September 22, 2011 • 28 mins
In this episode, Robert and Julie interview astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. What does the planet's leading science communicator have to say about the future of space travel, mind-blowing cosmology and the science in America? Listen in to find out.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind from how Stuff
Works dot com. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Julie Douglas. And
today's episode is a bit of a special treat. Uh.
We just sit down yesterday and we interviewed Neil Degrass Hyson, who,
(00:26):
in addition to being an accomplished astrophysicist, is pretty much
a science superstar. Yeah, he's everywhere and I'm sure people
have probably seen him on Colbert or Jon Stewart recently
on Bill Maher. Um, he's been a nova like all
the time. Yeah, yeah, he's he will Basically he is
(00:47):
the least camera shy scientist I've ever heard of. Like,
he's just a huge extrovert and he's amazing doing a
great advocate for science, and it's a real talent for
for taking this stuff down and just in talking about science,
uh in a way that his intended audience can really
understand it. Be that intended audience, Um, you know, the
average Joe, the the listener, you know what, viewer of
(01:09):
the Daily Show, or politician looking to pass some sort
of bills. So yeah, we were very excited to be
able to get on the phone with him and ask
him some questions about what he's been up to and
his thoughts on science and where does the state of
it so to speak, all right, so let's uh let's
go ahead and jump into it here. The first question
we had for Dr Tyson had to do with the
(01:30):
fact that there is a new Cosmos television show coming
in so it's gonna be a little little ways off.
But Cosmos is, of course the classic Carl Sagan show
that just continues to uh to to have a big
influence on people like people who grew up watching the show.
We're just really inspired about science and about the universe
and cosmology and just a just a really beautiful show.
(01:52):
And so they're they're bringing it back. Tyson is the
new host, and so we had to ask him about
stepping in and filling Carl Sagan's shoes. It's a twenty
first century version of Cosmos, conceived as though it was
the first time it would it would be aired. However
we already know. But what I mean by that is
there's a lot of issues and science frontiers and cultural
(02:16):
social um dimensions to the relationship of science to society
that mattered today more or differently than they mattered years ago. Okay,
so we couldn't help it, but we had to ask,
you'd probably have to wear a turtle neck then in
the new Consince. You know, if I do, it would
(02:38):
be some sort of back to our homage to Carl.
But there are other ways we we can think of
honoring him without the turtle n I was a big
turtle netwear in my day, but right, these are other
days that we're talking about, and so, uh so we'll
and my my wardrobe was not yet determined. Actually, we
(02:58):
have to consult people who think deeply about this sort
of thing. So he got a big kick out of that.
Come to ask him about the sweater, I wanted to
ask him. It was very intimidating talking to I wanted
to ask him whether he would have his own spaceship
in the show, like like Sagan had. But um, you know,
like you said, they're still not even sure exactly what
he's going to be wearing this, so perhaps those decisions,
that's right, that's right. The best minds are on it, though,
(03:20):
So we also wanted to ask him some some more
hard core science questions here. We were particularly interested what
Tyson's take on this question would be, if he had
had unlimited funding in his disposal, what two large scale
astrophysics projects would he like to see realized and why.
He had a pretty awesome answer, And here's what his
answer was. We still don't know enough about the structural
(03:42):
integrity of asteroids too too to claim that we have
any clue about how to deflect them, or to destroy them,
or to mitigate what would otherwise be an extinction level
catastrophe on Earth, something that's happened before. So I would
(04:02):
do all the above. So so you know what NASA
would be. NASA would be like a space depot and
you go there and say, okay, I need to go
to an asteroid that's orbiting beyond Mars, and you would
assemble the rocket propulsion elements to to your to your
spacecraft necessary to reach that goal. Right, So it's like
(04:25):
choosing what kind of fuel tank and what kind of
supplies and you pack it up and then you go.
And so it's not let's only go to this one
destination and that would be what we that that will
be the mission. No, all of space should be the mission.
Otherwise it's it's a one they're all one off you know,
if expansion of human presence, we're all one off, we
would all explore and then go back into the cave.
(04:47):
It's okay, we did that. Um, let's think of something
different to do. But of course, the history of our
species is one where we explore, we pitch tent, and
then we explore from there and find ways to survive.
And and our species has thrived because of this fact.
And space is simply another frontier where I had full
(05:09):
expectations that we continue the way we have. So I
thought that was very thoughtful in talking about space is
more of a cohesive mission exploring space, and that we
shouldn't necessarily have these one offs. And I really like
this this idea that we we don't just stop, you know,
we just don't go back to our caves and stop
thinking about these things and stop exploring. Yeah, And and
(05:33):
that NASA should be like a you know, a home
depot for space travel that I thought was pretty great.
And I could see like the little orange uh pests
or whatever they wear, um, and how cool would that
be to go and get your space parts there? But
you know, this is sort of big The question or
or made us think a little bit more about funding
(05:53):
and how we are hamstrung by that currently in our
environment we don't necessarily have all the funding out our disposals.
So we wanted to ask him about, uh, the sort
of unfortunate state of funding for space exploration. And we
had wondered if he thought it was just a current
political zeitgeast, or if we're just not doing good enough
(06:14):
job of explaining why space exploration is important. And this
is what he had to say about it. Space exploration
should be funded, not for any normal reason. That's given
the fact to have a book coming out in February,
which was originally titled Failure to Launch The Dreams and
Delusions of Space Enthusiasts, but the publisher felt the title
(06:34):
was too depressing, so we came up with a less
depressing title and what it will appear in the form
of a book titled Space Chronicles. It's every thought I've
ever had about our past, present, and future in space,
and out of that comes certain realizations that we've never
gone into space because it's a frontier, or because it's
(06:57):
to explore, or because there's scientific to goveries to be had.
We've never gone into space with the Man program for
that reason. The man program is the lion's share of
the cost of space exploration. So and in fact, we've
never gone into space without humans above a certain cost level,
(07:19):
because there's a radar level below which you can fund
almost any science you want, and that's a function of
how wealthy the nation is that's conducting the activity. The
Hubble telescope, for example, that's essentially just at the limit,
a little bit below the funding radar. You can get
multibillion dollar projects funded over the years, but when you're
up around ten billion, thirty billion, that's where discovery and
(07:45):
it's our mission, it's in our DNA. None of that works.
None of it, or at least the history of the
funding of expensive projects of our species and all cultures
and all civilizations, there is no evidence that we have
ever responded positively to those kinds of drivers. The only
(08:07):
drivers that really stimulate people to spend money is war
and economics, and a third one which is less common today,
the praise of royalty or deity. There was a day
when you could use you can invoke one or both
of those and you can get anything done. That's how
you get the Pyramids and all the church building in Europe.
(08:29):
The Cathedrals of England, this sort of thing. You could
do that if there's a power above you that you
fear or that you want to praise too for your protection.
So but that doesn't happen much anymore. That leaves war
and economics. We went to the Moon because we were
at war. We choose not to remember it that way,
(08:51):
but that was the driver. And but we remember it
as though was where Americans. Of course we're going to explore.
Without the war driver would have never had. And and
so that's the blunt realization of it. So to say,
let's become a space faring nation if it is, if
it is, if the arguments are absent these other drivers,
(09:12):
then you would have to assert that we are a
fundamentally different kind of civilization from all civilizations that have
ever preceded us. So I found that really fascinating. Um,
you know, the idea that that that for modern society,
the big driver of this kind of advancement and what
we would need for like really hardcore investment in space
exploration is you know, the economic incentive or the war
(09:34):
incentative incentive. So on one level, I could not but
think what we need to do is fake an interplanetary war,
like we need to roll out the war the World's
hoax for real, and then people will be like, oh
my goodness, there's an alien race that wants to destroy us. Yes,
let's invest in space because there's a lot at stake here.
This is war, this is serious, this is what humans
(09:55):
are all about. Um, you know, let's let's work on
those battle crisis. Yeah. But then of a sudden you're
rolling out study and their space lawyers. Right, it's gets
a little bit more complicated. Space lawyers always complicate things. Um.
The other thing that did really fascinating. We've we've talked
before about the topic of religion and space, and I've
I've blogged about it, and I actually got an accompanying
(10:17):
blog post for this podcast for Discovery Space where I
talked about this a little. But the idea like what
if you had to create a religion for space now,
And for some people, that's completely ridiculous because because science,
science is king and space exploration, there's no room for religion. Right,
That's that's certainly that's a valid argument. But the other
side of the argument that I'm not I'm not necessarily
(10:37):
saying like this is what we need to do. But
it's interesting sort of thought process is what if we
created a religion to make to make space, to support
space exploration. Like I was talking to a friend of mine,
this guy Andy, who's a game designer and he works
with space themes sort of space opera projects, and so
he was arguing that, like, all right, in space exploration,
space travel, you know, the details are important. Everything's gonna
(10:59):
be ironed and you've gotta be disciplined. So you need
some sort of like really dogmatic religion that's going to
inspire that you know, you have to this is your duty,
this is you know, you've got to play another Yeah. Well,
I mean I think on a certain level, any kind
of space expression is gonna be fear based, because if
you messed up, you're gonna die. But he was talking
about like just you know, really regimented kind of like
(11:20):
uber you know, Catholic kind of a space religion or
something very heavily ritualized. Right, And we've talked and we've
talked about in the past. You know, people who have
been inspired by, say, um, the Church of Jeice Christ,
the Latter day Saints, and that is the fact that
that faith has space already factored into it, and therefore
for some individuals that has been a driving force for them. So,
(11:43):
but what Dr Tyson said made me think about, all right, well,
what if what if you created this religion to where
where another huge part of it is by exploring outer
space you are pleasing some some deity or even just
some sort of divine king, and maybe you're everlasting soul
is somehow tied up in the bargain. I know it's
(12:03):
it's probably a little bit disenterying. I just get I
like to get a little bit more simplistic with it,
and I just say, let's just just call it second
is um and we all wear the turtle. Yeah, we
all wear turtlenecks, and we all support space exploration. Yeah
and uh, and we can ritualize it as much as possible,
you know, and to to make it feel like, hey,
this is let's do it for for Carl. Second, so
(12:24):
like the pretest sets down with you and says, look,
you want to make your heavenly sake and happy, don't you? Well,
exactly really need to apply yourself more in space exploration
and get a new turtleneck because that one is a
little dingy. Yeah. Um, So I don't know, it is
it is. Uh. What I thought was interesting about what
Tyson had to say is that he really is stripping
away the reasons underneath why we do what we do, right, Yeah,
(12:46):
I mean that's the really the driving point here in
the argument is that the reason we built the pyramids
these other great acts because the thing is, like humans,
we know what humans can do, but we got to
have some sort of motivation to do them. Yeah, and
you know us like build a pyramid, Well, what are
you gonna do to make me do it? Or you
can you know, maybe you're gonna crack a whip or
tell me about um, you know, the afterlife or some
(13:07):
of the divine being that have to be other motivators there,
And he's saying that the only ones left to us
for the most part are war in economics because gods
and god kings are not really as as much of
a driving force and technological advancement these days. Well, and
I just thought it was very refreshing that he said
that to say, you know, okay, it is part of
space exploration as part of our national identity, but let's
(13:28):
just be real about it. This was driven by war,
Its driven by economics. Um. And this is following what
he said about frontiers and like the basic adventure, you know,
spirit of man. So he's not denying that, but he's
saying saying that that's this is all well and good,
but you have to face the realities of actually seeing
these big projects take off, you know, past that threshold, right,
(13:48):
and I that's the rub, right, because we can't help
but to create as a species. And yet we have
these drivers that, um, that that are behind why we
do what we do. Yeah, So my plan end is
we convince everyone that the devil lives on another planet
and it's going to invade Earth unless we team up
with a space god and start getting serious about exploring
(14:12):
the cosmos. You have got some elaborate plans. Might we
gotta we we gotta push that throughout Congress. Um. But
before we continue with the interview, we need to take
a quick break, so we'll be right back right after this.
This podcast is brought to you by Intel, the sponsors
of Tomorrow and the Discovery Channel. At Intel, we believe
(14:33):
curiosity is the spark which drives innovation. Join us at
curiosity dot com and explore the answers to life's questions
and we're back. Let's get back to the interview. Um,
what was it? What was the next question that we
had for Dr Tyson. Well, it was a sort of
a m an idea about neuroscience and how uh this
(14:55):
this question about whether or not it's stolen any thunder
from space exploration. In this sense, the people are so
sort of taken with exploring the universe of their minds
that perhaps they have moved away from space exploration. And
in case in point, our podcast stuff to blow your mind.
But I haven't done account but I have a feeling
we've done more uh episodes about the mind than we
(15:16):
have about space. Yeah, and certainly, I mean there's a
lot of stuff in the media in neurosciences as a
field that is just completely exploding. So this was the
question that we pose to Dr Tyson. And there's no
comparison with regard to the funding that goes to space
exploration versus the funding that goes to neuroscience. In other words,
whatever thunder one might imagine, it has taken away the
(15:39):
relative funding, which is the most that's the clearest measure
of of of thundered one might have. Uh, it's small.
Neuroscience is pennies compared with space exploration. And by the way,
if you look at the total space budget of the world,
all money spent on space related products and services, the
(16:05):
NASA budget is a tiny fraction of that total money.
If you add up all the total value of GPS
and weather satellites and communications satellite, direct TV, satellite radio,
add it all up, what we actually spend on NASA
is small. So so as an enterprise, space is huge,
(16:26):
and it's sort of permanently huge because it's worked its
way into our daily lives in ways that some people
today take for granted. People who are saying, we don't
need the space exploration. But you know, it's as it's
has been stereotyped. The person first person to say we
don't need space exploration, and what do I need that for.
I've got the weather channel, you know, and of course
(16:49):
were it gets all its images of the hurricane en
route to your town, you know. So so there's a
lot that we all take for granted, and on some
level that's a good thing. It means it's a fundamental
part of our culture. But the funding to extend it
and to promote it then need the case needs to
be made because people haven't thought about why they do it.
(17:11):
They just do it. The human brain seems to only
go from A to B. Doesn't know how to go
from A to B then to see and then you
get to D, and the D is the goal that
you want those extra steps to fund a space program
to have that be a carrot for the smartest kids
and the educational pipeline who then want to become biologists
(17:33):
and chemists and aerospace engineers and astrophysicists and geologists. Because
if you're a geologists, I say, well, you can study
this rock face on Earth, where this rock face on Mars.
I'm gonna get the best geologists because they're gonna want
to do it on Mars. I can say you can
study this slime mold here on Earth where you can
look for life that's never been found before in the
(17:54):
aquifers of Mars. I'm going to get the best biologists.
Space has a way of attracting the best people because
the best people want to work on the best problems,
with the hardest problems, with the most interesting problems. And
once that happens, you care. Then you create the culture
of science as something that a nation is engaged in
(18:15):
that gets the respect of politicians because they're the ones
voting to fund it, and then it works its way
into the moods and attitudes of teachers, of students, of parents,
and science is no longer something to fear and something
to embrace. Once you embrace this, then the culture creates
stem field people who in their creativity, invent tomorrow, and
(18:39):
that creativity births entire new economies for the twenty one century,
and that's what will keep a nation at the forefront.
This whole job's package that they're trying to promote now
it's it's it shouldn't be about jobs. It should be
about frontier industries so that America can lead the world
(19:01):
as it once did. Oh, by the way, those industries
need jobs. It's not Let's get you back to work
and then all will be fine. We can get you
back and we can have a country of a hundred
percent working people, but we'll be dancing to the tune
of everyone else who's actually innovating. And the innovators are
the people who are the engineers, the scientists, the technologists
(19:25):
who see what is to come combined with what they know,
and they invent something new to make tomorrow. Come. Once
this happens, then the country's economy will boom. And this
connection between space exploration and a booming economy, like I said,
takes longer than an elevator ride. And it's not a
(19:47):
direct connection, it's indirect. And I think therein is the challenge.
So again from Dr Tyson, there's another sobering look at
what it takes to push science through the political system. Yea,
And I believe that um Dr Tyson was at the
World Science Festivals Stephen weinberg keynote address. Yeah you were there, Yeah,
(20:08):
I was there, and I'm pretty sure he was in
the audience, And so we asked him about what Weinberg
argued that we need a new particle accelerator because it's
necessary for society to better understand the laws of nature.
That's that's what Weinberg says, in particular dark matter, because
you know five six of the universe is made up
of it, and why not know more about that? Right? Right?
(20:28):
And and just to clarify, because we haven't really talked
as much about particle colliders in this podcast, but this
is where you take particles and you speed them around
this giant facility, smashed them into each other. They and
when they break apart, you can learn about what composes
them and therefore learn about the about what's happening with
matter at its smallest and briefest uh points right. And
(20:50):
what Weinberg said is we we really need something that
is the more beefed up superconductor than than what we
have right now and certain so, um so it led
us just to wonder about dark matter and how how
we can get the general public interested in that, How
could we relate to the general public that this is
actually important to look into. How can we make it
(21:12):
more personal? And um this is what Dr Tesson had
to say. It won't trigger the funding, so I won't
even I don't even go there. That's the delusion. The
delusion is you just have to make the science case
and everyone will want to do it. I the history
of human behavior does not bear that out. And so
the reason why particle physics was funded for a hundred
(21:35):
years in America was because the physicists who were engaged
in that activity built bombs. It was the physics of
our nuclear arsenal in the Cold War. So the illusion
was that America was interested in physics research because we
wanted to be on the frontier of discovery. The actual
(21:56):
reason was that these are the people who won the
Second World War for us and are creating the power
that the geopolitics needed throughout the Cold War. So there
is no there is no argument. That's my point. There's
no argument unless you can say, or at the other
end of this, we've got a new weapon and we're
at war with somebody against whom we can use this weapon,
(22:18):
we get funded overnight. The original super collider was canceled.
It was proposed in the mid eighties, work began in
the late eighties. It was canceled in the early nineties
because a couple of years earlier peace broke out in Europe.
That's not what they'll tell you. They'll tell you, Oh,
because there's cost overruns and we just couldn't afford it
(22:38):
in this climate. Okay, that's what they'll tell you. But
there was no talk of cost overruns in the Manhattan project.
There's no talk of cost over runs in the Apollo program.
Those are war projects, and when you're at war, money
flows like rivers period, and the sooner we understand this,
(22:59):
the more relevant is any conversation we have about what's
possible and what's not in a funding environment. So if
you want to make the case with a SuperCollider, you
make the case that you're gonna be on the frontier
with your technologies, and those technologies will influence a culture
of other technologies that will stoke our economy. The economy
(23:23):
has to be in there somewhere the pure scientific discovery.
And Steve Weinberg is in that sense. You gotta love
him because he's like a pure academic and he thinks
academically and the world shows appears to him through his
academic filter. But at some point a congressman has to vote,
and why they vote is completely linked to what they
(23:45):
think is in the interest of the wealth of the
nation or the health of the nation, health as in
national security. They and they can say whatever they want
about discovery, but the actual drivers are not that at
which they which I was, it wasn't true. This is
these are my findings in my study of six thousand
(24:05):
years of human culture, and that analysis is in this
book coming out in February. Okay, So that's why it's
important to write your congresswoman or you're a congressman, right, Yeah,
Though also I think there's a little more rationale for
the fake devil planet. I was thinking about that as
but but now, but beyond beyond that. Yeah, he really
makes a solid case for just how we end up
achieving these these different scientific programs and what is really
(24:28):
the motivator there. And again that's what's one of the
brilliant things about Tyson these not blind to these economic
and political realities when talking about the future of science,
because I mean, we would all like for the you know,
it just to be like, yes, ra ra science raa
discovery because in our heart, I feel like we all
feel that way. Certainly if you're listening to to this podcast,
you have at least a little of that in you.
(24:48):
But you know, thus is the world, and we let's
move through the world. That's right. And pure science is
like sitting down to a blink page, right and just
creating just for free creativity's sake, whereas applied science, you know,
you sit down that blank page and you know who
your sponsors are and what's going to come of it.
So it's a little bit disheartening to think of it
that way, but it is a really pragmatic way to
(25:09):
understand why civilizations further their cultures, right, Yeah, what Dr
Tyson has say. Remind you. I can't help but be
reminded of the documentary on origami between the photos, because
that's a situation where you have mathematicians who were just
really into origami, not just like oh I made a swan,
but like really complex oregonamy problems that have to be
tackled from a mathematical standpoint, And in that regard it's
(25:32):
purely academic, like like on one level, there is no
application for the heavy mathematical study of origami. But these
guys reached the point where they figured that where where
their findings did have applications in the real world, such
as in uh, how we fold a parachute or solar
sales and satellites. But like Hyson says, it's there's an
(25:53):
indirect link, and for the most part, people were blind
to indirect links, certainly in politics. Yeah, there you go.
So we had just one final question that we had
to ask Dr Dyson, and here here it is Julie.
Here's Julie asking it and us getting an answer. Burning question,
bring it back it alone, if you can bring it back,
(26:18):
bring it back sure, Uh, I don't know that it
would know how to survive here's the problem. You bring
back a wooly mammoth just in time for global warming.
You know that's cruel. Bring back something that likes hot wet,
not the mammoth who thrived on the on the glacial
coverage of North America. So I think it's inevitable, whether
(26:40):
we want to do it or not, somebody's gonna do it.
And uh sure so So in other words, I'm indifferent
to that. I don't have an opinion one way or another.
It's going to happen, and when it happens, I won't
even stand in judgment of it. I'll just okay, it
was inevitable, and uh, you know, they we should have
(27:02):
some foresight about what it means to bring it back.
Do you bring back a male and a female their mammals,
so I presume they made it sexually. Do you keep
it in a zoo? Do you sit it loose in
the northern Northern Canada? Like what do you do? You know?
Be nice? If we so thought that through. So there
you go, bring it back? Yeah, yeah, there you go,
(27:22):
according to Tyson and why not? Yeah, well but you're
just caution. He's you know, no, no, you're right, He's
not he's not saying just you know, wholesale, let's start
selling them at a pet smart Yeah, um, you know
not know, we have a miniature version that can They
can live indoors and be potty trained for sure. So
we'd like to thank Dr Tyson for taking the time
to talk with us. Was a real honor and privilege
(27:45):
to get to chat with him a little bit there.
And if you would like to learn more from Dr Tyson,
you should definitely check out his radio show, his podcast
on which you can find on a star Talk Radio
dot net. That's star Talk Radio dot net. You can
also check out his new book when it comes out
in February again, that's gonna it called Space Chronicles, and
you can also find him on Nova right and pretty
(28:05):
much everyone. Yes, let's say, just turn on the TV
you will find him. Um. But yeah, it was. It
was great to be able to interview him and we
appreciate it. We hope that you guys enjoyed it. Yeah,
let us know what you think. You can find us
on Facebook and Twitter. We are blow the Mind on
both of us and you can drop us an email
at blow the Mind at how stuff Works dot com.
(28:28):
Be sure to check out our new video podcast, Stuff
from the Future. Join how Stuff Work staff as we
explore the most promising and perplexing possibilities of tomorrow.
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind from how Stuff
Works dot com. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Julie Douglas. And
today's episode is a bit of a special treat. Uh.
We just sit down yesterday and we interviewed Neil Degrass Hyson, who,
(00:26):
in addition to being an accomplished astrophysicist, is pretty much
a science superstar. Yeah, he's everywhere and I'm sure people
have probably seen him on Colbert or Jon Stewart recently
on Bill Maher. Um, he's been a nova like all
the time. Yeah, yeah, he's he will Basically he is
(00:47):
the least camera shy scientist I've ever heard of. Like,
he's just a huge extrovert and he's amazing doing a
great advocate for science, and it's a real talent for
for taking this stuff down and just in talking about science,
uh in a way that his intended audience can really
understand it. Be that intended audience, Um, you know, the
average Joe, the the listener, you know what, viewer of
(01:09):
the Daily Show, or politician looking to pass some sort
of bills. So yeah, we were very excited to be
able to get on the phone with him and ask
him some questions about what he's been up to and
his thoughts on science and where does the state of
it so to speak, all right, so let's uh let's
go ahead and jump into it here. The first question
we had for Dr Tyson had to do with the
(01:30):
fact that there is a new Cosmos television show coming
in so it's gonna be a little little ways off.
But Cosmos is, of course the classic Carl Sagan show
that just continues to uh to to have a big
influence on people like people who grew up watching the show.
We're just really inspired about science and about the universe
and cosmology and just a just a really beautiful show.
(01:52):
And so they're they're bringing it back. Tyson is the
new host, and so we had to ask him about
stepping in and filling Carl Sagan's shoes. It's a twenty
first century version of Cosmos, conceived as though it was
the first time it would it would be aired. However
we already know. But what I mean by that is
there's a lot of issues and science frontiers and cultural
(02:16):
social um dimensions to the relationship of science to society
that mattered today more or differently than they mattered years ago. Okay,
so we couldn't help it, but we had to ask,
you'd probably have to wear a turtle neck then in
the new Consince. You know, if I do, it would
(02:38):
be some sort of back to our homage to Carl.
But there are other ways we we can think of
honoring him without the turtle n I was a big
turtle netwear in my day, but right, these are other
days that we're talking about, and so, uh so we'll
and my my wardrobe was not yet determined. Actually, we
(02:58):
have to consult people who think deeply about this sort
of thing. So he got a big kick out of that.
Come to ask him about the sweater, I wanted to
ask him. It was very intimidating talking to I wanted
to ask him whether he would have his own spaceship
in the show, like like Sagan had. But um, you know,
like you said, they're still not even sure exactly what
he's going to be wearing this, so perhaps those decisions,
that's right, that's right. The best minds are on it, though,
(03:20):
So we also wanted to ask him some some more
hard core science questions here. We were particularly interested what
Tyson's take on this question would be, if he had
had unlimited funding in his disposal, what two large scale
astrophysics projects would he like to see realized and why.
He had a pretty awesome answer, And here's what his
answer was. We still don't know enough about the structural
(03:42):
integrity of asteroids too too to claim that we have
any clue about how to deflect them, or to destroy them,
or to mitigate what would otherwise be an extinction level
catastrophe on Earth, something that's happened before. So I would
(04:02):
do all the above. So so you know what NASA
would be. NASA would be like a space depot and
you go there and say, okay, I need to go
to an asteroid that's orbiting beyond Mars, and you would
assemble the rocket propulsion elements to to your to your
spacecraft necessary to reach that goal. Right, So it's like
(04:25):
choosing what kind of fuel tank and what kind of
supplies and you pack it up and then you go.
And so it's not let's only go to this one
destination and that would be what we that that will
be the mission. No, all of space should be the mission.
Otherwise it's it's a one they're all one off you know,
if expansion of human presence, we're all one off, we
would all explore and then go back into the cave.
(04:47):
It's okay, we did that. Um, let's think of something
different to do. But of course, the history of our
species is one where we explore, we pitch tent, and
then we explore from there and find ways to survive.
And and our species has thrived because of this fact.
And space is simply another frontier where I had full
(05:09):
expectations that we continue the way we have. So I
thought that was very thoughtful in talking about space is
more of a cohesive mission exploring space, and that we
shouldn't necessarily have these one offs. And I really like
this this idea that we we don't just stop, you know,
we just don't go back to our caves and stop
thinking about these things and stop exploring. Yeah, And and
(05:33):
that NASA should be like a you know, a home
depot for space travel that I thought was pretty great.
And I could see like the little orange uh pests
or whatever they wear, um, and how cool would that
be to go and get your space parts there? But
you know, this is sort of big The question or
or made us think a little bit more about funding
(05:53):
and how we are hamstrung by that currently in our
environment we don't necessarily have all the funding out our disposals.
So we wanted to ask him about, uh, the sort
of unfortunate state of funding for space exploration. And we
had wondered if he thought it was just a current
political zeitgeast, or if we're just not doing good enough
(06:14):
job of explaining why space exploration is important. And this
is what he had to say about it. Space exploration
should be funded, not for any normal reason. That's given
the fact to have a book coming out in February,
which was originally titled Failure to Launch The Dreams and
Delusions of Space Enthusiasts, but the publisher felt the title
(06:34):
was too depressing, so we came up with a less
depressing title and what it will appear in the form
of a book titled Space Chronicles. It's every thought I've
ever had about our past, present, and future in space,
and out of that comes certain realizations that we've never
gone into space because it's a frontier, or because it's
(06:57):
to explore, or because there's scientific to goveries to be had.
We've never gone into space with the Man program for
that reason. The man program is the lion's share of
the cost of space exploration. So and in fact, we've
never gone into space without humans above a certain cost level,
(07:19):
because there's a radar level below which you can fund
almost any science you want, and that's a function of
how wealthy the nation is that's conducting the activity. The
Hubble telescope, for example, that's essentially just at the limit,
a little bit below the funding radar. You can get
multibillion dollar projects funded over the years, but when you're
up around ten billion, thirty billion, that's where discovery and
(07:45):
it's our mission, it's in our DNA. None of that works.
None of it, or at least the history of the
funding of expensive projects of our species and all cultures
and all civilizations, there is no evidence that we have
ever responded positively to those kinds of drivers. The only
(08:07):
drivers that really stimulate people to spend money is war
and economics, and a third one which is less common today,
the praise of royalty or deity. There was a day
when you could use you can invoke one or both
of those and you can get anything done. That's how
you get the Pyramids and all the church building in Europe.
(08:29):
The Cathedrals of England, this sort of thing. You could
do that if there's a power above you that you
fear or that you want to praise too for your protection.
So but that doesn't happen much anymore. That leaves war
and economics. We went to the Moon because we were
at war. We choose not to remember it that way,
(08:51):
but that was the driver. And but we remember it
as though was where Americans. Of course we're going to explore.
Without the war driver would have never had. And and
so that's the blunt realization of it. So to say,
let's become a space faring nation if it is, if
it is, if the arguments are absent these other drivers,
(09:12):
then you would have to assert that we are a
fundamentally different kind of civilization from all civilizations that have
ever preceded us. So I found that really fascinating. Um,
you know, the idea that that that for modern society,
the big driver of this kind of advancement and what
we would need for like really hardcore investment in space
exploration is you know, the economic incentive or the war
(09:34):
incentative incentive. So on one level, I could not but
think what we need to do is fake an interplanetary war,
like we need to roll out the war the World's
hoax for real, and then people will be like, oh
my goodness, there's an alien race that wants to destroy us. Yes,
let's invest in space because there's a lot at stake here.
This is war, this is serious, this is what humans
(09:55):
are all about. Um, you know, let's let's work on
those battle crisis. Yeah. But then of a sudden you're
rolling out study and their space lawyers. Right, it's gets
a little bit more complicated. Space lawyers always complicate things. Um.
The other thing that did really fascinating. We've we've talked
before about the topic of religion and space, and I've
I've blogged about it, and I actually got an accompanying
(10:17):
blog post for this podcast for Discovery Space where I
talked about this a little. But the idea like what
if you had to create a religion for space now,
And for some people, that's completely ridiculous because because science,
science is king and space exploration, there's no room for religion. Right,
That's that's certainly that's a valid argument. But the other
side of the argument that I'm not I'm not necessarily
(10:37):
saying like this is what we need to do. But
it's interesting sort of thought process is what if we
created a religion to make to make space, to support
space exploration. Like I was talking to a friend of mine,
this guy Andy, who's a game designer and he works
with space themes sort of space opera projects, and so
he was arguing that, like, all right, in space exploration,
space travel, you know, the details are important. Everything's gonna
(10:59):
be ironed and you've gotta be disciplined. So you need
some sort of like really dogmatic religion that's going to
inspire that you know, you have to this is your duty,
this is you know, you've got to play another Yeah. Well,
I mean I think on a certain level, any kind
of space expression is gonna be fear based, because if
you messed up, you're gonna die. But he was talking
about like just you know, really regimented kind of like
(11:20):
uber you know, Catholic kind of a space religion or
something very heavily ritualized. Right, And we've talked and we've
talked about in the past. You know, people who have
been inspired by, say, um, the Church of Jeice Christ,
the Latter day Saints, and that is the fact that
that faith has space already factored into it, and therefore
for some individuals that has been a driving force for them. So,
(11:43):
but what Dr Tyson said made me think about, all right, well,
what if what if you created this religion to where
where another huge part of it is by exploring outer
space you are pleasing some some deity or even just
some sort of divine king, and maybe you're everlasting soul
is somehow tied up in the bargain. I know it's
(12:03):
it's probably a little bit disenterying. I just get I
like to get a little bit more simplistic with it,
and I just say, let's just just call it second
is um and we all wear the turtle. Yeah, we
all wear turtlenecks, and we all support space exploration. Yeah
and uh, and we can ritualize it as much as possible,
you know, and to to make it feel like, hey,
this is let's do it for for Carl. Second, so
(12:24):
like the pretest sets down with you and says, look,
you want to make your heavenly sake and happy, don't you? Well,
exactly really need to apply yourself more in space exploration
and get a new turtleneck because that one is a
little dingy. Yeah. Um, So I don't know, it is
it is. Uh. What I thought was interesting about what
Tyson had to say is that he really is stripping
away the reasons underneath why we do what we do, right, Yeah,
(12:46):
I mean that's the really the driving point here in
the argument is that the reason we built the pyramids
these other great acts because the thing is, like humans,
we know what humans can do, but we got to
have some sort of motivation to do them. Yeah, and
you know us like build a pyramid, Well, what are
you gonna do to make me do it? Or you
can you know, maybe you're gonna crack a whip or
tell me about um, you know, the afterlife or some
(13:07):
of the divine being that have to be other motivators there,
And he's saying that the only ones left to us
for the most part are war in economics because gods
and god kings are not really as as much of
a driving force and technological advancement these days. Well, and
I just thought it was very refreshing that he said
that to say, you know, okay, it is part of
space exploration as part of our national identity, but let's
(13:28):
just be real about it. This was driven by war,
Its driven by economics. Um. And this is following what
he said about frontiers and like the basic adventure, you know,
spirit of man. So he's not denying that, but he's
saying saying that that's this is all well and good,
but you have to face the realities of actually seeing
these big projects take off, you know, past that threshold, right,
(13:48):
and I that's the rub, right, because we can't help
but to create as a species. And yet we have
these drivers that, um, that that are behind why we
do what we do. Yeah, So my plan end is
we convince everyone that the devil lives on another planet
and it's going to invade Earth unless we team up
with a space god and start getting serious about exploring
(14:12):
the cosmos. You have got some elaborate plans. Might we
gotta we we gotta push that throughout Congress. Um. But
before we continue with the interview, we need to take
a quick break, so we'll be right back right after this.
This podcast is brought to you by Intel, the sponsors
of Tomorrow and the Discovery Channel. At Intel, we believe
(14:33):
curiosity is the spark which drives innovation. Join us at
curiosity dot com and explore the answers to life's questions
and we're back. Let's get back to the interview. Um,
what was it? What was the next question that we
had for Dr Tyson. Well, it was a sort of
a m an idea about neuroscience and how uh this
(14:55):
this question about whether or not it's stolen any thunder
from space exploration. In this sense, the people are so
sort of taken with exploring the universe of their minds
that perhaps they have moved away from space exploration. And
in case in point, our podcast stuff to blow your mind.
But I haven't done account but I have a feeling
we've done more uh episodes about the mind than we
(15:16):
have about space. Yeah, and certainly, I mean there's a
lot of stuff in the media in neurosciences as a
field that is just completely exploding. So this was the
question that we pose to Dr Tyson. And there's no
comparison with regard to the funding that goes to space
exploration versus the funding that goes to neuroscience. In other words,
whatever thunder one might imagine, it has taken away the
(15:39):
relative funding, which is the most that's the clearest measure
of of of thundered one might have. Uh, it's small.
Neuroscience is pennies compared with space exploration. And by the way,
if you look at the total space budget of the world,
all money spent on space related products and services, the
(16:05):
NASA budget is a tiny fraction of that total money.
If you add up all the total value of GPS
and weather satellites and communications satellite, direct TV, satellite radio,
add it all up, what we actually spend on NASA
is small. So so as an enterprise, space is huge,
(16:26):
and it's sort of permanently huge because it's worked its
way into our daily lives in ways that some people
today take for granted. People who are saying, we don't
need the space exploration. But you know, it's as it's
has been stereotyped. The person first person to say we
don't need space exploration, and what do I need that for.
I've got the weather channel, you know, and of course
(16:49):
were it gets all its images of the hurricane en
route to your town, you know. So so there's a
lot that we all take for granted, and on some
level that's a good thing. It means it's a fundamental
part of our culture. But the funding to extend it
and to promote it then need the case needs to
be made because people haven't thought about why they do it.
(17:11):
They just do it. The human brain seems to only
go from A to B. Doesn't know how to go
from A to B then to see and then you
get to D, and the D is the goal that
you want those extra steps to fund a space program
to have that be a carrot for the smartest kids
and the educational pipeline who then want to become biologists
(17:33):
and chemists and aerospace engineers and astrophysicists and geologists. Because
if you're a geologists, I say, well, you can study
this rock face on Earth, where this rock face on Mars.
I'm gonna get the best geologists because they're gonna want
to do it on Mars. I can say you can
study this slime mold here on Earth where you can
look for life that's never been found before in the
(17:54):
aquifers of Mars. I'm going to get the best biologists.
Space has a way of attracting the best people because
the best people want to work on the best problems,
with the hardest problems, with the most interesting problems. And
once that happens, you care. Then you create the culture
of science as something that a nation is engaged in
(18:15):
that gets the respect of politicians because they're the ones
voting to fund it, and then it works its way
into the moods and attitudes of teachers, of students, of parents,
and science is no longer something to fear and something
to embrace. Once you embrace this, then the culture creates
stem field people who in their creativity, invent tomorrow, and
(18:39):
that creativity births entire new economies for the twenty one century,
and that's what will keep a nation at the forefront.
This whole job's package that they're trying to promote now
it's it's it shouldn't be about jobs. It should be
about frontier industries so that America can lead the world
(19:01):
as it once did. Oh, by the way, those industries
need jobs. It's not Let's get you back to work
and then all will be fine. We can get you
back and we can have a country of a hundred
percent working people, but we'll be dancing to the tune
of everyone else who's actually innovating. And the innovators are
the people who are the engineers, the scientists, the technologists
(19:25):
who see what is to come combined with what they know,
and they invent something new to make tomorrow. Come. Once
this happens, then the country's economy will boom. And this
connection between space exploration and a booming economy, like I said,
takes longer than an elevator ride. And it's not a
(19:47):
direct connection, it's indirect. And I think therein is the challenge.
So again from Dr Tyson, there's another sobering look at
what it takes to push science through the political system. Yea,
And I believe that um Dr Tyson was at the
World Science Festivals Stephen weinberg keynote address. Yeah you were there, Yeah,
(20:08):
I was there, and I'm pretty sure he was in
the audience, And so we asked him about what Weinberg
argued that we need a new particle accelerator because it's
necessary for society to better understand the laws of nature.
That's that's what Weinberg says, in particular dark matter, because
you know five six of the universe is made up
of it, and why not know more about that? Right? Right?
(20:28):
And and just to clarify, because we haven't really talked
as much about particle colliders in this podcast, but this
is where you take particles and you speed them around
this giant facility, smashed them into each other. They and
when they break apart, you can learn about what composes
them and therefore learn about the about what's happening with
matter at its smallest and briefest uh points right. And
(20:50):
what Weinberg said is we we really need something that
is the more beefed up superconductor than than what we
have right now and certain so, um so it led
us just to wonder about dark matter and how how
we can get the general public interested in that, How
could we relate to the general public that this is
actually important to look into. How can we make it
(21:12):
more personal? And um this is what Dr Tesson had
to say. It won't trigger the funding, so I won't
even I don't even go there. That's the delusion. The
delusion is you just have to make the science case
and everyone will want to do it. I the history
of human behavior does not bear that out. And so
the reason why particle physics was funded for a hundred
(21:35):
years in America was because the physicists who were engaged
in that activity built bombs. It was the physics of
our nuclear arsenal in the Cold War. So the illusion
was that America was interested in physics research because we
wanted to be on the frontier of discovery. The actual
(21:56):
reason was that these are the people who won the
Second World War for us and are creating the power
that the geopolitics needed throughout the Cold War. So there
is no there is no argument. That's my point. There's
no argument unless you can say, or at the other
end of this, we've got a new weapon and we're
at war with somebody against whom we can use this weapon,
(22:18):
we get funded overnight. The original super collider was canceled.
It was proposed in the mid eighties, work began in
the late eighties. It was canceled in the early nineties
because a couple of years earlier peace broke out in Europe.
That's not what they'll tell you. They'll tell you, Oh,
because there's cost overruns and we just couldn't afford it
(22:38):
in this climate. Okay, that's what they'll tell you. But
there was no talk of cost overruns in the Manhattan project.
There's no talk of cost over runs in the Apollo program.
Those are war projects, and when you're at war, money
flows like rivers period, and the sooner we understand this,
(22:59):
the more relevant is any conversation we have about what's
possible and what's not in a funding environment. So if
you want to make the case with a SuperCollider, you
make the case that you're gonna be on the frontier
with your technologies, and those technologies will influence a culture
of other technologies that will stoke our economy. The economy
(23:23):
has to be in there somewhere the pure scientific discovery.
And Steve Weinberg is in that sense. You gotta love
him because he's like a pure academic and he thinks
academically and the world shows appears to him through his
academic filter. But at some point a congressman has to vote,
and why they vote is completely linked to what they
(23:45):
think is in the interest of the wealth of the
nation or the health of the nation, health as in
national security. They and they can say whatever they want
about discovery, but the actual drivers are not that at
which they which I was, it wasn't true. This is
these are my findings in my study of six thousand
(24:05):
years of human culture, and that analysis is in this
book coming out in February. Okay, So that's why it's
important to write your congresswoman or you're a congressman, right, Yeah,
Though also I think there's a little more rationale for
the fake devil planet. I was thinking about that as
but but now, but beyond beyond that. Yeah, he really
makes a solid case for just how we end up
achieving these these different scientific programs and what is really
(24:28):
the motivator there. And again that's what's one of the
brilliant things about Tyson these not blind to these economic
and political realities when talking about the future of science,
because I mean, we would all like for the you know,
it just to be like, yes, ra ra science raa
discovery because in our heart, I feel like we all
feel that way. Certainly if you're listening to to this podcast,
you have at least a little of that in you.
(24:48):
But you know, thus is the world, and we let's
move through the world. That's right. And pure science is
like sitting down to a blink page, right and just
creating just for free creativity's sake, whereas applied science, you know,
you sit down that blank page and you know who
your sponsors are and what's going to come of it.
So it's a little bit disheartening to think of it
that way, but it is a really pragmatic way to
(25:09):
understand why civilizations further their cultures, right, Yeah, what Dr
Tyson has say. Remind you. I can't help but be
reminded of the documentary on origami between the photos, because
that's a situation where you have mathematicians who were just
really into origami, not just like oh I made a swan,
but like really complex oregonamy problems that have to be
tackled from a mathematical standpoint, And in that regard it's
(25:32):
purely academic, like like on one level, there is no
application for the heavy mathematical study of origami. But these
guys reached the point where they figured that where where
their findings did have applications in the real world, such
as in uh, how we fold a parachute or solar
sales and satellites. But like Hyson says, it's there's an
(25:53):
indirect link, and for the most part, people were blind
to indirect links, certainly in politics. Yeah, there you go.
So we had just one final question that we had
to ask Dr Dyson, and here here it is Julie.
Here's Julie asking it and us getting an answer. Burning question,
bring it back it alone, if you can bring it back,
(26:18):
bring it back sure, Uh, I don't know that it
would know how to survive here's the problem. You bring
back a wooly mammoth just in time for global warming.
You know that's cruel. Bring back something that likes hot wet,
not the mammoth who thrived on the on the glacial
coverage of North America. So I think it's inevitable, whether
(26:40):
we want to do it or not, somebody's gonna do it.
And uh sure so So in other words, I'm indifferent
to that. I don't have an opinion one way or another.
It's going to happen, and when it happens, I won't
even stand in judgment of it. I'll just okay, it
was inevitable, and uh, you know, they we should have
(27:02):
some foresight about what it means to bring it back.
Do you bring back a male and a female their mammals,
so I presume they made it sexually. Do you keep
it in a zoo? Do you sit it loose in
the northern Northern Canada? Like what do you do? You know?
Be nice? If we so thought that through. So there
you go, bring it back? Yeah, yeah, there you go,
(27:22):
according to Tyson and why not? Yeah, well but you're
just caution. He's you know, no, no, you're right, He's
not he's not saying just you know, wholesale, let's start
selling them at a pet smart Yeah, um, you know
not know, we have a miniature version that can They
can live indoors and be potty trained for sure. So
we'd like to thank Dr Tyson for taking the time
to talk with us. Was a real honor and privilege
(27:45):
to get to chat with him a little bit there.
And if you would like to learn more from Dr Tyson,
you should definitely check out his radio show, his podcast
on which you can find on a star Talk Radio
dot net. That's star Talk Radio dot net. You can
also check out his new book when it comes out
in February again, that's gonna it called Space Chronicles, and
you can also find him on Nova right and pretty
(28:05):
much everyone. Yes, let's say, just turn on the TV
you will find him. Um. But yeah, it was. It
was great to be able to interview him and we
appreciate it. We hope that you guys enjoyed it. Yeah,
let us know what you think. You can find us
on Facebook and Twitter. We are blow the Mind on
both of us and you can drop us an email
at blow the Mind at how stuff Works dot com.
(28:28):
Be sure to check out our new video podcast, Stuff
from the Future. Join how Stuff Work staff as we
explore the most promising and perplexing possibilities of tomorrow.
Stuff To Blow Your Mind News
Hosts And Creators
Robert Lamb
Joe McCormick
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.