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