Astrophysicist Tyson Warns Astrology Reliance Threatens Modern Scientific Civilization

天体物理学家泰森警告：依赖占星术威胁现代科学文明 围绕主观信念而非客观现实制定社会规则与抉择，会导致文明瓦解。 天体物理学家 Neil deGrasse Tyson 探讨了人类存在、科学与哲学的交汇点，认为培养“宇宙视角”有助于催生深切的同理心并减少人类冲突。他基于热力学、生物学和历史数据，批判了广泛存在的占星术迷信、宗教排他性以及电影中俗套的外星人设定。泰森还探讨了火星太空探索的现实、黑洞物理学，以及人工智能相较于人类创造力的局限性。最终，他鼓励人们通过坚持日常学习、提升科学素养，并积极承担社会进步的责任，来创造个人的人生意义。 调查显示约 80% 的 Z 世代相信占星术，更有 72% 的人受其影响做出重大人生决定；泰森警告称，将自然现象归结为不可知力量恐使人类文明倒退回“隐喻意义上的原始洞穴”。 (0:00) 从化学与生物学视角来看，人类体内最丰富的活性元素与宇宙高度吻合，且人类与香蕉共享 20% 的相同 DNA，每次呼吸甚至包含着历史人物曾吸入过的分子，彰显了宇宙在人体内的深刻连结。 (4:51) 生命的有限性赋予了存在紧迫感与意义，泰森直言若人类长生不老，人生的意义与文明的进步在数学层面上都将被稀释至归零，甚至导致社会停滞在最缺乏创新力的阶段。 (2:43) 基于量子计算等技术推演，模拟假说在统计学上有其合理性，甚至地球上频发的巨大灾难就如同“外星小孩”运行的模拟游戏，但他认为即便身处模拟中也不会改变现实生活的体验与行动意义。 (35:01) 泰森直言普通人有生之年登陆火星的概率为零，因为载人深空探测耗资近万亿美元，缺乏真正的商业模式，历史上往往只有地缘政治博弈或国防需求才能推动如此庞大的资源投入。 (53:18)

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson argues that civilizational progress depends on anchoring society in objective empirical reality, embracing mortality, and adopting a cosmic perspective that exposes tribal divisions as absurd. He cautions that replacing scientific literacy with unverified beliefs—such as astrology or supernatural assumptions—invites intellectual regression and societal stagnation. Objective Reality Versus Astrological Pseudoscience (97:05) Tyson warns against trends showing that roughly 80% of Gen Z believe in astrology, with 72% allowing horoscopes to guide major life choices. Quoting Carl Sagan's framing of science as a candle in the dark, Tyson asserts that abandoning empirical standards risks returning society to a primitive state where natural phenomena are attributed to mysterious forces. He illustrates the fallacy of astrological claims through a former student who failed eight consecutive guesses of his star sign before claiming vindication on the ninth, exemplifying confirmation bias. He also critiques the "God of the gaps" mindset, arguing that assigning divine explanations to unsolved phenomena like dark matter prematurely halts scientific inquiry. While defending individual freedom of belief, Tyson stresses that constructing laws, institutions, or public policies around subjective assertions rather than verified empirical facts destabilizes democratic civilization. Cosmic Perspective Dissolves Arbitrary Human Divisions (9:30) From an astrophysical and biological standpoint, Tyson characterizes human tribal conflicts over race, religion, and territory as irrational. The human body's primary active elements—hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen—directly match the most abundant chemically active elements in the universe, having originated in the Big Bang and stellar cores. Furthermore, biological evolution demonstrates that humans share 20% identical DNA with bananas and share a more recent ancestor with fungi than with plants. On an atmospheric scale, Earth's protective air is as thin relative to the planet as an apple's skin, and molecular diffusion ensures every breath contains particles previously inhaled by historical figures, including Jesus and Muhammad. From orbit, national borders disappear entirely. Tyson argues that adopting this cosmic awareness exposes ground-level disputes as trivial, naturally fostering empathy and undermining the tribalism that fuels war. Mortality and Wisdom as Catalysts for Purpose (2:43) Reflecting on the loss of his parents, Tyson contends that a finite lifespan gives life urgency and meaning. If humans lived indefinitely, the lack of temporal scarcity would dilute motivation to achieve anything, ultimately stagnating civilization. Consequently, Tyson rejects longevity escape velocity pursuits by tech billionaires, noting that societal innovation and irreverent thinking historically emerge from the young rather than entrenched, aging populations. Tyson also dismisses the idea of searching for a pre-existing "meaning of life," calling it a passive mindset. Instead, individuals must actively manufacture meaning daily by turning information into contextual knowledge and applied wisdom. Citing Horace Mann's quote—"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"—Tyson argues that firsthand struggle, failure, and direct experience are necessary to forge character and contribute constructively to society. Geopolitical Realities of Space Exploration (53:18) Challenging optimism around private interplanetary colonization, Tyson estimates the probability of ordinary citizens traveling to Mars in their lifetimes at zero. Historically, massive capital expenditures require motivations of imperialism, economic profit, or national security. The Apollo moon landings were driven by Cold War competition against the Soviet Union following Yuri Gagarin's 1961 flight; once geopolitical dominance was secured, public funding evaporated and the flight-ready Apollo 18 was relegated to a museum. Tyson estimates a crewed Mars mission will cost roughly $1 trillion with no viable commercial business model. Orbital tourism barely skims Earth's surface—equivalent to the thickness of two dimes on a classroom globe—whereas Mars is proportionally a mile away, requiring minimum energy orbits that enforce a nine-month transit each way and a three- to five-year round trip. Tyson asserts that deep-space exploration will therefore remain dependent on defense rivalries—such as competition with China—or taxpayer-funded government contracts. Tyson concludes that intellectual progress requires embracing humility on the "perimeter of ignorance," where every scientific discovery expands the volume of unanswered questions. Emphasizing that basic research feeds engineering and drives national economies, he cautions that cutting foundational science or clinging dogmatically to personal opinions prevents society from solving existential challenges.

天体物理学家尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）指出，人类应当摆脱占星术等主观臆断与狭隘的部族主义，转而确立基于客观实证的“宇宙视角”，在接纳生命有限性的同时通过主动创造意义与探索未知来推动文明进步。 客观现实与占星迷信的本质认知 (0:00) 泰森针对调查显示约80%的Z世代相信占星术、甚至以此指导职业与健康等重大决策的现象提出警告。他指出，若全社会都放弃客观科学而盲从星象，人类文明将倒退回将自然现象归咎于神秘力量的愚昧境地。真实宇宙对人类的影响体现在太阳东升、潮汐涨落或地轴倾斜带来四季等明确的物理规律上，而非占星式的命运支配。他以自身在海登天文馆授课的经历为例，一名占星师试图猜测他的星座，连续猜错8次直至第9次才中却坚称“我早就知道”，典型反映了确认偏误。他强调，科学如同卡尔·萨根所说的“黑暗中的蜡烛”，必须以经验证据为准绳，不能让主观意愿取代客观现实。 宇宙联结与部族纷争的虚妄性 (4:51) 从天体物理学与生物学视角审视，人类并非与宇宙割裂，而是由宇宙构成的实体。人体内最丰度的主量元素（氢、氧、碳、氮）与宇宙中化学活跃元素的丰度完全吻合；氢源自宇宙大爆炸，而碳、氧、氮等重元素则由超新星等恒星核聚变锻造并播撒到太空中。地球生物圈同样紧密相连，人类与香蕉共享20%的DNA，与真菌的演化亲缘关系甚至晚于真菌与绿色植物的分化。此外，流体动力学与分子运动规律表明，一次呼吸中的空气分子数量超过地球大气层全部呼吸的总次数，人类每次呼吸都含有历史上包括古人在内所有人曾吸入的分子。 泰森指出，从轨道或月球俯瞰地球，国界线完全消失，稀薄的大气层按比例仅如苹果皮般脆弱。然而人类却反复因肤色、宗教、饮食和地缘等微小差异划分派系并引发战争。他认为，天体物理学家绝不会组织军队互相残杀，正因为深刻的宇宙视角能让人超越地面琐碎纷争，看清短视的人类部族主义是何等荒谬。 信仰演化与终极未知的探索边界 (20:54) 探讨人类精神世界时，泰森回顾了早期人类遗迹，如尼安德特人与克罗马农人随葬物品、古希腊人随葬钱币以支付摆渡人卡隆等仪式，表明对死后世界的信念及共享仪式在历史上曾充当强大的社会凝聚纽带，但也催生了对抗异族的阴暗面。对于试图用“上帝”解释宇宙大爆炸前状态或暗物质的现象，泰森引用“缝隙中的上帝（God of the gaps）”逻辑，阐述如果将未知的科学空白定义为神，那么随着科学探索的推进，神的存在空间只会沦为不断缩小的无知角落。 泰森将人类知识比喻为一个不断扩大的球体：已知知识的体积越大，接触未知的边界周长也就越宽。真正的科学精神并非寻求一劳永逸的静态答案，而是在知识前沿提出真正有意义的问题。他与学者计算推测，银河系中目前可能同时存在约100个具有技术文明的社会；然而人类掌握无线电通信仅约80年，盲目断言地外生命不存在，就像从海洋中舀出一杯水就断定海里没有鲸鱼一样荒谬。 深空探索的现实阻力与地缘逻辑 (53:18) 针对普通人近期登陆火星的大众幻想，泰森给出了概率为零的判断，直言深空探索从来不是依靠“觉得很酷”或商业投资驱动的。纵观人类历史，驱动超大规模资本支出的核心动能始终是帝国扩张、财富掠夺以及国家安全与地缘竞争。阿波罗登月计划本质上是冷战时期对苏联加加林进入太空后的地缘竞争产物；当政治竞逐需求终结，即便阿波罗18号飞船各部件均已完工完备，仍难逃被取消并送入博物馆的命运。当前以阿尔忒弥斯计划为代表的重返月球热潮，根本推力依然在于中国宣布登月计划后带来的战略紧迫感。 泰森指出，往返火星需要遵循最小能量轨道，单程耗时9个月，加上等待行星轨道窗口的地面驻留，往返一次长达3至5年，耗资预估高达1万亿美元。若按标准教室地球仪的比例缩放，月球约在30英尺外的隔壁房间，而火星则在整整1英里之外；维珍银河与蓝色起源的亚轨道旅游高度仅相当于地球仪表面两枚硬币的厚度。缺乏直接商业回报使得私人资本不可能独立承担火星殖民，SpaceX等项目未来若实施载人登火，实质上仍需高度依赖NASA等纳税人资助的政府合同。 有限生命中的意义制造与认知谦逊 (41:12) 泰森坚决反对硅谷富豪追求长生不老的设想，指出生命的有限性赋予了生存紧迫感、目的与动力；若人类实现无限永生，生命在数学层面的行动价值将被归零，过度固化的老龄阶层更会导致文化与文明创新停滞。泰森强调自己从不寻找所谓固定在某处的“生命意义”，而是通过每日学习新事物、减轻他人苦难、将信息转化为知识再提炼为智慧，主动去“制造”人生的意义。他以教育家霍勒斯·曼的名言作为自己的座右铭：“在为人类赢得某种胜利之前，切莫以死为安。” 回首个人经历，泰森将自己在哈佛大学时期对一名高中生做出刻薄负面评价视为人生最大遗憾，并由此意识到教育的本质不是单纯展示事实，而是提供建设性的鼓励。在他看来，步入67岁所收获的核心智慧在于永远不要过高评价自己的想法，应当每天接受挑战自身认知的全新观点；通过阅读过去的科学文献感知前人自信中的盲区，才能让人类在浩瀚的无知边界前永葆敬畏与谦逊。 泰森所构建的核心论述揭示，人类文明的进步依赖于对客观实证的坚持与对未知的敬畏，而非寻求算命或长生等心理慰藉。然而，该视角在面对现代社会日益加剧的原子化孤独以及基础科研资金削减等结构性制度困境时，依然面临着公众如何在缺乏传统依托下广泛建立集体科学素养的现实挑战。

## Background 本期内容由 YouTube 知名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》于 2025 年 10 月 13 日发布。节目邀请了世界著名天体物理学家兼科学传播者尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson），围绕宇宙、太空、黑洞以及大爆炸等核心科学概念展开深度剖析，并探讨了埃隆·马斯克、人工智能（AI）、SpaceX 和 NASA 将如何重塑人类文明的未来走向。 ## TL;DR 尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森从客观事实与星座迷信的对比切入，呼吁大众跳出部族主义的狭隘对立，以“宇宙视角”重新审视人类在时空中的位置。他阐述了死亡如何赋予有限生命以紧迫感和真正意义，并通过化学同构性指出人体与星尘乃至地球生命的深刻连结。针对地外文明、模拟假说、黑洞物理学以及载人登陆火星的现实壁垒，泰森以冷峻的科学逻辑打破了诸多科幻幻想与商业泡沫。最后，他反思了青年时期的傲慢憾事，强调真正的智慧并非坚信已知，而是终身伫立在无知的边界上保持谦卑与好奇。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在宏大的宇宙史诗感与温润的人文关怀之间自如穿梭，既有硬核天体物理学的机智拆解，也有关于生死、衰老与教育的赤诚省思。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特带着深刻的存在主义困惑真诚求教，而泰森则以标志性的幽默、犀利反问与戏剧张力破除玄思，气氛火花四溅却又坦率宽厚。听众能切身感受到一种被浩瀚星空洗礼后的释然——它将日常烦恼消解于百亿年的时空尺度之中，并在直面认知的未知与自身的无知时，沉淀出平静且深沉的谦逊感。 ## Bulletin - [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=308s) 人体元素丰度（氢、氧、碳、氮）与除惰性氦气外的全宇宙活跃元素完全吻合，所有重元素均在上一代恒星核心核聚变中锻造并通过超新星爆发播撒，人类与香蕉甚至共享高达 20% 的同源 DNA。 - [53:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=3194s) 泰森直言普通人有生之年载人登陆火星的概率为零，首次任务预估成本高达 1 万亿美元且往返需 3 至 5 年；历史上巨型工程唯有地缘国防竞争或直接经济利益才能驱动，缺乏闭环的商业投资无法支撑火星探索。 - [35:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2105s) 针对模拟假说，泰森提出“五五开”解套逻辑：鉴于人类当前尚未掌握创造逼真虚拟宇宙的技术，我们在逻辑链条上只能处于最初的“母体宇宙”或最底端的“末端宇宙”，因而身处真实世界的概率高达 50%。 - [01:10:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4224s) 分子统计学表明，单次呼吸吸入的气体分子数远超全球大气层单次呼吸的总次数；在大气环流数年到十年的混合下，每个人当下的每一次呼吸，都必定包含着历史上所有人类（如两千年前的耶稣）呼出的分子。 ## Key takeaways - [02:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=149s) 有限的生命与不可逆的死亡并非虚无的来源，反而是促使人类聚焦目标、采取行动并创造人生意义的最核心催化剂。 - [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=308s) “我们由星尘构成”是严格的物理事实，宇宙不仅包容着人类，宇宙本身更是在物理和化学层面活在人类体内。 - [13:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=820s) 人类极易根据微观标签陷入部族主义对抗，但从太空俯瞰，薄如苹果皮的地球大气层上根本不存在任何国界线，宇宙视角能有效消解低维偏见。 - [21:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=1295s) 考古记录中丧葬仪式与来世信仰的出现标志着现代人类的诞生，宗教以极强的群体思维强化内部凝聚力，但在面对外来异文化时极易演变为部落战争。 - [36:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2206s) 面对历史与现实中频繁爆发的大流行与灾难，人类文明的剧烈震荡呈现出宛如外星少年在玩《模拟城市》时人为加载灾难机制的荒诞感。 - [40:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2405s) 人生的意义并非藏在某处的现成宝藏，试图向外“寻找意义”是消极被动的，真正的意义在于每天汲取新知并减轻他人痛苦的“主动创造”。 - [47:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2825s) 技术或将使人类迈向“长寿逃逸速度”，但少数富豪追求长生不老是自私的自我膨胀，会堵死年轻一代的晋升空间，导致人类思维与文明全面僵死。 - [48:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2928s) 生成式 AI 的局限在于只能在大规模已知规律中进行模仿重组，而人类真正的创造力在于跳脱既有训练范式、实现非连续性的认知飞跃。 - [55:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=3335s) 阿波罗登月本质上是冷战反共的政治动员，一旦苏联退出竞争该工程便戛然而止；缺乏国家安全威胁驱动，火星载人探索在商业逻辑上无法成立。 - [01:05:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=3923s) 黑洞并非无节制吞噬物质的吸尘器，而是一个逃逸速度超越光速的三维引力深渊；科学仪器帮助人类跨越感官盲区，通过吸积盘 X 射线与引力透镜探知其存在。 - [01:10:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4224s) 水分子的循环机制与呼吸相同，一杯水中的分子总数远超全地球海洋能容纳的水杯总数，全人类在物理层面上始终处于紧密交融的一体状态。 - [01:16:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4580s) 模糊的 UFO 视频仅能证明其为“未确认”，绝不能跳步推论出外星人；银河系中虽推算存在约 100 个现存智慧文明，但好莱坞描绘的凶残外星人不过是人类自身恶劣本性的投影。 - [01:25:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5149s) 《黑客帝国》将人类圈养为生物电池违背了基本热力学定律，机器源源不断提供营养液却承受人体巨大废热耗散，在能量转化效率上完全是得不偿失的设定。 - [01:30:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5412s) 科学认知如同一个圆，随着知识面积的扩大，代表无知的边缘周长也在成倍延伸；卓越学者的核心使命并非求解已知答案，而是去学会爱那些前人未曾构想的全新问题。 - [01:37:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5825s) 约 80% 的年轻群体迷信占星术反映了公众急于填补未知空白的思维懒惰与确认偏误，若将万物归咎于星象神秘力量，文明将倒退回原始洞穴时代。 - [01:43:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6212s) 虔诚信徒对于除自身之外的所有其他神明而言本质上都是无神论者；若把上帝安置在科学尚未涉足的领域，那么上帝终将沦为随着科学进步而不断萎缩的无知避难所。 - [01:51:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6674s) 面对社会政治分裂与荒谬政策，攻击政客毫无意义，因为民选官员只是选民意志的投射，科学教育者的唯一出路是怀揣同理心去深入启蒙底层选民。 - [01:54:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6847s) 基础科学滋养工程学，工程学驱动宏观经济；1920 年代纯学术探索的量子力学奠定了现代数字信息革命的基石，急功近利砍削基础研究必将导致技术源头枯竭。 - [02:03:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=7438s) 在人均约 30 亿秒的一生中，真正的智慧不是坚信自己掌握了绝对真理，而是每日保持谦卑，接纳足以颠覆自身旧有观念的新知，永远敬畏伫立于无知的边界。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=0s) 星座迷信、客观真相与宇宙视角的震撼 调查显示，大约 80% 的 Z 世代（Gen Z）相信占星术，甚至许多人会依照星象来为重大人生抉择做决定。面对这一现象，尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）直言不讳地指出，如果这个比例上升到 100%，人类文明将彻底倒退回原始洞穴时代——在那个时代，自然界发生的所有事情都被归咎于人类认知之外的神秘力量。他强调，如果有人愿意相信自己的命运由太阳、月亮和行星摆布，那是个人自由，但他自己更倾向于掌控自己的命运，为人生赋予真正的意义。宇宙确实在影响人类，但其运作机制与星座占卜截然不同。 从科学家的视角来看，泰森对人类极易根据肤色、宗教、饮食、语言或哲学观念划分阵营乃至发动战争感到不安。然而，一旦退后一步、站在宇宙视角（Cosmic Perspective）审视这一切，就会发现这种内耗极其荒唐可笑。人类没有任何微不足道的纷争能够与宇宙的宏大尺度相提并论。更关键的是，所有人类乃至地球生命都紧密相连：每个人与一根香蕉都共享着 20% 完全相同的基因。不仅如此，人每次呼吸呼出的分子，在空气循环中早已飘散到世界各地，正在被大洋彼岸的人吸入；追溯到更遥远的历史，甚至两千年前耶稣吸入并呼出的分子，如今也同样穿梭在每一个人的肺叶之中。 泰森尖锐地指出，现代社会的深层危机在于许多人将“自己认为的真理”置于“客观事实”之上，这是文明走向瓦解的危险苗头。面对主持人的连环发问——人类在有生之年能否登上外星球、宇宙是否是某种高等生命建立的模拟程序、人类是否演化出了盲信的本能、信仰上帝是否让人更快乐——泰森幽默地感叹这场对话刚开场就火药味十足。 ### [02:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=149s) 死亡赋予生命的终极意义：如果永生，你为何要匆忙？ 对话转入关于存在主义的深度探讨。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）坦言，随着年龄增长，自己陷入了强烈的存在主义困惑，开始不断反思生命的终极意义。泰森对此深有共鸣，他认为这是每个人在历经岁月后必然经历的阶段：当生命所剩的时间少于已经走过的岁月时，死亡就不再是一个抽象的名词。泰森在过去五年内相继失去了双亲，在遗传学和统计学上，父母的享年往往勾勒出一个人预期的生命地平线。 然而，泰森并未因向死而生感到虚无，反而认为正是死亡的不可逆性，赋予了有限岁月最强大的聚焦力、目标感、决断力和行动力。如果人类能够永生不死，数学上生命将失去一切紧迫感和意义，因为无限的时间无法被聚焦，任何事都可以无限期推迟。泰森将死亡视为驱动幸福感与生产力的严肃动力，促使人们思考究竟能为世界留下什么。他提到自己希望刻在墓碑上的墓志铭是教育家 Horace Mann 的名言：“在为人类赢得某种胜利之前，切莫羞愧地死去（Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity）。” - 泰森修订再版经典著作《Just Visiting This Planet》（中文常译《巡游这颗星球》，原书初版于 1998 年），以虚构角色外星巫师梅林（Merlin from Amnesia）的书信问答形式解析宇宙万物。 - 史蒂文感叹，意识到宇宙浩瀚无垠常会带来一种“令人宽慰的虚无感”，让日常生活的烦恼和痛苦瞬间微不足道；但泰森进一步指出，有限的寿命恰恰是抵抗虚无、主动创造意义的催化剂。 ### [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=308s) 我们与宇宙的同构：从大爆炸、星尘到共享 20% 香蕉基因 当主持人问及宇宙到底有多辽阔时，泰森给出了一个震撼的时空尺度：人类目前所能观测到的最遥远星系发出的光芒，已经在太空中穿行了近 140 亿年；相比之下，地球从诞生至今不过约 45 亿年——那些光芒启程时，地球甚至还要再等近 100 亿年才会出现。但真正让泰森感到震撼的并非单纯的体量，而是人类与宇宙在化学层面的完全同构。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宇宙与人体元素的诞生与演化 accDescr: 展示从大爆炸和恒星演化到形成生命元素的宇宙循环过程 subgraph CosmicBirth["宇宙起源与恒星锻造"] A["宇宙大爆炸"] --> B["原始氢元素"] B --> C["恒星核心核聚变"] C --> D["合成重元素 (碳、氮、氧)"] end subgraph StardustRecycle["星际循环与生命起源"] D --> E["超新星爆发散播星尘"] E --> F["富集气体云坍缩"] F --> G["形成太阳系与地球"] G --> H["构成地球生命与人体"] end ``` 人体按元素丰度排序，第一位是氢（存在于占人体体重一半至四分之三的水分子中），第二位是氧，第三位是作为生命骨架的碳，第四位是氮，其后则是其他微量元素。当科学家测定全宇宙的元素丰度时，除却化学性质惰性、无法参与复杂化学反应的氦（排在第二位）之外，宇宙丰度最高的元素依次同样是：氢、氧、碳、氮。人体的化学元素配比与宇宙中最活跃的化学成分实现了一对一的严整吻合。 这些元素的起源正是 20 世纪天体物理学送给人类文明的最珍贵礼物： - **氢元素**：直接诞生于宇宙大爆炸最初的火海。 - **碳、氮、氧等重元素**：全部在上一代恒星的核心熔炉中通过核聚变锻造，并在恒星寿终正寝的超新星爆发中播撒到星际气体云中，最终孕育出包含地球在内的下一代行星系统与生命。 泰森强调，“我们由星尘构成”绝非诗意的情感比喻，而是一个字面意义上的物理事实。生命的非凡之处不在于我们与宇宙有多么不同，而在于我们与整个宇宙完全相同。不仅在宇宙尺度如此，在地球生物圈内亦然：人类与蘑菇（真菌）在生命演化树上的分化时间，要晚于动物和真菌的共同祖先与绿色植物分化的时间，这意味着人类与蘑菇的亲缘关系比与任何绿色植物都要更近；而人类与香蕉之间甚至共享高达 20% 的同源基因。泰森总结道：“不仅是我们生活在宇宙之中，更是宇宙活在我们体内。”当他在夜晚仰望星空时，从不觉得自己渺小，反而感到自己同宇宙一样宏大，因为人类正是这场波澜壮阔的宇宙演化史诗的直接参与者。 ### [10:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=642s) 部族思维与人类分裂的本能 Steven Bartlett 提起许多东方传统与宗教常谈及“万物一体”（we are one），而从现代科学的视角来看，人类与宇宙在本质上也确实紧密相连。然而，Neil deGrasse Tyson 对此表达了深切的忧虑：世界上许多宣扬“众生一体”的哲学或宗教，一旦遇到持有不同理念的群体，往往转头就大打出手、发动战争。Tyson 苦笑着指出，人类其实极不擅长对所有人产生共鸣，我们只善于对自己的“部族”（tribe）产生归属感。这个部族的界限可以是肤色、宗教、性取向、饮食习惯，甚至是所遵循的仪式。人们基于无数微不足道的维度拉帮结派，作为一名科学家，Tyson 感到令人不安的是，人类竟然如此轻而易举、迅速地制造隔阂，并将其作为彼此敌视的借口，而不是去寻找共同点并携手合作。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 部族分裂与宇宙视角的对比 accDescr: 展示人类如何基于微观标签自我分裂，以及宇宙视角如何打破这种狭隘对立。 subgraph Narrow["狭隘的部族分裂视角"] A["人为界限与标签<br/>（肤色、宗教、饮食、国界）"] --> B["划分阵营与‘我们 vs 他们’"] B --> C["矛盾激化、争吵与战争"] end subgraph Cosmic["俯瞰的宇宙视角"] D["从月球回望地球"] --> E["脆弱的大气层薄如苹果皮"] E --> F["看不见沙滩上的边界线<br/>（唯有海洋、陆地与云层）"] end Narrow -.->|提升认知维度| Cosmic ``` Steven 对此深有感触，提到最近 24 小时的新闻充斥着政治分裂的言论，伦敦即将爆发各类街头游行抗议。昨晚他与朋友聊天时便感叹，很多争端看似由具体事件引起，其实深层根源正是“分裂本身”。Tyson 赞同并指出，如果拨开争吵与游行的表象，底层逻辑永远是“这拨人自成一部族，那拨人自成一部族，双方互不相让”。回顾历史，从欧洲殖民主义和残酷的跨大西洋奴隶贸易，到第一次世界大战与第二次世界大战中白人彼此之间的大规模相互屠戮，都证明了人类不仅用肤色来分裂彼此；只要想找借口，无论崇拜不同的神明，还是以不同方式崇拜同一个神，人们总能找到分裂、征服、杀戮与压迫同胞的理由。 - 部族认同的细分维度：肤色、宗教信仰、伴侣选择、饮食习惯以及生活仪式。 - 历史上的残杀证据：一战与二战表明，即使没有肤色差异，相同种族内部同样会为了意识形态和地缘利益爆发灭绝性战争。 --- ### [13:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=820s) 宇宙视角：薄如果皮的大气层与无谓的争吵 Tyson 指向桌上自己的著作《星际信使：文明的宇宙视角》（Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization），阐述了当一个人具备科学素养并拥有“宇宙视角”（cosmic perspective）时，眼前的纷争会呈现出完全不同的样貌。所谓的领土争端，不过是人们在沙滩上划一条线，然后为这条线争得你死我活；但如果站在月球上回望地球，你会发现这颗星球悬浮在死寂的太空中，是一个极其脆弱的生态系统。Tyson 形象地比喻道：地球大气层的相对厚度，就如同一个苹果表皮相对于整个苹果一样薄弱。 站在近地轨道俯瞰，视野里只有蔚蓝的海洋、连绵的陆地与漂浮的白云，根本看不到人类划定的任何国界与阵营。Tyson 感叹道，人们往往把“自己以为的真实”看得比“客观事实”还重要。更荒唐的现实是：某件事越是缺乏客观证据支撑，人们往往争吵得越激烈、越盲目。正如那句老谚语所言：“如果一场争论持续超过了 5 分钟，那双方通常都错了。”在 80% 到 90% 的情况下，这个法则都奇准无比。 > “在厚度上，地球的大气层之于地球，就如同苹果的果皮之于苹果。” —— Neil deGrasse Tyson --- ### [15:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=934s) 跨越偏见：从客舱闲聊到通读各大宗教典籍 Steven 询问 Tyson，在探索宇宙客观本质的漫长学术生涯中，他的宗教与精神信仰经历了怎样的演变。Tyson 回忆道，自己成长于一个天主教家庭，但家庭氛围本质上是非常世俗与理性的。父母在周末会带孩子去教堂，但回到家后，父母绝不会用“耶稣在看着你”、“再不听话就下地狱”或“这么做能讨上帝欢心”来管教他们。家庭遵循客观常识与长辈的生活经验，然而到八岁左右，Tyson 就发现宗教教义在逻辑上漏洞百出，无法让他信服；到了九岁第一次踏入当地的天文馆时，他便一头扎进了宇宙的广袤世界。 虽然从小就远离了宗教，但随着 Tyson 成为天体物理学家并频繁出行，他在飞机上经常遇到邻座乘客搭话。当人们得知他的职业后，总会顺着黑洞、相对论、宇宙大爆炸和外星人一路追问，最终毫无悬念地落脚在“神与上帝是否存在”上。起初，Tyson 总是给出毫不留情、冰冷坚硬的科学式反驳，但后来他意识到这种态度并不公正。宗教与精神寄托是许多人生活的支柱，不能仅仅因为自己八岁就不再相信，就粗暴地将其斥为无稽之谈。 为了能与有信仰的人进行有深度、有意义的对话，Tyson 决定以学者的严谨态度去了解对方的思想体系。他系统性地购入了各大宗教的核心典籍并深入阅读： - **经典经籍**：收集了犹太教的《托拉》（Torah）、多部不同版本的伊斯兰教《古兰经》（Quran）； - **不同派系文献**：包括摩门教创始人约瑟夫·斯密（Joseph Smith）的记录《摩门经》，以及挨家挨户敲门传教的“耶和华见证人”（Jehovah's Witnesses）分发的所有宣传文献； - **广泛的泛灵与多神论考证**：研究了全球原住民将精神能量赋予山川、溪流与清风的“泛灵论”（animism），并将古希腊神话与古罗马神话还原为其当时的真实宗教地位（指出今天人们称之为“神话”，只是为了在心理上拉开历史距离）。 广泛的阅读让 Tyson 在面对各种宗教信仰者时，能够跳出傲慢与刻薄，展开建立在知识储备之上的真诚沟通。 --- ### [20:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=1215s) 信仰是人类进化出来的机制吗？ Steven 坦言自己从未像 Tyson 那样系统研读宗教典籍，但认为作为一名需要长期与不同人群深入访谈的内容创作者，这极具启发性。随后，Steven 结合自己反复观看 Tyson 主持的科普纪录片《宇宙》（Cosmos）以及其中“宇宙历”（Cosmic Calendar）的震撼体验，提出了两个关键疑问：首先，读完所有宗教典籍对 Tyson 自身产生了怎样的心境改变？其次，纵观漫长的演化史，人类大脑是否在某个节点演化出了“必须去信仰某种事物”的本能机制？人类生来就注定要相信神明吗？ Tyson 认为，解答人类是否天生具有信仰机制，最直接的切入点就是考察早期人类的化石记录。他从已灭绝的尼安德特人（Neanderthals）谈起——现代人体内仍保留着少量与尼安德特人混血留下的 DNA 痕迹，随后演化出克罗马农人（Cro-Magnon），再到现代智人（Homo sapiens）。而解开古人类信仰起源的核心线索，正是考古发掘中呈现出来的早期“墓葬遗址”（burial grounds）及其对待死亡的方式。 ### [21:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=1295s) 丧葬仪式、群体思维与宗教的进化之谜 尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）从远古时期的丧葬习俗切入，探讨了人类对“超越死亡”概念的追寻。他指出，甚至尼安德特人（Neanderthal）都会将死者生前使用过的物品与其一同下葬。人们之所以会这样做，唯一的合理解释就是他们相信死者在死后还有未完的旅程。这种信仰在古埃及人那里被推向了极致，埃及皇室在墓葬中塞满了各种随葬品；而在古希腊神话与习俗中，人们下葬时会在死者口中或手中放一枚钱币，以便他们到达冥界（Hades）时能支付给冥河摆渡人卡隆（Charon），借此渡过斯提克斯河（River Styx）。泰森认为，甚至可以将这种思考死亡的方式视为“何为人类”的开端——或者换个角度来说，并非人类在某一时刻“开始”有了宗教，而是当祖先身上出现这种葬礼仪式时，现代意义上的人类才算真正诞生。 当主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及相信这些东西是否存在“生存优势”时，泰森坦言自己无法确定，但他确信“群体思维”（groupthink）具有显著的生存优势。宗教就是一种极致的群体思维：它规定所有人必须以相同的方式信仰，在特定场合以特定方式行事，绝不能有所偏离。这套信仰体系囊括了对来世的描绘（例如“表现好上天堂，表现差下地狱”；虽然犹太教概念中没有典型的地狱，但德行不端者无法获得相应的犒赏），以及在现世应当遵循的道德准则。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宗教信念对群体凝聚力与冲突的双重影响 accDescr: 展示了从群体认同与来世观念出发，如何带来内部凝聚力，以及遭遇外部群体时演变成冲突乃至战争的过程。 subgraph InternalBinding ["内部凝聚"] A["共享仪式与来世信仰<br/>（天堂/地狱/奖惩机制）"] --> B["群体思维与行为规范约束"] B --> C["强化部族内部凝聚力"] end subgraph ExternalConflict ["外部冲突"] C --> D["遭遇异质文化与外来群体"] D --> E["产生未知恐惧与排他威胁感"] E --> F["极端演变：爆发全面战争<br/>（消灭异教徒）"] end ``` 这种紧密捆绑的信仰体系塑造了一批高度团结的人群。然而，当遭遇行为方式截然不同、令人难以理解的外来群体时，他们会本能地将其视作巨大威胁，并竭尽所能维护自身传统、排斥异己。在最恶劣的情况下，这种机制便演变成了全面战争——消灭所有信仰不同的人。因此泰森总结道，在化石记录中，或许正是宗教仪式的出现，真正确立了人类的定义。 - 丧葬实物例证：尼安德特人随葬生活用品、埃及皇室随葬丰厚珍宝、古希腊人在死者口中放硬币用以给冥河摆渡人支付船资。 - 宗教的双刃剑机制：一方面通过死后世界奖惩与统一规范维持极高内部凝聚力；另一方面面对外来异文化时极易激化为部落冲突乃至灭绝性战争。 --- ### [24:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=1476s) 现代社会的“原子化”与面对代际变迁的科学审慎 两人随即将话题转向现代社会。史蒂文提出，仪式曾是社会最强大的粘合剂，但如今的人们似乎正在“松绑”（unbinding）——社会主流叙事推崇“做自己的老板”、“独立自主”，人们独自居住、少子化、孤独感加剧、远程办公或自由职业盛行。史蒂文观察到，自己身旁最痛苦的朋友往往也是那些最脱离“村落共同体”（village）的人；人们仿佛需要建立一套逐级上升的依存阶梯：自我、家庭、村落、国家、地球乃至宇宙。 对于这一现象，泰森表达了极为清醒而审慎的态度。他承认有大量研究探讨社交媒体过早介入年轻人生活带来的心理冲击，但他明确拒绝扮演那种坐在摇椅上大喊“滚出我的草坪”（"Get off my lawn"）、一味抱怨“世风日下、一代不如一代”的守旧老人。他回忆历史上的荒谬场景：老一辈曾经用大铁锤砸烂弹球机（pinball machines），痛斥它是不务正业和赌博，断言它会“毁掉下一代”；人们也曾当街焚烧摇滚乐唱片。泰森表示，年轻一代正在构建一个全新的现实，那是他成长岁月里未曾经历过的，他既不能也不该对其妄加价值评判。等年轻人成熟之后，他们自会摸索出新世界的生存节奏与韵律。 泰森还指出，过去两百年甚至更久以前，绝大多数人一辈子都未曾离开过出生地30英里以外的范围；而如今，普通人可以轻而易举地与全球数以万计的人交流。这种连接可能让某些人更加部落化（tribalized），但也可能让另一些人变得更加包容柔和。 谈及自身在社交媒体上的发声原则，泰森坦言自己早已学会了“不表达个人观点”的艺术： > “我不关心你的观点是什么，我也不在乎你是否赞同我的观点。作为一名教育家、尤其是一名科学家，我唯一在乎的是：你的观点是否建立在客观事实（objective reality）与客观真理的基础之上。” 泰森严正警告，如果一个人的观点缺乏客观事实的支撑，完全悬空漂浮；而这样的人一旦掌握了制定法律和政策的权力，基于“自己认为真实”或“希望真实”的想法而非“客观真实”去塑造社会，那将是整个人类文明走向崩塌的灾难性药方。 --- ### [28:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=1693s) 彼此依附的现代人与教会的真正价值 回到史蒂文提出的“共同体阶梯”概念，泰森深入剖析了宗教场所在现代社会退场后的真空。他提出一个极具洞察力的假设：教会最核心的价值，或许根本不是它教授了怎样的祷告辞、让人向谁祷告或何时祷告，而是它所构建的“实体社群”（community）——所有人定期齐聚一堂、共处同一空间。 在当今时代，这种线下共聚的场景正急剧减少。统计数据显示，现代人的宗教参与度降到了历史最低；许多过去具有宗教信仰的人，如今更多自称为“有灵性”（spiritual），这意味着他们剥离了传统宗教教条的规训，但也失去了集体的物理锚点。然而，无论是教堂、犹太会堂（synagogue）、清真寺（mosque）还是寺庙，那种周期性共同集会的场所具有无可替代的价值，因为人类本质上是彼此深切依附的。 泰森生动地打了个比方： > “当你在乡间小路上开车，看见一只鹿在林间悠闲漫步，我会由衷感到羡慕。如果人类社会崩溃了，那只鹿依旧能好端端地生活——它生在树林里，自己觅食，自然长大。但我呢？我需要依靠其他人才能在这个世界上活下去。我不会打猎，不会剥皮，我习惯了杂货店货架上整齐摆放的一夸脱牛奶，以及开箱即食的麦片。” 泰森强调，人类如今生活在一个前所未有的高度互相依存的复杂网络中，如何在不被时代冲散（without scattering to the winds）的前提下维持这种连接，是全社会必须面对的命题。 - 信仰形态变迁：纯粹宗教规训式微信转向个体化的“灵性”（spiritual），导致线下共同体仪式瓦解。 - 现代生存困境：相比野生动物的自给自足，现代人类对社会分工网络的极度依赖与个体孤立状态之间形成了巨大张力。 --- ### [30:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=1819s) 面对双亲离世：悲伤与悲剧的区别及智慧的代际传递 话题转入个人生命体验，史蒂文询问泰森如何在拥有浩瀚宇宙视角与客观真理认知的情况下，去面对过去五年间双亲相继离世的悲恸。泰森表示，父母的离去确实改变了他，但程度并不像原本想象的那样剧烈。他的父亲五年前去世，享年89岁；母亲离世时差两天就满95岁。泰森开玩笑说，根据父母寿命的平均值，他预估自己大概能活到92岁。 泰森对父母的高寿离世给出了一个深刻的界定：**“这令人感伤，但绝非悲剧。”（"It's sad, but it's not tragic."）** | 概念 | 泰森给出的定义与内涵 | |:--- |:--- | | **悲剧（Tragic）** | 生命本应完全展开，却因战争、事故、个人疏忽或他人过失而被腰斩；这是一种“未被充分活过”（a life not fully lived）的遗憾。 | | **圆满之死（Sad but Celebrating）** | 像他父母一样，相濡以沫50余年，活出了圆满充实的一生；这种告别固然带来思念与感伤，但本质上是一场值得庆祝（celebration）的生命盛宴。 | 泰森深情回忆，自己对父母的思念远超预期，因为他们身上承载着极大的智慧：他的父亲曾积极投身民权运动（civil rights movement），母亲则是一名老年病学家（gerontologist）。父母一生都极为关切社会底层的困境与他人的福祉。泰森感叹，自己作为天体物理学家，常常仰望星空、神游天外，但父母的存在将他深深地锚定（anchored）在人类处境（the human condition）之中，教会他去思考并关怀真实的人间冷暖。 如今在现代生活中遇到各种复杂问题时，泰森常会下意识地想：“不知道母亲对这件事会怎么看？父亲又会有什么见解？”然而他们已不在人世。这种失去彻底重塑了他，将一种巨大的责任感压在了他肩上——他要求自己必须沉淀出足够的智慧，像当年父母启迪他一样，去启发并传递给自己的两个孩子。这种智慧并非关于选购什么汽车或从事什么职业的琐碎技巧，而是指引人生价值的核心领悟。 ### [32:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=1967s) 艺术家的使命与乔伊斯·基尔默的《树》 在人与人的互动、爱、以及面对和克服生活挑战的层面上，许多真理是超越时间的——比如如何应对难缠的人，或是如何去欣赏大自然而不把一切视作理所当然。尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森提到，他格外喜欢乔伊斯·基尔默（Joyce Kilmer）写树的那首诗。我们每个人都见过树，那为什么这首诗如此重要？在他看来，这正是艺术家、诗人、作家、雕塑家和画家的职责所在：激发并引导我们去关注那些平日里熟视无睹、擦肩而过的事物。生活中太多美好的细节都被人们无视了，但自从读过那首诗后，尼尔每次路过一棵树，脑海中都会泛起诗中的意象。 尼尔在现场深情诵读了基尔默的经典诗作《树》（*Trees*）：“我想我绝不会看到，一首诗能美如一棵树。它饥饿的嘴唇紧贴着大地甘甜丰饶的胸膛；它整日凝望上帝，高举枝叶繁茂的手臂祈祷；它在夏天或许会让知更鸟在发间筑巢；白雪曾安卧于它的怀抱，它与细雨生死相依。愚蠢如我辈方才写诗，但唯有上帝才能创造一棵树。” --- ### [35:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2105s) 模拟假说与尼尔的“五五开”解套逻辑 面对史蒂芬关于“模拟假说”（Simulation Theory）的探讨，尼尔笑称人有时候确实得走出门去“闻闻玫瑰的花香”，免得陷得太深。但他承认，如果考虑到人类目前的计算能力，再加上量子计算的加持，我们虽然现在还无法在计算机中构建一个逼真世界、让其中的角色自以为拥有自由意志，但未来完全可能做到。一旦那个世界里的角色发明了计算机，并在其内部再造一个模拟世界，就会形成“层层嵌套的模拟宇宙”（simulated universes all the way down）。闭上眼睛投掷飞镖，命中那无数个衍生宇宙的概率远远大于命中最初的母体宇宙。 然而，尼尔提出了一个独特的“思维逃生通道”：既然人类目前尚未掌握创造完全逼真模拟世界的技术，这就意味着我们处于两种极端状态之一——要么我们是那个真实、初始但尚未创造出模拟世界的“第一宇宙”；要么我们是处在链条最底端、尚未演化出模拟能力的“最后一个宇宙”。因为所有中间层级的宇宙都具备向下模拟的能力。因此，通过这个逻辑推导，我们身处真实母体宇宙的概率并非百亿分之一，而是瞬间提升到了 50% 对 50%。“这让我晚上能睡得稍微安稳一些，”尼尔打趣道。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 模拟宇宙层级与五五开概率推导 accDescr: 展示了从第一真实宇宙到多层模拟宇宙的嵌套关系，以及为什么未掌握模拟技术的文明处于50对50的临界点。 subgraph Reality ["真实起源"] A["第一真实宇宙<br>（未创造出模拟世界）"] end subgraph MiddleSims ["中间层级模拟宇宙（均具备向下模拟能力）"] B["第 1 层模拟宇宙"] C["第 2 至 N-1 层模拟宇宙"] end subgraph TerminalSim ["末端宇宙"] D["最后一代模拟宇宙<br>（技术尚未成熟，未创造新模拟）"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D style A fill:#e1f5fe,stroke:#0288d1,stroke-width:2px style D fill:#ede7f6,stroke:#7b1fa2,stroke-width:2px ``` --- ### [36:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2206s) 外星少年的《模拟城市》：灾难作为存在的证据 即便我们真的生活在模拟中，尼尔认为这在体验上也无关紧要，因为每个人依然在经历切实的喜怒哀乐。虽然人们普遍抗拒“自己像提线木偶般被操控”的想法，但尼尔坦言，现实中的种种荒诞让他偶尔也忍不住怀疑——每当人类社会看起来走向平稳祥和时，意外总会降临。比如全球刚刚稳定几年，一场百年来罕见的新冠大流行（COVID-19）突然爆发，程序员仿佛在屏幕前觉得剧情无聊：“这也太枯燥了，给他们加点料，看看谁打疫苗、谁不打、谁会开战、谁生谁死。”等大家终于研发出疫苗、生活回归平静，程序员又说：“让纽约的一个亿万富翁房地产商人去当世界上最有权力的人，再好好搅搅浑水吧！” 尼尔形容这种感觉就像一个外星熊孩子躲在父母的地下室里，无聊地敲着键盘控制人类文明。他拿自己当年玩的经典电脑游戏《模拟城市》（*SimCity*）作比喻：在游戏中，玩家扮演市长，需要权衡收税、建学校、遏制犯罪等极其复杂的相互制约关系；但纯粹的管理很快就会失去刺激感，于是游戏设计了哥斯拉横穿城市、火灾或洪水的灾难机制。现实世界亦是如此，突如其来的巨变不可预测。尼尔特别提到，访谈录制的当天恰好是 9 月 11 日，而他就住在世贸中心遗址（Ground Zero）仅四个街区外——“那就是哥斯拉直接践踏了城市”。从第一次世界大战到 1918 年大流感，再到第二次世界大战、冷战核阴云，世界总是在毁灭性事件与短暂复苏中循环，这构成了尼尔眼中支持模拟假说最具讽刺意味的论据。 - **《模拟城市》（SimCity）类比**：平稳的社会治理模拟非常繁琐，只有突然天降灾难、观察系统的极限反应，模拟系统才变得“有观赏性”。 - **9/11 纪念日映射**：访谈录制于 9 月 11 日，尼尔亲身经历世贸中心倒塌对其生活区域的毁灭性冲击，将其比作灾难代码的突然加载。 - **历史周期的连锁危机**：一战刚停息便爆发 1918 大流感，刚走出流感阴影即遭遇二战，随后无缝切换至核阴云密布的冷战。 --- ### [40:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2405s) 自由意志的机智反讽与“创造意义”而非“寻找意义” 史蒂芬表示自己更愿意相信人拥有自由意志，尼尔随即给出了一个经典的幽默回应。他让史蒂芬当场问他：“你拥有自由意志吗？”史蒂芬照做后，尼尔脱口而出：“我还有得选吗？”（"What choice do I have?"）这个绝妙的双关逗乐了全场——如果你没有自由意志，你甚至连选择“承认自己没有自由意志”的权利都不存在。因此，争论这个问题毫无意义，不如专注活出自己的人生，让世界因为你的存在而变得稍微美好一点：让人们更幸福、更健康、更富有、更安全、更有饭吃，并推动理性和科学在政治与立法中发挥基石作用。 谈到人生的“意义”，尼尔直言自己几十年前就彻底停止了“寻找意义”。他认为将意义视为躲在石头缝或树后的现成宝藏是极其被动和无力的心态，仿佛它一直在那等着被你捡到。恰恰相反，意义是由人自主“创造”出来的。他的意义来自于每天学到昨天不知道的新东西，来自于尽己所能减轻他人的痛苦，并将所学的信息淬炼成知识，再将知识升华为智慧。尼尔笑称自己绝不想回到 30 岁，“我 30 岁时以为自己聪明绝顶，其实是个彻头彻尾的蠢蛋”。年龄增长若没有智慧相伴才是可悲的。他最后引用了霍拉斯·曼（Horace Mann）的名言作为自己的人生与墓志铭准则：“若未曾为人类赢得某种胜利，切莫愧怍离世。” --- ### [43:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2610s) 寿命延长的“逃逸速度” 针对当下一众亿万富翁狂热追求长生不老、人类技术或将实现寿命无限延长的趋势，尼尔引入了天体物理学中极为关键的概念——“逃逸速度”（Escape Velocity）。在物理学中，逃逸速度是指物体摆脱某个天体引力束缚所需的初始速度（例如地球的逃逸速度约为每秒 7 英里 / 约 11.2 公里/秒），只要达到这个阈值，无论重力如何拉扯，物体都将一去不复返。 将该理论投射到衰老与生命科学领域，便衍生出了“长寿逃逸速度”（Longevity Escape Velocity）。尼尔阐释道，不久的将来可能会诞生这样一代人：随着人类生理学与医学知识呈指数级爆炸，人类每年研发出的延寿技术所增加的预期寿命，将逐渐赶上甚至超过自然流逝的时间。例如，当科学研究每年能让人类的平均预期寿命增加一个月、两个月，直至实现每年延寿超过 12 个月时，人类的寿命增长便彻底挣脱了自然衰老死亡的“引力束缚”。 ### [44:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2676s) 寿命逃逸速度与对死亡的态度 随着人类对营养学、运动生理学以及健康维护认知的不断加深，医学发展正逐步逼近一个关键转折点。尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森指出，未来终将迎来这样一天：你每活过一年，现代医学的技术进步就能让你额外多活一年，甚至在不久之后变成“每活一年就能多活两年”。这种状态在科学界被称为“寿命逃逸速度”（Longevity escape velocity）。长寿并非一夜之间降临到所有人身上，而是逐步渗透到人类社会中。然而，泰森坦言自己毫无永生的渴望，反而直白地表示：“把我从这个地球上带走吧（Take me off this Earth）。”他唯一希望的是，在自己离开前能把脑海中想写、并且自认为能让世界变得更好的书籍全部完成，尽可能多作贡献，不留下未尽之责。 当被主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及是否惧怕死亡时，泰森给出了否定的回答，但他随即幽默且清醒地承认，这种话在远离死神时说起来格外轻松。曾有人用一个极具说服力的假设与他争辩：泰森目前依据自身健康与父母寿命推算，预期寿命大约还剩 15 到 20 年；在身体康健时他可以说不惧死亡，但倘若真到了濒死之际，医生走过来说“只要我挥一挥手，你就能多活一年，你愿意吗？”，答案大概率是肯定的，而且到了下一年年底，他可能依然想再多活一年。因此，他也不敢断言自己在弥留之时的心境会不会发生转变。 谈及面对死亡的尊严与自主权，泰森回忆起母亲临终前的选择。当时母亲已经丧失了吞咽功能，却坚决拒绝插胃管进食，平静地表示“我的大限已到”。随后她被转入缓和医疗（Palliative care）和临终关怀病房，并在十天后安然离世。虽然现代医学完全可以通过鼻饲或造瘘让她多活五年，但她已经养育了三个孩子，拥有长达五十年的美满婚姻与稳定充实的人生，她选择主动掌握自己的离别。 --- ### [47:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2825s) 永生特权与社会停滞的隐患 泰森对当下部分超级富豪执迷于追求永生的行为持鲜明的批评态度，认为这纯粹是出于自私与膨胀的自我意识（Ego）。一个人如果永远霸占着生命，实质上是在剥夺后辈所需要的生存空间与资源。更关键的问题在于：这些长生不老的年长者，是否还在为世界创造真正的价值？社会更应该把舞台和资源留给正在学校读书的下一代天才，他们才是破解能源危机、贫困和环境污染等世纪难题的希望，而不是让一位九十多岁的老人长生不老，终日漂在游艇上享受浮华。 从人类心智的客观规律来看，生命的迟暮之年往往不再是创造力最充沛、最具野心与颠覆性的阶段。推动文明跨越式进步的往往是“反叛精神”（Irreverence）——那些敢于挑战既有权威的叛逆思考。泰森以商业真人秀《创智赢家》（Shark Tank）为例指出，节目中半数以上带着惊艳想法的创业者都在 30 岁以下，年轻人思维活跃、没有包袱，而年长者往往思想固化、盘根错节。 如果人类社会彻底实现了延年益寿甚至长生不老，人们将被无限期地锁在生命中对文化与文明进步最无用的一段时光里。社会的上升通道与思维迭代将被彻底堵死，最终导致整个文明走向全面停滞。 --- ### [48:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2928s) 人工智能在物理学的应用与人类创造力的边界 当史蒂文打趣说泰森写了这么多书、做了大量神经认知训练，寿命或许能达到预期上限时，泰森幽默地调侃道：“这些书全成了 ChatGPT 的养料。”谈到对人工智能（AI）的看法，泰森给出了干脆利落的评价：“我太爱它了。”他指出，AI 早已融入科研多年，普通大众之所以在近两年感到恐慌，是因为 AI 突然展现出写期末论文、画画和做舞台设计等文化创作能力，触碰了原以为人类独占的领地。但在天体物理学及大部分物理科学领域，AI 早已是不可或缺的工具。 泰森以即将投入运行的薇拉·鲁宾天文台（Vera C. Rubin Observatory）为例：这台望远镜每天捕获的海量天文数据如果没有 AI 介入，人类根本无法进行读取、降维与复杂分析；AI 甚至能在毫秒间自主做出观测决策——一旦发现某颗天体与上次观测相比出现诡异异常，系统就会立刻自动调转镜头重新观测。泰森笑称：“如果 AI 能把脏活累活全干了，我就可以去巴哈马度假，何乐而不为？” 面对艺术界对生成式 AI 的普遍焦虑，泰森提出了独特的衡量标准： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 与真正人类创造力的区别 accDescr: 对比生成式 AI 的仿造能力与人类艺术家的开创性跨越。 subgraph AI_Capability ["当前生成式 AI 的局限"] A["指令：仿照梵高风格绘图"] --> B["分析既有规律与笔触"] B --> C["生成精准旋涡线条与色彩<br/>（完美的临摹与模仿）"] D["指令：以人类从未有过的风格作画"] --> E["缺乏训练参照物"] E --> F["输出极其拙劣平庸的作品"] end subgraph Human_Creativity ["人类真正的创造力"] G["扎根于前人经验"] --> H["实现认知的非连续性跳跃"] H --> I["开辟全新艺术流派与思维维度"] end ``` 在泰森看来，真正的创造力绝不是简单地模仿前人足迹并做些修修补补，而是在无人知晓的方向上完成巨大的认知飞跃。AI 的普及反倒会倒逼那些自诩为创意工作者的人拔高追求，跳出平庸的排列组合；否则，任何只需在大语言模型输入框里敲一行提示词就能复制的东西，都注定会被无情取代。 --- ### [51:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=3062s) 超级智能的统治：我们会成为被善待的宠物吗？ 针对史蒂文提出的猜想——人类当前是否正处于人机融合的关键节点，例如埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）旗下的 Neuralink 脑机接口最初正是为了应对超级智能来临时的带宽与延迟问题——泰森展开了一段关于“超级智能统治”的逆向思辨。如果超级智能（Superintelligence）真如预言般降临并成为地球的主宰，人类大概率会沦为它们的“宠物”。 这一前景看似可怕，但泰森反问道：“人类对待宠物，难道不比对待同类好得多吗？”现代人会悉心为宠物提供温暖的居所、充足的美食与无微不至的关怀，但面对街头风餐露宿的流浪汉，却往往漠然置之。史蒂文随即用自幼的经历打趣反驳：他小时候在尼日利亚母亲的菜园里，亲眼看着母亲追着满园子乱跑的鸡，一把抓住拧断鸡脖子扔进锅里炖了，“不是所有宠物都能活到最后的”。 泰森大笑着回应，这取决于超级智能是否需要人类活着；也许人类需要通过充当“弄臣”（Court jesters）或提供娱乐表演来保持自身的相关性与存在感。不过，泰森从历史学角度表达了理性质疑。自工业革命以来，几乎每一个时代的人都深信自己正生活在一个决定人类命运的“特殊非凡时刻”。正因如此，他拒绝随波逐流地给当下贴上特殊历史节点的标签。 --- ### [53:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=3194s) 有生之年登上火星的概率为什么是零？ 当史蒂文满怀期待地询问，自己在这辈子登上另一颗行星（如火星）的概率有多大时，泰森给出了一个极其冰冷且坚决的答案：“零。”面对史蒂文搬出 SpaceX 火星计划的疑惑，泰森阐述了自己从历史规律中总结出的非主流地缘政治视角。 纵观整部人类文明史，任何耗资极其惊人的宏大工程，从不是因为“这是一件很酷的事”或者“顺理成章的下一步”而启动的；驱使大国倾囊相助的唯一动力，永远只有地缘政治博弈——要么是国防军事竞争，要么是巨大的经济利益。 - **阿波罗计划的真实推手**：1961 年 5 月 25 日，肯尼迪总统在尤里·加加林（Yuri Gagarin）成功完成人类首次绕地轨道飞行六周后向国会发表历史性演说。当时美国甚至没有一艘能载人且不在发射台上爆炸的飞船。肯尼迪在演讲中甚至没有直接提及加加林的名字，而是将近期事态直斥为苏联共产主义阵营对自由世界的严重威胁。这篇实质上的反共战争动员令，才是促使美国国会毫不犹豫开出巨额支票的真正催化剂。 - **历史叙事的浪漫化粉饰**：后人往往只记住了肯尼迪“我们要登上月球并将宇航员安全送回”的浪漫豪言，误以为这是全人类携手探索未知的崇高举动，忘却了冷战太空竞赛你死我活的政治底色。 - **火星幻梦的破灭**：在阿波罗登月成功后，许多人基于线性的乐观情绪推断，人类按部就班就能在 1985 年踏上火星。然而，由于苏联退出登月角逐、冷战太空争霸的核心驱动力瓦解，后续前往火星的宏大计划旋即化为泡影。在缺乏重大防御威胁或巨额直接回报的今天，单纯依靠商业狂想或情怀，根本无法支撑起将大众送往火星所需的天文数字成本。 ### [55:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=3335s) 航天探索的动力：地缘政治、神明荣耀与金钱战争 尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）指出，人类当年登月的唯一动力是为了击败苏联。而当宇航员踏上月球、回头发现苏联人并未跟上来时，阿波罗计划（Apollo program）随即被取消。自 1972 年（阿波罗 17 号）之后，人类已经整整 53 年没有重返月球。原本整装待发的阿波罗 18 号最终从未升空，如今作为展品静静躺在阿拉巴马州亨茨维尔（Huntsville, Alabama）的博物馆中；泰森提到，沿着它那全套具备实际飞行能力的火箭箭体走上一圈，场面令人震撼，但也凸显了项目的戛然而止。人类没有继续走向火星，根本原因在于缺乏地缘政治的推动力——既无经济利益，也无关国防安全。 从历史上看，人类之所以愿意调动庞大资源进行极度昂贵的探索与建设，最初是为了“神的荣耀与王权的威严”。无论是古埃及建造金字塔，还是中世纪修建大教堂，动用举国核心资产的驱动力都来自神明、君权与统治阶层。然而现代社会早已告别了这一范式，没有人会再为了国王或神灵倾注全国的资本。如今调动巨额资源的只剩下两件事：世俗的经济利益（金钱）或是面临威胁时的战争反应。 正是这一逻辑解释了美国为何突然启动重返月球的阿尔忒弥斯计划（Project Artemis）。泰森反问主持人：为什么我们在 1980 年、1990 年、2000 年或 2010 年都不回月球，偏偏在 2010 年代末期提出这个设想？答案非常明确：因为当时中国宣布计划派遣“航天员”（Taikonauts）登月。西方立刻感受到了潜在对手摘取月球荣誉的压力，出于对体制与地缘竞争的警惕，才迅速作出了重返月球的决策。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 历史与现代巨型工程驱动力演变 accDescr: 对比历史上基于君权与神权的工程驱动力与现代基于安全威胁和经济利益的驱动力。 subgraph Historical["历史驱动力（古代与中世纪）"] H1["神权与信仰<br/>（修建大教堂）"] H2["君权与王室威严<br/>（建造金字塔）"] end subgraph Modern["现代驱动力（世俗国家）"] M1["国防与地缘政治威胁<br/>（太空竞赛 / 冷战登月）"] M2["直接商业与经济利益<br/>（资源勘探 / 市场回报）"] end Historical -->|"历史演进与世俗化"| Modern ``` --- ### [58:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=3491s) 为什么火星任务缺乏商业逻辑 谈到载人登陆火星的前景，泰森给出了极为冷峻的现实判断：火星上既没有油井，也没有钻石矿，单纯为了商业利益去火星在当下完全无法成立。除非中国宣布要在火星上建立军事基地，否则美国不会急于登陆；若真有那样的军事威胁，美国能在 10 个月内解决问题——花 1 个月进行设计、制造和拨款，再用 9 个月飞赴火星。 针对外界对埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）将人类送往火星的狂热期待，泰森澄清了其中的现实壁垒。即便马斯克的火箭最终飞向火星，那也是依靠纳税人的资金采购，而非个人纯粹的商业行为。从商业投资的角度来看，前往火星根本没有“商业闭环”（business case）。如果把飞往火星作为一项旅游业务，其首次任务的成本将高达约一万亿美元，没有任何理性的投资人会签字赞成。马斯克或许可以凭借个人惊人的财富，或者与杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）联手将其作为一个“虚荣心工程”（vanity project）来推进，但这绝对不是可持续的商业模式。 为了让听众直观感受太空旅行的难度，泰森打了一个生动的比例尺比方： - **地球模型**：假设将地球缩小为一个普通的教室地球仪。 - **月球的距离**：主持人用拳头模拟月球大小，泰森指出月球并非近在眼前，而是相当于在 30 英尺（约 9 米）开外的隔壁房间。 - **贝佐斯与布兰森的亚轨道飞行**：杰夫·贝佐斯与理查德·布兰森（Richard Branson）等人的私人太空旅行，在地球仪的比例上，仅仅相当于在地球仪表面放了两枚 10 美分硬币的厚度。 - **火星的距离**：在这个比例尺下，火星在整整 1 英里（约 1.6 公里）之外。 从轨道力学上讲，前往火星需要等待行星运行至特定相对位置，利用耗能最低的霍曼转移轨道（minimum energy orbit），单程需要约 9 个月时间；到达后必须等待数年后行星轨道再次对齐才能返航。因此，一次载人往返火星的周期长达 3 到 5 年。泰森强调，人类目前已经在火星上部署了 SUV 大小的火星车勘测十亿年前的生命遗迹，这说明我们“有技术能力去火星”，但从经济与实践的现实角度来看，火星载人探索的商业化落地在目前几乎是不可能的。 - **地球到月球的单程时间**：约 3 天，往返 6 天加上停留约 1 周时间，属于普通人可以想象的度假周期；泰森表示如果未来成本降到相当于攒 5 到 10 年度假预算的水平，去月球会是一件极棒的个人愿望清单项目。 - **火星单程耗时与往返周期**：最低能量轨道单程 9 个月，受轨道窗口期限制，完整往返需 3 至 5 年。 - **首次载人火星任务预估成本**：约 1 万亿美元（1 trillion dollars）。 --- ### [01:03:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=3810s) 突破肉眼感官：科学机器与黑洞的存在证明 在插播完 Shopify 的赞助广告后，主持人将话题引向泰森修订的新书《Just Visiting This Planet》（客访这颗星球）。书中收录了泰森在 10 到 15 年间以笔名“梅林”（Merlin）撰写的科普问答专栏。在这个虚构设定中，梅林是牛顿、伽利略和居里夫人的老朋友；每当公众来信询问重力等物理难题时，梅林便会以“当年我在牛顿后院与他聊天时，他是这么解释的”这种口吻予以解答。 主持人由此提出了一个困扰已久的问题：书中提到一个高尔夫球大小的黑洞其质量就超过地球，若将地球吞噬，留下的残余仅有青柠大小；既然人类从未亲临过黑洞，我们究竟是如何确知黑洞真实存在的？ 泰森对此阐释了现代科学的核心方法论：人类完全可以在不亲临其境、不亲眼看见的情况下认识宇宙。科学之所以能够实现跨越式发展，正是因为人类创造的科学仪器与机器取代了脆弱的人类五感（视觉、听觉、触觉、味觉、嗅觉）。人类如果误以为仅凭自己的感官就能理解宇宙现实，那是极其容易出错的（error-prone）。 为了证明感官常识的局限性，泰森重提了地球的“逃逸速度”（escape velocity）。人们基于日常生活经验往往坚信“凡上升者必下落”（what goes up must come down），但这只是感官接触到的极小范围经验；在物理现实中，只要发射物体的速度达到每秒 7 英里（约 11.2 公里/秒），它就永远不会再落回地球。黑洞的存在亦是如此——科学家依靠引力透镜、吸积盘辐射以及严谨的物理观测仪器探知真相，而非依赖人类有限的肉眼。 ### [01:05:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=3923s) 黑洞的物理本质与天文学家的探测方式 尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森从“逃逸速度”（escape velocity）的思想实验切入，层层拆解黑洞的形成机制。地球表面的物体想要摆脱重力束缚飞入太空，需要达到一定的逃逸速度；若地球质量不断增加、引力成倍增强，所需的逃逸速度也会水涨船高。如果将越来越多的质量硬塞进有限的空间，逃逸速度最终将飙升并突破“光速”。因为光是宇宙中传播速度最快的事物，一旦连光都无法逃脱，任何掉入其中的物质便绝无幸免的可能——泰森强调，再没有比这更能形象定义“洞”的物理概念了。 与地面或街道上常见的二维坑洞不同，黑洞是一个全方位的“三维洞”，无论从哪一个方向靠近，它都呈现为一个引力深渊。黑洞本身不发光，但天文学家可以通过爱因斯坦广义相对论预言的引力效应发现它们：重力会扭曲周围的时空结构（即引力透镜效应），当黑洞遮挡在遥远星系前方时，背后星系的形状就会发生明显畸变。 另一种关键的探测途径来自双星及多星系统。夜空中绝大多数恒星其实并非形单影只，而是由两颗或多颗恒星构成的系统，只是人眼受限于视力无法分辨，必须借助望远镜才能看清。当一对伴星中的一颗演化坍缩为黑洞，另一颗随着年龄增长膨胀时，膨胀恒星外层的物质就会溢出，并螺旋盘旋落入黑洞的事件视界（event horizon）。这些高速旋卷的吸积盘物质在剧烈摩擦下温度急剧升高，向外辐射出强烈的 X 射线和紫外线。现代天文学家正是通过全天区的 X 射线与紫外线太空望远镜，精准锁定了这些隐匿黑洞的位置。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 黑洞形成与双星探测机制 accDescr: 展示恒星质量超标引致坍缩为黑洞，以及通过吸积盘辐射被探测的过程。 subgraph Collapse["恒星演化与坍缩"] A["大质量恒星核心耗尽"] --> B{"引力 vs 爆炸膨胀"} B -- "重力超过爆炸阈值" --> C["物质不可逆向内坍缩"] C --> D["逃逸速度达到并超越光速（黑洞）"] B -- "爆炸冲破引力束缚" --> E["超新星爆发（散播重元素）"] end subgraph Detection["双星系统探测流程"] D --> F["黑洞与老化伴星互绕"] F --> G["伴星外层气体溢向事件视界"] G --> H["吸积盘剧烈旋转摩擦升温"] H --> I["喷发X射线与紫外辐射"] I --> J["被太空望远镜捕捉成像"] end ``` - **超新星爆发与生命起源**：恒星演化末期若爆炸能量冲破了引力束缚，就会发生超新星爆发，将宇宙深处合成的碳、氧、铁等重元素抛洒至整个星系；泰森直言，若没有这些恒星爆发铺洒的原料，人类生命根本不可能存在。 - **坍缩临界点**：当恒星质量超过特定阈值，自身向内的恐怖引力将彻底压制任何向外的爆炸冲力，迫使所有物质向中心坍缩，形成黑洞。 --- ### [01:07:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4059s) 太阳会变成黑洞吗？如果失去太阳地球会怎样 史蒂文提出网络上流传的一组对比：一个高尔夫球大小的黑洞其质量就超过地球，若地球被其吞噬，最终残余的黑洞体积大概只有青柠大小。泰森对此表示认同，黑洞“吞噬”物质后视界尺度确实会增长，虽然青柠比高尔夫球大，但以整个地球的质量压缩而言，体积增长并不显著，所有物质都会被无限压碎在奇点与视界内部。 对于许多人将黑洞视为“宇宙吸尘器”的误解，泰森纠正道：黑洞并不是无节制狂吸的装置（"they're not giant sucking devices"）。只要物体保持安全轨道距离，黑洞施加的引力与等同质量的普通天体毫无区别。如果太阳此时此刻在不改变质量的前提下瞬间坍缩为黑洞，地球所处的轨道位置受到的引力分毫不变，地球依然会规规矩矩地绕着它公转，而不会被猛然吸入。至于太阳本身的命运，泰森笑称太阳在质量层面过于“软弱无能”（"pretty wimpy in that department"），它根本没有足够的物质坍缩为黑洞，虽然它在未来仍会终结地球，但方式截然不同。 史蒂文追问，如果太阳突然熄灭，地表储存的能量耗尽后，人类是否会冻结在宇宙微波背景温度的华氏 -462 度（约合摄氏 -274 度，接近绝对零度）。泰森分析指出，除了外来的太阳辐射，地球本身还蕴藏着庞大的内部地热能量，这正是驱动火山喷发、板块构造与大陆漂移的根源。如果太阳彻底消失，残存的人类只能迁移到火山活跃带或地热源附近苟延残喘，直到地核冷却、地热完全枯竭。至于太阳目前的剩余寿命，天文学家测算大约还有 50 亿年。这种预测并非凭空猜想，而是 20 世纪现代天体物理学的结晶：通过观测宇宙中数以万计与太阳同类型的恒星，绘制它们从诞生、壮年到死亡的演化图谱，再结合通过同位素测出的地球年龄（约 45 亿年，且地球与太阳同期形成），便能准确推算出太阳正处于生命的黄金中段。 --- ### [01:10:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4224s) 每次呼吸与每口水中的宇宙相连性 针对史蒂文提出的惊人说法——“每一次呼吸都包含历史上所有人类吸入过的分子”，史蒂文原本半信半疑，泰森打趣地让他“去问 ChatGPT 吧”（"Chat GPT it"），随后展开了严谨的概率与分子物理学推演。泰森指出，这完全是纯粹的分子统计学事实： 一个人单次吸入肺部的空气中所包含的分子数量，远远大于覆盖整个地球的大气层所能容纳的“单次呼吸总量”。因此，任何一个人深吸一口气再呼出，这口废气中包含的分子数目，就足以均匀分摊进未来全人类每一次呼吸的空气样本中。地球大气环流的混合速度相当惊人，通常只需数年至大约十年时间，你呼出的分子就会扩散到全球各地，被大洋彼岸（例如中国）的人们自然吸入。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 呼吸与饮水中的分子全局循环 accDescr: 展示单个呼吸/水杯中的分子总数如何超越全球呼吸总量与大洋水杯总量，从而实现全人类分子相通。 subgraph Air["大气呼吸分子循环"] A["单次呼吸包含的气体分子数"] -- "远大于" --> B["全地球大气层总呼吸次数"] A --> C["呼出气体随大气环流混合（约数年~10年）"] C --> D["分子均匀散播至全球每次呼吸中"] end subgraph Water["海洋水分子循环"] E["单杯水包含的水分子数"] -- "远大于" --> F["全球大洋容纳的总水杯数"] E --> G["水经人体排出并回归自然循环"] G --> H["分子随机散布进全球每一杯水中"] end ``` 这种跨越时空的物理羁绊在水分子上也完全一致。一杯水里的水分子数目，远超全世界所有大洋加起来所能舀出的水杯总数。一个人喝下一杯水，经过机体代谢排出后，这些水分子通过水循环重归自然，最终会随机渗入全球每一杯水当中。泰森感慨，这意味着只要你大口深呼吸，肺叶里就真真切切充盈着所有在世亲人、乃至两千多年前的耶稣（Jesus）或穆罕默德（Muhammad）曾经呼吸过的分子。在物理层面上，全人类以及整个自然界都是紧密交融、不可分割的一体（"the oneness of it all"）。 --- ### [01:12:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4359s) 宇宙视角：消解虚无主义与对人类生理的重新审视 当被问及了解浩瀚宇宙是否会让人陷入自恋、冷漠或虚无主义（nihilism）时，泰森坚决予以否认。他指出，以正确的方式理解宇宙并不会孕育虚无感，科学认知赋予人的是智慧、通达与超脱的“宇宙视角”（Cosmic Perspective）。历史上从未出现过由天体物理学家率领军队去相互屠杀的惨剧，因为拥有宇宙视角的人绝不会沉溺于狭隘的争斗。 泰森借由其著作阐述了这一哲学。书中各章节的标题皆由日常生活中人们争执不休的对立词汇组成：肤色与种族（Color and Race）、法律与秩序（Law and Order）、肉体与心灵（Body and Mind）、肉食者与素食者（Meatarians and Vegetarians）、生与死（Life and Death）。这正如英美家庭在感恩节或圣诞节聚餐时，平时少见的古怪亲戚总会围坐在一起为这些话题吵得不可开交。泰森强调，面对这些撕裂社会的冲突，宇宙视角的价值并非劝人采取平庸的“折中妥协”（meet in the middle），而是引导人们跳出争吵的低维度，升维到一个凌驾于争端之上的思考层面（"meet on a plane of existence above what you're arguing"）；当你站在高处俯瞰这些日常执念时，就会发现此前的针锋相对是多么荒谬可笑。 谈及书中第十章提出的“人类生理构造可能被严重高估”（"human physiology may be overrated"），泰森直言，人类总盲目自封为演化链条的皇冠与巅峰，但实际上除了大脑的心智思维，人类的肉身构造在自然界中毫无过人之处。科幻电影和大众想象总将外星生命描绘成人形（humanoid）： - 人类与香蕉共享高达 20% 的相同 DNA，但香蕉连一丝人形特征都没有；地球上绝大多数与人类同源的生命形式都不具备人形躯干。 - 地外生命在完全不同的星球独立演化，与人类没有半点 DNA 关联，但在大众的浅薄幻想中，外星人却总拥有对称的四肢、脖子、眼睛、鼻子、嘴巴、双耳、肩膀、膝盖甚至脚趾。 泰森嘲讽这种匮乏的想象力，认为这是人类中心主义傲慢的投射。随后，史蒂文将思绪引向更为宏大的终极谜题，发问宇宙究竟是无限延展的，还是存在某种无法逾越的边缘。 ### [01:15:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4517s) 宇宙的视界与无限：我们在海洋中能看多远？ 人类目前没有任何理由认为宇宙是有限的，但我们所能观测的范围确实存在一个边界——宇宙学视界（Cosmic Horizon）。尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）打了一个生动的比方：想象你乘船航行在茫茫大海上，海平面就是你的视界。你绝不会因为自己只能看到海平面，就断定那就是海洋的终点。当你驾船朝着海平面的方向驶去时，新的地平线便会不断延展开来，直到你最终撞见陆地。 在宇宙中也是完全相同的道理。如果我们真的跨越现在的观测视界，眼前立刻会展现出一个全新的未知视界；哪怕再次飞向那个新的视界，前方依然会有无边无际的深空。人类目前根本不知道这个过程究竟能延伸多远，“我们对此毫无头绪”。然而在数学计算上，假定宇宙是无限的反而要简单得多，因为在许多物理学方程中，代入无穷大往往运转良好。但就目前的科学探索而言，我们只能确切谈论人类视界以内的事物。 --- ### [01:16:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4580s) 模糊视频与UFO：为什么“未解之谜”不等于“外星人” 针对近年来公众热议的军方飞行员目击记录及海军解密的不明飞行物视频，泰森明确厘清了 UFO 与外星人的本质区别。当主持人提到有军方背景的播客嘉宾声称掌握外星人存在的证据、并在天空中拍到不可思议的漂移轨迹时，泰森反问道：“他们真的向你展示过外星人实体吗？那些只是在天上飘来飘去的模糊光影罢了。” 泰森强调，“UFO”中的“U”代表“Unidentified（未确认/未知）”。只要你看到天上某个搞不懂的东西，在弄清它的物理本质之前，它确实属于不明飞行物；但绝不能因为它的运动方式超越了你的理解，就跳步推导出“那一定就是外星飞船”。泰森犀利地指出这种逻辑谬误：“你刚承认了自己不知道它是什么，这句话就该画上句号了，你不能紧接着说‘因此它一定是外星人’。” 针对所谓“外星人已被政府秘密捕获并掩盖”的阴谋论，泰森用讽刺的口吻指出其中的自相矛盾：许多坚信政府能天衣无缝地保守外星人秘密的人，恰恰也是平日里抱怨政府机构臃肿低效、连普通事务都办不好、主张全面推行私有化商业运作的同一批人。 此外，业余天文学家群体也是检验不明航天器传闻的关键试金石。全球的业余天文爱好者几乎每晚都架着望远镜凝视星空，他们对日月星辰的运行规律了如指掌，对气象和大气系统更是极具洞察力。如果外星飞船真的经常在地球上空出没，这群整夜观测夜空的人理应目击得最多。但现实恰恰相反，他们报告的异常现象反而最少，因为他们清楚地知道自己看到的是什么——一旦认清了目标，它就变成了“已知飞行物（IFO）”，而非未解之谜。泰森直言，科学界绝不接受藏在黑匣子里不予公开的“证据”：“如果你声称把外星人锁在箱子里却不拿出来给大家检验，对科学家来说，这就等同于你根本没有外星人。” --- ### [01:19:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4765s) 地外生命必然存在：一杯海水能代表整个海洋吗？ 当被问及能否分别论证外星人存在与不存在的概率时，泰森直截了当地回答：“不，外星生命在宇宙中绝对存在。”他给出了坚实的科学逻辑：宇宙已有近140亿年的历史，构成地球生命的基本元素（碳、氢、氧、氮等）在宇宙中分布极广，几乎是最常见的物质；更重要的是，地球在形成初期冷却后，仅用了约2亿年就诞生了单细胞生命。尽管现代生物学目前尚无法在实验室中凭空重现这一生命诞生过程，但地球大自然在2亿年内就交出了答卷。放眼银河系，系外行星无处不在，若坚持认为地球生命是宇宙中独一无二的孤例，那只能是一种出于执念的哲学偏见，毫无观测事实与科学依据。 为了直观展现人类搜寻地外生命的进度，泰森在演播室桌面上做了一个比例演示： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宇宙与系外行星搜寻尺度对比 accDescr: 展示从可观测宇宙到目前搜寻范围的层级关系 subgraph ObservableUniverse["可观测宇宙"] Galaxies["包含多达 1 万亿个星系"] subgraph MilkyWay["银河系（相当于整张会议桌）"] Stars["拥有数千亿颗恒星"] subgraph ExploredVolume["人类已搜寻系外行星的范围"] SearchArea["相当于桌面上的一枚硬币大小"] end end end ``` - **银河系的广袤**：若将整张桌面视作银河系（拥有数千亿颗恒星），人类迄今为止搜寻系外行星并探寻潜在生命的范围，仅仅相当于桌面上**一枚硬币大小**的区域。而银河系本身，又只是可观测宇宙中上万亿个星系里的沧海一粟。 - **搜寻地外文明研究所（SETI）的经典比喻**：有人因为人类至今没收到外星信号，就断言宇宙中空无一物。SETI 学者对此打趣道：“这就好比你拿着水杯从大海里舀了一杯水，看了一眼然后说：‘看吧，海洋里根本没有鲸鱼。’” - **时空维度的错位**：寻找地外文明不仅受限于物理空间，更受限于漫长的时间轴。泰森举例说，假如地外文明曾向地球发射过无线电讯号，但这束讯号是在2000年前抵达地球的，古罗马人就算再聪明，也没有射电望远镜去接收。人类掌握无线电通信技术至今不过约80年，在宇宙尺度上不过是一瞬间。 --- ### [01:22:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4958s) 银河系中的百个文明，以及外星人作为人性的镜子 结合德雷克方程的推演，泰森提到自己曾与两位天文学同行进行过精确估算：在当下的银河系中，能够发展出技术、正在存活的智慧文明数量大约在 **100 个**左右。尽管相对于银河系漫长的演化史以及数千亿恒星的基数来说，这依然是非常稀少且稍纵即逝的片段，但足以证明我们并不孤独。 然而，泰森对好莱坞式的“外星人入侵”叙事展现出了深刻的人文审视与哲学反思： - **投射人类自身的恐惧**：人类对地外文明怀有天然的戒备与敌意，但科学界没有任何证据表明外星人想要伤害我们。相反，人类有极其充分的历史证据表明“人类想要伤害人类”。 - **文明接触的历史定式**：在地球的人类探索史上，任何高度发达的文明与技术落后文明之间的碰撞接触，对于落后文明而言几乎从未有过善终的先例。 - **外星人是人性的镜像**：泰森总结道，人类在各种科幻文艺作品中对凶残残暴外星人的描绘，反映的根本不是外星人实际的样子，而是人类对自己真实恶劣本性的投射与反思——“那是一面映照人类自身的镜子”。当主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着思路调侃，若是人类率先找到了地外文明，我们大概率会立刻跑过去抓几个外星人带回地球做研究时，泰森深表认同，这恰恰证明了人类对未知生命形式的掠夺本能。 ### [01:24:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5082s) 外星文明的降维打击与好莱坞科幻的荒谬逻辑 谈及外星文明如果造访地球会发生什么，尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）给出了一个极为清醒且极具讽刺意味的类比：人类妄想对抗高等地外文明，就像几只泥土里的蠕虫在窃窃私语：“嘿，我们发现了几个人类，我们要不要把他们圈养起来？”这纯属无稽之谈。泰森直言，人类已经整整 53 年没有离开过近地轨道（Low Earth Orbit），如果某个外星文明拥有跨越数万光年银河系来到地球的能力，其科技水平必然远远凌驾于人类之上。然而在好莱坞电影中，人类总是端起枪支朝外星人射击，甚至指望汤姆·克鲁斯（Tom Cruise）或布拉德·皮特（Brad Pitt）这样的孤胆英雄拯救世界。在外星人眼里，这种反抗不仅毫无意义，而且滑稽可笑。 面对主持人的追问，泰森分享了自己最推崇的科幻电影并非传统的太空探索片，而是《黑客帝国》（The Matrix）。他称赞这部电影的故事构架极其严密，但他随即以物理学家的视角指出，全片的核心设定其实存在一个硬伤般的“物理学低级错误”。不过泰森打趣地表示，自己完全有资格给电影编剧开一张“通行豁免单”（hall pass），因为如果没有这个物理学错误，整部电影的基础设定就完全无法成立。 ### [01:25:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5149s) 《黑客帝国》里的物理硬伤：母体为什么要留着人类当电池？ 在《黑客帝国》的世界观中，统治一切的 AI 电脑需要能量来源，于是将人类从小到大圈养在黏液培养舱中，为他们的大脑接入虚构的意识世界，以此将人类当成生物电池来汲取能量。泰森指出，电影编剧显然查阅过真实的人体生物物理数据——人体平均向外散发的热功率大约是 80 瓦，相当于一个 80 瓦的传统白炽灯泡。编剧觉得用这个设定为机器供电“很酷”，但却忽略了最基本的热力学定律。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 《黑客帝国》母体能量传递矛盾 accDescr: 对比《黑客帝国》中低效的人体中间商能量转换路径与符合热力学效率的直接能量吸收路径。 subgraph MatrixWay ["电影设定：低效的人体电池路线"] A["生物养料 / 营养液"] --> B["人类肉体 (辐射 ~80W)"] B -. "热力学第二定律：大量废热耗散".-> C["AI 母体供电系统"] end subgraph LogicalWay ["物理学最优解：剔除中间商"] D["同等化学燃料 / 养料"] --> E["直接燃烧或高效转化"] E --> F["AI 母体供电系统"] end ``` 根据热力学定律，当能量从一种形式转化为另一种形式时，转化效率绝对不可能是 100%。就像燃油车行驶 50 英里后引擎盖会滚烫一样，那些废热就是化学能转化为机械动能过程中的不可逆损耗。在电影中，机器必须源源不断地给培养舱中的人类喂食营养液，人类再散发出能量供给母体。泰森犀利地吐槽道：母体既然要消耗资源喂饱人类，为什么不跳过人类这个效率低下的“中间商”（middle man），直接将给人类吃的养料用于机器自身的能量转化？如果 AI 真的足够智能，根本就不应该留着人类。但若是遵循严谨的物理学逻辑，整部《黑客帝国》的故事便不复存在了。谈及平时看电影是否会“职业病”发作，泰森笑称自己是个合格的观影伴侣，在电影院里会保持安静，把所有物理学槽点默默记在心里，等到散场后别人若感兴趣才会拿出来分享。 - **人体辐射功率**：正常成年人静息状态下对外辐射能量约为 80 瓦，恰似一枚点亮的 80 瓦灯泡。 - **热力学定律制约**：跨形态能量转换必然伴随熵增与废热损失，保留人类肉身当发电机在能量利用率上是极度赔本的买卖。 ### [01:28:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5289s) 赞助商插播：酮体补充剂 Ketone-IQ 与创作工具 Adobe Express 在此处节目插播了赞助商内容。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）首先介绍了外源性酮体饮品 **Ketone-IQ**。他解释自己常年保持严格的生酮饮食习惯，旨在确保长时间访谈对话时大脑能以最佳状态运转；在亲身体验该产品能快速提高血液酮体水平后，他不仅进行了大额投资并成为品牌合伙人，还为听众提供了订阅首单七折的优惠通道。随后，史蒂文回顾了自己在 24 岁时坚持每日更新社交媒体的成长经历，推荐了无门槛的设计与排版工具 **Adobe Express**，强调即使不具备专业平面设计功底，普通人也能借此沉淀知识并扩大个人影响力。 ### [01:30:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5412s) 知识的疆界：学会去爱那些尚未被构想的问题 回到对宇宙和科学的探讨，主持人询问泰森：“如果只能选一个，你当前最渴望知道答案的终极问题是什么？”泰森给出了一个出人意料的回答：他从不以这种思维模式生活。泰森并不否认寻找某个特定终极答案的合理性，但他看待世界的方式截然不同：“世界并不是‘我这里有一个急需解答的问题’；世界是‘我需要学习什么，才能站在一个我尚且无法想象的高度，去提出一个我目前根本构想不出来的问题？’” 泰森引用了一个经典的科学认知几何隐喻：**人类的认知如同一个圆，随着知识的面积不断扩大，代表我们无知边缘的周长也在同步增长。** 科学探索并不是在一张既定的答卷上逐一填写答案，而是随着认知边界的推移，站在全新的制高点上，迎面撞见以前连概念都不存在的全新困惑。他引用了奥地利诗人莱纳·玛利亚·里尔克（Rainer Maria Rilke）的名言：“学会去爱问题本身（Learn to love the questions themselves）。”卓越的科学家与平庸学者的分水岭，往往不在于求解的能力，而在于敏锐洞察到究竟该去问什么样的问题。 > “随着我们知识面积的扩大，我们无知的周长也在成倍延伸……你在试图寻找答案，而我正在试图寻找全新的问题。” 谈及提问的合理性，泰森指出并非所有问题都具备科学有效性。比如“数字 7 会在多少度融化？”或者“月亮是由哪种奶酪做成的？”，单纯把名词、动词拼在一起并加上问号，并不代表问题本身有意义。然而，人们在面对未知时很难预先断定什么是荒谬的：今天我们知道月球不是奶酪做的，因为阿波罗登月带回了真实的月岩标本；但如果退回到人类连地质学都不懂、也从未奢望能飞向太空的远古时代，看着天上坑坑洼洼的月亮问一句它是不是某种奶酪，反而是完全合理且符合当时认知水平的探索。 ### [01:33:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5593s) 争论人生的“意义”毫无必要：寻找它，还是创造它？ 针对当前许多年轻人群体中关于宗教信仰、存在意义以及“人活着到底为了什么”的激烈争辩，主持人询问泰森，在朋友之间争论这些形而上的命题是否有实质价值。泰森对此持极为开放且包容的态度：他认为人生的意义是一件极其私密的事情，旁人完全没有任何理由粗暴介入或评判他人构建生活意义的过程。 泰森阐释道，每个人都是独一无二的生命个体，因此每个人赋予生命的意义理应千差万别。如果全人类的人生意念都完全一致，那人类只需写一本通用的标准手册印发给全世界，每个人翻阅一遍就都有了意义，这显然是荒谬的。泰森最后总结了两种截然不同的人生哲学姿态：有些人终其一生都在向外“寻找意义”（searching for meaning），他对此表示尊重；但他自己从来不去苦苦寻找意义，而是选择去主动“创造意义”（creating meaning）——因为去创造什么，永远掌握在自己手中。 ### [01:33:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5635s) 保持好奇心、育儿与科学素养训练 对话从掌控欲与好奇心展开。尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森提到，成年后的他依然喜欢看魔术，因为魔术能时刻提醒自己“我仍然可以被愚弄”；人并不需要洞悉一切，最重要的是始终保有好奇心。当斯蒂芬·巴特利特询问，抚养如今已经 29 岁和 25 岁的两个孩子是否是他人生中最有意义的经历时，泰森坦言这确实是最有意义的事情之一，但他不敢把功劳全揽在自己身上，因为孩子们展现出了极强的独立性。 泰森的妻子是一名数学物理学家，夫妻俩达成了一项共识：必须确保孩子们在年幼时就具备科学素养。到了 13 岁，孩子们就正式“达标”。泰森随即告诉孩子们，此后无论他们在学校拿什么成绩自己都不在乎，因为他确信再也没有人能够利用孩子们对客观宇宙的无知或好奇心的匮乏来欺骗、剥削他们。泰森举例说，在初中时期的某次晚宴上，当有宾客抱怨“水星逆行导致今天诸事不顺”时，泰森的儿子并未直接嘲弄，而是连环发问：“你今天到底遭遇了什么？在水星不逆行的日子里发生过类似情况吗？” 泰森指出，面对荒唐的观点，直接断然拒绝与盲目全盘接受在本质上是一样“智力懒惰”的。更有挑战性也更有趣的做法，是通过一连串递进的问题去探查陈述背后的逻辑与依据。比如有人宣称“双手摩擦某种水晶能够治病”，科学训练有素的孩子会立刻发问：水晶的化学成分是什么？做了什么对照测试？康复是否能用其他机制解释？提问往往会让信口开河者语塞退场。泰森补充了一个化学事实：水晶（如石英、二氧化硅晶体）处于其原子或分子构型的最低能量态，根本不存在所谓的“水晶能量”可以被人体提取。当人们对某些一无所知的事物抱有狂妄自大的自信时，科普教育者的介入就会变得无比艰难。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 面对未经证实的声称之思维路径对比 accDescr: 对比智力懒惰的直接盲从或拒绝，与基于好奇心的科学追问路径。 subgraph Lazy["智力懒惰路径（不可取）"] L1["全盘接受盲从"] L2["直接断然拒绝"] end subgraph Scientific["科学探究路径（推荐）"] S1["提出递进式追问"] S2["探查物质成分与实验测试"] S3["检验是否存在其他解释机制"] S4["依据客观事实得出结论"] end Claim["面对断言或玄学概念"] --> Lazy Claim --> Scientific S1 --> S2 --> S3 --> S4 ``` --- ### [01:37:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5825s) 星座占星术的流行与“第九次才猜中”的占星师 巴特利特随后抛出一组统计数据：调查显示约 80% 的 Z 世代（Gen Z）在一定程度上相信占星术，72% 的 Z 世代与千禧一代允许占星术左右恋爱、健康、工作与教育等重大人生决策，许多人甚至每周查看星座运势。泰森对此评价道，生活在自由国度里，他无意去立法禁止个人信念，但若这个比例升至 100%，社会将无法再培养出科学家和工程师，人类文明恐将倒退回洞穴时代——在那个时代，自然界的一切现象都是由人类无法理解的神秘超自然力量所主导。这正是卡尔·萨根在其名作《魔鬼出没的世界》（*The Demon-Haunted World*）中所警戒的，而该书的副标题正是“科学作为黑暗中的烛光”。 对于巴特利特提出的“宇宙是否真有影响我们行为的方式”，泰森幽默地给出了肯定回答：太阳升起时他会起床，因为他白天需要清醒；潮水上涨时他会把沙滩椅往后挪；地球自转轴倾斜带来了四季更迭，因此冬天他会买大衣穿。但这种影响仅此而已，绝不包含天体排列预设个人命运。 泰森还分享了在海登天文馆（Hayden Planetarium）授课时的一则趣事。一位连听多节课的学员在倒数第二节课后上前致谢，并坦白自己其实是一名职业占星师，选修天体物理课是为了“能更精准地排盘”。当被问到这门课是否有用时，对方信心满满，并询问泰森的星座。泰森反问道：“既然这套体系行之有效，且你是专业占星师，难道推算不出我的星座吗？”该占星师接连猜测了双子座、巨蟹座、狮子座等，在连续猜错 8 次、直到第 9 次蒙中正确星座后，她竟当场欢呼：“我就知道是你！”这种将 12 个选项中试到第 9 个才蒙对的结果宣布为“神准预言”的狂热，生动展示了占星狂热背后的确认偏误。 - **占星民调数据**：约 80% 的 Z 世代相信占星术；72% 的年轻群体允许星座影响择偶、职场及医疗抉择。 - **天体物理学的客观影响**：昼夜节律由地球自转决定；潮汐升降受月球与太阳引力作用；四季更替源于地球 23.5 度地轴倾角。 --- ### [01:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6008s) 对未知的逃避：填补空白的“答案迷恋” 探讨大众为何如此渴望相信占星与神迹时，泰森指出，部分原因是人们希望世界永远保留神秘感，这本无可厚非，但如今科学探索已经揭示了更深层次、更宏大的未知，人们应当追随真正的谜团前行。而更根本的原因在于，多数人从未学会“热爱探索问题本身”，他们只病态地“渴望得到确凿的答案”。 泰森剖析了这种心理机制在不同科学前沿的典型表现： - 当被问及“大爆炸之前是什么”时，科学家会坦诚回答“目前尚不清楚，顶尖学者正在攻坚”；但急于求成的人会立刻武断地下结论：“此前必有外力，那一定是神创造的”，随后心满意足地停止思考。 - 当被问及“死亡后意识归于何处”时，生物学与物理学表明肉体会在土壤中降解，但无法承受这种虚无的人会发明“灵魂升入天堂”的现成闭环。 - 当被问及“什么是暗物质与暗能量”时，有人甚至会直接归结为“这就是上帝的精神力量”。 泰森强调，如果把所有未解之谜都直接归因为神（即典型的“缝隙中的上帝”，God of the gaps），这种人就绝不可能踏入实验室继续深入钻研。“你可以说那是神，但绝不能让这个结论掐灭你的好奇心；如果你认定这就是终极答案并就此止步，那你在科研实验室里就毫无用处。” --- ### [01:41:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6096s) 宗教信仰、社群幸福感与相互否定的信徒悖论 巴特利特提出一个反差现象：统计显示宗教信徒往往更加健康幸福。泰森回应称，这里的因果机制需要审慎拆解：信徒表现出的身心健康，究竟源于相信神明教导他们如何生活、祈祷的教义本身，还是源于宗教生活带来的稳定“线下社群支持”？现代社会中许多人极度缺乏每周定期与关心自己的人面对面相聚的社群环境，而这两项变量在统计上往往是交织在一起、难以剥离的。 针对巴特利特询问“如果你信仰神，你会不会更幸福”，泰森表示自己目前作为无神论/不可知论科学家生活得非常快乐，不需要额外的超自然信仰来增添幸福感。不仅如此，强烈的排他性宗教信仰内部存在着深刻的悖论： - 几乎所有极端虔诚的信徒，在宣称自身信仰为唯一真理的同时，都会斥责这颗星球上所有其他宗教是彻头彻尾的虚假伪说与荒诞故事。 - 换言之，**每一个笃信特定宗教的信徒，对于除自己之外的所有其他神明与宗教而言，本质上全都是无神论者（Atheists）**。 - 例如，某些信徒坚信 2000 年前宇宙的造物主让中东的一位女性受孕诞生救世主是毫无悬念的事实，却断然嘲笑伊斯兰传统中穆罕默德令大山移步的传说是无稽之谈；而犹太教信徒反过来又对基督徒宣称“拿撒勒人耶稣是上帝之子”感到不可理喻。信徒们能够一眼看穿他者宗教神话的破绽，却对自己所处的同构叙事完全丧失审视能力。 ### [01:43:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6212s) 无神论的视角与被误解的“填补空缺的上帝” 探讨宗教信仰时，尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）指出了一个极具启发性的现象：对于任何一个教徒来说，面对世界上成百上千种其他宗教，他们本能地认为那些信仰是荒谬和不真实的——比如犹太教徒可能会认为耶稣是个好人、是个出色的先知，但称其为“上帝之子”就过火了。换言之，信徒在面对除了自己以外的所有其他宗教时，所持的态度与无神论者完全一致；而真正的无神论者，仅仅是把“所有被否定的宗教列表”里再加上了一个——那就是你所坚信的那一个宗教。人们往往很难接受这种审视，因为这触及了信仰的防御机制。 泰森强调，他本人完全不反对任何人拥有宗教信仰，也从未试图将自己的科学世界观强加于人。然而，许多人喜欢将他生拉硬拽到自己的阵营中，甚至不惜断章取义。他提到了自己常被误读的一句名言。他的完整推论是一个严格的逻辑条件假说：如果在人类认知中，每当科学遇到未解之谜——例如科学还无法解释生命的起源，人们就宣称“上帝创造了生命”；科学还不理解宇宙的开端，人们就宣称“上帝创造了宇宙”——那么随着科学不断突破未知，“上帝”的疆域就会被不断向外推移。泰森的原话是： > "If to you God is where science has yet to tread, then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." > （如果对你而言，上帝存在于科学尚未涉足的领域，那么上帝就是一个不断后退的、由科学无知构成的狭小角落。） 这正是哲学家们数千年来讨论的“填补空缺的上帝”（God of the gaps）：古人无法理解暴风雨，便有了波塞冬；无法理解闪电雷击，便有了宙斯。泰森解释道，这个陈述在逻辑上是客观真理，因为它是一个“如果……那么……”的条件假说。然而，很多激进的无神论者直接掐掉前半句前提，把后半句印在 T 恤上宣称：“上帝是一个不断后退的科学无知角落——尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森”。泰森对此深感无奈，他指出：“那根本不是我的原意，那只是半句话。脱离了前提条件直接把它当成绝对真理，我绝不可能做出这样的表态。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 填补空缺的上帝逻辑推导 accDescr: 解释泰森关于科学进步与填补空缺的上帝之间关系的条件逻辑 subgraph Premise ["前提假设 (If)"] A["将'上帝'定义在<br/>科学尚未涉足的未知领域"] end subgraph Reality ["科学进程 (Process)"] B["科学不断探索并解开谜题<br/>（如生命起源、天体物理）"] end subgraph Consequence ["必然推论 (Then)"] C["未知的范围被不断压缩"] D["'上帝'成为一个空间不断缩小的<br/>科学无知避难所"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D ``` --- ### [01:46:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6388s) 为什么 33 岁不需要“人生秘诀”：经验是赢来的智慧 当史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提到自己刚好 33 岁，而泰森即将满 67 岁（年龄正好是史蒂文的两倍），并请教“有什么智慧是希望自己在 33 岁时就知道、并能传授给现在的自己”时，泰森却出人意料地给出了否定回答：“我没有任何这样的建议，因为生活本身就是最好的功课。”泰森直言，哪怕让他穿越回去面对 15 岁、20 岁或 30 岁的自己，他也绝不会多说一句话。因为世上最好的教训，永远不是来自别人提前写好的“禁做清单”，而是你亲自去做了一件事，然后切身体会到“我不该这么做”。 为了阐释这一点，泰森讲述了一个典型的“美式奋斗”寓言： - 一位移民来到美国，从在店铺门前扫大街做起，随后进入店内学习手艺； - 店主去世后他接管生意，通过没日没夜的艰苦拼搏买下隔壁店铺，建立起自己的产业，住进大房子并组建了家庭； - 富足起来的父亲总想着：“我当年不得不四处讨生活、起早贪黑扫地，我绝不能让我的孩子们再吃这种苦”，于是为子女铺平了所有道路，满足他们的一切物质需求； - 最终，孩子们长大成人，却变成了缺乏内在动力、毫无野心与目标的无所作为之辈（deadbeats）。 - 绝望的父亲感叹：“我到底做错了什么？我把当年没有的一切都给了你们。”泰森犀利地指出：问题恰恰就在这里——塑造这位父亲坚韧人格与智慧的，正是他当年面对的挣扎、做出的艰难抉择、犯过的错误，以及与形形色色的人打交道的阅历。当你剥夺了磨难，也就剥夺了成长。 泰森用顶级大厨做比喻：你去一位名厨家做客，品尝到惊为天人的美食，忍不住问：“太好吃了，你的秘诀是什么？”大厨只能回答：“秘诀？我在烹饪学校全职学了六年，这就是秘诀。”生活中的智慧绝不是印在保险杠贴纸上的一句箴言。泰森送给史蒂文的忠告十分简练： - 保持警觉（stay alert），敏锐观察周围的世界； - 保持好奇，每天学习新事物； - 从自身犯过的错误中汲取养分，切记不要在同一个坑里跌倒两次。 --- ### [01:51:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6674s) 面对分裂的美国：不要攻击政客，要去教育选民 史蒂文紧接着抛出了一个关乎现实的问题——刚搬到洛杉矶的他，很想知道泰森如何看待当下的美国。泰森的回答展现出了一名科学教育家独特的清醒与宽容。他指出，美国现任领导层正在推行许多打破历史常规、乃至与其所属政党以往风格都截然不同的政策，整个社会的政治撕裂超出了很多人的预料。许多人喜欢宣泄情绪抱怨领导者，但泰森提醒道：在一个自由民主的国家，领导人是全体公民投票选出来的。如果你对领导层不满，你真正该审视的是背后的选民群体。 泰森分享了一段亲身经历。他曾到访华盛顿特区雷伯恩办公大楼（Rayburn House Office Building）的科学委员会会议室，那里陈列着精美的科学艺术品与雕塑。然而，当时该委员会的其中一名议员竟是一位坚定的“年轻地球创造论者”（Young Earth creationist），坚信宇宙是在六天内创造的，地球历史最多只有六千到一万年。泰森回忆道，自己当时的第一反应也是荒谬与愤怒：“我是不是该冲上去揪住他的衣领大喊：‘你到底在想什么？你可是众议院科学委员会的成员！’” 但他随即冷静下来： 1. **反思权力来源**：这位议员之所以持有这种荒唐观点并坐在这个位置上，是因为投票选他的广大选民也是这么想的。 2. **定位自身职责**：作为一名同胞和科学教育家，指责或攻击这位身居华盛顿的政客毫无意义。真正的工作是深入到那些投票给他的选民中间，心平气和地与他们交谈：“你们为什么会这样认为？你们是否考虑过这些科学证据？” 最后，泰森谈到了自己的家庭传承。在当年美国民权运动风起云涌的年代，电视画面上充斥着南方警察用警犬撕咬、高压水枪喷射示威者的残酷场景。泰森的父母在看这些画面时，从未流露出怨毒与仇恨，而是语重心长地告诉孩子们：“这些人只是见识有限，他们不知道还有更好的方式。你必须去和他们沟通，去教育他们。”泰森总结道，举起拳头将对方视为仇敌去战斗，与怀揣同理心将其视为亟待启蒙的学生去施教，是两种截然不同的人生境界。 ### [01:54:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6847s) 基础科学的基石效应：为何我们总是误判未来 谈及公共决策与社会发展，尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）表达了他对选民做出背离自身长远利益决策的深切担忧。其中最致命的短视莫过于削减基础科学预算。许多人仅仅因为读不懂晦涩的研究论文标题，或是科学家未能以通俗有趣的方式向公众解释，便武断地将其视为“浪费公帑”，叫嚣着“不如把钱全省下来直接搞工程”。然而泰森一针见血地指出：“基础科学滋养工程学，工程学驱动经济体（Basic science feeds engineering, engineering feeds economies）。”如果基础研究的源头被掐断，社会的发展就会僵化停滞。 为了说明基础科学为何无法在短期内被功利地衡量，泰森以 20 世纪 20 年代量子力学的诞生为例。正值量子力学建立百周年之际，泰森回顾道，在 1920 年代，大众完全有理由质疑那些物理学家：“你们为什么要研究连肉眼都看不见的原子？别浪费时间了，去做点对当务之急有用的研究吧！”然而正是这些看似不切实际的微观探索，历经数十年的沉淀与发酵，在 1950 年代展现出惊人的威力，并最终成为了现代信息技术革命的基石——当今数字化信息的创建、存储与调取，无一不是建立在对量子特性的开发和利用之上的。 泰森接着提到了 1876 年费城世博会上亚历山大·格拉汉姆·贝尔（Alexander Graham Bell）展示电话原型的历史公案。当时人们在报刊上赞叹这项新发明，甚至满怀信心地预言：“这真是一项伟大的发明，我想象未来也许每个城市都会有一部电话。”泰森在自己的著作中专门开辟了“科学与技术”章节，记录人们如何频繁误判当代技术并惨遭打脸。基础科学始终是在最底层静默生根、向上渗透，聪明的工程师随后将其转化，最终催生出像 iPad 这样彻底颠覆人类生活的产品，而这种跨越式的变革，是身处底层研究阶段的人永远无法预料到的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 科学创新传导链条 accDescr: 展示从底层基础科学研究最终演进为颠覆性经济科技产品的传导路径 subgraph Discovery ["源头发现阶段"] A["底层基础科学<br/>（如 1920 年代量子力学）"] end subgraph Application ["技术工程转化"] B["工程应用与技术开发<br/>（信息存储、半导体研发）"] end subgraph Impact ["社会经济成果"] C["经济繁荣与颠覆性终端<br/>（信息革命、现代数字设备）"] end A --> B B --> C ``` - **创新传导法则**：基础科学孕育工程技术，工程技术驱动宏观经济；直接跳过基础科学只做工程，必然导致技术源头的枯竭与“僵死（ossified in place）”。 - **历史盲点**：1876 年人们对电话的极限想象是“未来每个城市可能都有一部”，完全低估了底层技术的普及潜力。 --- ### [01:57:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=7025s) 悔恨的悖论与青年时期不可挽回的傲慢 访谈进入尾声，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）引出了节目固有的压轴传统：由上一位未公开身份的嘉宾为下一位嘉宾留下一道问题。留给泰森的提问是：“你有多擅长预判自己未来会后悔的事？你人生中是否有真正后悔的事？”泰森直言，预判后悔在逻辑上几乎是个伪命题。如果你真能提前洞悉并预料到某种行为会带来悔恨，你必然会抢先一步阻止它发生；正是因为人们总是在行事之后回看当下，才会猛然惊呼“见鬼，我不该那样做的”，后悔因而永远是事后诸葛亮。 在主持人的追问下，泰森神情转为凝重，袒露了自己一生中最为痛悔的一件事。那是在他在哈佛大学（Harvard University）主修物理学的大三时期，一批来自其他高中的学生来校参加暑期科研项目，泰森担任辅导指导。在项目结束撰写学术评估时，泰森写下了一份“精准但毫无必要”的评语。他在报告中毫不留情地直斥一名高中生“假装懂自己根本不懂的事”、“是在弄虚作假”，言辞极其刻薄且令人沮丧。 泰森自责地反思道，当时身为哈佛物理高材生的自己，心智尚未成熟，根本不懂得如何在陈述客观事实的同时给予年轻学子以建设性的激励。他只是冷酷地用上帝视角宣判“你走不通这条路，回老家去吧”。尽管评语在事实层面没有错，但这种居高临下的打击极可能彻底浇灭了一位年轻人的科学火种。那个高中生此后再也没有联系过他，甚至可能彻底退出了这一学科。泰森足足花了四年时间，才领悟到那份评语有多么不可挽回与恶劣，这也成为了他心中最深沉的憾恨。 - **教育者的失职**：作为导师，真正的使命是在指出弱点的同时提供改进路径并给予激励，而非以事实为借口行摧毁他人信心之实。 - **不可逆的负面影响**：泰森至今依然无法释怀自己的傲慢文字究竟对那名学生的人生轨迹造成了怎样负面的连锁反应。 --- ### [02:01:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=7281s) 终身救赎、世俗灵性与 67 岁的处世箴言 那段年轻时犯下的过错深刻塑造了泰森后来的教育者人格。时至今日，每当泰森为学生撰写推荐信或评估报告时，他都会情不自禁地想起那份哈佛时期的报告，警醒自己该如何以更有建设性、更能托举他人的方式去表达。他坦言自己只能通过在往后的岁月里尽己所能地帮助成百上千的人克服弱点、向上攀升，来作为内心的代偿与救赎。 史蒂芬·巴特利特深受触动，坦陈泰森对其人生的深远影响。史蒂芬提到自己在 18 岁时放下了宗教信仰，一度陷入无神论与不可知论的迷茫，正是泰森主持的纪录片《宇宙》（*Cosmos*）以及他的科普著述，让自己在浩瀚星空中重新找回了敬畏感、好奇心与纯粹的“魔法”，宇宙本身成为了他精神力量的终极源泉。泰森欣慰地回应称：“宇宙确实是一个充满精神寄托的丰富宝库（a rich repository of spiritual fulfillment）。” 在节目临近尾声时，泰森微笑着推翻了自己之前“不爱给人提建议”的说法，为年轻人送上了一份沉甸甸的“67岁人生智慧”。泰森语重心长地告诫道：“任何时候，都永远不要过高估计自己的想法（At no time should you overvalue your own thoughts）。”他强调，真正的智慧不是坚信自己掌握了真理，而是每天都保持谦卑，敞开胸怀接纳那些足以颠覆、挑战你既有全部认知的新思想。正当史蒂芬追问“如果我连自己的想法都不能确信，我又该如何认识自我”时，泰森给出了发人深省的思想火花。 - **智慧的核心定义**：真正的智慧源于每日心甘情愿地被新知“击碎并重塑（humbled daily）”，永远不让自己的心智被既有成见固化。 - **新书与精神寄托**：谈话中还推荐了泰森的全新修订作品《只是暂访这颗星球：默林解答有关日、月、星辰的更多疑问》（*Just Visiting This Planet: Merlin Answers More Questions about Everything under the Sun, Moon and Stars*），将科学视为安顿现代人精神的寄托之所。 ### [02:03:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=7438s) 三十亿秒的人生旅程与终身学习的视角 在探讨人生遗憾与自我认知的语境中，尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森指出，只有当一个人真正躺在临终病榻上时，才有资格盖棺定论，因为那时生命才算完整谢幕；而在此之前，每个人都只是一件“未完成的作品”（work in progress）。泰森算了一笔极具天文学家浪漫与精确风格的时间账：主持人史蒂文如今 33 岁，而在他 31 岁那年，他刚刚度过了生命中的第“十亿秒”。如果一个人保持健康的生活方式，一生大致能拥有 30 亿秒的时间，这意味着至少可以活到 93 岁以上。 随着时间一分一秒流逝，泰森强调了保持开放思维与持续学习的重要性。如果每天都能学到新的知识，这种持续的输入就会强行赋予我们新的背景信息与观察维度，从而对昨天自以为掌握的认知产生全新的审视视角。人必须始终对自己保持这种思想上的开放度，才不至于僵化在过往的认知偏见里。 - **生命的秒数尺度**：大约在 31 岁零 251 天左右，人会迎来自己的第 10 亿秒；若能活到 93 岁左右，则能度过人生中的第 30 亿秒。 - **认知的动态迭代**：每一天吸收的新知都会给既有知识体系引入额外情境（context），迫使人推翻昨日的绝对确信。 ### [02:04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=7474s) 站在“无知之境”边缘的谦逊：现代社会的一剂良药 为了时刻警醒自己，泰森习惯去翻阅古老的科学专著，观察昔日学者对自己所掌握知识的那种笃定与自信。他坦言，以今天的眼光回顾当年的论述，有时甚至让人感到尴尬，但这恰恰是极具启发性和令人谦卑的体验。他举了一本出版于 1899 年关于太阳的天文著作：作者在序言中满怀热情地写道，过去三年里人类对太阳的了解取得了突飞猛进的发展，以至于他不得不重新修订三年前刚出版的旧版。而站在现代天体物理学角度来看，1899 年人类对太阳的内部机制（如核聚变）根本一无所知。然而那位作者所展现的探索喜悦是真诚的，这种历史对照时刻提醒着泰森自己身处何地——永远伫立在“无知的边界”（perimeter of ignorance）之上。未被发现的宇宙奥秘，永远远远多于人类已经掌握的琐碎片段。 史蒂文随即感慨，这种对自身无知的深刻自省与谦卑，或许正是当下社会最迫切需要的一剂解药。泰森对此深表赞同，直言当今社会的症结就在于每个人在掌控和管理事务时，都盲目自大，深信自己比所有其他人都懂得更多。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 认知与探索的无知边界图 accDescr: 展示人类已知领域向未知的探索如何带来科学谦逊与社会反思 subgraph Known ["已知与确信的历史错觉"] A["过去对科学的绝对确信<br/>（如 1899 年对太阳的理解）"] --> B["新证据与新视角涌入<br/>（每日更新上下文）"] end subgraph Frontier ["无知的边界 (Perimeter of Ignorance)"] B --> C["认识到未知远胜已知<br/>（终身保持认知谦逊）"] end subgraph Remedy ["当下的社会解药"] C --> D["打破自以为是的傲慢<br/>提供现代社会急需的反思"] end ``` ## Notable quotes > [13:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=820s) 在厚度上，地球的大气层之于地球，就如同苹果的果皮之于苹果。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [24:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=1476s) 我不关心你的观点是什么，我也不在乎你是否赞同我的观点。作为一名教育家、尤其是一名科学家，我唯一在乎的是：你的观点是否建立在客观事实与客观真理的基础之上。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [30:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=1819s) 这令人感伤，但绝非悲剧。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [40:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2405s) 我还有得选吗？ — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [40:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2405s) 若未曾为人类赢得某种胜利，切莫愧怍离世。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [44:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=2676s) 把我从这个地球上带走吧。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [01:16:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=4580s) 如果你声称把外星人锁在箱子里却不拿出来给大家检验，对科学家来说，这就等同于你根本没有外星人。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [01:30:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5412s) 学会去爱问题本身。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [01:30:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=5412s) 随着我们知识面积的扩大，我们无知的周长也在成倍延伸……你在试图寻找答案，而我正在试图寻找全新的问题。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [01:43:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6212s) 如果对你而言，上帝存在于科学尚未涉足的领域，那么上帝就是一个不断后退的、由科学无知构成的狭小角落。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [01:54:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=6847s) 基础科学滋养工程学，工程学驱动经济体。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [02:01:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw&t=7281s) 任何时候，都永远不要过高估计自己的想法。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson ## Mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Bartlett, Elon Musk, SpaceX, NASA, StarTalk, Just Visiting this Planet: More Cosmic Quandaries from Dr. Tyson's Inbox, Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization, Cosmos, Horace Mann, Joyce Kilmer, Vera C. Rubin Observatory, Neuralink, Yuri Gagarin, Apollo program, Project Artemis, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, The Matrix, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Ketone-IQ, Adobe Express, Shopify, Rainer Maria Rilke, Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Alexander Graham Bell, Harvard University ## Video description Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, world-renowned astrophysicist, breaks down the universe, space, black holes, and the Big Bang, uncovering how Elon Musk, AI, SpaceX, and NASA are defining the future of humanity. As a science communicator, Neil is the host of StarTalk podcast, which covers science, pop culture and comedy. He is also the bestselling author of several books, such as ‘Astrophysics for People in a Hurry’ and the newly revised ‘Just Visiting this Planet: More Cosmic Quandaries from Dr. Tyson’s inbox’. In this explosive conversation, he explains: ◼️80% of Gen Z believe the stars control their life ◼️The dangerous lie we believe about life’s purpose, and what to do instead ◼️Why you have 20% of the same DNA as a banana ◼️Why AI’s real danger isn’t what Hollywood warned you about ◼️Why simulation theory might explain every disaster on Earth 00:00 Intro 02:43 The Big Questions About the Universe and Our Existence 10:55 Why We're Not Good at Feeling Oneness With Others 15:48 Has Science Shaped Your Beliefs About Religion? 20:15 Did Humans Evolve to Believe in Something? 25:00 Changing the Way We See the Universe 30:32 Did the Loss of Your Parents Change Your Views? 35:05 Do We Live in a Simulation? 40:05 Do We Have Free Will in Our Society? 43:44 Will We Be Able to Extend Our Lives Soon? 45:57 What Happens When We Extend Everyone's Lives? 48:57 Neil deGrasse Tyson on AI 53:28 Will We Travel to Mars in Our Lifetime? 1:00:01 How Long and How Far Is It to Mars? 1:02:43 Ads 1:04:13 What Would Happen If the Earth Got Swallowed by a Black Hole? 1:07:51 Could the Sun Become a Black Hole? 1:09:06 What Happens If the Sun Freezes? 1:10:37 Every Breath You Take Contains the History of the Universe 1:15:25 Is the Universe Infinite? 1:16:34 Do Aliens Exist? 1:19:37 Why Do You Think Aliens Exist? 1:25:38 The Physics Error in *The Matrix* 1:28:22 Ads 1:30:26 The Questions We Dream Of 1:33:26 Should We Argue About Meaning? 1:37:18 Are Horoscopes Really a Thing? 1:42:15 Are You Happier If You Believe in God? 1:46:54 What's the Biggest Advice You Have for Me? 1:51:32 What Do You Think of America Right Now? 1:57:25 Do You Have Any Regrets? Follow Neil: X - https://bit.ly/47m0sAz Instagram - https://bit.ly/48E3kuT Facebook - https://bit.ly/48VGmiL TikTok - https://bit.ly/46Y1na6 UK - You can pre-order Neil’s revised book, ‘Just Visiting This Planet: Merlin Answers More Questions about Everything under the Sun, Moon and Stars’, here: https://amzn.to/4o9IXKo US - You can pre-order Neil’s revised book, ‘Just Visiting This Planet: Merlin Answers More Questions about Everything under the Sun, Moon and Stars’, here: https://amzn.to/3Wxvsbq The Diary Of A CEO: ◼️Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼️Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼️The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼️The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb ◼️Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼️Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: "Shopify - https://shopify.com/bartlett KetoneIQ - Visit https://ketone.com/STEVEN for 30% off your subscription order Adobe Express - http://ADOBE.LY/STEVEN " [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw)

[13:40] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 在厚度上，地球的大气层之于地球，就如同苹果的果皮之于苹果。 [24:36] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 我不关心你的观点是什么，我也不在乎你是否赞同我的观点。作为一名教育家、尤其是一名科学家，我唯一在乎的是：你的观点是否建立在客观事实与客观真理的基础之上。 [30:19] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 这令人感伤，但绝非悲剧。 [40:05] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 我还有得选吗？ [40:05] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 若未曾为人类赢得某种胜利，切莫愧怍离世。 [44:36] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 把我从这个地球上带走吧。 [76:20] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 如果你声称把外星人锁在箱子里却不拿出来给大家检验，对科学家来说，这就等同于你根本没有外星人。 [90:12] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 学会去爱问题本身。 [90:12] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 随着我们知识面积的扩大，我们无知的周长也在成倍延伸……你在试图寻找答案，而我正在试图寻找全新的问题。 [103:32] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 如果对你而言，上帝存在于科学尚未涉足的领域，那么上帝就是一个不断后退的、由科学无知构成的狭小角落。 [114:07] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 基础科学滋养工程学，工程学驱动经济体。 [121:21] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 任何时候，都永远不要过高估计自己的想法。

[2:43] Neil deGrasse Tyson: Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. [4:51] Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's not that we are alive in the universe... the universe is alive within us. [25:20] Neil deGrasse Tyson: If you have an opinion where the foundation of it is 'What do you... What?' then you're just floating... shaping a society based on what you think is true or want to be true rather than what is objectively true, that's a recipe for the unraveling of civilization as we know it. [41:12] Neil deGrasse Tyson: When I was 30, I was an idiot. Even when I was 30, I thought I was brilliant. [43:31] Neil deGrasse Tyson: If people start living forever, they're living forever in the part of their life that is least useful to the progress and advance of culture and civilization. And so, all of civilization will stagnate. [72:01] Neil deGrasse Tyson: There's no force of nihilism in the knowledge, wisdom, and insight you get by studying the universe. [72:01] Neil deGrasse Tyson: You will never find marching armies led by astrophysicists to go slaughter one another. The cosmic perspective prevents that. [75:00] Neil deGrasse Tyson: We are describing aliens not as we think they would be, but as we know we are to one another. It's a mirror. [80:12] Neil deGrasse Tyson: You're trying to find answers, and I'm trying to find the questions. [93:37] Neil deGrasse Tyson: If to you God is where science has yet to tread, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. [96:28] Neil deGrasse Tyson: You're thinking this is one sentence I could tell you and then that'll make everything better. No. Just stay alert. Learn new stuff every day. And learn from your mistakes because those lessons are greater than someone just telling you to not do it. [107:25] Neil deGrasse Tyson: I didn't yet know how to speak encouragingly about someone, separate from just speaking factually about someone... As an educator, you want to encourage people. You see where the weaknesses are and figure out ways to have that person eradicate them, improve upon them, rather than just say, 'This is not working. Go home.'

[0:00] Surveys find that roughly 80% of Gen Z [0:02] believe in astrology and many tell [0:03] others to influence major life [0:05] decisions. [0:05] >> But what would be sad is if that number [0:08] got to 100% then this civilization just [0:10] goes back to the cave where everything [0:12] that happened in the natural world was [0:14] created by forces beyond our knowledge [0:16] and understanding. So if you want to [0:18] think you're not in control of your fate [0:19] because the sun, moon, and planets are, [0:21] it's a free country. But I'm creating [0:23] meaning in my life cuz I can control [0:25] that. [0:26] >> But is there anything that the universe [0:28] does to influence us? [0:30] >> Yes. [0:30] >> Really? [0:31] >> Yeah, and I'll tell you how. You ready? [0:33] >> Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the most [0:35] recognizable voices in modern science [0:37] who turns the mysteries of the universe [0:39] into simple truths [0:40] >> and simple truths into life lessons. [0:42] >> As a scientist it's disturbing how [0:44] easily people divide each other based on [0:46] skin color, religion, what food you eat, [0:48] what language they speak, and then they [0:49] find some other philosophy that differs [0:51] and then they go to war. But when I step [0:52] back with a cosmic perspective you [0:54] realize how ridiculous it is. [0:56] >> Give me the cosmic perspective. [0:57] >> Well, there's nothing that we can put on [0:59] the table that can rival the [1:00] measurements of the universe and we are [1:02] literally composed of stardust. So when [1:04] people think they're different they have [1:05] DNA in common with all of the life forms [1:07] on Earth. Like you have 20% identical [1:10] genes to a banana. [1:11] >> Excuse me. [1:13] >> Okay, we all do, not just you. And [1:14] that's not all. There are molecules that [1:16] went in and out of your lungs that are [1:17] in China being breathed by people there [1:19] and go further back. Jesus inhaled them. [1:21] So how's that [1:22] >> for oneness with others? That can't be [1:24] true. [1:24] >> And that's the next problem. People [1:26] value what they think is true more than [1:29] what is true. That's a recipe for the [1:31] unraveling of civilization as we know [1:32] it. But as a scientist show me the data. [1:35] >> As someone that knows so much about the [1:36] universe and objective truth I've got a [1:38] lot of questions. So what do you think [1:40] is the probability of me getting to [1:41] another planet in my lifetime? And then [1:43] could you make the case that the [1:44] universe is simulated by some sort of [1:46] advanced life form? And also did humans [1:48] evolve at some point to believe? And do [1:50] you think you would be happier if you [1:51] believed in God? [1:52] >> Oh, so you're going to spice this up a [1:54] bit. Okay, so [1:58] >> I see messages all the time in the [2:00] comment section that some of you didn't [2:01] realize you didn't subscribe. So, if you [2:03] could do me a favor and double-check if [2:05] you're a subscriber to this channel, [2:06] that would be tremendously appreciated. [2:07] It's the simple It's the free thing that [2:10] anybody that watches this show [2:11] frequently can do to help us here to [2:12] keep everything going in this show in [2:14] the trajectory it's on. So, please do [2:16] double-check if you subscribed and thank [2:18] you so much because in a strange way you [2:20] are you're part of our history and [2:22] you're on this journey with us and I [2:23] appreciate you for that. So, yeah, thank [2:25] you. [2:29] I've been watching a lot of videos of [2:30] yours, I think because I've reached the [2:32] stage in my life where I've become [2:33] really existentially curious. [2:36] >> I think we all do at some point and [2:39] especially the more you've lived, [2:41] the more [2:43] it all sort of [2:44] you ask, "What does it all mean? How [2:45] does it all come together? [2:47] What will it mean in to me in 5 years, [2:49] 10 years?" [2:51] Uh I don't know if you're old enough to [2:53] think about your mortality. [2:55] Uh [2:56] but that's a thing. [2:58] When you have fewer years left than the [2:59] years you've lived and [3:02] and you can [3:04] I think the way they say it is there's [3:06] you can have a good expectation to live [3:09] as long as your parents did. I lost both [3:11] of them in the last 5 years. [3:13] So, [3:14] so that's my [3:16] horizon and [3:18] the fact that we die [3:22] has a [3:23] capacity to bring focus into the [3:25] remaining time you're alive. [3:28] Cuz think about it, if knowing you're [3:30] going to die [3:32] brings focus [3:34] and purpose [3:36] and resolve [3:38] and action, [3:40] then if you lived forever, [3:42] what's your hurry? [3:44] For me, knowing I'm going to die [3:47] gives meaning [3:49] to my remaining life. [3:52] Whereas if I'm never going to die, [3:54] then mathematically, that would mean [3:56] I'd lead a life of no meaning at all. [3:59] Because there's there's no way to focus [4:01] an infinity amount of time into anything [4:03] and have it be meaningful. So, [4:06] I'm taking mortality as a very serious [4:08] force operating [4:10] on happiness, productivity, [4:13] can you do something for the world? [4:15] And on my tombstone, [4:18] what I want to say, [4:20] what I want it to say is a quote from [4:22] Horace Mann, [4:23] "Be ashamed to die [4:25] until you have won some victory for [4:27] humanity." [4:29] I want to have made a difference in the [4:30] world. I want the world to have been [4:31] better off because I lived in it. [4:34] Is that too much to ask of any of us, [4:36] really? [4:38] We're all capable of good deeds. [4:40] So, [4:41] if the world is better off, I'm I've [4:45] played my part [4:47] as a citizen of planet Earth. [4:49] >> And this sort of dovetails into this new [4:52] book that you've written. Um, it's I [4:54] call it a new book, but it's really a [4:55] revision of a [4:56] very successful book that uh I think the [4:58] first copy was published in 1998 [5:01] called Just Visiting the Planet, Further [5:02] Scientific Adventures of Merlin from [5:06] Amnesia. [5:07] >> Amnesia, yeah. [5:09] >> When I think about these bigger [5:10] questions about the universe, meaning, [5:12] purpose, death, why am I here, [5:15] religion, all these things, [5:17] so often I think about them through the [5:19] context and information that I find in [5:21] your work because when I think of like [5:23] the world being so big, as you talk [5:25] about in this book, and so infinite, and [5:27] all these stars, [5:29] I feel meaningless. [5:30] In a nice way, sometimes. I feel like [5:32] the that I [5:34] that I worry about no longer matters. [5:36] But then when you talk about [5:37] >> You feel meaningless in a happy way. [5:39] >> Yeah, yeah. [5:40] I feel like the things that cause me [5:42] uh suffering don't matter as much as I [5:44] thought they did. And then you talked [5:46] about shortening time by realizing that [5:48] you're going to live for 90 years or or [5:50] 80 years, creating great amounts of [5:52] meaning. [5:53] And it feels somewhat like a I don't [5:55] know. [5:56] >> Yes, the universe is huge in size, in [5:59] age, [6:01] in contents. [6:03] There's nothing we can put on the table [6:06] that can rival [6:07] those measurements that we make of the [6:09] universe. [6:11] However, [6:12] >> How big? [6:13] >> Uh well, [6:15] there's the light from the most distant [6:17] galaxies has been traveling for nearly [6:20] 14 billion years. [6:22] 10 billion years more [6:24] than Earth has even existed. [6:27] If you want to get a sense of that. And [6:30] so [6:31] But think about it a whole other way. [6:35] That [6:36] if you look at the ingredients of life, [6:39] not just human life, but life on Earth, [6:41] and you can rank the elements. [6:44] What's the number one element in life? [6:46] We mentioned the human body. Number one [6:48] element is hydrogen. [6:50] That's contained in the H2O [6:53] of the water content of your body, [6:55] which depending on how chubby you are, [6:57] it can [6:58] anywhere from a half to 3/4 of your body [7:01] weight is water. [7:03] And all right, what's the next most [7:06] abundant element in your body? It's [7:08] oxygen. [7:10] Attached to the water, okay? H2O, and [7:13] both the H and the O appear in many, [7:15] many other molecules in our body. [7:17] In the DNA and in your muscle tissue, [7:19] all of this. [7:20] And in the blood. [7:22] Okay. [7:23] What's third? Carbon. [7:26] Which you would have thought had to be [7:27] somewhere on the list cuz you know we're [7:29] carbon-based life. [7:31] Fourth is nitrogen. [7:33] Okay? [7:34] Fifth, I'll put them all together and [7:35] just say other, okay? So, that's the [7:38] sequence of elements. And now you say, [7:41] "What are the sequence of elements in [7:43] the universe? [7:44] The number one is hydrogen. [7:46] The number two is helium, but that's [7:48] chemically inert. You might remember [7:49] from high school chemistry. You can't do [7:51] anything with it. Anyway, helium. Next [7:54] in the universe, oxygen. Next, carbon. [7:57] Next, nitrogen. [7:59] Next, [8:00] other. Okay. So, we are one for one [8:04] matched to the ingredients of the [8:06] universe. And [8:09] one of the gifts of 20th century [8:11] astrophysics [8:12] is [8:13] gifts to civilization is where those [8:16] ingredients came from. [8:19] We trace those ingredients. [8:21] The hydrogen to the Big Bang itself. [8:24] And all these heavier elements to stars [8:26] that manufactured those elements in [8:29] their core, in the crucible that is [8:31] their core. They lived out their lives. [8:33] They exploded, scattered that enrichment [8:35] into gas clouds, so that the next [8:38] generation of stars [8:40] would have planets. [8:41] And on at least one of them [8:44] have life as we know it. [8:46] Life on Earth. [8:48] So that [8:50] we you you can think of us not just [8:53] figuratively, [8:55] but literally composed of stardust. [8:59] And so so that it's not that we are [9:02] alive in the universe. Yes, that's true. [9:05] But the universe is alive within us. [9:08] So, we're special [9:10] because we're the same as the universe. [9:14] Often when people think they're special, [9:16] I want to be different from it. No. [9:18] We're same because we have human DNA on [9:22] an Earth [9:23] where we have DNA in common with all [9:25] other animals, [9:27] all other life forms on Earth. [9:29] Do you realize we we [9:31] and mushrooms [9:33] have more in common with each other [9:37] than either we or mushrooms have with [9:39] green plants. [9:41] The common ancestor between fungus and [9:43] animals split later in the tree of life [9:46] than its common ancestor split with [9:48] green plants. [9:50] You you have 20% identical genes to a [9:54] banana. [9:55] >> EXCUSE ME. [9:57] >> OKAY, WE ALL DO, not just you. NOT JUST [9:59] YOU. [10:00] YOU have the [10:02] So, [10:03] when you consider all of this, [10:07] it's it's it's not just that we're alive [10:10] in the universe, [10:12] the universe is alive within us. [10:15] And that that discovery [10:18] borders on the spiritual. [10:20] >> Yeah. [10:20] >> And it's a scientific result. [10:23] So, when I look up at night, [10:25] I never feel small. [10:27] I feel large. [10:29] I feel as large as the universe itself, [10:32] cuz that's where we came from. We're [10:34] participant in a great unfolding story [10:38] of cosmic evolution. [10:41] >> The minute you said that, I thought of [10:42] all these Eastern traditions and [10:43] religions that say we are one. [10:47] And from a scientific perspective, [10:49] as you say, we very much are [10:51] one. [10:52] >> Yeah, it's what's interesting is [10:55] one of my deep concerns about the world [10:57] is many [10:59] philosophies or religions that say we [11:01] are one, they find some other philosophy [11:03] that differs and then they go to war. [11:05] >> Yeah. [11:06] >> I don't mean to laugh at that, but it's [11:08] we're not good at [11:10] feeling oneness with everyone. [11:12] It's easy to feel oneness with our [11:14] tribe. [11:15] Our tribe could be skin color, religion, [11:18] who you sleep with, who you don't sleep [11:19] with, what food you eat, what rituals [11:21] you perform. And so, those [11:25] people choose sides based on so many [11:29] factors [11:31] that [11:32] I I It's actually to me just as a [11:34] scientist, it's disturbing [11:36] how easily and quickly we will divide [11:40] each other [11:41] without and make that the reason for how [11:44] you interact rather than see what we [11:46] have in common [11:48] and make that the reason for why we [11:49] would come together. [11:51] >> This has been really front of mind for [11:52] me for the last 24 hours. There's been a [11:54] lot of things that have happened in the [11:55] news that have [11:57] thrown the conversation around division [11:58] to the very front of my mind. And that, [12:00] you know, in the UK we've got all these [12:01] people that are marching next week, I [12:03] believe, um [12:04] through London because of, you know, [12:06] various political things. And I was [12:08] saying to my friends last night, I said, [12:09] "I think actually that the root cause [12:10] isn't this or that, it's the division [12:13] itself." [12:14] And it's [12:15] >> Yeah, you can overanalyze. I mean, if [12:17] you look deeper than whatever people are [12:19] saying is the reason they are marching [12:22] or arguing [12:23] if you just um you know, part the [12:25] curtains and unpack it all [12:27] at the bottom of that is [12:30] there's a tribe here and a tribe here [12:32] and they think this way and they think [12:33] that way and never the twain meet [12:38] unless we rethink how we interact with [12:41] one another. It's it's [12:44] I mean, think about it. [12:46] You know, with [12:47] the race [12:50] the race friction that existed [12:52] around the world, but especially in in [12:55] colonial [12:56] Europe and the slave trade and all of [12:59] this and [13:01] and okay, that's not good. [13:04] It's bad. [13:05] Uh and [13:07] all right, but then you look at World [13:09] War I and World War II [13:11] that's white people fighting white [13:13] people [13:14] slaughtering them in great numbers. So, [13:16] you can divide by skin color, but [13:18] apparently people find plenty of reasons [13:21] to divide and conquer to divide and kill [13:24] to divide and oppress [13:26] and and skin color is one in a long list [13:29] of all the reasons people have given [13:31] to the religious wars, to worshipping [13:35] the different God, or worshipping the [13:36] God differently. These are human beings. [13:38] And you know, I wrote a whole book, one [13:40] of I think one of those books in your [13:41] stash there, that one. Yeah, cosmic [13:45] perspectives on civilization, the one in [13:48] your left hand there. [13:49] That one is [13:51] is what conflict in the world looks like [13:55] when you are scientifically literate [13:58] and you have a dose of cosmic [13:59] perspective on top of it. [14:01] >> Give me the cosmic perspective, please. [14:04] >> It's [14:06] you're fighting over that line in the [14:08] sand [14:09] when I'm out here at the moon looking at [14:11] Earth [14:12] this fragile ecosystem. [14:15] Do you realize Earth's atmosphere is to [14:17] Earth [14:18] what the skin of an apple is to an apple [14:21] in terms of thickness? So, [14:24] I I see people trashing the planet [14:27] fighting one another again, just based [14:29] on who's on what side of the line in the [14:31] sand, or who they worship, who they [14:32] don't worship, or what their skin color [14:33] is, or where they were born, what [14:35] language they speak, what accent they [14:36] have. [14:37] And I step back, and from orbit [14:41] it's [14:43] ocean, land [14:45] clouds. [14:48] From the moon, there's Earth suspended [14:50] there in space. [14:53] I almost don't want to zoom in on it [14:57] because [14:58] people [14:59] value what they think is true [15:02] more than what [15:05] is true. There are objective truths out [15:07] there. [15:08] But it's almost as though people [15:13] fight and argue more vehemently the less [15:16] evidence there is to support what it is [15:18] they think is true. [15:21] There's an old saying, if an argument [15:22] lasts more than 5 minutes, then both [15:25] sides are wrong. [15:28] This I I it's true probably 80 90% of [15:30] the time, but it's something definitely [15:32] something to think about. [15:34] >> How have your spiritual and religious [15:36] beliefs evolved throughout the course of [15:38] your career based on all that you've [15:40] come to know about the objective nature [15:42] of the universe? Has there been an [15:43] evolution? [15:45] >> It depends on what you mean by [15:45] evolution. I was raised Catholic. [15:47] >> Yeah. [15:48] >> But we were raised basically in a [15:49] secular household. [15:51] Even though we would go to church every [15:53] weekend. What I mean by that is we come [15:55] home at no time do either of my parents [15:58] say, "Don't do that. Jesus is watching. [16:00] You keep that up, you'll go to hell. Do [16:02] this cuz it'll please God." [16:05] Never was there such a conversation as [16:07] that [16:08] in the household. [16:10] So, the household was driven by [16:14] objective truths or or life experience [16:16] as would be brought from elders to the [16:18] next generation. Something that was more [16:20] common in that generation than in the [16:22] current generation because now elders [16:25] don't know anything about anything. [16:27] You know, your kid comes up to you and [16:28] say, "Mommy, Daddy, I want to be a a [16:30] YouTube influencer." And you're saying, [16:32] "What?" Go back to school. No. And then [16:35] they become a YouTube influencer and [16:36] they outearn you. So, there's the the [16:39] the divide is greater than ever before [16:41] between one generation and the next, for [16:43] sure. But, by the time I turned eight, [16:47] I found the religious teachings less and [16:49] less convincing. [16:51] And so, by the time I I was nine when I [16:53] discovered the universe, or really the [16:55] universe discovered me, a first visit to [16:58] my local planetarium. So, yeah, I I [17:00] wouldn't call it an evolution, but I [17:02] will say this, [17:03] you didn't ask this, but it relates. [17:06] Before I was more recognized, you know, [17:09] I'd be on an airplane, "What do you do? [17:11] What do you do?" Okay. They find out I [17:13] do astrophysics. Then out come the [17:15] questions. Okay. "Oh, tell me about [17:17] black holes, relativity, the Big Bang, [17:19] Okay. [17:20] aliens, okay? And it always land [17:24] on God. [17:25] And I used to give [17:27] pretty straight [17:29] unforgiving answers to that question, to [17:32] that inquiry. But then I thought that's [17:33] not fair. [17:34] There are people whose lives pivot [17:37] around their religious beliefs and their [17:38] spirituality. [17:40] And just cuz I've been discounting it [17:42] since I was eight, [17:44] I shouldn't use that as a force [17:48] against them. I should at least [17:52] understand where they're coming from. [17:54] So, I systematically [17:56] acquired religious books [17:59] of all kinds. So, I have the Torah. I [18:02] have multiple copies of the Quran, [18:04] Joseph Smith's account that led to the [18:07] Mormons. I have uh multiple [18:10] uh [18:12] bits of literature from Jehovah's [18:14] Witnesses. Cuz they'll come to your door [18:15] and they want to hand you So, I acquired [18:17] all these books and I mostly read them. [18:21] I've skimmed all of them and read some [18:23] of them with a little more intensity [18:24] than others. All right. [18:27] On doing so, that enabled me, empowered [18:31] me [18:32] to have more meaningful conversations [18:34] with people [18:35] who were religious. [18:38] Much more meaningful and more informed. [18:40] That's the key. I don't want to speak [18:42] about a religion unless I know as much [18:45] as I can about it. As an academic, that [18:47] should be what [18:48] would be true of any subject. You're an [18:51] academic, you care what's true, not what [18:53] you think is true, what is true. Or what [18:55] people think. Hm. All right? And [18:58] there's no doubt that religion has been [19:00] one of the greatest forces operating on [19:02] civilization [19:03] ever since civilization. [19:05] When you look at uh as a source of [19:08] people's behavior, what they eat, like I [19:10] said, who they sleep with, where they [19:12] sleep, where they worship, who they [19:14] worship. All around the world, from [19:16] animistic native peoples, where there's [19:19] a spirit energy imbued in the in the [19:22] mountain, in the brook, in the wind, [19:25] to [19:27] uh the monotheistic religions to the [19:29] polytheistic religions. [19:31] Like we don't call them that to put [19:34] distance between us, but the Greek gods [19:37] were it was their religion. We call it [19:39] mythology. [19:41] It was their religion. The Greek gods, [19:43] the Roman gods. So, I'm [19:46] I'm conversational in all of this. So, [19:49] that when someone says, "How do I feel? [19:51] What do I think?" I can do that without [19:54] just [19:55] being obnoxious. [19:59] And so, and and it's a and we'll have a [20:00] meaningful conversation. [20:02] >> I haven't done that. [20:03] >> You haven't? [20:03] >> No, I haven't. I haven't but it's such a [20:05] good idea to do that, especially as [20:07] someone in my position that does a lot [20:08] of talking with people and asking [20:09] questions. But in my the first thing [20:11] that sprung to mind was there was [20:12] actually two questions that sprung to [20:13] mind. The first was [20:16] how did that change you? [20:18] Reading all those books, outside of you [20:20] being able to relate with those well, [20:22] being able to talk to them in a [20:23] different way. And the second question, [20:25] cuz I've watched Cosmos, I've watched it [20:27] several times. I just my one of my me [20:29] and my partner's favorite things to [20:30] watch is you you [20:32] going from the very beginnings of time [20:33] through the universe and to where we are [20:35] >> to love that calendar, too. The Cosmos [20:37] calendar. [20:37] >> favorite thing. And I try and persuade [20:39] everybody to watch that. My question was [20:40] about cuz I watched that and I watched [20:42] how the universe has evolved over time, [20:44] or at least our understanding of it and [20:46] and how it came to be, is did humans [20:50] evolve at some point to believe? Are we [20:52] meant to believe? [20:54] >> Well, [20:54] so, the best way to ask that is let's go [20:58] back to the earliest humans we have [21:00] fossil records of. And we can go back to [21:03] Neanderthal, for example. Uh [21:05] Neanderthals is a branch uh hominids [21:09] that went extinct basically. There's [21:11] some crossbreeding and there's [21:12] Neanderthal DNA in [21:15] many humans today. But as a as a branch [21:19] of of the hominids they they went [21:22] extinct. So the Neanderthal then there [21:23] was Cro-Magnon. We are you know Homo [21:26] sapiens coming after Cro-Magnon. And [21:31] so when you look at [21:33] burial grounds [21:35] the Neanderthal buried their dead with [21:38] things. With parts of their life of the [21:42] person who died. [21:44] Now why would you do that? [21:46] Unless you had some belief [21:50] that there was something more to come [21:52] for that person. [21:54] I mean that probably the people who took [21:56] it to the limit were the Egyptians. All [21:58] right, for the Egyptian royalty [22:01] I mean they bury you with all kinds of [22:02] stuff. [22:04] And in fact in Greece [22:06] I read this it's not that I researched [22:09] it and I'm not a scholar in this but [22:11] that [22:12] when they buried you they put a coin [22:15] in your mouth or in your hand somewhere [22:17] on your body. So that when you got into [22:20] Hades [22:21] you can tip the ferry boat driver [22:24] to cross the river sticks to get into [22:26] Hades. You might even say that's the [22:29] beginning of what it was to be human [22:30] when people started thinking that way [22:32] about dying. [22:34] >> Mhm. [22:35] >> You might even but [22:36] invert the question and say it's not [22:40] when did we start it's [22:42] we existed [22:44] in all the ways we know our self know [22:46] what ourselves to be when that ritual [22:50] came upon [22:52] our ancestors. [22:54] >> And the survival benefit in believing? [22:56] >> I don't know. [22:57] >> Really? [22:58] >> Yeah, I I don't know. [23:01] We we're pretty sure there's a survival [23:03] benefit [23:04] of group think. [23:06] And [23:08] religion [23:10] is group think if there ever was. It was [23:12] we will all believe this in this way and [23:16] we will behave in that way on those [23:18] occasions [23:19] and you will not deviate from it. [23:22] And part of that [23:23] package of beliefs includes statements [23:26] about the afterlife [23:28] and how you should behave in this life. [23:30] Otherwise, you don't go to heaven, you [23:32] go to hell. [23:33] I don't think Judaism has a hell, but [23:35] you you you're not as rewarded as you'd [23:37] otherwise be. [23:39] Now that forms a a corpus of beliefs [23:43] that can be highly binding [23:45] of a peoples. [23:47] And [23:48] especially if some other peoples come up [23:50] and they do other things and you don't [23:52] understand it, you don't know what it is [23:53] and they're they're threat. [23:56] And so you keep them out. You you do [23:59] whatever you can to preserve your [24:01] traditions relative to theirs. [24:03] Ultimately, the worst that in its worst [24:06] manifestation is all-out war. [24:08] We just kill people who don't believe [24:10] the way you do. [24:11] So [24:13] so maybe [24:15] religion is kind of what defined humans [24:18] in the fossil record. [24:20] I mean I like I said, that's an [24:21] interesting inversion of that question. [24:23] Not when did humans begin being [24:25] religious? [24:26] You define [24:29] who we are as humans as when religion [24:31] showed up in the [24:32] in the burial grounds of [24:35] of cavemen. [24:36] >> You just talked about us being bound [24:38] there by certain shared beliefs and [24:39] ideas. [24:40] >> Yes. [24:40] >> And I think increasingly [24:41] >> I think ritual is one of the strongest [24:43] binding forces of society that we have. [24:46] >> And I think that people are maybe [24:49] unbinding. You can if you look at the [24:51] narrative in society, it's about be your [24:52] own boss, stand on your own two feet. [24:54] More people are lonely, living alone, [24:56] um, having less kids, uh, working [24:58] freelance and remotely. So, it feels [25:01] like in a weird way we're becoming more [25:04] independent and there's a [25:06] somewhat of a cost to that. And actually [25:08] my friends that are struggling the most [25:09] in their lives are those that have the [25:11] least dependence [25:13] on a village. It's It's I always wonder [25:15] if people We need to ladder up to the [25:16] universe. I.e. me, my family, maybe my [25:20] village, maybe my country, [25:22] the planet, the universe. [25:24] >> In in in God. [25:26] >> Metaverse? Yeah. And like God. [25:27] >> The multiverse. Yeah. So, let me just [25:29] react to that. [25:31] There have been studies about the [25:33] psychological effects of this kind of [25:35] life. Basically, the the social media [25:38] too early in one's life [25:40] uh, [25:41] force that operates. But, I [25:45] So, I don't know. I don't want to be the [25:46] person who says, "In my day we did it [25:49] right and you you young'uns don't know [25:51] what you're doing and you're all going [25:52] to I mean [25:53] I've seen the films of people of [25:56] officials smashing pinball machines with [25:58] sledgehammers saying it will be the [26:01] death of the next generation. [26:03] Because [26:04] it's they're not studying, they're [26:06] they're it's gambling, they I've seen [26:08] You've seen See people burning rock and [26:10] roll records. Mhm. You know, you've seen [26:13] We've seen this. [26:14] And [26:15] I I'm I don't want to be that guy. I'd [26:18] rather be the person that says, [26:21] "They're going to create a whole other [26:22] reality [26:25] that was not my reality growing up. [26:27] And I don't know that I can or should [26:29] value judge that. [26:31] >> Mhm. [26:31] >> When they come up in the ranks, they'll [26:33] be mature adults. They'll figure out [26:36] what the rhythms are of that world. [26:38] And [26:40] I will say, however, that if you go far [26:41] enough back, no one ever traveled [26:43] anywhere. [26:44] You You You'd spend your whole life not [26:46] going more than 30 mi from your hometown [26:48] two a couple hundred years back. So, now [26:51] people do actually communicate [26:54] with countless thousands of people [26:57] around the world. [26:58] So, that's it's different. I'm Again, [27:00] I'm not value judging it, but it's [27:02] different. And you're exposed to [27:05] different ideas. It Maybe it tribalizes [27:07] you more or maybe it softens you. It has [27:10] the power to do both. [27:13] What concerns me [27:15] is cuz when I post to social media, I've [27:17] learned the art of not expressing an [27:18] opinion. [27:19] Because I don't care what your opinion [27:22] is. [27:23] I don't care that you have my opinion. [27:25] What I care about as an educator [27:27] and as especially as a scientist is that [27:29] your opinion is based on objective [27:33] reality, objective truths. [27:35] If you have an opinion where the [27:36] foundation of it is What do you What? [27:39] What? Then you're just floating. There's [27:40] no [27:42] And then if you rise to power [27:44] of laws and legislation, and then you [27:47] shape a society based on what you think [27:49] is true or want to be true rather than [27:51] what is objectively true, that's a [27:53] recipe for the unraveling of [27:55] civilization as we know it. [27:57] So, [27:58] uh this loneliness bit I I don't know [28:01] how to comment on that. I I don't have [28:03] the expertise. [28:04] But I do know that I don't want to be [28:06] the person on the rocking chair [28:09] "Get off my lawn." You know? [28:13] >> And I I I I guess I I've been trying to [28:15] figure out if we if I need to make try [28:17] and make sure my life ladder is upwards. [28:19] >> Oh, oh, let me get back to that. So, it [28:21] may be [28:23] that [28:24] the most important role of church [28:27] wasn't to give a specific recipe for how [28:31] you pray or again, who you pray to or [28:33] when you Maybe that's Maybe that wasn't [28:35] its greatest value. [28:36] Maybe its greatest value was the [28:38] community that it created. [28:40] >> Mhm. [28:42] >> Everyone comes together. [28:43] And they're all in one room [28:45] at the same time. [28:47] That's not happening today. Like you [28:49] said, there's a people are less [28:51] religious today than ever before. [28:53] Uh there many people who were once [28:55] religious would today statistically [28:57] would today say they're spiritual. [28:59] Which means they're separated from the [29:02] rules and regulations that [29:04] that typically [29:06] um dictate how you behave within a [29:08] religion. But the fact is you're talking [29:10] about going upwards, so you have your [29:13] your city, your community, your [29:15] neighbors, and your church, your [29:17] synagogue, your mosque, your your your [29:20] temple, whatever is the the the place [29:24] where you gather with some frequency. [29:27] Uh that [29:29] surely has value. [29:31] Because [29:33] we need each other. [29:35] I'm jealous when I you know, you drive [29:36] down the country road and there's a deer [29:39] just walking around. [29:40] And I'm thinking [29:42] you know, society collapsed, that deer [29:44] is just [29:46] The deer was born in the woods, is [29:48] finding food, is growing up. [29:52] Whereas I need other people to survive [29:55] in this world. [29:56] I don't know how to hunt, I don't know [29:57] how to skin game, I don't know how [30:00] you know, I'd like knowing that there's [30:01] a quart of milk waiting for me on the [30:04] grocery store. [30:05] And and you know, ready to eat cereals. [30:08] That's [30:10] We have an interdependence as never [30:11] before. [30:13] And how do we maintain that without [30:16] scattering to the winds? [30:19] >> You said you lost both your parents in [30:20] the last 5 years. [30:21] >> Yeah. [30:22] >> As someone that knows so much about the [30:24] universe and objective truth and [30:26] reality, how do you how do you contend [30:28] with grief in that scenario? But also [30:30] how does that does that change you in [30:31] any way? [30:33] >> It did a little bit. Not as much as I [30:35] thought it might have. [30:37] I My father was 89 when he died, that [30:39] was 5 years ago. My mother was [30:41] 2 days shy of her 95th birthday. [30:44] So that's what I'm So I'm putting myself [30:45] like right between them in my life [30:47] expectancy. I think I'll get to 92. [30:49] It's It's the average of those two, you [30:51] know. So [30:54] when you die at that age, [30:58] it's sad, but it's not tragic. [31:00] So I That's an important distinction for [31:03] me. [31:03] A tragic life is a life that could have [31:05] been lived, but through [31:07] act of [31:08] war or negligence or [31:11] or [31:12] negligence of the person or of others, [31:15] the life is cut short. [31:17] Then that's [31:19] tragic. [31:21] It's a life not fully lived. But if you [31:24] live the full life, [31:26] they were married 50-something years, [31:29] uh [31:31] it's sad, but it's not tragic. In fact, [31:32] it's not even sad. It's something to [31:34] celebrate. [31:36] And [31:37] so I miss them. [31:40] I I miss them more than I thought I [31:41] would. Because they carried quite a bit [31:44] of wisdom with them. My father was [31:45] active in the civil rights movement. My [31:47] mother [31:48] uh was a gerontologist. So they both [31:51] cared very deeply about the plight of [31:52] others. [31:53] And I'm their son, the astrophysicist. [31:56] But so I go off with my head in the sky, [31:59] but I was anchored [32:01] into the human condition. [32:03] And [32:04] anchored to think about it, to care [32:05] about it. And [32:08] when I encountered [32:11] things in modern life, [32:14] it's I wonder what my mother would say [32:15] about that. I wonder what insights my [32:17] father And they're not there. I don't [32:19] have them for that. [32:21] So the way it's changed me is [32:23] it has put a greater [32:25] expectation [32:26] of me on myself [32:29] to make sure I have wisdom that I can [32:32] share with my kids, my two kids. [32:35] The kind of wisdom that I glean from my [32:37] parents. [32:39] So that [32:40] again, this is not wisdom of what [32:43] car to buy or what job to have cuz they [32:45] have other values. But they have other [32:47] expectations of society. But in terms of [32:54] human to human interaction, in terms of [32:56] love, [32:57] terms of [32:59] challenges in life and overcoming them, [33:02] some of those are timeless. [33:04] Some of those are You know, how to how [33:06] to navigate difficult people, [33:08] how to appreciate [33:11] nature, [33:12] so you don't take it for granted. [33:15] Uh one of the things I liked about Joyce [33:17] Kilmer's poem [33:19] on a tree, [33:22] uh it's about a tree. And [33:24] we've all seen trees. [33:27] So [33:28] why does this matter? Because it takes [33:30] an artist, [33:32] a poet, a writer, a sculptor, a painter, [33:35] for me, [33:37] the artist's job [33:40] is to encourage us, stimulate us, [33:45] to pay attention to things we might [33:47] otherwise take for granted. [33:50] Because so much of life [33:53] is what you might just walk by [33:56] and not even give it any thought. [33:59] And so I don't walk by trees without [34:01] thinking something about that [34:03] poem. What What is the poem? [34:05] I think that I shall never see a poem [34:09] lovely as a tree. [34:11] A tree whose hungry mouth is pressed [34:14] against the earth's sweet flowering [34:16] breast. [34:17] A tree that looks at God all day [34:20] and lifts her leafy arms to pray. [34:24] A tree that may in summer wear a nest of [34:27] robins in her hair. [34:30] Upon whose bosom snow has lain, who [34:34] ultimately lives with rain. [34:37] Poems are made by fools like me, [34:41] but only God can make a tree. [34:49] >> But only God can make a tree. [34:52] I spend so long these days thinking and [34:54] talking to people about what all of this [34:56] means and I've got more and more I saw [34:58] you talking about the simulation theory [35:00] once or twice. [35:01] >> Mhm. [35:02] >> And I I started to fall into that that [35:04] whole of thinking [35:05] >> Oh yes, it's now you got to, you know, [35:08] step [35:09] step outside every now and then and, you [35:12] know, smell the roses. [35:14] >> But you said you wouldn't be surprised [35:16] if people found out the universe is [35:17] simulated by some sort of advanced life [35:20] form. [35:20] >> Yeah, given what we can now compute, [35:22] throw in quantum computing on top of [35:24] that, [35:25] I [35:26] we we don't have this power yet, but to [35:28] make a world in our computer where the [35:30] characters in that in that world believe [35:32] they have free will. [35:34] And then they conduct themselves and [35:36] then they invent computers and then they [35:38] make a world inside of their computer. [35:41] And where their characters think they [35:42] have free will. And then they So then [35:44] then it's this simulated universes all [35:47] the way down. [35:48] And [35:50] close your eyes and throw a dart, [35:52] which of these are you going to get the [35:53] first universe that invented the [35:56] simulated universe or the zillion ones [35:58] that followed? The dart is likely to hit [36:01] one of the others. [36:02] But my my escape hatch from that [36:06] is [36:08] since we do not yet know or have the [36:11] power to make a perfectly simulated [36:13] world, [36:14] it means we are either the first [36:17] universe that's real that hasn't created [36:20] one yet [36:21] or we're the last universe [36:24] that hasn't evolved yet to have created [36:26] one of its own. Cuz all the middles have [36:29] the power to create one. [36:31] So that takes it, you know, a zillion to [36:33] one against us to maybe 50/50. [36:36] >> Oh, interesting. Never heard that [36:38] before. [36:38] >> So I'm a little I'm a little more [36:39] comfortable that way. [36:42] >> Comfortable. [36:43] >> Yeah. I sleep a little better at night. [36:46] >> But it cuz it wouldn't matter anyway if [36:47] we [36:47] >> It actually It wouldn't matter. If we're [36:49] completely simulated, what do you care? [36:51] You're living your life. You I know we [36:53] don't want to believe that there are [36:55] puppet strings on us. [36:58] Um [36:59] part of me thinks that, though. [37:03] You know, just when Earth is kind of [37:04] everything on Earth is kind of stable, [37:07] oh, COVID shows up. Oh. So this is This [37:10] is the programmer saying, you know, the [37:11] Earth is too boring now. We got to spice [37:13] it up a bit. They throw in a pandemic. [37:16] Okay. Once-in-a-century pandemic. [37:19] Now Now we're entertaining for them. [37:21] What do we do? Who gets vaccinated? Who [37:23] doesn't? Who's going to fight? Who dies? [37:25] Who lives? Okay. So then we kind of get [37:28] through that. We get the vaccine. We're [37:30] going [37:31] Okay. Just calming down off of that. And [37:33] they said, "Oh, [37:36] let's make a billionaire real estate [37:37] developer from New York City the most [37:39] powerful person in the world. LET'S STIR [37:41] THE POT AGAIN." And so now there's a [37:43] whole other set of stir pot stirring [37:45] that's going on. So that's kind of [37:47] consistent [37:49] with [37:50] a snot-nosed alien [37:54] kid in the parents' basement programming [37:57] our existence. [38:00] That's what I would do. I would throw in [38:01] interest There's a game, Sim SimCity. [38:05] Yeah. I played that. That's how old I [38:06] am. SimCity. So you're mayor of the [38:09] city, and people can vote you out of [38:12] office. Uh so you have to do things that [38:14] make them happy. And there's an opinion [38:16] poll that's there. And if you spend too [38:18] much money here, you're not spending [38:20] money on the schools, that's bad. But [38:22] then there's crime goes up and you're [38:23] realizing, "Oh my gosh, in even this [38:25] simple simulation, so many [38:27] interdependent [38:29] phenomenon are taking place." [38:31] Then [38:33] then you things that happen then [38:35] Godzilla steps through and plows through [38:38] the city. Okay, now Godzilla's not real, [38:41] but [38:42] it kind of is because that would be a [38:44] disaster that Is it a flood? Is it [38:47] fires? It's It's a thing that nobody saw [38:50] coming. [38:51] Okay? We are recording this interview [38:55] on September 11th. [38:56] I live four blocks from Ground Zero. [38:59] That's Godzilla walking through the [39:01] city. [39:02] Well, how do you respond to that? What's [39:04] You know, you didn't know that was going [39:05] to happen the day before. So, [39:08] realizing that in this game, it's only [39:11] interesting to play when disastrous [39:14] things happen. Not too many in a row cuz [39:16] you have to be able to recover. [39:18] So, when I look at our world, I'm [39:19] thinking, "The best argument I have for [39:21] being in a simulation is how often some [39:24] big disaster takes place." [39:26] When it was the first [39:28] World War and then after that the peace [39:31] Oh, pandemic. Okay? The The 1918 flu [39:34] pandemic. [39:35] And then we got out of that. Oh, [39:37] uh No, Second World War. [39:40] Okay? We get out of that So, [39:42] the Cold War. Nuclear holocaust. Okay? [39:46] So, [39:47] that's my [39:49] That's me looking over the shoulder of [39:51] the programmer. [39:54] >> Oh, god. [39:55] I think I prefer the world where I feel [39:57] like I have free will and there's not [40:00] >> Does it make a difference if you believe [40:02] you have free will even if you don't? [40:03] >> No, cuz I'll never know. [40:05] >> And you know, the fun The fun answer to [40:06] that uh [40:08] it Ask me. Say, [40:10] uh [40:12] "Do you have free will?" Ask me that. [40:13] >> Do you have Do Do we have free will? Do [40:15] you have free will? [40:17] >> What choice do I have? [40:22] >> No, if you don't have free will, then [40:24] you don't even have an option to say you [40:26] don't. So, I So, you just live life. [40:29] Just live your life. [40:31] So, that the world is better off for you [40:33] having lived in it. [40:35] >> And what does that mean for you? Like [40:36] everything [40:37] >> people are better off. The [40:39] institutions are better off. [40:42] People are happier, [40:45] healthier, [40:46] wealthier, [40:48] safer, [40:50] better fed. [40:53] That rationality matters [40:56] in politics and law making. [40:59] And [41:00] that helps to will help to ensure [41:03] stability of anything you build going [41:05] forward. [41:06] But yeah, that's all I mean. It's not [41:08] It's not complicated. And you were [41:10] talking about meaning before. [41:12] I stopped looking for meaning decades [41:14] ago. [41:15] Because I realized [41:17] I, we, any of us has the power to make [41:22] meaning in life. [41:24] If you're going to look for meaning, are [41:25] you looking under a rock, behind a tree? [41:28] What it [41:30] It's as though meaning is sitting there [41:31] waiting for you to find it. Oh, I found [41:34] meaning. There it is. Now my life is [41:35] complete. [41:37] That feels so [41:39] so powerless [41:42] on your own destiny. [41:46] Whereas [41:48] I I make meaning. I I want to learn [41:49] something today that I didn't know [41:51] yesterday. [41:52] I want to lessen the suffering of [41:53] someone today [41:57] compared with however that person was [41:58] living yesterday. [42:00] I want to [42:03] I want to use what I learn [42:07] to [42:08] well up within me and manifest as [42:11] wisdom. [42:12] Because information is not really useful [42:15] until it becomes knowledge. [42:17] And then knowledge is good. You can show [42:19] off if you have a lot of knowledge. [42:20] That's what these game shows do. But in [42:22] the end, [42:25] the best use of knowledge is when it [42:27] becomes wisdom. [42:30] And wisdom, [42:32] people say, "I don't like getting older. [42:34] I want to be younger." I don't want to [42:34] be young again. [42:36] When I was 30, I was an idiot. Even when [42:38] I was 30, I thought I was brilliant. All [42:40] right? So, [42:43] don't get older [42:46] unless you have wisdom to show for it. [42:49] It's when you don't have something to [42:51] show for your age, you want to be [42:53] younger. [42:54] You're just getting old with nothing to [42:56] show for it. [42:57] But I continue to learn things every [42:59] day, [43:00] passively and actively. [43:02] Passively as you just notice, you know, [43:06] open your eyes sometimes and see what's [43:08] happening. [43:09] Where things are headed, what they're [43:10] doing. [43:11] You learn. Not all things you learn are [43:13] good. And if they're bad or need [43:15] adjustment or need help, [43:18] do something about it if you can. [43:21] So, that's how I derive meaning. [43:23] Hence my tombstone. Be ashamed to die [43:25] unless you've scored some victory for [43:28] humanity. There's the meaning for you. [43:30] >> There's a whole class of billionaires [43:31] that are trying to live forever now. [43:33] And I think we are on the verge of being [43:35] able to extend life, potentially [43:37] indefinitely. [43:38] >> Yeah, we're looking for the day It's [43:40] called escape velocity. Do you know [43:42] about that phrase? It exists in [43:44] astrophysics, of course, but uh escape [43:47] velocity for Earth, for example, is 7 mi [43:49] per second. So, [43:51] escape velocity in astrophysics is the [43:53] speed that you launch something so that [43:56] it never comes back, no matter how hard [43:58] the gravity tries. [44:00] Okay? So, every object has an escape [44:02] velocity. Escape velocity in aging is [44:07] The idea is [44:09] there is a generation yet to be born but [44:13] in the very near future [44:16] who [44:17] will not not only live longer than the [44:20] previous generation. [44:22] So so here here's a a cleaner way to say [44:25] this. [44:27] Every year [44:30] you can expect to live one month longer [44:33] because knowledge about human physiology [44:35] has gotten better. [44:36] >> Okay. [44:36] >> Okay? Just think about it that way. [44:38] >> Yeah. [44:38] >> And so we know what to eat, what not to [44:41] eat, how to exercise, how not over [44:42] exercise, how to how to maintain your [44:45] health well your health and physiology. [44:47] All right. [44:48] There will come a day [44:50] where [44:52] every year that you're alive [44:55] medicine has figured out a way for you [44:57] to live an extra year. [45:00] That's the escape velocity. [45:03] So every year you live another year. [45:06] And after that it could be every year [45:08] you live 2 years. [45:09] So that's the escape velocity. [45:12] So it's not just everybody lives forever [45:13] today. It sort of works its way into the [45:16] population. And yeah, I don't I don't [45:20] want to live forever. [45:22] I don't. [45:24] Take me off this Earth. [45:28] Provide I mean I want I still have more [45:30] to give, more books to write that in my [45:33] judgment would make the world better [45:36] than it currently is. [45:38] So I don't want to die before I [45:41] get as much of that done as I can. [45:44] >> But are you scared of death? [45:46] >> No. [45:47] Although that's easy to say cuz I'm not [45:49] at death's door. [45:51] And [45:53] I had someone [45:55] rationalize with me which is they made a [45:57] potent argument. It's [45:59] I can say now with another 20 years life [46:02] expectancy [46:03] 15 20 years [46:05] that I don't fear death. But if I'm on [46:07] my deathbed and someone says [46:10] if I can wave my hand and you can live [46:12] another year, would you? [46:14] The answer's probably going to be yes. [46:16] And at the end of that year if they So [46:19] I [46:20] I don't know if my [46:22] sentiments about life and death will [46:24] change [46:26] on my deathbed. [46:28] I know my mother [46:30] there's a point where she couldn't [46:31] swallow and she didn't want a feed tube. [46:34] And she said my time has come. [46:37] They they put me in in [46:39] palliative care and then hospice. And [46:41] she was dead 10 days later. [46:43] So she was [46:45] was in charge of her She They could have [46:47] fed her [46:48] with a tube. [46:49] And she would have been completely [46:50] healthy for another, you know, 5 years [46:52] perhaps. [46:53] But you know [46:55] she raised two kids, three kids, [46:58] you know, 50-year marriage, [47:01] happy life, stable life. [47:03] And [47:05] yeah, I'm good with that. So the [47:07] billionaires, you know, that that's ego [47:09] for sure. [47:10] If you live forever, there other people [47:13] who you're taking resources from [47:16] who would come behind you. That's one. [47:17] But two [47:20] are are you still contributing to the [47:22] world? [47:23] Should you give another person a chance [47:25] who's in school now who might be the [47:27] next genius that'll figure out the [47:29] energy problem, the poverty problem, the [47:31] the pollution problem, the the Are you [47:33] figuring that out? No. [47:35] You're in the last You're You're 90 [47:37] years old and you're just living on your [47:39] yacht. [47:41] So there's the prob- there's the problem [47:44] that [47:45] the last years of your life [47:48] are not the most creative, [47:51] the most ambitious, the most irreverent. [47:54] It's irreverence that where new ideas [47:56] come. [47:57] You know, you you've perhaps seen [47:59] episodes of Shark Shark Tank. You know, [48:01] half or more of those people are 30 and [48:03] under. They got ideas, fresh ideas. [48:05] Everyone else is entrenched. So, if [48:08] people [48:10] start living forever, [48:13] they're living forever in the part of [48:15] their life that is least useful [48:18] to the progress and advance of culture [48:20] and civilization. [48:22] And so, all of civilization will [48:25] stagnate. [48:26] >> Do do you think I'm [48:28] in your lifetime? You said you've got a [48:29] 20-year life expectancy. [48:30] >> Well, 15 to 20. [48:32] >> 15 to 20-year life expectancy. [48:33] >> Based on my age now and the age my my [48:35] parents died. Yeah. [48:37] >> But I mean, you've done a lot of [48:38] neurological work and laid down a lot of [48:40] good foundations with all these books [48:41] you've written. So, maybe it'll be the [48:43] upper end of that. [48:43] >> It's food for AI. It was food for chat [48:46] GPT. [48:48] >> What do you make of AI? What's your What [48:49] do you think? [48:50] >> I love it. [48:50] >> Yeah. [48:51] >> I love it, but I I'm [48:54] It's It's, by the way, it's been here [48:55] for a while. It really spooked people [48:58] when it started writing your term paper [48:59] and composing your your painting and [49:02] your set design. All right, that the [49:04] whole other category of people got [49:06] spooked by that. Meanwhile, AI has been [49:08] harnessed and being fully used in my [49:10] field and in most of the physical [49:12] sciences. [49:13] Uh it's doing work If you can do the [49:15] work and I can go to the Bahamas, [49:17] let it do the work. We have telescopes [49:19] coming online that could not exist [49:21] without the intervention of AI to access [49:24] the data, reduce the data, analyze the [49:26] data, make a decision about whether it [49:28] should go back to the thing that it just [49:29] observed cuz that was weird compared to [49:31] the last compared to the last time it [49:33] was observed. This is the Vera Rubin [49:34] telescope that I'm [49:36] literally describing now. And so, [49:39] we're we're we're living with it. What [49:41] it means is it up It'll have to up the [49:43] game of people who say they are [49:45] creative. And what I mean by that is I [49:47] can say chat GPT, take this picture of [49:50] us and say Chat GPT [49:53] uh paint this scene [49:56] in the style of Van Gogh. [49:58] It'll come back, the colors will be just [50:00] right, it'll have the swirly lines. [50:02] It'll be perfect if Van Gogh was [50:03] standing here, that's what Van Gogh [50:04] would have painted. [50:05] If I say Chat GPT, paint us in the style [50:08] of no artist who has ever lived. [50:12] I don't know what it's going to give us, [50:13] but it'll probably suck, okay? And so [50:16] true creativity [50:20] is not aping what has happened before [50:23] and making adjustments. [50:24] True creativity, yes, you always build [50:26] on others, I'm not in denial of that, [50:29] but true creativity takes leaps [50:33] that most people don't even know can be [50:35] taken. [50:38] And so the artist so that gap [50:41] I think is what Chat what what AI in the [50:44] arts world is going to force creative [50:46] people [50:47] to reach for. [50:49] Otherwise, you're replaced by [50:52] you're replaced by a [50:54] a simple request [50:56] in the in the input line [50:59] of of a large language model or or of an [51:01] art. [51:02] >> I was just wondering that if I watch [51:04] Cosmos in [51:06] 30, 40 years time, let's say 100 years [51:08] time, [51:09] I was wondering if this is the moment [51:10] where humans and computers in the story [51:14] of humanity become one and intertwine. [51:17] If you think about things like Neuralink [51:18] which Elon's working on to make When he [51:19] first made that company, all of the [51:21] narrative that he put out there was [51:22] about us being able to interface with [51:24] AI. So we'd need like a brain chip [51:26] computer interface. More recently it's [51:27] been about people that are paraplegic [51:29] and disabled and helping blind people [51:31] see, but I think that's a socially [51:32] acceptable way to advance the [51:34] technology, but in his early work he [51:36] said [51:38] superintelligence is going to arrive and [51:39] we're going to need a way to basically [51:40] keep up where we have better sort of [51:42] latency with [51:44] with the technology. And I'm wondering [51:47] if that's like what we're seeing now. [51:49] >> Yeah, super intelligence. [51:52] You know, if that happens [51:54] then [51:56] it becomes our overlord and we become [51:57] its pet. [52:00] Now, that sounds pretty scary. [52:03] But [52:05] don't we treat our pets better than we [52:07] treat [52:08] other humans in the world? [52:11] Think about it. [52:12] A pet is kept warm and fed and happy [52:16] And would you do that for a homeless [52:17] person in the street, a person of your [52:19] own species? Probably not. [52:22] So, if we're the pet for the super [52:23] intelligence [52:24] >> What about the chicken? [52:25] >> How bad could it be? [52:26] >> We used to have chickens when we were [52:27] younger and I watched my Nigerian mother [52:29] chase that chicken around the garden, [52:30] grab it, pull its head off, cook it. [52:32] >> Wow, okay. Yeah, oh you worried that [52:35] it's going to do that for us? [52:37] >> Not all my pets made it. [52:38] >> It snapped. Not all the pets survived. [52:41] Uh [52:42] yeah, depends on whether it needs us [52:44] to be alive or dead. We have to be [52:46] relevant to it in some way. Maybe we'll [52:49] be court jesters, we'll be [52:50] entertainment. [52:52] Until then [52:54] I I don't know that this is some special [52:56] moment. [52:57] I do a lot of reading of history and [52:59] throughout history [53:01] most occasions, especially in the era of [53:04] the Industrial Revolution, people think [53:05] they're living in a special moment. [53:08] >> Mhm. [53:08] >> So, I'm not going to be that guy who [53:09] says today is special. [53:11] Because everyone has thought they were [53:13] in a special moment. [53:14] >> And what do you think is the probability [53:15] of me getting to another planet in my [53:17] lifetime? [53:18] >> Zero. [53:20] Zero. [53:21] >> Really? [53:22] >> Yeah. [53:24] You want to know why? [53:27] >> Yes. [53:28] Please. [53:28] >> Yeah, it's just zero. [53:29] >> I thought SpaceX going to go to Mars. [53:33] >> I have an unorthodox view on this, so [53:35] you don't have to you don't have to [53:36] believe me. [53:38] You know, but [53:41] my read of history tells me that we only [53:43] do big expensive things [53:45] if there's a geopolitical reason for it, [53:47] either an economic [53:49] reason or a defense reason. [53:53] Uh not just cuz it's the next thing to [53:55] do. [53:57] And when we went to the moon, [54:00] you realize in 1961, [54:02] May 25th, [54:04] President Kennedy, it's the 6 weeks [54:05] after Yuri Gagarin [54:07] flew around the Earth in orbit, and we [54:10] didn't have a a ship that wouldn't blow [54:11] up on the launch pad that could carry [54:13] humans yet. [54:15] He called a joint session of Congress [54:18] and says, "If the events of recent [54:20] weeks" couldn't even utter the man's [54:22] name, "the events of recent weeks [54:25] and I paraphrase are any indication of [54:27] the impact of this adventure on the [54:29] minds of men everywhere, then we need to [54:31] show the world the path of freedom over [54:33] the path of tyranny." [54:36] It's a battle cry against communism, the [54:38] godless Russians. [54:40] Like everyone in the whole Soviet Union. [54:42] We were losing [54:44] a [54:45] technological race. [54:48] And that was the battle cry that [54:50] prompted Congress to write the check. [54:52] Oh, later on he says, "Oh, it'll be [54:55] put a man on the moon and before return [54:57] him to safety to Earth and oh, that's [55:00] all be let's hold hands, so beautiful." [55:03] No one ever spent scads of money just [55:07] because it was a cool thing to do. That [55:08] has never happened ever. So, [55:12] we go to the moon. [55:15] People forgetting why we went to the [55:16] moon [55:19] say, "While we're on the moon, at this [55:21] rate we'll be on Mars by 1985. [55:26] That'll be the next ambitious goal we'll [55:28] take on." [55:30] No. [55:32] Because we didn't just go to the moon [55:33] because that was the next thing to do. [55:35] We went to the moon to beat the [55:36] Russians. And when we got to the moon [55:39] and we looked over our shoulder and the [55:40] Russians weren't there, we canceled the [55:42] Apollo program. [55:44] 1970, we haven't been back to the moon [55:45] in 53 years. [55:48] We canceled it. Apollo 18 was ready to [55:51] fly. It's now in captivity in [55:53] Huntsville, Alabama in a museum. [55:56] On its side, it's fascinating to walk [55:58] the full length of it. All rocket red [56:00] flight ready parts. It never flew. We [56:03] ended it at Apollo 17. [56:06] No, we didn't go to Mars because we [56:08] didn't have geopolitical reasons to do [56:10] so, neither economic nor for defense [56:13] reasons. Historically, people explored, [56:17] did expensive things [56:18] for the glory of God and royalty. [56:23] Very expensive. The pyramids. [56:25] The honor of royalty, okay? The church [56:28] building, cathedral building. All these [56:30] activities were in the glory [56:33] of [56:34] power, [56:36] deity, and royalty. [56:38] There's None of that happens today. [56:41] We're past that. [56:42] The power of kings and gods, that [56:44] doesn't happen. Nobody [56:46] dislodges major resources, capital [56:49] resources of a nation [56:52] in the interest of a god or a king [56:53] anymore. [56:55] Okay? It's secular. And to secular means [56:57] it's money or it's war cuz you feel [57:00] threatened. Okay. [57:02] So, [57:03] you know we're going back to the moon [57:04] now. [57:05] >> Yeah. [57:05] >> Project Artemis. [57:07] Did you ever think to stop and ask why? [57:10] Why didn't we stay on the moon in 1972? [57:12] Why didn't we go back in 1980 or 1990, [57:14] 2000, 2010? Oh, all of a sudden, let's [57:18] go back to the moon. Wouldn't that be [57:19] cool? [57:20] Do you know when Artemis began? [57:22] In the late teens. [57:25] Right about when China says we're going [57:27] to put taikonauts on the moon. [57:31] >> Taikonauts. [57:32] >> Yeah, Chinese astronaut. [57:33] >> It's taikonaut. [57:34] >> Oh. [57:35] >> All right? [57:36] >> That's when we said let's go back to the [57:37] moon. What a good idea. Let's do that. [57:41] Really? [57:42] Cuz what we cuz it's just a good idea? [57:44] Because we're a little bit spooked [57:47] by a friendly foe [57:49] across the around the world [57:52] might get [57:54] the glory of that exercise. And once [57:56] again, it's a godless [57:58] country. [57:59] Okay? [58:01] Communism [58:02] >> Mhm. [58:02] >> is godless by design. [58:05] By construct. So, [58:07] here we are going back to the moon. All [58:08] right. [58:11] What motivation do we have to go to [58:13] Mars? [58:14] Are there oil wells there? [58:16] Is there, you know, diamond mines? [58:20] We're not going to Mars. [58:22] We're just not. [58:24] Unless [58:26] China says they want to put military [58:27] bases on Mars. [58:30] We're going to be in Mars in 10 months. [58:32] >> Mhm. [58:32] >> One month to design, build, and fund the [58:34] thing, and 9 months to get to Mars. [58:37] A geopolitical force operating. Oh, and [58:39] by the way, NASA doesn't have a rocket [58:41] that'll get us to Mars. [58:42] They think they do, but they don't [58:43] really have one yet. [58:45] Time to do that. They say, "Well, does [58:47] anybody have a rocket?" Elon says, "I [58:48] have a rocket." [58:50] So, if Elon rocket goes to Mars, [58:52] it's not cuz he sends it there, it's cuz [58:54] taxpayers sent it there. [58:57] By the way, he could go there on a [58:59] vanity project, but there's no business [59:02] case. [59:03] He He could fly to Mars, team up with [59:05] Jeff Bezos. They can send people to [59:08] Mars. [59:09] It's not a business case. And if you are [59:11] an investor in his company, [59:13] you would not agree to do that. [59:16] You wouldn't. But he doesn't need [59:17] investors cuz he's very wealthy. He [59:19] could do it on his own. [59:21] Are you going to Mars as a tourist? Is [59:24] that Is that a business case? [59:26] It'll It's a trillion dollars to get to [59:28] Mars. First, second will be a little [59:30] less. [59:33] I don't see that happening. [59:34] >> A trillion dollars? [59:35] >> About that. Yeah. [59:39] If Earth were a schoolroom globe [59:42] with your fist, show me where you think [59:44] the moon is. [59:46] This is Earth. [59:48] Take your fist and put it at the [59:49] distance the moon is. Your fist is about [59:51] the right size compared. Okay. [59:54] >> I mean [59:56] >> Right there? [59:56] >> Yeah. [59:57] >> Okay, not too bad. It's 30 ft away. It's [59:59] in the next room. [60:01] >> Okay, thanks. [60:02] >> Okay, 30 ft away. [60:04] >> Okay. [60:04] >> That's the moon. [60:06] Let's keep going. [60:08] How far away from Earth did the Bezos [60:09] Branson [60:11] uh rockets go? [60:13] >> Oh, not far. [60:14] >> The thickness of two dimes [60:17] above the surface of the Earth. [60:20] How far away is Mars? [60:22] It's a mile away. [60:23] >> From here? [60:24] >> Yes, from this Earth. It's a mile away. [60:28] >> It's in Central Park. [60:28] >> The moon 30 ft away, Mars a mile away. [60:31] Yeah, it's a trillion dollars to Mars. [60:33] Yes. [60:34] >> How long? [60:35] >> 9 months. [60:36] If and you have to wait till the planets [60:38] are configured so that [60:41] when you travel, you arrive where Mars [60:44] will be when you get there. [60:46] And that's a minimum energy orbit. If [60:48] you had fueling stations along the way, [60:49] you can just fill up with fuel and get [60:51] there as fast as you want. But minimum [60:53] energy orbit takes about 9 months. And [60:55] then to come back, you have to wait till [60:56] the [60:57] it's configured again a few years later. [61:00] So, a round trip to Mars is 3 to 5 [61:01] years. [61:03] Easily. So, [61:04] there's not an economic case. Uh I'm not [61:07] saying we don't know how to get to Mars. [61:08] We have a SUV-sized rover there now, all [61:11] right, discovering potential life from a [61:13] billion years ago. It's not like we [61:14] don't know how to get to Mars. This is [61:15] not a technological statement I'm [61:17] making. I'm talking about a practical [61:18] statement. [61:20] So, no. [61:22] My read of history tells me no. [61:24] >> I I thought you were going to also add [61:25] to that that even if Elon wanted to do [61:27] it as a vanity project because he makes [61:29] all this money and manages to use [61:30] Starlink as a way to fund it, whatever, [61:32] that the problem is Elon's going to die. [61:35] He's going to die in the you know, the [61:36] next couple of decades, which means the [61:38] vanity element that comes from his [61:40] childhood [61:41] situation where he wanted to get out [61:42] there and explore the stars cuz he read [61:44] that book [61:45] has got 30 years, 40, 50 years left on [61:48] it. [61:48] >> Well, that would make him want to hurry. [61:50] >> Wouldn't it? [61:51] >> Yeah. [61:52] Yeah, and plus he said, "I don't want to [61:54] die on Earth. I want to die on Mars." [61:56] >> Mhm. [61:57] >> I'm paraphrasing, but that's the idea. [62:00] So, that's a goal. [62:01] Sure, but don't tell me it's a it's it's [62:03] a [62:04] it's a business case. I can see a [62:06] tourist case going into orbit and even [62:08] possibly visiting the moon. It's 3 days [62:10] there, 3 days back. That's a week's [62:12] vacation that you would take. [62:14] And I would save up [62:17] 5 years, 10 years of vacation money [62:20] if that was the amount that it would [62:21] take to go to the moon and for 1 week. [62:23] That would be a really fun bucket list [62:25] item for me. [62:27] >> If you're starting a business, that [62:28] means you're one person doing the [62:30] workload of probably about 50 people. [62:33] When I first founded this podcast, I had [62:34] no idea that I was about to step into [62:37] 100 different roles that I'd never [62:38] trained for, things like researching and [62:40] production and scheduling and branding, [62:41] all of it all at once. And this [62:43] experience isn't unique to me, but for [62:45] millions of founders around the world, [62:47] the tool that changes all of that is our [62:49] sponsor, Shopify. Shopify now powers 10% [62:53] of all US e-commerce from names like [62:55] Gymshark and Mattel to first-time [62:57] founders just getting started. It's like [62:59] having your very own design studio, [63:01] content creator, and marketing team in [63:03] one with hundreds of online store [63:05] templates, AI tools to create product [63:07] pages, and easy-to-launch email and [63:09] social media plugins. Behind the scenes, [63:11] Shopify manages your inventory, [63:13] international shipping, and even your [63:14] returns. [63:16] So, if you're ready to sell, sign up for [63:18] your $1 a month trial at [63:20] shopify.com/barlett. [63:23] That's shopify.com/barlett. [63:25] $1 a month. [63:27] No way. [63:30] You know you've written this you've [63:31] revised this book. [63:33] >> Oh yeah, just recently this plant. Yeah, [63:34] I wrote a a column. [63:36] A question and an answer column. [63:38] For like 10 years, 15 years. Where [63:40] people just ask me questions from the [63:42] public. And I had a pen name called [63:44] Merlin. And Merlin was friends with with [63:46] Newton and Galileo and Marie Curie and [63:49] all these people. So if you ask Merlin, [63:51] "Dear Merlin, I don't quite understand [63:52] gravity." [63:53] Merlin would say, "Oh, Merlin had a [63:54] conversation with Isaac Newton in his [63:56] backyard. And here's how he answers [63:59] that." [64:00] >> I think in the book you talk about a [64:01] golf ball sized black hole would weigh [64:03] more than Earth and swallow it whole [64:05] leaving behind something the size of a [64:07] lime. [64:08] >> Yeah, slightly bigger. Right. [64:10] >> What is uh you've been asked this so [64:12] many times but I still don't know the [64:14] answer. What is a black hole and how do [64:16] we even know if they're real if no one's [64:18] ever been to one? [64:19] >> Well, you can know things without [64:20] visiting them. I mean, that's the [64:23] methods and tools and machines of [64:24] science are remarkable in their ability [64:27] to learn something [64:29] without actually having to see it with [64:31] your eyes or hear it with your ears or [64:33] to touch it with your fingers. [64:36] We have [64:37] In fact, science didn't take off until [64:41] these machines became a fundamental part [64:43] of how we investigated the world [64:45] replacing our five senses. Cuz there's [64:48] nothing more feeble in this world than [64:50] you thinking you understand reality [64:53] through your five senses. [64:55] That that I don't want to call it [64:55] feeble. I would call it error prone. [64:58] Error prone. [65:00] Remember I told you about escape [65:01] velocity of Earth? [65:02] >> Yeah. [65:03] >> Do you remember what I the value I said [65:04] it was? [65:05] >> 7 miles [65:06] >> Pay attention. A minute. Uh per second. [65:08] >> Per second. [65:09] >> That's very fast. 7 miles So the adage [65:12] what goes up must come down, [65:13] >> Mhm. [65:15] >> is not true. It's true for almost [65:16] anything you would experience, but you [65:19] can launch something at 7 miles per [65:21] second, it'll never ever come back. [65:23] That's the escape velocity for Earth. [65:25] Okay. [65:28] If Earth had more mass [65:30] and the gravity were stronger, [65:32] >> Mhm. [65:32] >> the escape velocity is higher. [65:35] That would make sense cuz there's more [65:36] gravity that you have to escape. [65:38] >> Mhm. [65:40] >> Let's keep up that exercise. [65:43] Cramming more and more mass. [65:45] Just keep doing that. [65:47] Escape velocity keeps going up. [65:49] Eventually, the escape velocity hits [65:52] the speed of light. [65:55] At that point, light can't even escape. [65:58] Light is the fastest thing in the [65:59] universe. If light can't escape, if you [66:01] fall in, you don't escape either. [66:03] There's no better description of a hole [66:06] than that. [66:08] And worse yet, it's a hole in any [66:10] direction you approach it. [66:12] Not just a hole in the street [66:15] or in the floor. [66:17] It's a three-dimensional hole. [66:20] And how do we know it's there? Cuz it [66:21] distorts the fabric of space and time [66:24] around it. [66:26] We see galaxies behind concentrations of [66:28] matter, [66:29] black holes, and the shape of the galaxy [66:32] is distorted cuz Einstein tells us tells [66:34] us that gravity distorts the fabric of [66:37] space and time. So that's one way we [66:39] discover black holes. Another way is [66:41] most stars in the night sky are binary [66:43] and multiple star systems, most of them. [66:46] You can't see it cuz you just have human [66:48] vision. [66:49] You whip out a telescope, you see, "Oh [66:52] my gosh, there are two stars, not just [66:53] one." If there's a pair of stars and one [66:56] of them becomes a black hole and this [66:58] one ages, it expands and some of its [67:01] material spills onto and orbits around [67:04] the event horizon of the black hole. [67:07] This swirling material [67:09] gets hotter and hotter and hotter [67:12] and it radiates x-rays and ultraviolet. [67:15] We have x-ray and ultraviolet telescopes [67:18] that see every one of these in the night [67:20] sky. [67:22] They're all black holes. [67:23] >> And is created from an explosion? [67:25] >> Uh there's a a star that wants to [67:27] explode but has so much mass [67:29] the explosion doesn't overcome the [67:32] gravity and the star collapses down on [67:34] itself to make a black hole. That's one [67:36] way to make a black hole. [67:38] >> So our sun when that runs [67:39] >> It's not going to become a black hole. [67:40] It's pretty wimpy in that department. [67:44] It'll still kill us but for different [67:46] reasons. [67:48] >> So the mass of the object is so big that [67:49] it can't actually explode because the [67:51] gravitational pull [67:52] >> Correct. [67:52] >> inwards is so strong. [67:53] >> Correct. That's above a certain [67:55] threshold. Within there there's the [67:57] stars that the explosion is greater than [68:00] what the gravity can contain and it [68:01] makes a supernova and those are the [68:03] stars that spread [68:05] heavy elements across the galaxy [68:07] enabling us [68:08] to even exist. [68:10] >> So let me read this again. A golf [68:12] ball-sized black hole would weigh more [68:14] than Earth and swallow it whole leaving [68:15] behind something the size of a lime. [68:18] >> Yeah, so when black holes eat they get [68:20] bigger. So a lime is bigger than a golf [68:22] ball [68:23] but not by very much. [68:25] We can calculate what the size is. [68:28] >> Where would everything go? [68:29] >> It's in there. It's compressed down [68:31] inside the hole. [68:33] >> And if I was And everything near it's [68:35] going to get pulled in there as well. [68:37] >> Uh if it comes too close, right? [68:38] >> If it comes too close. [68:39] >> Yeah, you can stay you can keep your [68:40] distance. Black holes don't they're not [68:42] giant sucking devices. I mean if you [68:44] keep your distance your If the sun [68:46] became a black hole right now, we would [68:48] still orbit it. The gravity we feel at [68:50] our distance is no different. [68:52] >> You say that if the sun suddenly shut [68:54] off we'd freeze at minus 462 [68:57] Fahrenheit [68:59] which is the background temperature of [69:00] the universe. [69:00] >> Yes. [69:01] >> Once the stored energy ran out. [69:02] >> Yeah. [69:03] >> Once the stored energy were ran out. [69:05] >> Well, in this in the Well, so there's [69:07] the sun's energy if the sun [69:10] blotted out. But Earth has energy [69:13] inside of itself as well. This is what [69:14] gives us volcanoes and continental drift [69:17] and all the rest of this. [69:18] So, if you don't have a sun, you want to [69:20] live near a volcano [69:22] or something that is a source of energy [69:24] for you. [69:25] And then you'll live on Earth until the [69:27] Earth's energy [69:28] died out. Ideally, but then you just go [69:30] to another planet. [69:32] I mean, why not? [69:33] >> How long has our our sun got left? [69:35] >> 5 billion years. [69:36] >> How would we know? [69:37] >> That's a good question. That's a product [69:39] of 20th century modern astrophysics. [69:42] That would then it was modern. I think [69:44] of it as modern. Where you say, "What [69:46] kind of star is this?" They look around [69:48] the universe for other stars that are [69:49] just like it. [69:51] And then you see those stars in their [69:53] stages of evolution. [69:56] Stars being born, living out their [69:58] lives, and dying. [70:00] And the star changes its properties from [70:03] birth to death. [70:04] And so you can line up what where the [70:06] sun is in that chart. [70:09] And then plus we know how old Earth is. [70:12] So, we can directly measure the age of [70:14] the Earth. [70:15] And so [70:17] there's no reason to think that Earth [70:20] did not form at the same time the sun [70:22] did. [70:23] >> Another really um [70:25] fascinating one was every breath you [70:26] take contains molecules once inhaled by [70:29] every human in history. [70:31] >> Yep. [70:33] >> That can't be true. [70:35] >> Chat GPT it. [70:38] No, so here it is. You ready? [70:39] >> Yeah. [70:42] >> There are more molecules of air [70:45] in a single breath of air [70:50] than there are breaths of air [70:53] in Earth's entire atmosphere. [70:57] So, [70:58] if you breathe in and then breathe out, [71:02] there's enough molecules that you [71:03] breathed out [71:05] to populate every breath that anyone [71:08] will ever again take on this Earth. [71:12] And air mixes rather quickly. [71:15] Okay? [71:16] So, you it has to mix. It's not [71:18] immediately. Give it some time. But, you [71:20] give it some time, [71:22] there are molecules that went in and out [71:23] of your lungs that are in China being [71:26] breathed by people there uh [71:28] when enough time is elapsed. You can [71:29] calculate that. I It's years, 10 years, [71:32] something like that. There's tremendous [71:34] mixing [71:35] of air. So, [71:36] how's that for feeling kinship with [71:39] others? [71:40] Same with water. You drink a water. [71:42] There are more molecules of water in a [71:44] glass of water. This is a mug of water [71:47] than there are mugs of water [71:50] in all the world's oceans. [71:52] So, you drink a mug of water [71:54] and then it comes out of you in any one [71:56] of a half dozen different ways, [71:59] there's enough molecules to scatter into [72:01] every other mug of water in the world. [72:04] So, someone gets a mug of water. Your [72:06] molecules will be Plenty more Plenty of [72:08] molecules [72:10] to go. [72:11] >> So, if I do a big big inhale, I'm also [72:13] I'm inhaling air that contains molecules [72:16] that all of my living relatives once [72:19] inhaled. [72:20] >> Yes. [72:21] And go further back. Jesus inhaled them. [72:23] Muhammad. [72:25] >> And with every breath. [72:26] >> Yes, every breath. [72:28] This is the the the the oneness of it [72:30] all. [72:31] That's why it's a beautiful thing. [72:34] Astrophysics. [72:36] I wouldn't live without it. [72:38] >> Do you think it's makes us kinder [72:40] learning about the universe, or do you [72:41] think it makes us more nihilistic and [72:43] narcissistic and [72:44] >> No, if you learn about it as you should, [72:46] you shouldn't be nihilistic. There's no [72:48] force of nihilism [72:50] in the knowledge, wisdom, and insight [72:52] get by studying the universe. [72:54] Uh you you will never find marching [72:57] armies led by astrophysicists to go [72:59] slaughter one another. [73:01] We the cosmic perspective prevents that. [73:08] >> The cosmic perspective. [73:10] >> Yeah. By the way, if you look at the [73:11] chapter titles in there, they're each [73:14] pairs of words [73:15] that we've all used and but we've argued [73:18] over many of them [73:20] over our Thanksgiving dinner. I don't [73:21] know if there's a version of [73:22] Thanksgiving in the UK. Every It's maybe [73:24] just Christmas. Everybody gathers and [73:26] the crazy uncles and aunts come in and [73:29] you got to argue with them about you [73:31] know, and you then you you're reminded [73:33] why you only see them once a year [73:35] because [73:36] No, there are topics in there. Color and [73:38] race is in there. Law and order, body [73:41] and mind, [73:42] meatarians and vegetarians, life and [73:45] death. [73:46] A lot of reflective moments in there. [73:49] So, this book, though it's all these [73:51] topics that people fight about, its goal [73:54] is to say, you think that and you think [73:55] that, you got to look at it this way. [73:57] >> Mhm. [73:58] >> It's not [73:59] meet in the middle. [74:01] No, it's meet on a plane of existence [74:04] above what you're arguing and you'll [74:06] look down on what you're arguing and [74:07] realize how ridiculous it is. [74:09] That's the goal of that book. [74:11] >> Chapter 10 in the book says human [74:14] physiology may be overrated. [74:18] What do you mean by that? [74:19] >> Well, [74:21] you know, we like to think of ourselves [74:22] at the top of [74:24] evolutionary [74:26] uh [74:27] properties, but it's really your mind, [74:30] surely, but [74:32] not much else. [74:34] You know, we [74:37] it's odd because we always imagine [74:38] aliens having humanoid bodies. [74:40] >> Yeah. [74:41] >> And there's no reason for that [74:43] if they come from another planet. Most [74:45] life on Earth doesn't have a humanoid [74:47] body. [74:48] The banana doesn't have a humanoid body [74:50] and you have DNA in common with it. [74:52] You don't have any DNA in common with an [74:53] alien from another planet, yet it's [74:55] walking around with a neck, eyes, nose, [74:57] mouth, head, ears, shoulders, arms, [75:00] fingers, kneecaps, feet. [75:03] Really? [75:05] Is that Is that Is that your best [75:06] imagination that you can come up with? [75:09] Alien from another planet? [75:12] >> Is the Is the universe infinite? I've [75:14] often wondered that. Does it just go on [75:16] forever? [75:17] Or is there a [75:17] >> We're not given reason to think it [75:19] doesn't. [75:20] But our horizon has a edge. [75:22] >> What we can see. [75:23] >> Yeah. But there's no reason to think [75:26] So you're at You're a ship at sea [75:28] >> Mhm. [75:29] >> and you have a horizon. [75:30] Are you saying Well, that's the extent [75:32] of the ocean? No. [75:34] Cuz if you sail towards the horizon, [75:35] more horizon shows up. [75:38] And you keep that up until you hit land. [75:41] >> Mhm. [75:42] >> So in the universe, we have our horizon. [75:47] And if we went to that horizon, we'd [75:49] have a whole other horizon beyond that. [75:52] If we travel to that horizon, we have a [75:54] whole other horizon there. [75:55] The question is how How far does that [75:58] go? [75:59] We don't know. [76:03] We have no idea. [76:05] It's simpler mathematically to think it [76:07] goes forever. [76:09] It's curious how There's some equations [76:10] where infinities [76:12] work just fine in the equation. [76:15] Uh so, we don't know. [76:17] We can talk about to our own horizon. [76:18] That's it. [76:20] >> There's so many people saying that [76:21] they've seen aliens. We had someone on [76:23] this podcast actually that said they'd [76:24] seen a aliens Not they'd seen aliens, [76:27] but they had evidence that aliens [76:28] existed. [76:29] And they worked in the military and said [76:30] that they'd uh [76:32] you know, some of these spacecraft [76:33] footage that you see from the Navy. [76:35] >> Good day. [76:36] Show you the alien? [76:38] >> No, but you see the videos of the things [76:40] bouncing around in the sky. [76:41] >> videos. [76:42] >> Fuzzy videos. [76:43] >> So, those are UFOs. They're not aliens. [76:45] >> UFOs, yeah. [76:45] >> There's a difference. [76:46] >> Oh, yeah. [76:47] >> Many people equate the two, [76:49] but if you see something in the sky and [76:50] you don't know what it is, [76:52] it's a UFO. And what's the U stand for? [76:56] Unidentified. [76:58] Until you can identify it, it's a UFO. [77:01] And because it does things that you [77:03] don't understand, [77:05] you cannot equate that with it being [77:08] an alien. [77:10] You just said you don't know what it is. [77:13] Wow, that's amazing. I don't know what [77:14] it is. Therefore, it must be a alien? [77:18] If once you just said you don't know [77:19] what it is, that's the end of the [77:20] sentence. [77:22] You can't go on and say, "Therefore, it [77:23] must be anything." You can be impressed [77:26] with videos [77:27] that have no explanation. [77:29] I don't have a problem with that. [77:31] But you want to turn around and say, [77:33] "Aliens?" [77:34] You want to say, "It's a government [77:35] cover-up?" Do you really think the [77:37] government is that competent? [77:39] Often the same people who say there's a [77:41] master-minded government the same people [77:43] who complain that the government is a [77:44] bloated bureaucracy, inefficient [77:46] bureaucracy, that should be replaced by [77:48] private enterprise. [77:50] They're the same people making those [77:51] same state state statements. [77:54] So, I I love the aliens. I want to meet [77:56] them, too. [77:57] My My people, the astrophysics [77:59] community, has been searching for aliens [78:00] for decades. [78:01] >> And you've never found evidence of any? [78:04] >> Not [78:07] So, [78:09] the community of amateur astronomers in [78:11] the world, okay? Amateur astronomy is [78:14] that's a badge of honor cuz you means [78:15] you know the night sky and you own a [78:16] telescope. It's not like amateur [78:19] neurosurgeon, okay? [78:22] You don't want to go to an amateur [78:23] neurosurgeon, but you want to know the [78:24] night sky, go to an amateur astronomer. [78:26] Amateur astronomers know the night sky. [78:28] They know what the sun, moon, and stars [78:30] are doing every night. They know they're [78:32] very good at climate and weather because [78:34] that affects whether things are visible. [78:37] So, they know when weather systems come [78:39] in and go out and what things look like. [78:42] You would think if aliens were [78:45] about [78:47] up and about, that amateur astronomers [78:49] would have seen more of them than anyone [78:50] else. [78:52] But, they've seen less. [78:54] Because we know what we're looking at. [78:58] It's kind of that simple. [79:00] The moment you know what you're looking [79:01] at, it's an IFO, isn't it? [79:03] >> Yeah. [79:03] >> It's not a UFO. [79:05] And so, yeah, I I want to meet the [79:07] aliens, but [79:09] you're going to show me fuzzy video or [79:10] you're going to say you have an alien, [79:12] but it's in a locked box and you're not [79:14] going to show it. [79:16] If you have an alien in a locked box and [79:17] you're not going to show it, that's the [79:19] same thing to a scientist [79:21] as not having an alien at all. [79:23] >> Could you make the case for why aliens [79:25] probably do exist and also the case for [79:28] why they probably don't exist? [79:29] >> No. No, they surely exist. [79:32] In this universe. [79:34] Universe is 14 billion years old and the [79:36] ingredients of life on Earth are the [79:38] most common ingredients in the universe. [79:41] And life began on Earth almost as [79:42] quickly as it possibly could have. [79:45] When Earth finally cooled down after it [79:47] being formed, it was about 200 million [79:49] years for signs of single-celled life. [79:53] So, even though we can't duplicate that [79:55] yet, we don't know how, that's a [79:56] frontier of biology, Earth didn't seem [79:59] to have problems [80:00] getting the job done within 200 million [80:02] years. That's Earth. [80:05] Now, you have exoplanets everywhere [80:07] across the galaxy. [80:08] To suggest that life on Earth is alone [80:11] in the universe, [80:12] you'd have to have some point of [80:14] philosophy that requires you believe [80:16] that. Because it's not derived from [80:18] actual [80:19] uh evidence or observations of the [80:22] universe itself. [80:24] So, [80:25] uh aliens, usually people mean [80:27] intelligent aliens, but [80:28] we're happy to find any kind of life at [80:30] all. Bacterial life. [80:32] Uh that would be that would transform [80:33] biology. [80:35] >> What about in our galaxy, in the Milky [80:36] Way galaxy? [80:37] >> Yeah, the galaxy is the most sensible [80:38] place to So, we've looking we've looked [80:40] for exoplanets. So, what's that? A [80:42] planet orbiting another star. [80:44] Cuz if you're going to look for life, [80:45] you want to [80:46] we presume it's going to be on a planet. [80:48] So, if this table is the galaxy, [80:51] >> Mhm. [80:51] >> and the solar system would be about [80:53] right there. [80:55] We've searched a circle about this big [80:57] for exoplanets. [80:58] >> And what's the solar system? [81:00] >> versus the galaxy? [81:00] >> the sun and his planets. [81:02] >> Yeah, solar system. [81:04] >> Mhm. [81:04] >> And then that's our solar system there, [81:06] and we are part of several hundred [81:08] billion stars [81:10] in the galaxy. [81:11] >> Mhm. [81:12] >> And this galaxy is [81:14] one of perhaps as many as a trillion [81:17] galaxies [81:18] in the observable universe. [81:21] So, to say we're alone, that's just [81:22] you're being you're being [81:24] philosophically irresponsible. [81:26] >> So, this table is [81:28] the the the galaxy? [81:29] >> Yeah, if the were the galaxy, [81:30] >> and we searched a coin [81:32] >> Coin Yes, that's a good word to use. A [81:34] coin-sized volume of this galaxy. We've [81:36] searched for exoplanets [81:38] and by association life. [81:41] So, folks at the SETI Institute to [81:44] search for extraterrestrial [81:45] intelligence, [81:46] uh they come up with an analogy. [81:48] But the people have said, "Well, we [81:49] haven't found life yet, so maybe there's [81:51] no life anywhere." [81:53] And we say, "No, take a cup and scoop it [81:55] into the ocean. [81:58] That's like saying, [82:00] "Hm, [82:02] the ocean has no whales in it." [82:05] >> Is that the equivalent? [82:06] >> Yeah, it's equivalent. In terms of the [82:08] space of uh of searching, cuz it's not [82:11] only in in physical space, [82:14] but it's in time. [82:16] Suppose an alien sent radio signals to [82:18] us, [82:19] and they arrived 2,000 years ago. [82:22] Did the Romans have radio telescopes? [82:23] No. [82:25] But we would all count them as [82:26] intelligent. [82:28] So, communication requires intelligence [82:30] and technology. [82:32] How long have we had technology to do [82:34] that? [82:35] 80 years. [82:37] >> On the quick chance of what probability [82:38] do you think there are aliens in the [82:39] Milky Way galaxy? [82:40] >> Yeah. Oh, sure. [82:42] >> You think there are? [82:42] >> I don't see why not. [82:44] There's a calculation you can do. I did [82:46] it with two colleagues of mine. We have [82:47] about 100 civilizations [82:50] in the galaxy alive now. [82:52] That's not many out of the total number [82:54] of stars, but again, a civilization you [82:57] has to evolve out of whatever it was as [82:59] a tiny little slice of time [83:01] relative to how long the planet has been [83:03] there. [83:05] >> 100 different living [83:07] >> Yeah, civilizations. [83:08] >> on the word living because living can [83:10] mean many things. [83:11] >> Well, I mean [83:13] Mars might have had life, but it would [83:15] be dead today on the surface. So, [83:18] we're looking for living civilizations. [83:20] >> And does that excite you? [83:21] >> Yes, completely. [83:23] But [83:25] you want to now tell me it has visited [83:27] you [83:28] and with fuzzy lights in the sky [83:31] and no one has like brought forth an [83:34] alien. [83:35] I need better evidence cuz you're making [83:36] an extraordinary claim. [83:38] >> Humans' fascination with meeting these [83:40] aliens when we've got crazy species [83:42] we've never met on our own planet is [83:43] quite [83:43] >> That's a good point. And plus, what do [83:45] we need real aliens for when we have [83:47] Hollywood? [83:50] The funny part to me is we have no [83:53] knowledge [83:55] that aliens want to harm us. [83:57] But we do have knowledge [83:59] that humans want to harm humans. [84:02] And any encounter between an advanced [84:04] civilization and one that was less [84:06] advanced [84:07] in the history of exploration has never [84:11] boded well for the less advanced [84:13] civilization. [84:14] So, for me [84:16] we are describing aliens [84:20] not [84:21] as we think they would be, [84:24] but as we know we are [84:27] >> Mhm. [84:28] >> to one another. [84:29] It's a mirror. [84:31] >> And we've only got to play out what we [84:32] would do as well if we found an alien [84:34] civilization. What would humans do? [84:37] I mean, [84:37] I think we'd go and try and steal some [84:39] of them [84:41] and bring them here. [84:42] >> Well, no, they're probably smarter than [84:43] us. [84:46] That's like That's like worms saying, [84:48] "Oh, we found some humans. What should [84:49] we do with them? Should we corral them?" [84:51] No. [84:53] If If aliens came here, they clearly are [84:55] more advanced than we are cuz we haven't [84:58] left low Earth orbit [85:00] in 53 years. So, if they crossed the [85:02] galaxy to visit us, [85:05] oh, we're going to take our shoot a gun [85:06] at them. They'll laugh at us. [85:10] You know. [85:12] >> In all the movies that we beat them. [85:14] That's so funny. I've never thought [85:15] about that before that yeah, we just [85:16] shoot guns at them. [85:17] >> We shoot guns at them and did it really [85:19] make a difference? You know. [85:21] >> We put like Brad Pitt or whoever in like [85:22] a Tom Cruise in a [85:24] What's your favorite space movie? [85:26] >> Space movie? [85:30] Well, sci-fi is The Matrix. [85:32] >> Why? [85:33] >> I love it. Everything about it. The [85:34] story is tight. There's one physics [85:36] error in it, but without it, they don't [85:39] have a movie. So, you got to give it to [85:40] I can write them a hall pass, [85:42] which I feel [85:44] that I have the power to do. [85:46] >> What was the error? Everyone's going to [85:47] be wondering what the error was in The [85:49] Matrix. [85:49] >> It's not an error. It's just [85:51] they got the [85:52] It's bad physics in it. Okay. So, if you [85:55] if you remember, [85:57] the AI [86:00] computer that's running everything [86:03] needs an energy source. [86:04] >> Mhm. [86:05] >> And so, they're growing humans in these [86:08] pods [86:09] knowing that each human [86:11] radiates at about 80 watts. They didn't [86:13] give that number, but it's a true fact. [86:15] Uh 80 watts, like an 80-watt bulb. [86:17] That's how much energy you are consuming [86:20] and using. It's a energy rate. [86:23] Okay? [86:24] So, they and it's one of the writers [86:26] must have known that and said that's [86:28] kind of cool. Let's use humans as an [86:29] energy source for the machines. All [86:31] right. So, there are these pods of [86:32] humans and they grow the humans from [86:34] childhood to adulthood and they put in [86:38] their head a world that they're living [86:40] in which is just in their head and they [86:43] think it's real. But, it's not. [86:45] That's the Matrix. Okay. [86:48] But, wait a minute. [86:50] How do the humans get their energy? [86:53] They feed the humans food. [86:57] Well, why are you feeding food to humans [87:00] and then using the energy from the [87:01] humans for the machine? Bypass the [87:03] middle man and just feed the machine. [87:07] Something called the second law of [87:08] thermo net first or second law of [87:09] thermodynamics, anytime energy changes [87:12] from one form to another, [87:15] it's not 100% efficient. You drive a car [87:18] if you drive a combustion engine car, [87:20] you drive it 50 miles, get out, the [87:22] engine's hot. [87:25] Where did the heat come from? That's [87:27] wasted energy converting chemical energy [87:30] of the gasoline to kinetic energy of [87:32] your car. [87:34] It is never 100% perfect. So, they are [87:37] losing energy in with this middle man [87:39] and they should just feed themselves [87:41] whatever the food they're feeding the [87:42] humans. [87:44] And [87:46] if they're smart, they would not have [87:47] humans at all. [87:49] But, then there's no movie. So, that's [87:51] my point. Wrote him a hall pass. You're [87:54] okay with that. [87:55] >> Are you an easy person to watch movies [87:56] like this? [87:57] >> Yeah, I'm not I'm not the I'm not the [87:59] guy you think I am. I will watch it and [88:01] silently, yes, I'll [88:03] I'll gather a list of but I'm silent [88:05] about it. And if you're interested, I [88:07] will tell you later. [88:09] >> Have you ever heard about this before? [88:10] This thing I'm holding in my hands now. [88:12] This is called Ketone-IQ. Their website [88:14] is ketone.com. You've heard me on this [88:17] podcast talking about the fact that I [88:18] stay much of the year in a ketogenic [88:20] state, which is a highly restricted [88:22] diet. And the reason I do that is [88:24] plentiful. One of them is I spend hours [88:26] and hours talking to people for a [88:27] living. So, I want to make sure my brain [88:29] is firing in an optimal way. And the [88:31] other reason I do the ketogenic diet is [88:33] because I just feel better. So, when I [88:36] discovered this, which is what they call [88:38] an exogenous ketone product, where you [88:40] can drink it and it increases your [88:42] blood's ketone levels, I was blown away. [88:45] I contacted them, I met them, I invested [88:48] extremely heavily into their company, [88:50] and I've become a co-owner of the [88:51] company accordingly, and they sponsor [88:53] this show now. So, if you want to try [88:54] this out for yourself, [88:56] I recommend you try it. Just visit [88:58] ketone.com/steven [89:00] and you'll get 30% off your first [89:01] subscription order. You'll also get a [89:03] free gift with your second shipment. [89:05] That's ketone.com/steven. [89:09] I did something at 24 years old that has [89:11] had a profound impact on my life. I set [89:13] myself the challenge of posting every [89:15] single day on my social media channels. [89:17] And at the time, I was doing it to grow [89:18] my following, but it had this profound [89:20] impact on my life, and two remarkable [89:22] things happened when I did that. I [89:24] managed to learn faster because every [89:26] single day I'm capturing what is [89:27] happening to me and trying to distill it [89:29] down into something that I can share [89:31] with the world. But more remarkably, it [89:33] led me to building a following of many [89:35] millions of people, and that's the basis [89:37] that I used to launch the Diary of a [89:38] CEO. And that's why I want to tell you [89:40] about our sponsor today, Adobe Express. [89:42] They are the platform that I use to make [89:44] all the posts across my LinkedIn and [89:45] across my Instagram. It's a couple of [89:47] clicks, and you don't need to be an [89:49] expert, and that is why I love using it [89:51] because I'm not an expert in graphic [89:52] design. It's accessible to use for all [89:54] of us, even if we don't have the [89:56] technical prowess to design great [89:58] things. So, if you want to start [89:59] compounding both your reach and your [90:00] knowledge like I did at 24 years old, [90:02] then head to adobe.ly/steven [90:06] and get started with Adobe Express. [90:07] That's adobe.ly/steven. [90:12] What's the one outstanding question, if [90:14] there is one, [90:16] that you're desperate to know the answer [90:17] to? [90:17] >> See, I don't [90:18] live life that way. [90:19] >> Really? [90:20] >> Yeah. It's a sensible question that [90:22] you're asking me. I don't want to [90:23] diminish [90:24] the sensibility of it, but I want to say [90:27] that [90:28] that's not how I view the world. The [90:30] world is not [90:32] there's the one question I need [90:33] answered. [90:35] The world is [90:37] what do I need to learn [90:40] so that I'm standing in a place I can [90:42] yet imagine [90:44] asking a question I have yet to think [90:47] of. [90:50] In other words, as the area of our [90:52] knowledge grows, [90:54] so too does the perimeter of our [90:56] ignorance. [90:58] And so, you say, "What one question?" [91:00] No, there'll be a bunch of questions. [91:02] The [91:03] area grows some more. I'm standing in a [91:05] new place. Now, there's a question I [91:07] didn't even think could be asked before, [91:10] and that's the question that matters [91:12] there and then. [91:13] But then there's another question later [91:15] on as this frontier continues to [91:17] advance. [91:18] So, I don't think about the one question [91:21] or the two questions that matter. [91:23] I think about questions [91:25] yet to be dreamt of [91:27] that we don't even see [91:30] because we haven't taken the frontier to [91:32] that vista yet. [91:34] And so, yeah, it's some of that that's [91:36] unknowable, but I kind of like that. [91:39] There's the German poet Rainer Maria [91:41] Rilke. One of the poems, I don't [91:43] remember all the lines, but the one that [91:44] matters to me most is [91:47] learn to love the questions themselves. [91:51] You're trying to find answers, [91:53] and I'm trying to find the questions. [91:56] >> Learn to love the questions themselves. [91:57] And this kind of brings me back to the [91:59] top of the conversation where I was [92:00] talking about I've got a lot more [92:02] questions these days. [92:03] >> That's good. Love it. Sometimes it's [92:05] difficult. And not all questions [92:08] can be answered given the state of [92:10] knowledge. Some questions are [92:12] illegitimate questions. Not all [92:13] questions are legit questions. [92:15] For example, at what temperature does [92:18] the number seven melt? What kind of [92:21] cheese is the moon made out of? [92:25] These are [92:26] just cuz the nouns and verbs are lined [92:28] up and there's a question mark doesn't [92:29] mean the And by the way, when you're [92:32] in the facing the unknown, you don't [92:33] know if your question later on would [92:36] look that ridiculous. [92:39] What separates the great scientists from [92:40] the average scientist is that they keyed [92:43] into what questions to ask. [92:45] >> Do you think we hurt ourselves by asking [92:47] these invalid questions? [92:48] >> No. [92:49] No. You need You don't know if it's [92:52] invalid. I know the moon is not made out [92:54] of cheese today. [92:57] I know that cuz we've been there. We [92:59] brought back moon rocks. So today that [93:01] question is invalid. But if you never [93:04] imagine ever going to the moon and you [93:05] don't know anything about physics or [93:07] rocks and you look up and it looks like [93:09] a hunk of cheese you're eating, it's a [93:11] completely legit question. [93:13] >> There's a bit of a There is a bit of a [93:14] conversation raging in my friendship [93:16] circle at the moment about religion and [93:18] meaning and what's the point. Should we [93:20] be arguing about these these things? [93:23] About meaning, religion. Is there any Is [93:25] there any benefit [93:26] >> meaning is a very personal thing to [93:27] people. So why should you jump in the [93:30] middle of their attempt to establish [93:32] meaning in their life? [93:33] We're all very different people. [93:35] And so meaning ought to be different. If [93:38] meaning was the same for everyone, you [93:39] just publish it, everyone reads it, and [93:41] then we all have meaning. No, you got to [93:45] make it your Some people want to search [93:47] for it, fine. I don't have a problem [93:48] with that. I'm not searching for [93:49] meaning. I'm creating meaning in my life [93:52] cuz I can control that. Not that it's [93:55] important to control everything. [93:57] Uh [93:57] you know, I I like magic as an adult [94:00] because it reminds me I can still be [94:02] fooled. [94:03] Okay? [94:04] That's [94:05] So, I don't I don't need to know [94:07] everything. I just need to [94:09] maintain curiosity. [94:11] >> You've got kids, so [94:13] >> 29 and 25. [94:15] >> Is that the most meaningful thing you've [94:16] done in your life? [94:18] >> Raising kids? [94:18] >> Yeah. [94:19] >> Uh, it's among the more meaningful [94:20] things. That I would say they did a lot [94:22] of their own raising because they're [94:24] highly independent [94:26] and there's a limit to how much I should [94:29] take credit for who and what they have [94:31] become. They're a lot of what they did [94:33] themselves. [94:35] But, my wife, who's a science scientist, [94:38] she's a mathematical physicist, [94:41] we we made sure that both our kids were [94:43] scientifically literate [94:45] at an early age. [94:46] By age 13, [94:48] certified. [94:49] So, at that point I said, "I don't care [94:51] what grades you get from now on. I don't [94:53] care. I know no one will exploit you [94:57] for your lack of curiosity and knowledge [95:00] about the [95:01] the objective universe." [95:03] >> Mhm. [95:04] >> And, you know, we'd be at a a dinner [95:06] party and [95:07] they're like they're [95:08] in middle school, right? And someone [95:10] says, "Oh, I had a bad day cuz Mercury [95:12] was in retrograde." And [95:15] and my son would say, [95:18] "What actually happened to you today? [95:20] Has that happened on days when it was [95:22] They know how to ask questions." Okay? [95:24] By the way, if you just reject what [95:26] someone says [95:27] outright, [95:28] that's as intellectually lazy as it is [95:31] to accept what they say outright. [95:33] >> Mhm. [95:34] >> What's harder, but I think more fun, [95:37] is lining up a series of questions to [95:39] probe the statement, [95:41] to explore [95:43] what is going on in the thoughts and in [95:46] the claims of the person with whom [95:48] you're conversing. [95:50] So, if someone says I have these [95:51] crystals, if you rub them together, [95:53] it'll heal you. Uh my kids would say, [95:56] "What are the crystals made of? [95:58] And what tests have you made for this? [96:01] And uh could be it could the healing [96:03] have been explained in another way? And [96:05] in what way are the Chris And they start [96:07] asking these questions, and then the [96:09] person will probably just walk away [96:10] because they would not have the answers [96:12] to all of them. And then, you know, [96:14] that's Remember I said, "If an argument [96:15] lasts more than 5 minutes, then both [96:17] sides are wrong." The person would [96:18] There's nothing There's no place for [96:20] that to go [96:22] to the truly curious person. Here's [96:24] another interesting fact. Crystals [96:26] represent the lowest energy state [96:29] of the atomic or molecular configuration [96:31] that it's comprised of. [96:33] The lowest energy state. So, people say, [96:35] "I have crystal energy." No, you don't. [96:37] You have the lowest energy state of that [96:40] of that silicon dioxide that you're [96:41] calling quartz. [96:43] There is no There's no energy you're [96:45] going to take out of it. It is in its [96:46] lowest energy state. [96:49] These are people who have never had [96:50] chemistry. Uh and and as an educator, I [96:53] I don't want to make fun of this, [96:55] but when people [96:56] think they know something and are [96:58] audacious about it, when in fact they [97:00] don't, [97:01] that makes it much harder for an [97:02] educator to break through. [97:05] >> Horoscopes. [97:09] >> Yeah. [97:11] >> Well, I've got some stats for you here, [97:12] >> Sure. [97:13] >> Neil. Surveys find that roughly 80% of [97:15] Gen Z [97:16] believe in astrology to some degree. [97:18] >> Mhm. [97:18] >> 72% of those Gen Z and millennials [97:21] allowed astrology to influence major [97:22] life decisions like romance, health, [97:24] work, [97:25] >> Mhm. [97:25] >> and education. [97:27] And many Gen Zs now are checking their [97:29] horoscopes weekly. [97:31] >> Yeah, I [97:32] We live in a free country. So, I don't [97:35] I'm not going to try to stop them. [97:37] Uh what would be sad is if that number [97:40] got to 100%, [97:41] and then then you wouldn't be generating [97:43] scientists or engineers [97:45] or people who [97:47] the objective truths of the world [97:48] matter. [97:49] And then this civilization just goes [97:52] back to the cave where everything that [97:54] happened in the natural world was [97:56] mysterious [97:58] created by forces beyond our knowledge [98:00] and understanding. [98:01] And [98:03] uh this is the [98:05] the title of one of Carl Sagan's books, [98:06] The Demon-Haunted World. [98:09] Science as a candle in the dark, that [98:11] was the subtitle [98:13] of that book. [98:14] So, if you want to think you're not in [98:16] control of your fate because the sun, [98:18] moon, and planets are [98:21] it's like I said, it's it's a free [98:22] country. [98:22] >> Is there anything that you've learned [98:24] that the universe does to influence us? [98:29] >> Yeah, the sun rises and I wake up [98:30] because I want to be awake during the [98:31] day. [98:32] Yes. [98:33] >> That people aren't [98:34] >> Yeah, the tide comes in and I move my my [98:36] my my beach chair back [98:39] because the tide came in. [98:41] Yeah, [98:42] there there are things that influence my [98:44] behavior. Yes. [98:48] But it's not much more than that. [98:51] Uh Earth is tipped on its axis, so we [98:52] have seasons. I buy coats and wear them [98:55] in the winter. That influences my [98:56] behavior. [98:58] >> What's your star sign? [99:01] >> Well, I once had someone take a class of [99:03] mine [99:04] at the Hayden Planetarium that I taught [99:06] on astrophysics. And at the end she like [99:09] the second to last class, [99:11] she came and she said, "Oh, thank you. [99:12] Thanks for the class. I enjoy I'm [99:13] enjoying the class. [99:15] But I want you to know I'm an astrologer [99:17] and I'm taking the class so I can cast [99:18] horoscopes better." [99:20] So, I said, "It's really working for [99:22] you?" She said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." She [99:23] said, "For example, what's your [99:24] horoscope sign?" [99:26] And I said, [99:29] "Shouldn't you be able to figure that [99:30] out?" [99:33] If all this works [99:35] and you cast horoscopes, you ought to [99:37] tell me what my sign is. [99:39] She said, "Okay, okay." She said, "Are [99:40] you Gemini?" I said, "No." [99:43] And Cancer, that's it. I said, "No." [99:46] Uh it must be Leo. I said, "No." [99:49] Eight horoscopes later, [99:52] she gets the correct answer and says, "I [99:54] knew it." [99:56] So, I'm simply saying [99:59] that [100:01] her ninth guess out of 12 [100:04] was correct and she declares, "I knew [100:07] it." [100:08] >> Why do people want to believe in things [100:10] like this? [100:11] >> I [100:12] I think they want the world to still [100:15] have mysteries. [100:16] Cuz mysteries are beautiful things. [100:18] However, [100:20] the world still has mysteries. They're [100:21] just different mysteries from whatever [100:23] there used to be. [100:25] And so, follow the mysteries where they [100:27] take you. [100:29] And there's another branch of all of us [100:31] who must have answers to every question. [100:34] Because they're not learning to love the [100:35] questions, they only want to love the [100:37] answer. [100:38] So, they say, "What was around before [100:40] the Big Bang?" I said, "I don't know. We [100:41] got to top people Something had to be [100:43] around I said, "I don't know." Must have [100:44] been God. [100:46] So, there's their answer. [100:47] And then they're happy. [100:49] What happens after death? Well, it looks [100:51] like you rot in the ground, but [100:53] otherwise I mess with physics. It's got [100:55] to be something. Your soul I said, [100:57] "There's got to be the God heaven?" [100:59] Okay, that's their answer. [101:01] I've got their answer. [101:02] And if that's your answer at every turn, [101:05] you you make a you're not as good an [101:07] investigator of the unknown. Because you [101:10] invented the answer to the unknown. You [101:12] you're content What is dark matter dark [101:14] I don't know. We got top people we're [101:15] going to Is that the the spirit of God? [101:19] Okay. [101:21] Then that person won't walk into a lab [101:23] to continue to study what dark matter [101:25] and dark energy is. [101:27] I don't mind if you want to say it's [101:28] God, but don't let that stop your [101:29] curiosity. [101:30] But if you say it's God and then you're [101:32] done, [101:33] then you're not very useful in the lab. [101:36] >> These people seem to be happier and [101:38] healthier though, which is the [101:39] surprising thing. The religious people. [101:41] >> Well, again, so it could be because they [101:43] believe there's a god that tells them [101:45] who to sleep with and where to eat and [101:46] how to pray, or because they have a [101:49] regular dose of community. [101:53] I don't know that those are completely [101:54] separable variables. [101:56] They're people who they love and care [101:57] about that they see every week, which is [102:00] not happening with so many people today. [102:01] >> Do you think you would be happier if you [102:03] believed in God? [102:05] >> I'm a pretty happy guy. [102:07] >> Do you think you'd be happier? [102:09] >> I don't know. I see people I've seen [102:11] very happy people [102:13] in [102:14] uh celebrating their version of God. [102:17] But then there are other people who [102:18] really happy in their version of God. [102:20] And here's the problem. [102:23] Deeply religious people [102:26] typically [102:27] find other religions [102:31] Deeply religious people will declare for [102:33] themselves and others in that religion [102:35] that all the other religions are false. [102:37] False. [102:39] And if not false, just make preposterous [102:41] claims. It is so obvious to them how [102:44] false all the other religions are. Now, [102:46] you go to this religion. [102:48] It is obvious how preposterous the rest [102:50] of the religions are. You go around [102:52] religion to religion. [102:55] And [102:58] so what's really going on here is devout [103:00] people in so many of these religions are [103:02] atheists [103:04] to every religion but their own. [103:08] Every religion but their own. [103:10] Okay? [103:11] How can a mountain have moved to [103:12] Muhammad? That can't be. Well, okay. Oh, [103:15] but yes, the creator of the universe [103:17] impregnated a woman in the Middle East [103:20] 2,000 years ago. That's more believable [103:22] than anything in the Quran for this [103:25] person. Okay? [103:27] And then the Jews, he's saying, "Your [103:28] Jesus is the son of God? What are you [103:30] What are you crazy? Where'd you get that [103:32] from? He's a good Jew, nice prophet, but [103:35] son of God, you're going too far. So, [103:37] everybody's saying what's not true. So, [103:40] the atheist for every other they just [103:42] don't believe any other religion. [103:44] Whereas, an actual atheist just has one [103:47] more religion to that category. [103:50] It's your religion. [103:53] The atheist agrees with you that all the [103:54] other religions are preposterous in [103:56] their claims. [103:58] But, they also believe [104:00] they also think your religion [104:02] is preposterous. And people don't accept [104:04] that. They don't it doesn't land well. [104:07] So, I don't have any problems with [104:08] people being religious. I don't have any [104:10] issues with that. It's [104:12] um I don't try to impose my [104:15] I other people try to do it. I've seen [104:18] them do this. [104:19] I have a quote [104:21] where I misquoted just because they want [104:24] me on their side. [104:26] Okay, you ready? It's a simple quote. [104:31] If every time I tell you [104:33] science doesn't understand it, and you [104:35] say, "Well, God must be that. God made [104:37] the universe cuz we don't God made life [104:40] cuz we don't know how to make life yet. [104:41] God If that's [104:43] if that is your definition and [104:45] understanding of God, [104:48] then as science progresses, [104:50] it will solve these questions, [104:55] pushing the God back [104:57] outward [104:59] to places that have yet to be [105:00] discovered. [105:02] And so, the quote is, "If to you God is [105:06] where science has yet to tread, [105:10] then God is an ever receding pocket of [105:13] scientific ignorance." [105:17] That's That That references what [105:19] philosophers have called God of the [105:20] gaps. [105:21] It goes way back, thousands of years. If [105:24] we don't understand it, there's a God. [105:25] The storm is Poseidon. [105:28] Okay, lightning bolt struck is Zeus. [105:30] Right? That's God of the gaps. God of [105:32] the gaps is a time-honored [105:34] exercise in human civilization. [105:37] And all I'm saying is [105:39] that statement [105:42] is objectively true because it's an if [105:44] statement. [105:46] If to you God is where science has yet [105:48] to tread, [105:50] then as science continues to tread, [105:51] you're a pocket a shrinking pocket of [105:54] scientific That's your God. [105:56] Okay? [105:57] It's not an opinion. That's a statement [106:00] of an if statement of the consequences [106:02] of an if statement. I've had people take [106:03] the second half and put it on a T-shirt. [106:07] God is an ever-receding pocket of [106:09] scientific [106:10] ignorance, Neil deGrasse Tyson. That's [106:12] not what I said. [106:14] That's half of what I said. And that's [106:17] only true if to you God is where science [106:20] has yet to tread. But to pull that out [106:22] and make that the truth? No. [106:25] I would never make such a statement. [106:27] Ever. [106:28] >> You're 66, right? [106:30] >> Hang on. [106:33] I will be 67 [106:36] in a month in a month. [106:37] >> Okay, so you're [106:37] >> a month from this recording. [106:38] >> So I'm 33. [106:39] >> Okay. Half my age. [106:41] >> Exactly half. [106:43] I I I was I was wondering, you're a very [106:45] wise man, [106:46] what is the advice that you wish someone [106:49] had said to you [106:50] at 33 [106:52] that you could give to me now? [106:54] >> I have no such advice, and I'll tell you [106:57] why. [106:59] If you're alert and you're smart, [107:02] alert meaning you notice things and [107:03] you're you're smart, [107:05] and you [107:06] you learn, [107:14] living life itself [107:17] is the lesson. [107:20] So if So, a version of what you just [107:22] asked is [107:23] what given what you know today, what [107:25] would you tell yourself if you met [107:27] yourself when you were 15, 20, 25, 30, [107:29] whatever? [107:31] And I said, I wouldn't tell him [107:32] anything. [107:34] Because if I gave a bit of wisdom [107:37] to I say, [107:38] you're about to do that, but don't do [107:40] that. [107:41] Okay? [107:43] There's no better lesson than doing [107:45] something and learning that you [107:47] shouldn't do it. [107:48] That's the best lesson. [107:51] We don't live life because there's a [107:52] list of things that other people said [107:54] don't do. You're going to explore your [107:56] life. That's what you're going to do. [107:59] And some things are great and some [108:00] things you don't want to do again, some [108:01] things you're bad. [108:04] That's where the wisdom comes from. [108:08] You earn it. [108:11] It's the most It's the most [108:14] It's the strongest kind of wisdom you [108:15] can have, provided you learn from a [108:17] mistake. [108:18] If you're just an idiot and you just [108:20] keep making the mistake, [108:22] my advice for you is, don't make the [108:23] same mistake twice. [108:25] But that's You don't need me for that. [108:28] So, you'll make a decision about this [108:30] podcast or some business decision. And [108:32] no, it didn't turn out right. It Here's [108:34] a better example of this, you ready? [108:36] This is a very American kind of story [108:38] I'm about to tell. Immigrant comes over [108:41] back when that was a thing you could do. [108:43] Comes to the United States and they work [108:46] hard. [108:47] Very hard working. [108:50] They first sweep the the street in front [108:52] of a storefront and then they're in the [108:54] store and they learn the trade and then [108:56] the owner dies and they take over the [108:58] trade and they're working hard and [108:59] they're scrapping and they and then they [109:01] buys a the adjacent store and they [109:04] builds the thing and become and then he [109:06] moves and he lives in a big house and he [109:08] has kids. Okay? [109:11] And he says to himself, [109:15] when I was [109:16] your age, I had to like scrounge for [109:20] food. And I had to like sweep thing [109:23] and I want to make sure my kids don't [109:25] have to do that. [109:28] I want to make sure they don't have to [109:28] do that. [109:30] Okay? So, you provide [109:33] things for them. [109:35] So, they don't have to do this. And now [109:37] they grow up and they're adults [109:40] and they're deadbeats. [109:43] They have no motivation. They have no [109:45] ambition. They have no vision statement [109:49] because everything got handed to them. [109:51] And what what does the adult say to the [109:53] kids? [109:54] Where did I go wrong? I gave you [109:57] everything I didn't have. [110:00] That's where they went wrong. [110:02] Because they gave the kids everything he [110:03] didn't have. And what made that person [110:06] was what they struggled and did the [110:08] decisions they had to make, the [110:09] decisions they got right, the decisions [110:11] they got wrong, who they met, how they [110:13] treated people. [110:15] This is life experience. [110:17] And it doesn't come on a bumper sticker. [110:19] Doesn't come on a what's the secret. [110:23] That's like going to someone's home and [110:25] one of the one of the hosts [110:27] is a is actually a trained chef, right? [110:29] And maybe worked in a restaurant and [110:31] they prepare this exquisite meal. [110:34] And you say, "This is delicious. [110:36] What's your secret?" [110:39] Oh, the secret? [110:41] I went to chef school for 6 years. [110:43] That's the secret. [110:45] You're thinking this is one sentence I [110:47] could tell you and then you that'll make [110:48] everything better. [110:50] No. [110:51] No. [110:53] Just stay alert. [110:55] Learn new stuff every day. [110:57] And learn from your mistakes because [110:59] those lessons are greater [111:02] than someone just telling you to not do [111:04] it. [111:06] Then you have no such life experience to [111:08] build into the wisdom that you want to [111:11] acquire [111:12] in the years to come. [111:14] >> My last question for you is I I hear it [111:16] >> I didn't think you'd ever have a last [111:17] question. [111:20] >> No, yeah. I mean, for now, I should say. [111:21] My last question for now, but um my last [111:23] question for now, and I kind of hear it [111:25] in between some of the things you say, [111:27] is and I've just moved here, so I've [111:28] just moved to Los Angeles. How do you [111:30] feel about America right now? [111:33] >> Well, [111:34] you know, it's a free country, and we [111:35] vote in our leaders, [111:37] and [111:38] right now, there's a whole set of people [111:39] in charge [111:41] that are doing different things from [111:42] what had happened in previous [111:45] uh years, previous leaderships, even [111:47] previous leaders of that same political [111:49] party. The what's going on is very [111:52] different from anything that I think [111:54] people would have predicted. A lot of [111:56] people like [111:58] complaining about leadership, [112:00] but we live in a country where we choose [112:02] our leaders. [112:04] So, if you're going to complain about [112:04] the leadership, you should be [112:06] complaining about the people the about [112:08] the electorate. [112:10] I'm an educator. I I've never [112:12] I I've never [112:16] the [112:16] I complained about politicians. [112:19] They represent people. [112:22] I was once in the Rayburn Office [112:24] Building, [112:25] Washington, D.C., in the Science [112:27] Committee's room, beautifully decorated [112:30] with science um [112:32] art and sculptures and things. [112:34] One of the members of the Science [112:35] Committee back then [112:37] was a young Earth creationist. [112:41] Young Earth creationist. [112:43] Universe created in 6 days, Earth [112:44] created in 6,000 years, at most 10,000 [112:47] years. [112:48] And I knew he was going to be there, and [112:50] I thought to myself, [112:52] "Do I grab him by the lapels and say, [112:53] 'What do you think? YOU'RE ON A SCIENCE [112:55] COMMITTEE.'" And then I thought, "No. [112:57] No. [112:59] If he thinks that, [113:02] presumably, so does his electorate. [113:05] They voted him in. [113:08] And this electorate of fellow citizens [113:10] as am I in this country. [113:13] So I can't indict him. Let me go have a [113:15] conversation with the folks who voted [113:17] for him. [113:18] I say, "Why do you think this? Have you [113:20] considered this?" And that's my duty as [113:22] an educator not to hit anybody on the [113:24] head who's in Washington. [113:25] >> So do we blame the educators and the [113:27] media people like, you know, people like [113:29] me that [113:30] >> No, I that's [113:32] the blame game is I don't feel that way. [113:36] My parents when we they showed us the [113:38] images [113:40] of the dogs and the water hoses on the [113:43] protesters and in the South American [113:45] South. [113:47] They were never bitter. [113:49] They said, "These people don't know any [113:52] better. [113:53] They don't know any differently. [113:55] You have to talk to them and [113:57] you know, teach them." [113:59] That's very different from saying [114:01] holding up your fist saying, "I'm going [114:03] to fight them because they're my enemy." [114:06] It's I want to teach them because [114:07] they're my fellow citizens. [114:10] And that's how I feel. [114:12] So [114:13] my worry is that there decisions made [114:16] that are not in the best interest of the [114:18] people who voted for those decisions. [114:20] The longer term implications [114:22] are um could be devastating. If you cut [114:25] basic science [114:27] basic science feeds engineering, [114:29] engineering feeds economies. [114:32] And so if you don't think basic science [114:33] matters cuz you don't either understand [114:36] the title of the research or the [114:38] scientist didn't communicate it [114:39] interestingly enough, whatever. [114:42] And you say, "This is a waste of money. [114:43] Take it all out. Let's just do the [114:45] engineering." [114:46] You'll be ossified in place. [114:48] >> And is that what's happened? What [114:49] happened? [114:49] >> We are on the brink of that happening [114:51] right now. That's correct. [114:52] >> The average person has no idea about [114:53] this. [114:53] >> I've tried to you know illuminate [114:57] the public about it. [114:59] It's easy to say that basic science [115:01] doesn't matter or can't matter or will [115:02] never matter [115:04] because we don't know yet. [115:07] Right now is the centennial decade. [115:10] So let's go back to the 1920s where [115:12] quantum physics [115:13] was developed. [115:15] If you were around back then, what would [115:17] you say? Why are you studying atoms? You [115:18] can't even see atoms. [115:20] Don't waste your time. You're a [115:21] brilliant person. Go work on this other [115:22] problem that we have in society. [115:25] And [115:27] it would take decades. [115:30] But [115:31] the information [115:33] technology revolution [115:39] has as its core [115:41] the creation, storage, and retrieval of [115:43] digital information that can only happen [115:47] with the exploitation of the quantum. [115:50] So this decade of science, physics, that [115:53] was discovered [115:55] by the 1950s, it was like, "Whoa, this [115:57] is some important physics here." [115:59] No one would have known that at the [116:01] time. [116:03] Why? [116:05] Let me keep going. Was it 1876 [116:07] uh [116:08] Philadelphia Expo? [116:11] Alexander Graham Bell showcases his new [116:14] contraption, [116:16] the telephone. [116:18] And people say, "Wow, this is kind of [116:19] cool." You should read what people wrote [116:21] about it. "This is a great invention. I [116:23] can imagine there might be one in every [116:25] city in the future." [116:31] In this book [116:32] at the That one, yeah. There's a whole [116:34] chapter called science and technology [116:38] where I chronicle [116:40] I chronicle [116:42] how people think about the technology of [116:44] their day [116:46] and how they always get it wrong when [116:47] they predict the future. [116:50] Because [116:52] foundational science comes in at the [116:53] bottom and you don't see that coming. [116:55] And it gurgles its way up. Clever [116:57] engineers apply it. And then [117:00] you have an iPad. [117:05] >> Neil, thank you so much. [117:06] >> Well, thanks Fred for for having me [117:07] back. This is our second time together. [117:10] What you brought out the bookstore here? [117:11] What did you do? [117:12] >> Yes, we wanted to to come prepared. I [117:13] mean, you have you write the most [117:15] incredible books. Um [117:17] and you talk in the most incredible [117:18] ways. I said this to you last time, but [117:19] you're one of the most incredible [117:21] storytellers I've ever heard. You make [117:23] something which is I really didn't have [117:24] a huge amount of interest in in school [117:26] suddenly interesting to us as adults, [117:28] which is a remarkable thing. [117:30] So, thank you for doing what you do. We [117:31] do have a closing tradition where the [117:32] last guest leaves a question for the [117:34] next guest. [117:34] >> Oh, is that right? [117:35] >> Yes. [117:35] >> Okay. [117:36] >> And they don't know who they're leaving [117:36] it for. The question left for you is how [117:39] good are you at knowing [117:42] what you will regret and is there [117:45] anything you do regret? [117:47] >> Yeah, I think regrets are things that [117:49] you only realize when it's too late. [117:52] Otherwise, you would have preempted it [117:54] and not have to regret it. [117:56] So, [117:58] uh I don't know that I'm any better than [118:00] anyone else at it. [118:02] Cuz if you're good at it, you'll never [118:04] be in a position to have to do something [118:05] that you would regret. [118:07] The fact is you went past something that [118:10] you did and said, "Damn, I shouldn't [118:11] have done that. I got to regret that." [118:13] So, I to be good at knowing in advance [118:16] that you're going to regret something, [118:18] that's almost an impossible scenario. [118:21] If I'm good at seeing it, then I would [118:22] never have to regret anything cuz I [118:24] would have preempted it. [118:26] So, for all of us, the fact that we have [118:28] regrets is we moved past something [118:30] that we did and was like, "Damn, I I [118:32] regret that." [118:33] after the fact. [118:34] >> Do you have any regrets? [118:36] >> Uh I was a a [118:40] uh in college, [118:43] I majored in physics and I was think I [118:44] was a junior. There were students that [118:46] came in [118:47] from other schools for a program. [118:51] >> Mhm. [118:52] >> Okay. Uh high school seniors, I think [118:53] they were. [118:54] Uh they might have been freshmen in [118:56] their college, but I think they were [118:57] high school students. And I was a men- [118:59] not a mentor, but I would guide them in [119:01] these research projects. Then at the end [119:03] we had to write [119:05] an evaluation of them. [119:08] And there was one student [119:10] I wrote an evaluation that [119:13] was accurate [119:15] but [119:18] unnecessary. [119:22] I said [119:23] he [119:25] pretends he knows things that he doesn't [119:27] and he's [119:29] you know, he's faking this and he's [119:32] and I didn't yet know [119:36] how to [119:37] speak encouragingly about someone. [119:41] Separate from just speaking factually [119:43] about someone. [119:46] So [119:47] is that an art? Is it a science to do [119:49] that? I don't know, but I know I didn't [119:51] have it at the time. I just simply [119:53] described what I saw. [119:55] And I said he you know, this is not [119:58] going to work. He this this is [120:00] it was very deflating [120:04] to him. [120:06] And [120:08] I [120:09] considering that at the time I'm [120:11] majoring in physics at Harvard, he's [120:14] coming from some [120:16] high school somewhere [120:18] and I'm a Harvard student telling him [120:20] that you know, he ain't [120:23] And I should not have done that. [120:25] >> Did he [120:26] contact you later? [120:27] >> No. [120:28] Uh he might have taken up another field. [120:30] I don't know. [120:31] But so I I regret that, but it would [120:33] take me four years to even realize that [120:35] that was a regrettable thing because I [120:37] didn't know how to [120:40] you know, as an educator you want to [120:42] encourage people. You see where the [120:43] weaknesses are and figure out ways to [120:46] have that person [120:48] eradicate them, improve upon them, [120:50] rather than just say, "This is not [120:52] working. Go home." [120:54] >> Why why do [120:55] >> So, I regret that. And that's probably [120:56] the thing I regret most in life. [120:58] >> Really? [120:59] >> Yeah. Because it was [121:02] who knows what consequences that has on [121:04] that person's life. [121:05] >> And you remembered that? [121:06] >> Oh, yes. Oh my gosh. Yes. [121:10] >> What What How How do you remember that? [121:11] Cuz you wrote you write it down in his [121:13] report card or whatever his assessment. [121:15] >> Time goes on. Does something happen for [121:18] you to think back to what you wrote? [121:21] >> Uh well, I've written many letters of [121:23] reference for people, more than I can [121:25] count. [121:25] >> Mhm. [121:26] >> So, I think every time I write a letter [121:28] of reference, I think about how I could [121:30] have written that letter back then. [121:32] That's a regret. [121:35] And I live with that. [121:36] >> I can see you live with it. [121:37] >> Yeah. [121:39] So, I think I made up for it. [121:41] Just in how many people I And there are [121:43] other people who needed help. And so, [121:45] you find out how they can improve it and [121:47] advise on that, so that everybody lifts [121:50] up. [121:51] That's how you make a better world. [121:53] >> And it goes back to what you said at the [121:54] start you wanted on your tombstone, [121:56] which is certainly something you've [121:57] already done in droves, more so than I [122:00] think anybody [122:01] >> So, you tell me I can die now? Is that [122:02] Is that what you just You just said [122:04] that? [122:04] >> Or you can go on holiday. [122:07] It's up to you. Um but thank you so much [122:08] for being here. You are you're a huge [122:10] inspiration to me. I know Jack is a mega [122:12] mega fan of yours as well and his um [122:14] loves your You're the both the [122:16] reason [122:17] that I [122:18] well, I I I let let go of my religious [122:21] belief at 18 years old And I don't blame [122:23] me for that. I don't want you to lose [122:24] your religion cuz of me. No, but I just [122:26] said this. I let go of my religious [122:28] belief at 18 years old and I became an [122:29] atheist agnostic. Then I became really [122:31] agnostic. But then I kind of fell in [122:32] love with the universe. And I fell in [122:34] love with the universe because of you [122:36] and because of Cosmos, which is one of [122:37] my favorite things ever to watch. And I [122:39] found all the curiosity and awe and [122:41] magic that I needed to find by by [122:44] reading your work and watching the the [122:45] the wonderful movies that you've made. [122:47] So, thank you so much for that. I [122:48] appreciate that. [122:48] >> is a rich repository [122:51] of [122:53] spiritual fulfillment. [122:55] >> Yeah. [122:55] >> If I may. [122:57] >> Yeah, it's to say the least. Yeah. Wow. [122:59] And your book is exactly that. I highly [123:00] recommend everybody goes and checks it [123:02] out. It's out on I think it's the 21st [123:03] of October. [123:04] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, the the next installment [123:06] in Merlin. Yeah, in in October. Yeah. [123:08] >> I'll link it on the screen on the link [123:09] >> you. [123:09] >> link it below. Highly recommend you [123:11] check [123:11] >> Visiting This Planet. So, so [123:14] So, I lied before. I can give you some [123:15] advice. [123:16] >> Please. Yeah. [123:17] >> This is 67-year-old advice. [123:19] >> Yeah. [123:20] >> At no time [123:23] should you [123:25] overvalue [123:29] your own thoughts. [123:34] You should You should [123:37] You should allow yourself [123:40] to be humbled daily [123:42] with new ideas that challenge any or [123:45] everything that you currently think. [123:51] That's wisdom. [123:52] I think. [123:53] >> How do I know who I am if if I don't [123:55] know who I am? [123:56] >> Maybe you're not Maybe you only are who [123:58] you are on your deathbed. [124:00] Because then you would have completed [124:01] your life. [124:02] You're still in You're work in progress. [124:05] You're 33, so last year, when you were [124:07] 31, you would have lived your billionth [124:10] second. [124:12] Okay? And if you if you lead a a healthy [124:14] life, you should get 3 billion seconds [124:16] out of it. You get to 93, at least that. [124:19] So, [124:20] time passes. [124:22] If you learn something new every day, [124:23] that forces extra context for extra [124:26] perspective, [124:28] new perspective on whatever you knew [124:30] yesterday. [124:31] You have to stay open to that. [124:34] And I read old science books [124:37] cuz I watch people's [124:38] that they had in what they thought they [124:40] knew. [124:41] It can be embarrassing in some cases. [124:43] And it's very humbling to look back [124:46] at people writing about their own world. [124:49] There's a book from 1899 the guy said on [124:51] the sun and it says [124:52] "We've learned so much about the sun in [124:54] the last 3 years. I have to up the [124:55] edition of this book I wrote 3 years [124:58] ago." [124:59] And I'm saying you don't know ABOUT [125:01] THE SUN. [125:02] OKAY, UH IN 19 in 1899, but he's feeling [125:06] it. He's feeling that joy. And so I [125:09] it [125:11] it keeps me humble on the frontier [125:15] on this perimeter of ignorance. [125:17] Cuz there's way more to discover [125:19] than anything you've already learned. [125:22] >> Maybe that's the antidote in medicine [125:24] that society needs right now, too. [125:26] >> I think so. Cuz everybody is running [125:28] things thinking they know better than [125:30] everybody else.