Loading...
About this Episode
Why_Your_Cosmic_Insignificance_Is_a_Relief
Hosts & Guests
Transcript
So, um, think about opening a maps app on your phone.
Okay, you'd type in your address and there's that, you know, that little glowing blue dot.
Right.
And you are the literal center of the screen.
I mean, it's comforting.
It feels safe.
But then, uh, then you pinch the screen.
You zoom out to your city and then you pinch again to see your state, your country.
And suddenly that little blue dot just vanishes.
Exactly.
It just vanishes.
You zoom out to the globe, the solar system, the entire Milky Way.
And well, usually for a lot of people, that kind of extreme zooming out induces a,
like a low level existential panic.
Oh, yeah.
Because we are deeply, biologically conditioned to believe we are the main character.
Yeah.
It is profoundly disorienting to realize the universe does not actually revolve around that little blue dot
let alone, you know, whatever happens to be stressing you out on a Tuesday afternoon.
Right.
You just experienced the lack of a cosmic perspective.
So today on your custom deep dive, we are taking a stack of research,
primarily grounded in these fascinating discussions, featuring astrophysicist,
Neil deGrasse Tyson, and physicist Dr. Brian Keating to really figure out why our human
egos are so terrified of that little blue dot disappearing.
It's a great mission for this deep dive.
Yeah, we are going to explore the incredible friction between grand cosmic realities and,
well, our deeply held human delusions.
We're looking at how our desperate need to be the center of everything really clouds our
understanding of animal intelligence, our own technological progress, the reality of colonizing
Mars, and even the highly polarized political debates we are having down here on Earth today.
And what's fascinating here is how this concept of acquiring a cosmic perspective,
it isn't just an abstract thought experiment.
Right.
It functions as a very real antidote to the information overload and societal anxiety you see everywhere
today.
There is a concept in these discussions called cosmic insignificance therapy.
Cosmic insignificance therapy.
I like that.
Yeah, it's the idea that realizing you are just a microscopic blip in a 14 billion year timeline.
It shouldn't trigger an existential crisis.
It should actually, you know, bring you an immense sense of relief.
I mean, I see the appeal, but doesn't that just make everything feel pointless if we're just
dust, why bother?
Well, Tyson argues the exact opposite.
He points out that if you have to seek therapy to make peace with your insignificance,
your understanding of the world was heavily distorted from the start.
Oh, interesting.
Right.
You began on an ego mountain.
If you start out with an accurate, objective view of the cosmos, there is no trauma to get over.
The profound realization isn't that you were separate from the universe, but that you share
its exacting ingredients.
That's literally the same stuff.
Exactly.
The carbon in your cells, the nitrogen in your DNA, the iron in your blood.
Those elements were forged in the explosive fiery deaths of supernovas.
We aren't just living in the universe.
We are fundamentally of it.
Okay, let's unpack this.
Yeah.
Because if we accept that we are literally made of the same stardust as everything else,
it completely shatters how we view the other beings sharing this planet with us.
No, absolutely.
We have this deep-seated need to place humanity on a pedestal above the rest of the animal kingdom.
And there is a stunning anecdote in the research about a magpie.
I love this story.
It's so good.
So picture this, someone leaves a plastic water bottle sitting upright in a park half empty.
A magpie wanders up.
It wants a drink, but its beak isn't long enough to reach down to the water line.
Right, so it's stuck.
Exactly.
So what does this supposed bird brain do?
It flies off, finds a pebble, and drops it into the bottle.
It flies off, finds another pebble, drops it in.
It literally intuitively utilizes Archimedes' principle of fluid displacement.
What is just wild?
It is.
Most of us vaguely know that as heavy things push water up,
but watching a bird grasp fluid dynamics without a textbook is just mind blowing.
It just keeps raising the water level, pebble by pebble, until it can take a sip.
It is a brilliant display of problem solving.
But historically, whenever animals demonstrate this kind of intelligence,
humanity just, well, we move the goalposts.
Yeah, we always do.
First, we claimed only humans use tools.
Then we observed crow's and apes using tools.
So we shifted the metric and said, well, okay, only humans have a high brain-to-bodyweight ratio.
Right.
But if you actually look at the biological data,
mice have a phenomenal brain-to-body ratio.
We are constantly tweaking the criteria of intelligence,
purely to maintain our own superiority complex.
And I have to push back on how we even define intelligence in the first place.
We judge the entire animal kingdom with a stacked deck.
It's like grading a fish entirely on its ability to climb a tree
and then acting smug when it fails.
Exactly.
We just arbitrarily decided that human traits are the only valid markers of value.
And the ultimate human trait we value, the one we place above all else,
is our consciousness.
But if we connect this to the bigger picture,
there is a brilliant observational paradox
regarding how little we actually know about it.
Oh, the library analogy.
Yes.
Think about the irony of walking into a university library.
If you look for books on gravity, which is a fundamental,
universe-shaping force,
it might take up a third of one shelf.
Yes, a few books.
Right. But if you look for books on the human mind,
psychology and consciousness,
it takes up aisle after aisle after aisle.
Which means we clearly have no idea how it actually works.
I mean, if we truly understood consciousness,
we'd have a few definitive textbooks,
not millions of books, just guessing at it.
Exactly.
That massive volume of literature is proof of our ignorance.
And this is why theories like panpsychism,
you know, the philosophical idea that inanimate objects,
like meteorites or electrons, possess a form of consciousness,
it's such a massive overstep of our current science.
Yeah, it really is.
We are projecting a phenomenon we don't even understand
ourselves onto inanimate space rocks.
We are so obsessed with our own mind,
so desperate to feel less alone in the void,
that we start wondering if a chunk of quartz has feelings.
That ego, that relentless need to center ourselves,
it absolutely distorts how we view animals and space rocks.
But it also radically distorts how we perceive time
and the progress of our own science.
Oh, completely.
There is a very prevalent sentiment on social media lately,
you probably see it all the time,
where people complain that physics and technology
have essentially flatlined since the late 1980s or 90s.
The myth of stagnation.
It is a profound failure of perspective.
I mean, the data completely dismantles this narrative.
Just 15 years ago, smartphones and streaming video
barely existed as functional concepts.
Right.
In 1989, humanity knew of exactly zero exoplanets.
We literally did not know for a fact
if other stars had planets orbiting them.
Today, we've confirmed over 6,000.
Right now, there is an SUV-sized rover
driving across the surface of Mars,
and it brought a robotic helicopter with it.
I mean, we're flying a drone
in the atmosphere of another planet.
Yeah.
And look at artificial intelligence.
Decades ago, the famous Turing test for machine intelligence
was temporarily fooled by a rudimentary pattern
matching text program called Eliza.
Today, generative AI neural networks
are writing code, composing essays,
and navigating complex traffic in real time.
It's moving so fast.
The goalposts of what we consider machine intelligence
are moving so rapidly, we can barely track them.
Is this pessimism biased?
Just people trying to sound edgy and jaded.
I constantly hear the complaint like
the 1950s promised us flying cars
and all we got was the smartphone.
Right.
But that completely misses the point of the revolution
we just lived through.
The retrofuture they imagined was based on a massive drop
in the cost of energy.
Jetpacks for everyone.
Exactly.
But the real revolution that actually materialized
was the massive drop in the cost of information.
We didn't get cheap jetpacks.
We got the sum total of all human knowledge
instantly accessible in a piece of glass in our pockets.
We are living in a computing and information age,
not an energy age.
And because that progress happens smoothly,
you know, increment by increment,
you become blind to it.
It becomes the new normal.
Yeah, that makes sense.
But our observational data is exploding so rapidly
that the fundamental scientific facts
are constantly requiring updates.
When Tyson talks about updating his 1989 book
Merlin's Tour of the Universe,
he notes that while the baseline physics
remains static like the rotational mechanics of the Earth,
the data is a completely different universe.
And the moon count is a great example of that.
Yes.
In the 1980s, we knew of maybe 89 moons
in our entire solar system.
Today, thanks to advanced deep space probes,
that number is pushing 300.
Our understanding of our own moon's formation
has completely evolved to its heavily solidified
around the giant impact hypothesis.
So over four billion years ago,
the early Earth was sideswiped
by a Mars-sized proto-planet they call Thea.
It's like a cosmic hit and run
that left behind the perfect debris field to build our moon.
But wait, if they smashed together,
how does that explain why the moon has almost no heavy iron
yet its surface-rocky material matches the Earth's crust so perfectly?
It comes down to the sheer violence and physics of the collision.
By the time Thea hit, Earth had already cooled enough
that its heavy iron had sunk deep into its core.
Oh, okay.
The impact vaporized the outer crusts of both bodies,
the lighter rocky materials,
that superheated cloud of lighter rock was blasted into space
and it coalesced just outside Earth's roach lobe.
Wait, the roach lobe is that like an invisible gravitational border
where a planet just tears anything apart that gets too close?
Yes, essentially.
Inside the roach limit, Earth's tidal forces would have shredded that debris
back into a wing system, much like Saturn's.
Wow.
But because it coalesced just outside that border,
gravity allowed it to form a spherical moon.
However, it formed 20 times closer to the Earth than it sits today.
20 times closer.
If you stood on Earth back then,
the moon would have just dominated the entire sky.
It would be terrifying.
Visually overwhelming.
And mathematically,
being that close means the gravitational pull it exerted on Earth's early magma oceans
was roughly 8,000 times stronger than the tides we experienced today.
So if a collision was violent enough to vaporize rock and build a known,
it makes you wonder what happens to the debris that doesn't get trapped in orbit.
Right.
Is it just drift forever?
Or could it seed life on another planet?
This perfectly leads into pan spermia.
The concept that early asteroid impacts
could have blasted organic material off Earth,
trading it back and forth with Mars.
My mind instantly goes to tardigrades,
those microscopic water bears that can somehow survive the vacuum of space.
Well, pan spermia is a highly debated hypothesis.
We know with absolute certainty that pieces of Mars have landed on Earth as meteorites,
blasted off by ancient impacts.
So the reverse mechanics must also be true.
Earth rocks have hit Mars.
But survival is the bottleneck.
Space is supremely hostile.
The intense ultraviolet radiation,
the absolute zero of the vacuum,
and the sheer thermal violence of the impact required to achieve escape velocity in the first place.
Right.
It just makes it an incredibly tough journey
for any complex microbial life to endure.
But if pieces of Earth have already made the journey to Mars,
it naturally brings us to humanity's current obsession
with sending humans in that exact same direction.
We have to talk about Elon Musk's dream of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars.
This raises an important question about how human civilization actually achieves mega-projects.
If you strip away the romance of space travel and look at the cold,
historical framework, wildly expensive human endeavors have only ever been driven
by three specific motivations.
Okay, what are they?
Number one is the praise of a deity or royalty.
That is how you get the ancient pyramids or Europe's grand cathedrals.
Number two is economic return, the promise of getting rich.
And number three is geopolitical fear or the drive not to die.
Basically war, defense, or military threats.
When you view Musk's Mars plan through that historical filter,
it utterly fails.
There is zero immediate economic return on investment
for colonizing a frozen irradiated desert.
None.
Can't mind anything on Mars and ship it back to Earth profitably.
The transport costs are astronomical.
And there is currently no geopolitical threat driving it.
If a rival nation suddenly established a military base on Mars,
sure the US government would suddenly find the budget to be there in 10 months,
but right now there's no fear pushing us.
Exactly.
The barrier to colonizing Mars is not the technology.
We already have rovers navigating the terrain.
The barrier is the motivation to write a multi-trillion dollar check.
Here's where it gets really interesting, though.
I have to push back here.
We aren't living in the 1400s anymore.
What if the modern billionaire is the equivalent of historical royalty?
A billionaire today has more liquid capital than some entire nations.
Why couldn't a group of them just pull their money,
ignore the lack of ROI,
and treat a Mars colony as the ultimate vanity project,
history be damned?
Well, a coalition of billionaires absolutely could pull their wealth
to fund a vanity trip.
They could plant a flag and come back.
Right.
But a vanity project cannot be sustained as a traditional business model
for a permanent colony.
History shows us that governments take on the initial,
massive financial risks for geopolitical reasons.
Queen Isabella did not fund Christopher Columbus as a private venture-backed enterprise
operating on tight profit margins.
Good point.
She funded him for geopolitical dominance in the spice trade.
Only after the road is mapped, the initial infrastructure built,
and the risks quantified does private enterprise follow.
Private companies simply do not take on trillion dollar existential risks
just for the sheer romance of exploration.
That is exactly the kind of clear-eyed,
data-driven objective thinking that we desperately need
when we look back down at Earth.
We let our tribalism and our politics
completely cloud the mechanics of reality.
Science at its core must transcend tribalism.
A great example from the research.
Tyson is well known to lean politically left.
Yet he was appointed to multiple White House science commissions
by George W. Bush,
a conservative Republican president.
Which is how it should be.
Right.
True scientific expertise is about observing objective reality
and following the data,
regardless of the prevailing political narrative.
And applying that objective lens brings us to one of the most
highly charged cultural debates happening right now,
transgender athletes and sports.
Yes.
To be absolutely clear to you listening,
we are impartially reporting the physiological data
discussed in the source material.
We're not taking a political or moral stance here.
Strictly looking at the physiological mechanics presented
in Olympic track and field events that require pure explosive speed,
the biological male world records are roughly 10% faster than female world records.
In tennis, top male serves are about 30 miles per hour faster.
But here is the fascinating part.
As you move into grueling endurance events,
like ultra triathlons or long distance swimming,
that physiological gap narrows significantly,
dropping to just around 6%.
Because the biological mechanics shift,
pure speed relies heavily on fast twitch muscle fibers and sheer lung capacity,
where biological males have a stark,
measurable advantage due to development under testosterone.
Right.
But in ultra endurance events,
the context becomes about metabolic efficiency,
how the body processes fat for fuel over 20 hours and mental grit.
In those realms, the physiological gap drastically narrows.
That makes total sense.
Facing this data, Tyson offers a hypothetical,
purely mechanical solution for a future where sports might no longer be
segregated strictly by gender identity.
He suggests exploring categories based on the mechanics of physiology specifically,
creating competitive brackets based on hormone levels or hormone ratios.
If you've ever watched traditional wrestling or boxing,
you already understand this concept.
We segregate those sports by weight classes.
125-pound wrestler is never going to step onto the mat against the 240-pound wrestler.
Exactly.
As a viewer, you'd find it boring, unfair, and completely uncompetitive.
So, is applying this logic to hormone levels
just a modern extension of ensuring compelling, fair matchups,
stripping the heavy politics completely out of the mechanical realities of the human body?
That is the exact parallel the research draws.
The ultimate takeaway is defining the proper role of the
scientist and society.
A scientist's goal is to observe reality,
measure the data, and offer mechanical possibilities based on that data.
Not tell us how to live.
Right.
Their job is not to dictate moral edicts.
They don't tell society what it must do.
They show society what is physically occurring so that the public can make informed decisions.
But when we allow emotional or political biases
to dictate what we are even allowed to discuss,
we don't just get bad policy.
We miss out on world-changing scientific breakthroughs.
And there is no better example of a word heavily burdened by emotional bias
than the word nuclear.
It is entirely weighed down by the trauma of the 20th century.
This brings us to a massive,
recent achievement at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
achieving fusion ignition.
Huge milestone.
To understand why this is a civilization altering milestone,
you have to separate fission from fusion.
Historically, nuclear power plants and the atomic bombs of World War Two
relied on fission.
That involves splitting heavy unstable atoms like uranium.
Right.
The unavoidable byproduct of fission is hazardous radioactive waste.
Fusion is the exact opposite process.
It is the attempt to bring the power of the sun down to earth
by fusing light hydrogen atoms together.
And hydrogen is everywhere.
Exactly.
It's incredibly abundant in water.
The process generates massive energy with essentially zero long-lived radioactive waste,
yet because the public here is the word nuclear,
people reflexively protest with no nukes,
completely conflating a clean energy miracle with a weapon of mass destruction.
So what does this all mean?
If fusion actually scales up and becomes commercially viable,
the research offers a brilliant historical analogy.
At the turn of the 20th century, New York City was facing an existential
crippling crisis regarding horse manure.
Oh, right.
There were so many horses required for transport
that the sheer volume of manure was becoming a massive public health disaster.
How do they solve it?
They didn't pass legislation to breed a horse that bootless.
No, they didn't.
Someone invented the automobile.
The car completely bypassed the problem.
If we can eventually get a Mr. Fusion reactor in every town,
it instantly bypasses our current bitter polarized fights
over the environmental impacts of wind turbines or hydroelectric dams.
We just leapfrog the entire debate.
It changes the entire paradigm of human civilization.
Unlimited clean energy freezes from resource wars
and allows us to look outward again.
Which brings us to a final, brilliant thought experiment.
I love this one.
If an alien spacecraft lands on Earth tomorrow
and humanity has the opportunity to ask them just one question,
what should it be?
I mean, the instinct is to ask for something tangible.
You'd think we'd ask for the cure to a specific disease
or the engineering blueprint for a faster than light warp drive.
But Tyson's answer is incredibly profound.
He says we should lay out our periodic table, our physics equations,
the structure of our biological sciences,
and ask the alien, what are we missing?
Just what are we missing?
Yes, we shouldn't ask them for a new gadget.
We need to ask them to point out our intellectual blind spots.
That is such a humbling approach
just admitting that our current map of reality is incomplete.
And if we connect this to the concept of the great filter,
the hypothesis that intelligent civilizations
might inevitably destroy themselves
once they unlock a certain level of destructive technology,
it becomes a literal question of survival.
Despite the horrific violence we see in the daily news,
statistically, we are living in a relatively peaceful time
compared to the global industrialized slaughter of the world wars.
The ultimate test for humanity
isn't whether we are smart enough to build a warp drive.
It's whether we have the wisdom to survive our own tribalism
long enough to use it.
What an incredible journey this deep dive has been.
We've gone from the humbling, profound relief
of our own cosmic insignificance
to the magpie proving our comedies right.
Truly.
We've dismantled the social media myth of technological stagnation,
explore the incredibly violent birth of our moon,
and strip the romantic sci-fi veneer away from Mars colonization
to reveal the cold, hard economic drivers underneath.
Yeah.
And most importantly, we've seen why applying
the objective chloride lens of science
is of desperately needed down here on Earth,
whether we're talking about the physiology of sports,
the mechanics of clean energy,
or just surviving our own human nature.
I want to leave you with one final lingering thought
to mull over long after you've finished listening.
If we are truly made of the exact same ingredients
as the universe, the carbon, the nitrogen, the star dust,
and we use our evolved brains to look up and study the cosmos,
then humanity is quite literally the universe
figuring itself out.
Well, we are the cosmos granted a voice
in a sense of curiosity.
So if we continue to push the boundaries of technology,
and we eventually create an artificial general intelligence
that vastly surpasses our own biological cognitive limits,
is that just the universe building a better telescope
to look at itself?
Wow.
Think about that the next time you open your maps app
and see that little glowing blue dot.
You aren't just a coordinate on the map.
You are the map waking up to understand itself.
Thank you for joining us on this deep dive.
Keep looking up and keep questioning your place in the cosmos.
