh, so when people are stingy and selfish and they're not sharing, those kicthawik know about that, and they might punish uh people by, um, bringing misfortune. So, um, you know, people might find themselves not having good luck with their crops or not, not being able to find anything in the Bush to eat if they haven't shared. And also, you know, um, there's also the sort of idea that the kitchawik in some circumstances might even reward especially generous behavior. And they even, you know, they even are said to sometimes reward generous thoughts or punish people when they give, but they give resentfully where they, they don't give with the right feeling in their hearts and the kitchawik don't like that. So you have to be very careful. Athena: 00:32:53 Right [Athena and Cathryn giggle]. So all of this suggests that they actually have a lot of cultural norms and ideas. And [Cathryn agrees] um, even, you know, these, uh, I mean, you could almost say that the kitchawik are part of zombifying people to help each other [Athena laughs]. Cathryn: 00:33:13 Oh, yes, exactly. So, um, culture is interesting in that way. Um, it's just not something that can override other factors. So the Ik clearly do have a culture that is designed around helping them to cooperate, uh, in various ways, as I think is the case for most human societies,a ll human societies actually. And, you know, it's just that that system wasn't working at the time that Turnbull was there. And because he didn't really do longitudinal research, he was kind of, um, he had some blind spots [Athena agrees] like that. Athena: 00:33:55 Yeah so what happens to sharing, you know, when you go from a situation where, you know, everything's really great to then maybe things aren't so great? And there's some need to like more need, and then to everybody being in need and everybody being in really bad circumstances. You know, like as, as things kind of go from being great to being bad, and then worse, and then horrible, what happens to sharing? Cathryn: 00:34:25 Um, so I think in the beginning, people will sort of realize, "Oh my goodness, these are hard times, we need to share more, actually, and cooperate more." [Athena says "Is that what...they said?"] And I say, I say that, yeah, because that's how they perceive things. So you know, I mentioned "Tomora Murung," which means it's good to share. So part of what people tell you about that when you ask them is that the goodness of sharing is not just a moral issue, that you're helping your neighbor, but that it's good to share, because if you don't share with other people, then no one's going to share with you when you find yourself in a bad situation. So for example, you know, people might have enough food during the wet season, um, and for part of the dry season, when they can eat the cultivated foods that they, uh, have grown for themselves. But then in the dry season, they have to then fall back on foraging again. So hunting and finding things, uh, finding vegetable foods and collecting honey and so on. And that's more stochastic kind of activity. There's a lot more risk of not being successful, especially in that harsh environment and with the restricted territory and having, um, neighboring groups who can be hostile. It's, it's actually a very risky thing for people to have to go out and, and find food in the wild. And so, you know, people might just find themselves with no food and if their neighbors can help them through that, then they get to survive. And it, it's, you know, it depends a little bit on skill, but it's also just luck. So people are pretty much aware that, you know, they have to pool the risk [Athena agrees] and sharing is a way of doing that. [Athena agrees] So, yeah. Athena: 00:36:12 But then as things get worse, like they did with the situation in, what was- 1966, right? Cathryn: 00:36:20 That's right. Yes. '66 to '67. Yeah. Athena: 00:36:23 Yeah. So, so when it goes from just, you know, some people being in need to everybody being in need, to everybody being in need for a long time. [Cathryn agrees] Right. So no one can help to buffer anyone else anymore, what happens then? Cathryn: 00:36:39 Right. So it seems that, you know, at that stage you have social breakdown, um, completely. And it does actually take time. It, it, it has to get to the point that people are actually starving, that they no longer have the energetic ability to, um, to really put their energy into maintaining social relations. [Athena agrees] Um, and there was an anthropologist, uh, called Dirks who did a paper about that and kind of did a, uh, a cross-cultural comparison of different kinds of, sort of different stages of, uh, famine. And that seems to be the case that, you know, it's at that point that things, that the society really breaks down and you get enemy. Athena: 00:37:34 Mm-hmm, yeah and so the Ik are a really interesting case in that you've been able to go back now and look at how the society is functioning in addition to sort of talking to people. You've also done some experiments there, right. [Cathryn confirms] Maybe, you talk a little bit about the- Cathryn: 00:37:54 Experiments? Athena: 00:37:55 The dictator games? Cathryn: 00:37:56 Yeah. Okay. So a dictator game is a very simple economic game and it's, uh, it's just, you give a person, um, a sum of money, and you give them the opportunity to either keep it all, or allocate a portion of it to another person. Athena: 00:38:17 Usually anonymous. Cathryn: 00:38:18 It's usually anonymous, but there are different forms of dictator games. So they get tweaked in different ways to show different things. And so we took this, uh, this kind of basic, um, game, and we did just a standard sort of anonymized version where people are just told that, you know, they get this amount of money and they get, they, they can share with another person in their community if they choose and- [Both say "or they can keep it all for themselves"], or what have you. And then we, uh, we also devised different versions of the game where we used a bit of framing. So we told them that, you know, the person, the anonymous person that they, that they had the opportunity to maybe share with was somebody who was in need. So it could be an old person who was hungry. That was the example that I gave. And then we also had another one where we, we just sort of asked them questions about the kitchawik, um, just to sort of get their minds- [Athena agrees], just bring it to their minds really, so that it was fresh in their minds that they're thinking about the kitchawik and then played a basic, uh, dictator game. Athena: 00:39:39 And you would do it for real. So we would give them the money [Cathryn confirms]. And then if they said they were going to donate to someone else, then you would actually do that. Cathryn: 00:39:48 Yes. Uh, I would, you know, um, allocate the resources according to the decision they made. So yes, within the community, um, that money would have been redistributed. So, um- Athena: 00:40:00 And one of the things that doing this let you do is compare the rates of giving in this game [Cathryn agrees] to the rates of giving in other societies, cause this game has been used in a lot of different societies. Cathryn: 00:40:12 Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, they, uh, it turns out that, um, you know, there's nothing really remarkable about what they are doing. It's very much on a par with what people in other societies are doing. Uh, but the decisions they make- Athena: 00:40:25 Oh, so they're no more selfish than anyone else? Cathryn: 00:40:25 No, and it varies a lot between individuals actually. So you get people who choose to give nothing. Um, but you get, you know, some people who choose to give everything away, um, sometimes. That's rare, but it does happen. And generally people will give something away. You know. Athena: 00:40:45 And how about with the conditions where the person was in need that they were giving to, or the kitchawik or- Cathryn: 00:40:53 Yeah, so, um, it's interesting. So it seems that, uh, for the, um, the version where a kind of need-based scenario was invoked, that this made people a little bit more generous. Um, and the same is true for the version in which the kitchawik were mentioned prior to playing the game. But if you take those two things together, so if you mention the kitchawik before playing the game, and then in the game you also specify that the person, the recipient is a person in need, that that seems to really have an effect in- in changing uh people's behavior to make more generous decisions in dictator games. Which is really interesting actually, because those are, that's kind of making this sort of abstract game a little bit more naturalistic. Um, i-it's really kind of, um, bringing to people's minds, the more sort of cultural information that they would normally use to make decisions about how they share or don't share. Athena: 00:41:59 Right. And then it's also super interesting going back to Colin Turnbull's, you know, assuming that they were selfish because of culture, [Cathryn agrees] where then when you bring up the, you know, "it's good to share" and the kitchawik, which are these cultural things that have to do with cooperation, you get the increase in- Cathryn: 00:42:19 I mean, exactly. So like culture's doing exactly the opposite from what Turnbull said. I mean, you, you, there's no ways you're going to convince me that the culture was completely different 60 years ago when he was doing his research. What was different then was that they were starving to death. Athena: 00:42:37 Yeah. So this suggests then that, between the time that they were starving to now, there's been either some sort of change in their culture or that these aspects of their culture kind of came back, that they were resilient. Cathryn: 00:42:57 That's right. And, uh, you know, I favor the latter interpretation. Definitely. There's no real empirical way of checking that, but that seems logical to me. Definitely. Um, you know, and also the linguistic evidence is there. The, you know, the words already existed in the language. So it's- it's difficult to see how they could have, you know, developed a culture that was, uh, directed at making them selfish. And also you don't really need culture to make people selfish, in my opinion [Cathryn and Athena laugh]. That's the sort of default thing, you need culture to make people more cooperative. Athena: 00:43:41 Yeah. Yeah. And so, in a way it's a, actually a really encouraging story about the resilience of human cooperation and sharing, right? Because they were in a really bad place. Cathryn: 00:43:56 Yeah. They were uh in an awful, awful kind of situation. And the thing is that there have been subsequent events, uh, since that they talk about. In the 1980s, uh, they had a very severe cholera epidemic and, and a kind of famine situation, which they also remember as being a particularly bad time. During the 1990s, they, uh- it was a particularly bad time for, um, experiencing raids from neighboring groups of the pastoralists who were, um, you know, the cattle raiding situation had really gotten out of hand because of the profileration of, uh, weapons, um, in the area. Guns. And that was really difficult for them to get through. So they've been through a lot of, you know, subsequent things and all through that, they, you know, have come through this with this, um, culture that's clearly oriented towards encouraging people to share and not just that, but they do share and, you know, they're nice people and I made friends and friends who I really love. So, and they're not loveless, um, as, as Turnbull claimed. I mean, it's just clearly nonsense that, you know, that could be true of humans. Um, so yeah, of course it's encouraging. Yeah. Athena: 00:45:25 Yeah. So given what you know of the, the Ik and the resurgence or resilience of these norms of cooperation after all these negative events, what do you think would happen in a apocalyptic global situation? [Cathryn laughs] Like if, you know, if there was something, you know, on the order of that, but happening to everyone in the world. Cathryn: 00:45:56 Yeah, so globally, if you had that kind of situation where everybody was really, really in a bad way, and, you know, maybe just not getting enough food, because there wasn't enough in the environment, then, you know, it's- that to me is kind of an endgame scenario. [Athena agrees] Because if you have a total breakdown of cooperation, uh, it would be pretty... it would be the downfall of our species, I think, because, you know, [Athena agrees] without cooperation, what are we as humans? Cathryn and Ath...: 00:46:31 We would be zombies, we would be the zombie apocalypse. Yeah. Cathryn: 00:46:34 We would be the zombies. And, you know, we would really be competing with each other as individuals just to get food in our bellies, I think. So it really doesn't bear thinking about. [Athena agrees] You know, if we had total environmental breakdown, um, then we might get to the point where we just, there was just no longer the capacity to actually help each other or to cooperate. [Athena agrees] And, you know, we really want to sort of use the cooperation that we currently have, I think, to prevent that kind of scenario from ever coming about if we want to continue as a species. Um, but I think it would be absolutely abysmal if, uh, you know, everybody was equally in such a bad way that there could be no need-based transfers from one community to another community. Um, and that it was just each individual for themselves basically. Athena: 00:47:30 I mean, I guess even it was happening on a global scale, but, um, some communities were being hit harder than others and there wasn't helping between communities, you could still have this going on. Right. Uh, where- Cathryn: 00:47:44 Right. right. [Athena agrees] So you could have a sort of regional version of it happening in, in very large areas, you know, different continents or, uh, all kinds of scenarios or different geological zones, [Athena agrees] um, where people are particularly badly hit. And if people from other environments where the worst of resources weren't sort of stepping in and doing need-based transfers, then you know, that would probably lead to really apocalyptic things happening within those zones. Athena: 00:48:20 Right. Yeah. Well, I mean, this actually makes me think about what we were discussing earlier about how the place where you get the most sharing is when some people are in need and not others. Um, but if nobody is in need or if everybody is in need, you don't get as much. So, I mean, you know, it's possible we could have a global scenario where in some communities, everybody is in need and in other communities, nobody is in need, and there's not much crosstalk between them. There's not relationships between them that would-- Cathryn: 00:48:52 Facilitate the need-based transfers [Athena agrees] going from one community. Yeah, well, I think we're already there to be honest, uh, in many ways, um. Not completely, but I do think that, you know, we have a little bit of work to do in helping communities that are hit by hurricanes or who are facing famines, um. You know, really, uh, not just immediate aid, but also helping everybody on this world to be more resilient to environmental shocks and also, you know, uh, helping to avoid- find ways to avoid those shocks happening at all. Athena: 00:49:34 Right. Yeah. It's also interesting to think about your work in this context of what happens in the recovery from the apocalypse, right? So, really horrible event happens. Um, maybe there's even a complete breakdown of society. And then what, do we have a chance at rebuilding society? If there's been a societal breakdown? Cathryn: 00:50:02 Not, not if it's, you know, not if there's no way of regaining resources, you know, if conditions don't change. So the thing that enabled the Ik to survive is that the drought had a limited duration. So it wasn't actually an apocalypse. It was just a very bad situation that lasted for a very long time and really, you know, pushed them to the brink [Athena agrees] of survival, um- Athena: 00:50:32 And people died during this time. Cathryn: 00:50:34 And people died. People died, you know, they did starve to death and people have died in subsequent really bad times as well. But the droughts always eventually do, you know, the rain eventually comes and, uh, the environment is regenerated. If the environment- you know, it's all dependent on the environment really. That would make an apocalypse, uh, come about really, is if the environment got to a point where there was just no ways that it could regenerate itself anymore. Athena: 00:51:13 Uh-huh. And then society would break down, and if the rains didn't come, [Cathryn agrees] there would be no way for it to- Cathryn: 00:51:19 Right, right, you know, well, for whatever reason, um, that that was happening in a particular place, that the environmental breakdown was happening. That, you know, if there was no chance of that environmental situation improving, then it's difficult to see how, uh, there would be any resilience. [Athena agrees] Unless other society- you know, other societies, other communities, people where there was a little bit more, were able to step in somehow and help. [Athena agrees] But if you know, people on a very wide scale, maybe across the whole world are challenged, you know, if resources are short everywhere, um, then again, it's very difficult to see how, uh, that kind of resilience could come about. [Athena agrees] So, you know, I'm optimistic that human cooperation can be extremely resilient and that that happens, uh, partially through culture because it's this wonderful tool for cooperating. But at the same time, you know, there are some sort of question marks in my mind about um, capacity to sustain things. Athena: 00:52:36 So for you, a lot of it is this question of, is it possible for the environment to bounce back after an apocalypse so that people's needs can be provided for again? And, and if that can happen, then human culture probably can be resilient [Cathryn agrees] in terms of these cooperative norms, but it must be the case that the capacity increases in terms of being able to actually support people and meet their needs. Cathryn: 00:53:05 Absolutely. Yeah. Um, coop- you know, cooperation can't really work well, I think, when there just isn't enough to support that community or those organisms that are in that environment. Then, you know, a different kind of thing is going to be extremely competitive, and even cutthroat in nature, red in tooth and claw and so on. Athena: 00:53:31 Yeah. But that's really the scenario that happens when there's famine and starvation. That's when people are so zombified by literally their hunger, right? [Cathryn agrees] That this ability to maintain the cultural norms about sharing can break down. Cathryn: 00:53:53 Yes, yes, I think so. And even, you know, more basic things like, you know, parent-child relationships, uh, are- don't even really seem to necessarily, uh, work as they normally would in a situation where ordinary co-op- So in an apocalyptic situation, you can't even necessarily expect those uh, more basic ties of cooperation that we all take for granted to survive. It's very scary. Athena: 00:54:22 Yeah. You know, one of, uh, previous guests that we've talked to, Emily Zarka, she studies monsters. Like literally [laughter] she's, yeah um, has a PhD in literature and Goth- I should say interested in Gothic literature, but also just monsters in general. And she says that very often monsters, what they are, um, are really a metaphor for human behavior [Cathryn agrees] in times of challenge. And that, you know, if you look at a lot of the monster movies and zombie movies [Cathryn agrees], that really... Cathryn: 00:55:02 Those are the tropes that people are kind of using to examine those issues that are maybe kind of existential issues that are on our minds and that we would think about. Yeah. I think I'll buy that too. Yeah. [laughter] I think, you know, if you think about the black death and so on, um, I think I- I seem to recall watching a documentary on the BBC that belief in, um, vampires originates from that era. [Athena says "Interesting"]. Yeah. So, um, I should look into her work. Definitely. Athena: 00:55:41 Yeah. Yeah. Well, and it, I think it's, you know, it's interesting to also just think about when is the zombie not the outgroup, but actually like the reflection of the behavior of those who we think are like us, [Cathryn agrees] but in situations where there are challenges, you know? Cathryn: 00:56:03 Right, when we become zombified. [laughter] Athena: 00:56:04 Exactly! When we're zombified! Well, Cathryn, thank you so much for sharing your brains with all of us this episode. [Cathryn laughs] Cathryn: 00:56:15 Okay! Thanks! Thanks everyone. Outro: 00:56:22 [Psychological by Lemi] Athena: 00:57:34 Zombified is a production of Arizona State University and the Zombie Apocalypse Medicine Alliance. Dave: 00:57:41 And we would like to thank everyone who helps make Zombified possible, including the psychology department here at ASU, Athena: 00:57:49 The Interdisciplinary Cooperation Initiative and the president's office at ASU, Dave: 00:57:54 The LinkedIn center for applied ethics, Athena: 00:57:57 Including ethics of eating and not-- Dave: 00:58:00 That's actually probably yes, accurate, right? [laughter] Athena: 00:58:03 Not eating other people. I think that's part of ethics. So, [Dave agrees] and all the brains that help make this podcast, including Tol Ram, who does our fabulous sound, Dave: 00:58:16 Neil Smith, who makes us all look like zombies, Athena: 00:58:19 Yeah, Lemi, the creator of our song, Psychological, which I have to say, I'm totally zombified by still. I love that song. Dave: 00:58:27 It's infectious like plague and, uh, [laughter] and everyone on the Z-team, uh, who does transcribing and social media and comes up with lots of ideas that are super useful. So. Athena: 00:58:42 Yeah. Thank you, Z-team. And if you want to join our uh, virtual Z-team, you can follow us on Twitter, on Instagram, on Facebook, on Tik Tok, and see all of the cool things that our Z-team is making, including like, you know, videos about their transformations during the zombie apocalypse. So. Dave: 00:59:04 Be sure to share all those things with your friends, because you know, that's part of what makes society great is sharing. [laughter] Athena: 00:59:11 On social media. Dave: 00:59:12 Yes. [Dave and Athena laugh]. Athena: 00:59:15 You can find out more about us at zombified.org and find links to our social media and also to our, uh, other project, Channel Zed, which is a video channel, um, with all sorts of fun shows. Uh, some of them are hosted by me and Dave, and we have a bunch of other really amazing people helping to make, um, content that is, uh, it's. I mean, really what it is, it's TV for the zombie apocalypse. Dave: 00:59:46 Yeah. It's super fun. It's super educational. And, uh, it's like- Athena: 00:59:50 You won't even realize that you're learning though, because you're, you're just like, "oh, what, like, you know, should I be eating brains or not?" Like, you know, you need to know the answer to that question or, or like, you know, how do you deal with a zombie bite? Like, I mean, these are just important things for you to know if you want to survive. Dave: 01:00:07 Yeah. You won't even realize you learned them 'til after you've been bitten and you'll be like, "Oh! Look at this!" So- [laughter] "Now that I've been bitten, I know how to eat brains!" So... [Laughter] Athena: 01:00:19 Right. So, yeah. You can be prepared for the zombie apocalypse, whatever your role is in it. Dave: 01:00:26 Yes, exactly. So, um, and, uh, the one other thing you need to be prepared is coffee mugs and t-shirts, and so, buy them from us. Athena: 01:00:36 That's right, yes. You can get merch for, you know, our zombified podcast for any of our shows on Channel Zed, um, and you know, sport your zombie apocalypse pride. Dave: 01:00:45 Yeah. Even if you've already bought a t-shirt, you should buy more. The new, hip thing is to wear 10 t-shirts at once. [Laughter] Athena: 01:00:52 I'll take your word for that one, Dave. [Both laugh] Well, this was a really interesting episode to do, and I think, you know, gave me a lot of food for thought, you could say. Dave: 01:01:03 Yeah, I think so. And uh, I want to thank everybody out there for sharing their time with us, you know, um, and sharing their brains with each other. Athena: 01:01:13 Yes. Great. And thank you all, yes, for listening to Zombified, your source for fresh brains. OutroSpeaker 6: 01:01:24 [Psychological by Lemi].