back to indexMartin Rees: Black Holes, Alien Life, Dark Matter, and the Big Bang | Lex Fridman Podcast #305
link |
There's no reason to think that the ocean ends just beyond your horizon.
link |
And likewise, there's no reason to think that the aftermath of our big bang
link |
ends just at the boundary of what we can see.
link |
Indeed, there are quite strong arguments that it probably goes on about 100 times further.
link |
And it may even go on so much further that all combinatorials are replicated.
link |
And there's another set of people like us sitting in a room like this.
link |
The following is a conversation with Lord Martin Rees,
link |
emeritus professor of cosmology and astrophysics at Cambridge University
link |
and cofounder of the Center for the Study of Existential Risk.
link |
This is the Lex Friedman podcast.
link |
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
link |
And now, dear friends, here's Martin Rees.
link |
In your 2020 Scientific American article, you write that, quote,
link |
today we know that the universe is far bigger and stranger than anyone suspected.
link |
So what do you think are the strangest, maybe the most beautiful,
link |
or maybe even the most terrifying things lurking out there in the cosmos?
link |
Well, of course, we're still groping for any detail understanding of the remote parts of the universe.
link |
But of course, what we've learned in the last few decades is really two things.
link |
First, we've understood that the universe had an origin about 13.8 billion years ago
link |
in a so called Big Bang, a hot 10 states whose very beginnings are still shrouded in mystery.
link |
And also, we've learned more about the extreme things in it,
link |
black holes, neutron stars, explosions of various kinds.
link |
And one of the most potentially exciting discoveries in the last 20 years, mainly in the last 10,
link |
has been the realization that most of the stars in the sky are orbited by retinas of planets,
link |
just as the sun is orbited by the Earth and the other familiar planets.
link |
And this, of course, makes the night sky farmer interesting.
link |
What you see up there aren't just points of light, but they're planetary systems.
link |
And that raises the question, could there be life out there?
link |
And so that is an exciting problem for the 21st century.
link |
So when you see all those lights out there, you immediately imagine
link |
all the planetary worlds that are around them.
link |
And they potentially have all kinds of different lives,
link |
living organisms, life forms, or different histories.
link |
That we don't know at all.
link |
We know that these planets are there.
link |
We know that they have masses and orbits, rather like the planets of our solar system.
link |
But we don't know at all if there's any life on any of them.
link |
I mean, it's entirely logically possible that life is unique to this Earth.
link |
Doesn't exist anywhere.
link |
On the other hand, it could be that the origin of life is something which happens routinely,
link |
given conditions like the young Earth, in which case there could be literally billions
link |
of places in our galaxy where some sort of biosphere has evolved.
link |
And settling where the truth lies between those two extremes
link |
is a challenge for the coming decades.
link |
So certainly we're either lucky to be here or very, very, very lucky to be here.
link |
I guess that's the difference.
link |
Where do you fall, your own estimate, your own guess on this question?
link |
Are we alone in the universe, do you think?
link |
I think we foolish to give any firm estimate because we just don't know.
link |
And that's just an example of how we are depending on greater observations
link |
and also, incidentally, in the case of life.
link |
We've got to take account of the fact that, as I always say to my scientific colleagues,
link |
biology is a much harder subject than physics.
link |
And most of the universe, as we know about, could be understood by physics.
link |
But we've got to remember that even the smallest living organism, an insect,
link |
is far more complicated with layer on layer complexity
link |
than the most complicated star or galaxy.
link |
You know, that's the funny thing about physics and biology.
link |
The dream of physicists in the 20th century and maybe this century
link |
is to discover the theory of everything.
link |
And there's a sense that once you discover that theory, you will understand everything.
link |
If we unlock the mysteries of how the universe works,
link |
would you be able to understand how life emerges
link |
from that fabric of the universe that we understand?
link |
I think the phrase theory of everything is very misleading
link |
because it's used to describe a theory which unifies the three laws of microphysics,
link |
electricity, magnetism, and weak interaction with gravity.
link |
So it's an important step forward for particle physicists.
link |
But the lack of such a theory doesn't hold up any other scientists.
link |
Anyone doing biology or most of physics is not held up at all
link |
through not understanding subnuclear physics.
link |
They're held up because they're dealing with things that are very complicated.
link |
And that's especially true of anything biological.
link |
So what's holding up biologists is not a lack of the so called theory of everything.
link |
It's the inability to understand things which are very complicated.
link |
What do you think we'll understand first?
link |
How the universe works or how the human body works deeply?
link |
Like from a fundamental, deep level?
link |
Well, I think, and perhaps we can come back to it later,
link |
that there are only limited prospects of ever being able to understand
link |
with unedged human brains the most fundamental theories
link |
linking together all the forces of nature.
link |
I think that may be a limitation of the human brains.
link |
But I also think that we can, perhaps aided by computer simulations,
link |
understand a bit more of the complexity of nature.
link |
But even understanding a simple organism from the atom up is very, very difficult.
link |
And I think extreme reductionists have a very misleading perception.
link |
They tend to think that in a sense we are all solutions to Freudian's equation.
link |
But that isn't the way we'll ever understand anything.
link |
It may be true that we are reductionists in a sense if we believe
link |
that that's the case, we don't believe in any special life force in living things.
link |
But nonetheless, no one thinks that we can understand a living thing
link |
by solving Freudian's equation.
link |
To take an example which isn't as complicated,
link |
lots of people study the flow of fluids like water.
link |
Why waves break, why flows go turbulent, things like that.
link |
This is a serious branch of applied mathematics and engineering.
link |
And in doing this, you have concepts of viscosity, turbulence, and things like that.
link |
Now, you can understand quite a lot about how water behaves
link |
and how waves break in terms of those concepts.
link |
But the fact that any breaking wave is a solution
link |
of Freudian's equation for tens of 30 particles,
link |
even if you could solve that, which you clearly can't,
link |
would not give you any insight.
link |
So the important thing is that every science has its own irreducible concepts
link |
in which you get the best explanation.
link |
So it may be in chemistry, things like balance, in biology,
link |
concepts in cell biology,
link |
and in ecology, there are concepts like imprinting, et cetera.
link |
And in psychology, there are other concepts.
link |
So in a sense, the sciences are like a tall building
link |
where you have basic physics most fundamental,
link |
then the rest of physics, then chemistry, then cell biology, et cetera,
link |
all the way up to the, I guess, economists and the penthouse and all that.
link |
And that's true in a sense, but it's not true
link |
that it's like a building in that it's made unstable by an unstable base,
link |
because if you're a chemist, biologist, or an economist,
link |
you're facing challenging problems,
link |
but they're not made any worse by uncertainty about subnuclear physics.
link |
And at every level, just because you understand the rules of the game
link |
or have some understanding of the rules of the game
link |
doesn't mean you know what kind of beautiful things that game creates.
link |
Right. So if you're interested in birds and how they fly,
link |
then things like imprinting the baby on the mother and all that
link |
and things like that are what you need to understand.
link |
You couldn't even, in principle, solve this vertical equation,
link |
how an albatross wanders for thousands of miles to the southern ocean
link |
and comes back and then coughs up food for its young.
link |
That's something we can understand in a sense and predict the behavior,
link |
but it's not because we can solve it on the atomic scale.
link |
You mentioned that there might be some fundamental limitation to the human brain
link |
that limits our ability to understand something that we can't understand.
link |
To understand some aspect of how the universe works, that's really interesting.
link |
That's sad, actually, to the degree it's true, it's sad.
link |
So what do you mean by that?
link |
I would simply say that just as a monkey can't understand quantum theory
link |
or even Newtonian physics, there's no particular reason
link |
why the human brain should evolve to be well matched
link |
to understanding a deepest aspect of reality.
link |
And I suspect that there may be aspects that we are not even aware of
link |
and couldn't really fully comprehend, but as an intermediate step towards that,
link |
one thing which I think is very interesting possibility
link |
is the extent to which AI can help us.
link |
I mean, I think if we take the example of so called theories of everything,
link |
one of which is string theory, string theory involves very complicated geometry
link |
and structures in 10 dimensions.
link |
And it's certainly, in my view, on the cards that the physics of 10 dimensions,
link |
very complicated geometry, may be too hard for a human being to work through,
link |
but could be worked through by an AI with the advantage of the huge processing power,
link |
which enables them to learn world championship chess within a few hours just by watching games.
link |
So there's every reason to expect that these machines could help us to solve these problems.
link |
And of course, if that's the way we came to understand where the string theory was right,
link |
it should be in a sense frustrating because you wouldn't get the sort of ah ha insight,
link |
which is the greatest satisfaction doing science.
link |
But on the other hand, if a machine churns away a 10 dimensional geometry,
link |
figuring out all the possible origamis and wound up in extra dimensions,
link |
if it comes out at the end, spews out the correct mass of the electron,
link |
the fact that there are three kinds of neutrinos, something like that,
link |
you would know that there was some truth in the theory.
link |
And so we may have a theory which we come to trust because it does predict
link |
it does protect things that we can observe and check,
link |
but we may never really understand the full workings of it to the extent that we do more or less
link |
understand how most phenomena can be explained in a fundamental way.
link |
Of course, in the case of quantum theory,
link |
many people would say, understand if there's still some mystery,
link |
you don't quite understand why it works.
link |
But there could be deeper mysteries when we get to these unified theories,
link |
where there's a big gap between what a computer can print out for us at the end
link |
and what we can actually grasp and think through in our heads.
link |
Yeah, it's interesting that the idea that there could be things a computer could tell us that
link |
is true. And maybe it can even help us understand why it's true a little bit.
link |
But ultimately, it's still a long journey to really deeply understand the whys of it.
link |
Yes, and that's the limitation of our brain.
link |
Well, we can try to sneak up to it in different ways,
link |
given the limitations of our brain.
link |
Have you, I've gotten a chance to spend the day at DeepMind, Dr. Dennis Lasabas.
link |
His big dream is to apply AI to the questions of science,
link |
certainly to the questions of physics.
link |
Have you gotten a chance to interact with them?
link |
Well, I've known quite well. He's one of my heroes, certainly.
link |
I'm sure he would say the same.
link |
And I remember the first time I met him, he said that he was like me.
link |
He wants to understand the universe, but he thought the best thing to do
link |
was to try and develop AI.
link |
And then with the help of AI, he'd stand more chance of understanding the universe.
link |
And I think he's right about that.
link |
And of course, although we're familiar with the way his computers play go and chess,
link |
he's already made contributions to science through
link |
understanding protein folding better than the best human chemists.
link |
And so already he's on the path to showing ways in which computers have the power to learn
link |
and do things by having a bit to analyze enormous samples in a short time
link |
to do better than humans.
link |
And so I think he would resonate for what I just said,
link |
that it may be that in these other fundamental questions,
link |
the computers will play a crucial role.
link |
Yeah. And they're also doing quantum mechanical simulation of electrons.
link |
They're doing control of high temperature plasmus fusion reactors.
link |
Yes. That's a new thing, which is very interesting.
link |
They can suppress the instabilities in these tokamaks better than any other way.
link |
And it's just the march of progress by AIs and science is making big strides.
link |
Do you think an AI system will win a Nobel Prize in the century?
link |
What do you think?
link |
And does that make you sad?
link |
If I can digress and push in a plug for my next book,
link |
it has a chapter saying why Nobel Prizes do more harm than good.
link |
So on a quite separate subject, I think Nobel Prizes do greatly
link |
damage to the percept of the way science is done.
link |
Of course, if you ask who or what deserves the credit for any scientific discovery,
link |
it may be often someone who has an idea,
link |
a team of people who work a big experiment, etc.
link |
And of course, it's the quality of the equipment, which is crucial.
link |
And certainly in the subjects I do in astronomy,
link |
the huge advances we've had come not from us being more intelligent than Aristotle was,
link |
but through us having far, far better data from powerful telescopes on the ground and in space.
link |
And also, incidentally, we've benefited hugely in astronomy from computer simulations,
link |
because if you are a subatomic physicist, then of course you crash together
link |
the particles in the big accelerator like the one at CERN and see what happens.
link |
But I can't crash together two galaxies or two stars and see what happens.
link |
But in the virtual world of a computer, one can do simulations like that.
link |
And the power of computers is such that these simulations can yield a phenomena and insights
link |
which we wouldn't have guessed beforehand.
link |
And the way we can feel by making progress and trying to understand
link |
some of these phenomena, why galaxies have the size and shape they do and all that,
link |
is because we can do simulations tweaking different initial conditions
link |
and seeing which gives the best fit to what we actually observe.
link |
And so that's a way in which we've made progress in using computers.
link |
And incidentally, we also now need them to analyze data,
link |
because one thinks of astronomy as being traditionally a rather data poor subjects,
link |
but the European satellite called Gaia has just put online the speeds and colors
link |
and properties of nearly two billion stars in the Milky Way,
link |
and which we can do fantastic analyses of.
link |
And that of course could not be done at all without just the number of crushing capacitors
link |
And the new methods of machine learning actually love raw data,
link |
the kind that astronomy provides, organized structured raw data.
link |
Well, indeed, because the reason they really have a benefit over us
link |
is that they can learn and think so much faster.
link |
That's how they can learn to play chess and go.
link |
That's how they can learn to diagnose lung cancer better than a radiologist,
link |
because they can look at 100,000 scans in a few days,
link |
whereas no human radiologist sees that many in lifetime.
link |
Well, there's still a magic to the human intelligence,
link |
to the intuition, to the common sense reasoning.
link |
Well, we hope so for now.
link |
What is the new book that you mentioned?
link |
The book is called If Science is to Save Us.
link |
It's coming out in September, and it's on the big challenges of science,
link |
climate, dealing with biosafety and dealing with cyber safety,
link |
and also it's got chapters on the way science is organized in a universe,
link |
it's an academy, et cetera, and the ethics of science and the education and the limits.
link |
Well, let me actually just stroll around the beautiful and the strange of the universe.
link |
Over 20 years ago, you hypothesized that we would solve the mystery of dark matter by now.
link |
So, unfortunately, we didn't quite yet.
link |
First, what is dark matter and why has it been so tough to figure out?
link |
Well, I mean, we learned that galaxies and other large scale structures,
link |
which are moving around but prevent them flying apart by gravity, would be flying apart
link |
if they only contain the stuff we see, if everything in them was shining,
link |
and to understand how galaxies formed and why they do remain confined the same size.
link |
One has to infer that there's about five times as much stuff producing gravitational forces
link |
than the total amount of stuff in the gas and stars that we see, and that stuff is called dark
link |
matter. That's like this leading name, it's not dark, it's just transparent, et cetera.
link |
And the most likely interpretation is that it's a swarm of microscopic particles
link |
which have no electric charge and the very small cross sections were hitting each other
link |
and hitting anything else. So, they swarm around and we can detect their collective effects.
link |
And when we do computer simulations of how galaxies form and evolve and how they emerge
link |
from the Big Bang, then we get a nice consistent picture if we put in five times as much mass
link |
in the form of these mysterious dark particles. And, for instance, it works better if we think
link |
they're not interacting particles than if we think they're a gas which would have shock waves
link |
and things. So, we know something about the properties of these, but we don't know what they
link |
are. And the disappointment compared to my guess 20 years ago is that particles answering this
link |
description have not yet been found. It was thought that the big accelerator, the Large
link |
Handler Collider at CERN, which is the world's biggest, might have found a new class of particles
link |
which would have been the obvious candidates. And it hasn't. And some people say, well,
link |
doc matter can't be there, etc. But what I would argue is that there's a huge amount of parameter
link |
space that hasn't been explored. There are other kinds of particles called axions which behave
link |
slightly differently, which are good candidates. And there's a factor of 10 powers of 10 between
link |
the heaviest particles that could be created by the Large Hadron Collider and the heaviest particles
link |
which on theoretical grounds could exist without turning into black holes. So, there's a huge amount
link |
of possible particles which could be out there as remnants of the Big Bang, but which we wouldn't
link |
be able to detect so easily. So, the fact that we've got new constraints on what the doc matter
link |
could be doesn't diminish my belief that it's there in the form of particles because we've only
link |
explored a small fraction of parameter space. So, there's this search. You're literally, upon
link |
unintended, are searching in the dark here in this giant parameter space of possible particles.
link |
You're searching for, I mean, there could be all kinds of particles. There could be. And
link |
there's some which may be very, very hard to detect. But I think we can hope for
link |
some new theoretical ideas because one point which perhaps you'd like to discuss more is about the
link |
very early stage of the Big Bang. And the situation now is that we have an outline picture for how the
link |
universe has evolved from the time when it was expanding in just a nanosecond right up to the
link |
present. And we could do that because after nanosecond, the physics of the material is in the same
link |
range that we can test in the lab. After a nanosecond, the particles move around like those in the
link |
large heterocollider. If you wait for one second, they're rather like in the centers of the hotter
link |
stars and nuclear actions, please, hydrogen, helium, etc., which fit the data. So, we can with
link |
confidence extrapolate back to when the universe was a nanosecond old. Indeed, I think we can do
link |
it with as much confidence as anything a geologist tells you about the early history of the earth.
link |
And that's huge progress in the last 50 years. But any progress puts in sharper focus new mysteries.
link |
And of course, the new mysteries in this context are why is the universe expanding the way it is?
link |
Why does it contain this mixture of atoms and dark matter and radiation? And why does it have
link |
the properties which allow galaxies to form, being fairly smooth but not completely smooth?
link |
And the answer to those questions are generally believed to lie in a much, much earlier stage
link |
of the universe when conditions were much more extreme and therefore far beyond the stage where
link |
we had the foot holding experiments, very theoretical. And so, we don't have a convincing theory. We
link |
just have ideas until we have something like string theory or some other clues to the ultra
link |
early universe that's going to remain speculative. So, there's a big gap. And to say how big the
link |
gap is, if we take the observable universe, a bit more than 10 billion light years, then
link |
when the universe was a nanosecond old, that would have been squeezed down to the size of our solar
link |
system or compressed into that volume. But the times we're talking about when the key properties
link |
of the universe were first imprinted were times when that entire universe was squeezed down to
link |
the size of a tennis ball or baseball, if you prefer, and it emerged from something microscopic.
link |
So, it's a huge extrapolation and it's not surprising that since it's so far from our
link |
experimental range of detectability, we are still groping for ideas.
link |
But you think first theory will reach into that place and then experiment will perhaps one day
link |
catch up? Well, I think in a sense it's a combination. I think what we hope for is that
link |
there'll be a theory which applies to the early universe, but which also has consequences which
link |
we can test in our present day universe, like discovering my new treatise exists or things
link |
like that. And that's the thing which, as I mentioned, we may perhaps need a bit of AI to
link |
help us to calculate. But I think the hope would be that we will have a theory which
link |
applies under the very, very extreme early stages of the universe, which gains credibility and
link |
gains confidence because it also manages to account for otherwise unexplained features of
link |
the no energy world and what people call a standard model of particle physics,
link |
where there are lots of undetermined numbers. So, it may help with that.
link |
So, we're dancing between physics and philosophy a little bit, but what do you think
link |
happened before the Big Bang? So, this seems, this feels like something that's out of the
link |
reach of science. It's out of the reach of present science because science develops and
link |
as the front is advanced, then new problems come into focus that couldn't be postulated before.
link |
I mean, if I think of my own career, when I was a student, the evidence for the Big Bang
link |
was pretty weak, whereas now it's extremely strong. But we are now thinking about the
link |
reason why the universe is the way it is and all that. So, I would put all these things we've
link |
just mentioned in the category of speculative science and identity of bifurcation between that
link |
and philosophy. But of course, to answer your question, if we do want to understand the very
link |
early universe, then we've got to realize that it may involve even more counterintuitive concepts
link |
than quantum theory does, because it's a condition even further away from everyday world
link |
than quantum theory is and remember our lives, our brains evolved and haven't changed much since
link |
our ancestors roamed the African savannah and looked at the everyday world. And it's rather
link |
amazing that we've been able to make some sense of the quantum micro world and of the cosmos.
link |
But there may be some things which are beyond us and certainly, as we implied,
link |
there are things that we don't yet understand at all. And of course, one concept we might have
link |
to jettison is the idea of three dimensions of space and time just ticking away. There are
link |
lots of ideas. I mean, I think Stephen Hawking had an idea that talking about what's what hasn't
link |
before the Big Bang, it's like asking what happens if you go north from the North Pole,
link |
you know, it somehow closes off. That's just one idea. I don't like that idea, but that's a possible
link |
one. And so we just don't know what happened at the very beginning of the Big Bang, were there
link |
many Big Bangs rather than one, etc. And those are issues which we may be able to get some
link |
foothold on from some new theory. But even then, we won't be able to directly test the theories.
link |
But I think it's a heresy to think you have to be able to test every prediction of a theory.
link |
Let me give another example. We take seriously what Einstein's theory says about the inside of
link |
black holes, even though we can't observe them, because that theory has been vindicated in many
link |
other places in cosmology and black holes, gravitational waves and all those things.
link |
Likewise, if we had a theory which explains some things about the early history of our Big Bang
link |
and the present universe, then we would take seriously the inference if it predicted many
link |
Big Bangs, not one, even though we can't predict the other ones. So the example is that we can
link |
take seriously a prediction if it's the consequence of a theory that we believe on other grounds.
link |
We don't need to be able to detect another Big Bang in order to take it seriously.
link |
It may not be a proof, but it's a good indication that this is the direction where the truth lies.
link |
Yeah, if the theory is getting confidence in other ways.
link |
Yes. Where do you sense? Do you think there's other universes besides our own?
link |
There are well defined theories which make assumptions about the physics at the relevant
link |
time. And this time, incidentally, is 10 to the power minus 36 seconds or earlier than that.
link |
So this tiny sliver of time. And there are some theories, famous one due to Andre Linday,
link |
the Russian cosmologist now at Stanford called eternal inflation, which did predict
link |
an eternal production of new Big Bangs, as it were. And that's based on specific assumptions
link |
about the physics. But those assumptions, of course, are just hypotheses which aren't vindicated.
link |
But there are other theories which only predict one Big Bang. So I think we should be open minded
link |
and not dogmatic about these options until we do understand the relevant physics.
link |
But there are these different scenarios of very different ideas about this. But I think all of
link |
them have the feature that physical reality is a lot more extensive than what we can see
link |
through our telescope. I think even most conservator astronomers would say that because we can see out
link |
with our telescopes to a sort of horizon, which is about, depending on how you measure it,
link |
when maybe 15 billion light years away or something like that. But that horizon of our observations
link |
is no more physical reality than the horizon around you, if you're in the ocean.
link |
And looking out at your horizon, there's no reason to think that the ocean ends just beyond your
link |
horizon. And likewise, there's no reason to think that the aftermath of our Big Bang
link |
ends just at the boundary of what we can see. Indeed, there are quite strong arguments
link |
that it probably goes on about 100 times further. It may even go on so much further
link |
that all combinatorials are replicated. And there's another set of people like us sitting in a room
link |
like this. Every possible combination of... Yeah, that could happen. That's not logically
link |
impossible. But I think many people would accept that it does go on and contain probably a million
link |
times as much stuff as what we can see within the horizon. The reason for that, incidentally,
link |
is that if we look as far as we can in one direction and in the opposite direction,
link |
then the conditions don't differ by more than one part in 100,000. So that means that if we're
link |
apart of some finite structure, the gradient across the part we can see is very small. And so
link |
that suggests that it probably does go on a lot further. And the best estimates say it must go
link |
on at least 20 times further. Is that exciting or terrifying to you? Just the spans of it all,
link |
the wide, everything that lies beyond the horizon. That example doesn't even hold for Earth. So it
link |
goes way, way farther. And on top of that, just to take your metaphor further on the ocean,
link |
while we're on top of this ocean, not only can we now see beyond the horizon,
link |
we also don't know much about the depth of the ocean, nor the actual mechanism of observation
link |
that's in our head. Yes. No, I think the Ruggles and the Housers is on those points you make.
link |
Yes. But I think even the solar system is pretty vast by human standards. And so I don't think
link |
the perception of this utterly vast cosmos need have any deeper impact on us than just
link |
realizing that we are very small on the scale of the external world.
link |
Yeah. It's humbling, though. It's humbling in depending where your ego is. It's humbling.
link |
Well, if you start off very unhumble, indeed, it may make a difference. But most of us,
link |
I don't think it makes much difference. And, well, there's a more general question, of course,
link |
about whether the human race as such is something which is very special, or if, on the other hand,
link |
it's just one of many such species elsewhere in the universe, or indeed existing at different
link |
times in our universe. To me, it feels almost obvious that the universe should be full of alien
link |
life, perhaps dead alien civilizations, but just the vastness of space. And it just feels wrong
link |
to think of Earth as somehow special. It sure as heck doesn't look that special.
link |
The more we learn, the less special it seems. Well, I mean, I don't agree with that as far as
link |
life is concerned. Because remember that we don't understand how life began here on Earth.
link |
And we don't understand, although we know there are any evolutions from simple life
link |
to complex life, we don't understand what caused the transition between complex chemistry
link |
and the first replicating metabolizing entity we call alive. That's a mystery.
link |
And serious physicists and chemists are now thinking about it, but we don't know.
link |
So we therefore can't say, was it a rare fluke which would not have happened anywhere else,
link |
or was it something which involves a process that would have happened in any other
link |
planet where conditions were like they were on the young Earth? So we can't say that now.
link |
I think many of us would indeed bet that probably some kind of life exists elsewhere.
link |
But even if you accept that, then there are many contingencies going from simple life to
link |
present day life. And some biologists like Stephen Jay Gould thought that if you rerun
link |
evolution, you'd end up with something quite different, and maybe not with an intelligent
link |
species. So the contingencies in evolution may militate against the emergence of intelligence,
link |
even if life gets started in lots of places. So I think these are still completely open questions.
link |
And that's why it's such an exciting time now that we are starting to be able to address these.
link |
I mean, I mentioned the fact that the origin of life is a question that we may be able to
link |
understand. And serious people are working on it. It's usually put in the sort of too difficult
link |
box. Everyone knew it was important, but they didn't know how to tackle it or what experiments
link |
to do. But it's not like that now. And that's partly because of cleverer experiments. But I
link |
think most importantly, because we are aware that we can look for life in other places,
link |
other places in our solar system, and of course, on the exoplanets around other stars. And within
link |
10 or 20 years, I think two things could happen, which will be really, really important. We might,
link |
with the next big telescope, be able to image some of the Earth like planets around other stars.
link |
Image, like get a picture. Well, actually, let me caveat that. It takes 50 years to get a resolved
link |
image, but to actually detect the light. Because now, of course, these exoplanets are detected by
link |
their effects on the parent star. They either cause their parent star to dim slightly when they
link |
transit across in front of it. And so we see the dips, or their gravitational pull makes
link |
the star wobble a bit. So most of the 5,000 plus planets that have been found around other stars,
link |
they've been found indirectly by their effect in one of those two ways on the parent star.
link |
You could still do a pretty good job of estimating size, all those kinds of things.
link |
The size and the mass, you can estimate. But detecting the actual light
link |
from one of these exoplanets hasn't really been done yet, except in one or two very
link |
bright, big planets. Maybe like James Webb Telescope would be.
link |
Well, James Webb may do this, but even better will be the European ground based telescope
link |
called, on the magic of the Extremilars Telescope, which has a 39 meter diameter mirror.
link |
39 meters is the equivalent of Jesus Glass. And that will collect enough light from
link |
one of these exoplanets around the nearby star to be able to separate out its light
link |
from that of the star, which is a million times brighter, and get the spectrum of the planet
link |
and see if it's got oxygen or chlorophyll and things in it. So that will come.
link |
James Webb may make some steps there. But I think we can look forward to learning quite a bit
link |
in the next 20 years, because I like to say, supposing that we're aliens looking at the solar
link |
system, then they'd see the Sun as an ordinary star, they'd see the Earth as in Carl Sager's
link |
nice phrase, a pale blue dot. I'm very close in the sky to its star, our Sun, and much,
link |
much, much fainter. But if they could observe that dot, they could learn quite a bit. They could
link |
perhaps get the spectrum of the light and find the atmosphere. They'd find the shade of blue
link |
was slightly different, depending on whether the Pacific Ocean or the land mass of Asia was
link |
facing them, so they could infer the length of the day and the ocean and continents,
link |
and maybe something about the seasons and the climate. And that's the kind of
link |
calculation under inference we might be able to draw within the next 10 or 20 years
link |
about other exoplanets. And evidence of some sort of biosphere on one of them would, of course,
link |
be crucial, and it would rule out the still logical possibilities that life is unique.
link |
But there's another way in which this may happen in the next 20 years. People think there could be
link |
something swimming under the ice of Europa and then Celadus and probes are being sent to maybe
link |
not quite go under the ice, but detect the spray coming out to see if there's evidence for
link |
organics in that. And if we found any evidence for an origin of life that happened
link |
in either of those places, that would immediately be important, because if
link |
life has originated twice independently in one planetary system, the solar system,
link |
that would tell us straight away it wasn't a rare accident and must have happened
link |
billions of times in the galaxy. At the moment, we can't rule out it being unique. And incidentally,
link |
if we found life on Mars, then that would still be ambiguous because
link |
people have realized that this early life could have got from Mars to Earth or vice versa on
link |
meteorites. So if you found life on Mars, then some skeptics could still say if it was a single
link |
origin. But I think Europe is far enough. That's far enough away. That's why that would be especially.
link |
It's always the skeptics that ruin a good party. But we need them, of course.
link |
We need them at the party. We need some skeptics at the party. But boy, would that be so exciting
link |
to find life on one of the moons, because it means that life is everywhere.
link |
That'll just be any kind of vegetation or life. The question of the aliens of science fiction
link |
is a different matter. Intelligent aliens. But if you have a good indication that there's life
link |
elsewhere in the solar system, that means life is everywhere. I don't know if that's terrifying
link |
or what that is, because if life is everywhere, why is intelligent life not everywhere? You've
link |
talked about that most likely alien civilizations, if they are out there, they would likely be far
link |
ahead of us, the ones that would actually communicate with us. And that, again, one of those things
link |
that is both exciting and terrifying. You've mentioned that they're likely not to be of biological
link |
nature. Well, I think that's important. Of course, again, it's a speculation, but in speculating about
link |
intelligent life. And I take the search seriously. In fact, I chair the committee that the Russian
link |
American investor Yuri Milner supports looking for intelligent life. He's putting $10 million
link |
a year into better equipment and getting time on telescopes to do this. And so I think it's
link |
worthwhile, even though I don't hold my breath for success. It's very exciting. But that does
link |
lead me to wonder what might be detected. And I think, well, we don't know. We've got to be
link |
mindful about anything. We've no idea what it will be. And so any anomalous objects,
link |
or even some strange shiny objects in the solar system or anything, we've got to keep our eyes
link |
open for. But I think if we ask what about a planet like the Earth where evolution had taken
link |
more of the same track, then as you say, it wouldn't be synchronized. If it had lagged behind,
link |
then of course, it would not have got to advanced life. But it may have had a head start. It may
link |
have formed on a planet around an older star. But then let's ask what we would see. It's taken
link |
nearly four billion years from the first life to us. And we've now got this technological
link |
civilization, which could make itself detectable to any alien life, aliens out there. But I think
link |
most people would say that this civilization of flesh and blood creatures in the collective
link |
civilization may not last more than a few hundred years more. I think that the bad people may,
link |
some people would say it will kill itself off. But I'm more optimistic. And I would say
link |
that what we're going to have in future is no longer the slow Darwinian selection,
link |
but we're going to have what I call secular intelligence design, which will be humans designing
link |
their progeny to be better adapted to where they are. And if they go to Mars or somewhere,
link |
they're badly adapted, they want to adapt a lot. And so they will adapt. But there may be some
link |
limits to what could be done with flesh and blood. And so they may become largely electronic,
link |
download their brains and be electronic entities. And if they're electronic,
link |
then what's important is that they're near immortal. And also, they won't necessarily want to be on a
link |
planet with an atmosphere or gravity. They may go off into the blue yonder. And if they're near
link |
immortal, they won't be daunted by interstellar travel taking a long time. And so if we looked
link |
at what would happen on the earth in the next millions of years, then there may be these
link |
electronic entities which have been sent out and are now far away from the earth,
link |
but still sort of burping away in some fashion to be detected. And so this therefore leads me to
link |
think that if there was another planet which had evolved like the earth and was ahead of us,
link |
it wouldn't be synchronized. So we wouldn't see a flesh and blood civilization,
link |
but we would see these electronic progeny as it were. And then this raises another question,
link |
because there's the famous argument against there being lots of aliens out there, which is that they
link |
would come and invade us and eat us or something like that. That's a common idea, which is fairly
link |
is attributed to have been the first to say. And I think there's a escape clause to that because
link |
these entities would be evolved by second intelligence design, designed by their predecessors
link |
and then designed by us. Whereas Darwinian selection requires two things. It requires
link |
aggression and intelligence. This future intel design may favor intelligence because that's
link |
what they were designed for, but it may not favor aggression. And so these future entities, they
link |
may be sitting deep thoughts, thinking deep thoughts and not being a tall expansionist. So
link |
they could be out there. And we can't refute their existence in the way the Fermi paradox is
link |
supposed to refute their existence because these would not be aggressive or expansionist.
link |
Well, maybe evolution requires competition, not aggression. And I wonder if competition can take
link |
forms that are non expansionary. So you can still have fun competing in the space of ideas,
link |
which may be primarily philosophical, perhaps, in a way, right. It's an intellectual exercise
link |
versus a sort of violent exercise. So what does this civilization on Mars look like? So do you
link |
think we would more and more, you know, maybe start with some genetic modification and then
link |
move to basically cyborgs, increasing integration of electronic systems, computational systems
link |
into our bodies and brains? This is a theme of my other new book out this year, which is called
link |
The End of Astronauts and co co written with my own friend and colleague from Berkeley,
link |
Don Goldsmith. And it's really about the role of human spaceflight versus sort of robotic
link |
spaceflight. And just to summarize what it says, it argues that the practical case for sending
link |
humans into space is getting weaker all the time as robots get better and more capable.
link |
Robots 50 years ago couldn't do anything very much. But now they could assemble big structures on
link |
space or in space or on the moon, and they could probably do exploration. Well, present ones on
link |
Mars can't actually do the geology, but future AI will be able to do the geology and already they
link |
can dig on Mars. And so if you want to do exploration of Mars, and of course, even more of
link |
Enceladus or Europa where you could never send humans, we depend on robots. And they're far,
link |
far cheaper because to send a human to Mars requires feeding them for 200 days on the journey
link |
there and bringing them back and neither of those are necessary for robots. So the practical case
link |
for humans is getting very, very weak. And if humans go, it's only as an adventure, really.
link |
And so the line in our book is that human spaceflight should not be pursued by NASA or public
link |
funding agencies because it has no practical purpose, but also because it's especially
link |
expensive if they do it because they would have to be risk averse in launching civilians into space.
link |
I can illustrate that by noting that the shuttle was launched 135 times and it had two spectacular
link |
failures, which each killed the seven people in the crew. And it had been mistakenly presented as
link |
safe for civilians. And there was a woman's school teacher killed in one of them. It was a big
link |
national trauma and they tried to make it safer still. But if you launch into space just the
link |
kind of people prepared to accept that sort of risk, and of course test pilots and people who go
link |
hang gliding and go to the South Pole, etc., are prepared to accept a 2% risk at least for a big
link |
challenge, then of course you do it more cheaply. And that's why I think human spaceflight should
link |
be left to the billionaires and their sponsors because then the taxpayers aren't paying and they
link |
can launch simply those people who are prepared to accept high risks, space adventure, not space
link |
tourism. And we should cheer them on. And as regards where they would go, then low earth orbit,
link |
I suspect, can be done quite cheaply in the future. But going to Mars, which is very, very expensive
link |
and dangerous for humans, the only people who would go would be these adventurers, maybe on one way
link |
trip like some of the early polar explorers and Magellan and people like that, and we would cheer
link |
them on. And I expect and I very much hope that by the end of the century there will be a small
link |
community of such people on Mars living far less comfortably than at the South Pole or the bottom
link |
of the ocean or the top of Everest, but they will be there and they won't have a return ticket,
link |
but they'll be there. Incidentally, I think it's a dangerous illusion to think, as Elon Musk has
link |
said, that we can have mass emigration from the earth to Mars to escape the earth's problems.
link |
It's a dangerous illusion because it's far easier to deal with climate change on earth
link |
than to terraform Mars to make it properly habitable to humans. So there's no planet
link |
beef or ordinary risk of earth people. But for these crazy adventurers, then you can imagine
link |
that they would be trying to live on Mars as great pioneers. And by the end of the century,
link |
then there will be huge advances compared to the present in two things. First in understanding
link |
genetics, so is to genetically redesign one's offspring. And secondly, to use cyborg techniques
link |
to implant something in our brain or indeed think about downloading, etc. And those techniques will,
link |
one hopes, be heavily regulated on earth, on potentials and ethical grounds. And of course,
link |
we are pretty well adapted to the earth, so we don't have the incentive to do these things in
link |
the way they were there. So our argument is that it'll be those crazy pioneers on Mars
link |
using all these scientific advances, which would be controlled here, away from the regulators,
link |
they will transition into a new post human species. And so if they do that, and if they
link |
transition into something which is electronic, eventually, because there may be some limits
link |
to the capacity of flesh and blood brains, anyway, then those electronic entities may not
link |
want to stay on a planet like Mars, they may want to go go away. And so they'll be the precursors
link |
of the future evolution of life and intelligence coming from the earth. And of course, there's
link |
one point which perhaps astronomers are more aware of than most people. Most people are aware
link |
that we are the outcome of four billion years of evolution. Most of them, nonetheless, probably
link |
think that we humans are somehow the culmination, the top of the tree. But yes, no astronomers
link |
can believe that because astronomers know that the earth is four and a half billion years old.
link |
The sun has been shiny for that length of time, but the sun has got six billion years more to go
link |
before it flares up and engulfs the inner planet. So the sun is less than halfway through its life.
link |
And the expanding universe goes on far longer still, maybe forever. And I like to quote Woody Allen,
link |
who said eternally is very long, especially towards the end. So we shouldn't think of ourselves as
link |
maybe even a halfway stage in the emergence of cosmic complexity. And so these entities who are
link |
post curses, they will go beyond the solar system. And of course, even if there's nothing else out
link |
there already, then they could populate the rest of the galaxy. And maybe eventually meet the others
link |
who are out there expanding as well, expanding and populating with expanded capacity for life
link |
and intelligence, all those kinds of things. Well, they might, but again, all better off.
link |
Because I can't conceive what they'd be like. They won't be green men and women with eyes on
link |
stalks. They'd be something quite different. We just don't know. But there isn't anything
link |
to question, actually, which comes up when I've sometimes spoken to audiences about this topic,
link |
but the question of consciousness and self awareness. Because going back to philosophical
link |
questions, whether an electronic robot would be a zombie, or would it be conscious and self aware?
link |
And I think there's no way of answering this empirically. And some people think that consciousness
link |
and self awareness is an emergent property in any sufficiently complicated networks that they
link |
would be. Others say, well, maybe it's something special to the flesh and blood that we're made
link |
of. We don't know. And in a sense, this may not matter to the way things behave, because they
link |
could be zombies and still behave as though they were intelligent. But I remember after
link |
one of my talks, someone came up and said, wouldn't it be sad if these future entities,
link |
which were the main television universe, had no self awareness? So there was nothing
link |
which could appreciate the wonder and mystery of the universe, and the beauty of the universe,
link |
in the way that we do. And so it does perhaps affect one's perspective of whether you welcome
link |
or deplore this possible future scenario, depending on whether you think the future
link |
post human entities are conscious and have an aesthetic sense, or whether they're just zombies.
link |
And of course, you have to be humble to realize that self awareness may not be the highest form
link |
of being, that humans have a very strong ego and a very strong sense of identity,
link |
like personal identity connected to this particular brain. It's not so obvious to me that that is
link |
somehow the highest achievement of a life form, that maybe this kind of collective would be.
link |
It's possible that, well, I think from an alien perspective, when you look at earth,
link |
it's not so obvious to me that individual humans are the atoms of intelligence. It could be the
link |
entire organism together, the collective intelligence. And so we humans think of ourselves
link |
as individuals, we dress up, we wear ties and suits, and we'll give each other prizes. But in
link |
reality, the intelligence, the things we create that are beautiful emerges from our interaction
link |
with each other. And that may be where the intelligence is, ideas jumping from one person
link |
to another over generations. Yes, but we have experiences where we can appreciate beauty and
link |
wonder and all that. And a zombie may not have those experiences. Yeah, or it may have a very
link |
different, they have a very black and white harsh description of like a philosophical zombie,
link |
a zombie, that could be just a very different way to experience.
link |
And, you know, in terms of the explorers that colonize Mars, I mean, there's several things
link |
I want to mention. One, it's just at a high level to me, that's one of the most inspiring
link |
things humans can do is reach out into the unknown. That's in the space of ideas,
link |
in the space of science, but also the explorers. And that inspires people here on Earth more.
link |
I mean, it did in their, you know, when going to the moon or going out to space in the 20th
link |
century, that inspired a generation of scientists. I think that also could be used to inspire a
link |
generation of new scientists in the 21st century by reaching out towards Mars. So in that sense,
link |
I think what Elon Musk and others are doing is actually quite inspiring. It's not,
link |
it's not a recreational thing. It's actually has a deep humanitarian purpose of really inspiring
link |
the world. And then on the other one, to push back on your thought, you know, I don't think Elon says
link |
we want to escape Earth's problems. It's more that we should allocate some small percentage
link |
of resources to have a backup plan. And because you yourself have spoken about and written about
link |
all the ways we clever humans can destroy ourselves. And I'm not sure it does seem,
link |
when you look at the long arc of human history, it seems almost obvious that we need to become
link |
multi planetary species over a period. If we are to survive many centuries, it seems that
link |
as we get clever and clever with the ways we can destroy ourselves, Earth is going to become less
link |
than less safe. So in that sense, this is one of the things, you know, people talk about climate
link |
change, and then we need to respond to climate change. And that's a long term investment we need
link |
to make. But it's not really long term, it's a span of decades. I think what Elon is doing is
link |
a really long term investment. We should be working on multi planetary colonization now,
link |
if we were to have it ready five centuries from now. And so taking those early steps.
link |
And then also, there's something happens when you're caught when you
link |
go into the unknown and do this really difficult thing, you discover something very new,
link |
you discover something about robotics or materials engineering, or nutrition,
link |
or neuroscience or human relations or political systems that actually work well with humans.
link |
You discover all those things. And so it's a worthy effort to go out there and try to become
link |
cyborgs. Yeah, no, I agree with that. I think the only different point I'd make is that
link |
this is going to be very expensive, if it's done in a risk averse way. And that's why I think we
link |
should be grateful to the billionaires, if they're going to sort of foster these opportunities
link |
for thrill seeking risk takers who we can all admire.
link |
Yeah. By the way, I should push back on the billionaires, because there's sometimes a
link |
negative connotation to the word billionaire. It's not a billionaire, it's a company versus
link |
government, because governments are billionaires and trillionaires. It's not the wealth, it's the
link |
capitalist imperative, which I think deserves a lot more praise than people are giving it.
link |
I'm troubled by the sort of criticism like it's billionaires playing with toys for their own
link |
pleasure. I think what some of these companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing is some
link |
of the most inspiring engineering and even scientific work ever done in human history.
link |
No, I agree. I think the people who've made the greatest wealth are people who've really been
link |
mega benefactors. I mean, I think some of them, some of them.
link |
Yes, some of them, but those who've founded Google and all that and even Amazon,
link |
they're beneficiaries. They're in a quite different category, in my view,
link |
from those who just shuffle around money or crypto coins and things like that.
link |
But now you're really talking trash.
link |
Yes, but I think if they use their money in these ways, that's fine, but I think it's
link |
true that the far more money is owned by us collectively as taxpayers, but I think the
link |
fact is that in a democracy, there'd be big resistance to exposing human beings to very high
link |
risks, if in a sense we share responsibility for it. That's the reason I think we've done much
link |
more cheaply by these private funders. That's an interesting hypothesis,
link |
but I have to push back. I don't know if it's obvious why NASA spends so much money and takes
link |
such a long time to develop the things it was doing. Before Elon Musk came along,
link |
because I would love to live in a world where government actually uses taxpayer money to get
link |
some of the best engineers and scientists in the world and actually work across governments,
link |
Russia, China, United States, the European Union together to do some of these big projects,
link |
it's strange that Elon is able to do this much cheaper, much faster. It could have to be
link |
due with risk aversion, you're right. I think it's that is that he had all the whole assembly
link |
within this one building as it were rather than depending on a supply chain, but I think it's
link |
also that he had a Silicon Valley culture and had younger people, whereas the big aerospace
link |
companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, they had people who were left over from the Apollo program
link |
in some cases, and so they weren't quite so lively. Indeed, quite apart from the controversial issues
link |
of the future of human spaceflight, in terms of the next generation of big rockets, then the one
link |
that Musk is going to launch for the first time this year, the huge one, is going to be far,
link |
far cheaper than the one that NASA's been working on at the same time, and that's because it will
link |
have a reusable first stage, and it's going to be great. It can launch over 100 tons into Earth orbit,
link |
and it's going to be make it feasible to do things that I used to think were crazy,
link |
like having solar energy from space. There's no longer so crazy if you can do that, and also
link |
for science, because its nose cone could contain within it something as big as the entire unfurled
link |
James Webb telescope mirror, and therefore you can have a big telescope much more cheaply if you
link |
can launch it all in one piece, and so it's going to be hugely beneficial to science and to any
link |
practical use of space to have these cheaper rockets that are far more completely reusable
link |
than it was NASA had, so I think Musk's are a tremendous service to space exploration and
link |
the whole space technology through these rockets, certainly. Plus, it's some big sexy rocket,
link |
it's just great engineering. Of course, yeah. It's like looking at a beautiful big bridge
link |
that humans are capable, us descendants of apes are capable to do something so majestic.
link |
Yes, and also the way they land coming down this bar, that's amazing. It's both controls,
link |
engineering, it's increasing intelligence in these rockets, but also great propulsion
link |
engineering materials, entrepreneurship, and it just inspires so many people.
link |
No, I'm entirely with you on that.
link |
So would it be exciting to you to see a human being step foot on Mars in your lifetime?
link |
Yes, I think it's unlikely in my lifetime since I'm so ancient, but I think this century is going
link |
to happen and I think that will indeed be exciting and I hope there will be a small
link |
community by the end of a century. But as I say, I think they may go with one way tickets or
link |
accepting the risk of no return. So they've got to be people like that and I still think it's going
link |
to be hard to persuade the public to send people when you say straight out that they may never
link |
come back. But of course the Apollo astronauts, they took a high risk and in fact in my previous
link |
book I quote the speech that's been written for Nixon to be read out if Neil Armstrong got stuck
link |
on the moon. And it was written by one of his advisors and very eloquent speech about
link |
how they have come to a noble end, etc. But of course there was a genuine risk at that time.
link |
But that may have been accepted, but clearly the crashes of the shuttle were not acceptable to the
link |
American public even when they were told that this was only a 2% risk given how often they
link |
launched it. And so that's what leads me to think that it's got to be left to the kind of
link |
people who are prepared to take these risks. And I think of a mega adventure was a guy called
link |
Steve Fossa, who was an aviator, did all kinds of crazy things, you know, and then a guy who fell
link |
supersonicly with the parachute from very high altitude. All these people, we all share them on.
link |
They extend the bounds of humanity. But I don't think the public will be so happy to fund them.
link |
I mean, I disagree with that. I think if we change the narrative, we should change the story.
link |
I think there's a lot of people, because the public is happy to fund
link |
folks in other domains that take bold, giant risks. First of all, military, for example.
link |
Military, obviously, yes. I think this is in the name of science, especially if it's
link |
sold correctly, I sure as hell would go up there with a risk. I would take a 40% chance risk of
link |
death for something that's... I might want to be even older than them now, but then I would go.
link |
I guess what I'm trying to communicate is there's a lot of people on earth that's the nice feature,
link |
and I'm sure there's going to be a significant percentage or some percentage of people that
link |
are... They take on the risk for the adventure. I particularly love that risk of adventure when
link |
taking on inspires people, and just the ripple effect that has across the generation, especially
link |
among the young minds, is perhaps immeasurable. But you're thinking that sending humans should
link |
be something we do less and less, sending humans to space, that it should be primarily an effort...
link |
The work of space exploration should be done primarily by robots.
link |
Well, I think it can be done much more cheaply, obviously, on Mars, and no one's thinking of
link |
sending humans to Enceladus or Europa, the outer planets. And the point is we'll have much better
link |
robots, because let's take an example. You've seen the pictures of the moons of Saturn and the picture
link |
of Pluto and the comet taken by probes and Cassini spent 13 years going around Saturn and its moons
link |
after a seven year voyage. And those are all based on 1990s technology. And if you think of how
link |
smartphones have advanced in 20 years since then, just think how much better one could do, instrumenting
link |
some very small sophisticated probe that could send dozens of them to explore the outer planets.
link |
And that's the way to do that, because no one thinks you could send humans that far.
link |
And I would apply the same argument to Mars. And if you want to assemble big structures like,
link |
for instance, radio astronomers would like to have a big radio telescope on the far side of
link |
the moon, so it's away from the Earth's background artificial radio waves. And that could be done
link |
by assembling, using robots without people. So on the moon and on Mars, I think everything that's
link |
useful can be done by machines much more cheaply than by humans. Do you know the movie 2001,
link |
A Space Odyssey? Of course, yes. But you must be too young to have seen that when it came out,
link |
obviously. I remember seeing it when it came out. You saw it when it came out.
link |
Yeah, yeah, 50 years ago. 60, when was it? 60? In the 60s? Yeah, it's still classic.
link |
It's still probably, for me, the greatest AI movie ever made. Yes, yes, I agree. One of the great
link |
space movies ever made. So let me ask you a philosophical question since we're talking
link |
about robots exploring space. Do you think how 9000 is good or bad? So for people who haven't
link |
watched, this computer system makes a decision to basically prioritize the mission that the ship is
link |
on over the humans that are part of the mission. Do you think how is good or evil?
link |
If you ask me, probably in that context, it was probably good. But I think you're raising
link |
what is, of course, very much an active issue in everyday life about the extent to which we should
link |
entrust any important decision to a machine. And there again, I'm very worried because I think
link |
if you are recommended for an operation or not given parole from prison, or even denied credit
link |
by your bank, you feel you should be entitled to an explanation. It's not enough to be told that the
link |
machine has a more reliable record on the whole than humans have of making these decisions. You
link |
think you should be given reasons you could understand. And that's why I think the presence
link |
of subtle trends to take away the humans and leave us in the hands of decisions that we can't contest
link |
is a very dangerous one. I think we've got to be very careful of the extent to which AI,
link |
which can handle lots of information, actually makes the decisions without oversight. And I think
link |
we can use them as a supplement, but to take the case of radiology and cancer. I mean,
link |
it's true that the radiologist hasn't seen as many x ways of cancer lungs as the machine.
link |
So the machine can certainly help, but you want the human to make the final decision. And I think
link |
that's true in most of these instances. But if we turn a bit to the short term concerns with robotics,
link |
I think the big worry, of course, is the effect it has on people's self respect and their labor
link |
market. And I think my solution will be that we should arrange to tax more heavily the big
link |
international conglomerates, which use the robots and use that tax to fund
link |
decently paid dignified posts of the kind where being a human being is important. Above all,
link |
carers for old people, teachers, assistants for young, gardeners in public parks and things like
link |
that. And if the people who are now working in mind numbing jobs in Amazon warehouses
link |
or in telephone call centers are automated, but those same people are given jobs where being a
link |
human is an asset, then that's a plus plus situation. And so that's the way I think that we
link |
should benefit from these technologies, take over the mind numbing jobs and use machines to
link |
make them more efficient, but enable the people so displaced to do jobs where we do want human
link |
being. I mean, most people when they're old, the rich people, if they have the choice,
link |
they want human carers and all that, don't they? They may want robots to help with some things,
link |
MC to bedpans and things like that, but they want real people. And certainly in this country,
link |
I think even worse in America, the care of old people is completely inadequate and it needs
link |
just more human beings to help them cope with everyday life and look after them when they're
link |
sick. And so that seems to me the way in which the money raised in tax from these big companies
link |
should be deployed. So that's in the short term. But if you actually just look, the fact is where
link |
we are today to long term future in 100 years, it does seem that there is some significant chance
link |
that the human species is coming to an end in its pure biological form. There's going to be
link |
greater and greater integration to genetic modification than cyborg type of creatures.
link |
And so you have to think, all right, well, we're going to have to get from here to there.
link |
And that process is going to be painful. And that, you know, how there's so many different
link |
trajectories that take us from one place to another, it does seem that we need to deeply respect
link |
humaneness and humanity, basic human rights, human welfare, like happiness and all that kind
link |
of stuff. No, absolutely. And that's why I think we ought to try and slow down the application of
link |
these human enhancement techniques and cyborg techniques for humans for just that reason.
link |
I mean, that's why I want to lead into the people on Mars. Let them do it. But there are people too.
link |
Okay. People on Mars are people too. I tend to, you know, but they are very poorly adapted to
link |
where they are. That's why they need modification, whereas we're adapted to the earth quite well.
link |
So we don't need these modifications. We're happy to be humans living in the environment
link |
where our ancestors lived. So we don't have the same motive. So I think there's a difference.
link |
But I agree, we don't want drastic changes probably in our lifestyle. And that indeed is a worry
link |
because some things are changing so fast. But I think I'd like to inject a note of caution.
link |
If you think of the way programs in one technology goes, it goes in a sort of
link |
spurt. It goes up very fast and then it levels off. Let me give you two examples of one we've
link |
had already, a human space flight at the time of the Apollo program. It was only 12 years after
link |
Sputnik 1. I was alive then and I thought it would only be 10 or 20 years further before
link |
the Earth would pretend Mars. But as we know, for reasons we could all understand, that was,
link |
and still remains the high point of human space exploration. And that's because it was funded for
link |
reason to superpower rivalry at huge public expense. But let me give you another case,
link |
civil aviation. If you think of the change between 1919 when that was Alcock and Brown's
link |
first transatlantic fight to 1979, the first flight to the jumbo jet was a big change.
link |
It's more than 50 years since 1969. And we still have jumbo jets more or less the same. So that's
link |
an example of something which developed fast and to take another analogy, we've had huge
link |
developments in mobile phones. But I suspect the iPhone 24 may not be too different from
link |
the iPhone 13. They develop, but then they saturate and then maybe some new innovation
link |
takes over in stimulating economic growth. Yeah, so it's that we have to be cautious about being
link |
too optimistic. And we have to be cautious about being too cynical. I think that is well, optimistic
link |
is begging the question. I mean, do we want this very rough a change? Right. So first of all,
link |
there's some degree to which technological advancement is something is a force that can't
link |
be stopped. And so the question is about directing it versus stopping it or slowing it can be sort
link |
of slot to slow what they human spaceflight that could be have been footprints on Mars if and if
link |
America gone on spending 4% of the federal budget on the project after. Yes, by the reason. So it's
link |
very good reasons, but and we could we could have had supersonic flight, but Concorde came
link |
and went during the 50 years. But the reason it didn't progress is not because we realize it's not
link |
good for human society. The reason it didn't progress is because it couldn't make sort of from
link |
a capitalist perspective, it couldn't make there was no short term or long term way for it to make
link |
money. So for me, but that's the same as saying it's local for society. I don't think everything
link |
that makes money is good for society and everything that doesn't make money is bad for society,
link |
right? That's a that's a difficult, that's a difficult thing we're always contending with
link |
when we look at social networks. It's not obvious even though they make a tremendous amount of money
link |
that they're good for society, especially how they're currently implemented with the advertisement
link |
and engagement maximization. So that's the constant struggle of you know, I agree with you
link |
that many innovations are damaging. Yes. Yes. Well, but I would have thought that supersonic
link |
flight was something that would benefit only a tiny elite, huge expense and environmental damage.
link |
That was obviously something which they're very glad not to have in my opinion.
link |
Yeah. But perhaps there was a way to do it where it could benefit the general populace. If you were
link |
to think about airplanes, wouldn't you think that in the early days, airplanes would have been seen
link |
as something that can surely only benefit 1% at most of the population as opposed to a much
link |
larger percentage. There's another aspect of capitalist system that's able to drive down
link |
costs once you get the thing kind of going. So, you know, we get together maybe with taxpayer
link |
money and get the thing going at first. And once it gets going, companies step up and drive down
link |
the cost and actually make it so that blue collar folks can actually start using this. Yeah. Sometimes
link |
that does happen. That's good. Yeah. So, that's again the double S sword of human civilization
link |
that some technology hurts us, some benefits us and we don't know ahead of time. We could just
link |
do our best. There's a gap between what could be done and what we can actually decide to do.
link |
Yes. In the term, you could push forward some developments faster than we do.
link |
Let me ask you, in your book on the future prospects for humanity,
link |
you imagine a time machine that allows you to send a tweet length message to scientists in the past
link |
like the Newton. Yes. What tweet would you send? It's an interesting thought experiment. What
link |
message would you send to Newton about what we know today? Well, I think he'd love to know
link |
that there were planets around all the stars. He'd like to know that that would really blows
link |
mind. He'd like to know that everything was made of atoms. He'd like to know that if he looked a
link |
bit more carefully through his prisms and looked at light not just from the sun, but from some
link |
flames, he might get the idea that different substances emitted light of different colors
link |
and he might have been twigged to discover some things that had to wait 200, 300 years.
link |
Could have given him those clues, I think. It's fascinating to think, to look back
link |
at how little he understood, people at that time understood about our world.
link |
Yes. And certainly about the cosmos, because of course, well, if we think about astronomy,
link |
then until about 1850, astronomy was a matter of the positions of how the stars and the planets
link |
moved around. Of course, that goes back a long way, but Newton understood why the planets moved
link |
around in ellipses. But he didn't understand why the solar system was all in a plane, what we
link |
call the ecliptic. And he didn't understand it. He didn't know what until the mid 19th century
link |
what the stars are made of. We thought we made it some fifth essence, not earth, earth,
link |
and water like everything else. And it was only after 1850 when people did use prisms
link |
more precisely to get spectra that they realized that the sun was made of the same
link |
stuff as the earth, and indeed the stars were. And it wasn't until 1930 that people
link |
knew about nuclear energy and knew what kept the sun shining for so long. So it was quite late
link |
that some of these key ideas came in, which would have completely transformed Newton's views,
link |
and of course, the entire scale of the galaxy and the rest of the universe.
link |
Just imagine what he would have thought about the Big Bang, or even just general relativity.
link |
Him and Einstein talking for a couple of weeks. Would he be able to make sense of spacetime
link |
and the curvature of spacetime? Well, I think given a quick course, I mean, he was sort of,
link |
if one looks back, he was really a unique intellect in a way. And he said that he
link |
thought better than everyone else by thinking on things continually and thinking very deep
link |
thoughts. And so he was an utterly remarkable intellect, obviously. But of course, scientists
link |
aren't all like that. I think it's one thing that's interesting to me, having spent a life
link |
amongst scientists is what a variety of mindsets and mental styles they have. And well, just to
link |
contrast Newton and Darwin, Darwin said, and he's probably correct, that he thought he just had
link |
as much sort of a common sense and reasoning power as he had with his lawyer. And that's probably
link |
true because his ability was to sort of connect data and think through things deeply. That's
link |
a quite different kind of thinking from what was involved in Newton or someone doing abstract
link |
mathematics. I think in the 20th century, the coolest, well, there's the theory, but
link |
from an astronomy perspective, black holes is one of the most fascinating entities to have been
link |
through theory and through experiment to have emerged from.
link |
Obviously, I agree. It's an amazing story that, well, of course, what's interesting is Einstein's
link |
reaction because, as you know, we now accept this is one of the most remarkable predictions of
link |
Einstein's theory. He never took it seriously, even believed it. Although it was a consequence of
link |
a series of his equations, which someone discovered just a year off his theory, Swordsfield,
link |
but he never took it seriously and others did. But then, of course, well, this is something
link |
that I've been involved in, actually finding evidence for black holes. And that's come in
link |
the last 50 years. And so now there's pretty compelling evidence that they exist as the
link |
remnants of stars or big ones in the center of galaxies. And we understand what's going on.
link |
We have ideas vaguely on how they form. And, of course, gravitation waves have been detected.
link |
And that's an amazing piece of technology.
link |
LIGO is one of the most incredible engineering efforts of all time.
link |
That's an example where the engineers deserve the most of the credit because the precision is,
link |
as they said, it's like measuring the thickness of a hair at the distance of Alpha Centauri.
link |
Yeah, it's incredible.
link |
So maybe actually, if we step back, what are black holes? What do we humans understand about
link |
black holes? And what's still unknown?
link |
Einstein's theory, extended by people like Roger Penrose, tells us that black holes are,
link |
in a sense, one of the simple things, basically, because they are solutions to Einstein's equations.
link |
And the thing that was shown in the 1960s by Roger Penrose in particular, and by a few other people,
link |
was that a black hole, when it forms and settles down, is defined just by two quantities. It's
link |
mass and it's spin. So they're actually based standardized objects. It's amazing that objects
link |
as standardized as that can be so big and can lurk in the vessel solar system. And so that's
link |
the situation for a ready formed black hole. But the way they form, obviously, is very messy and
link |
complicated. And one of the things that I've worked on a lot is what the phenomena are,
link |
which are best attributed to black holes and what may lead to them and all that.
link |
Which, can you explain to that? So what are the different phenomena that lead to a black hole?
link |
Let's talk about it. This is so cool.
link |
Okay. Well, I mean, I think one thing that only became understood really in the 1950s, I suppose,
link |
and beyond was how stars evolve differently depending on how heavy they are. This is the sun
link |
burns hydrogen to helium. And then when it's run out of that, it contracts to be a white dwarf.
link |
And we know how long that will take, say about 10 billion years altogether for its lifetime.
link |
But big stars burn up their fuel more quickly and more interestingly, because when they've
link |
turned hydrogen to helium, they then get even hotter. So they confuse helium into carbon
link |
and go up the periodic table. And then they eventually explode when they have an energy crisis
link |
and they blow out that process material, which as a digression is crucially important because
link |
all the atoms inside our bodies were synthesized inside a star, a star that lived and died more
link |
than 5 billion years ago before our services informed. And so we each have inside us atoms made
link |
in thousands of different stars all over the Milky Way. And that's an amazing idea. And my
link |
predecessor Fred Hoyle in 1946 was the first person to suggest that idea. And that's been
link |
borne out. That's a wonderful idea. So that's how massive stars explode. And they leave behind
link |
something which is very exotic and of two kinds. One possibility is a neutron star.
link |
And these were first discovered in 1967, 68. These are stars a bit heavier than the sun,
link |
which are compressed to an amazing density. So the whole mass of more than the sun's mass
link |
is in something about 10 miles across. So they're extraordinarily dense. They're exotic physics.
link |
And they've been studied in immense detail. And they've been real laboratories because the good
link |
thing about astronomy, apart from exploring what's out there, is to use the fact that the
link |
cosmos has provided us with a lab with far more extreme conditions than we could ever
link |
simulate. And so we learn lots of basic physics from looking at these objects. And that's been
link |
true of neutron stars. But for black holes, that's even more true because the bigger stars,
link |
when they collapse, they leave something behind in the center, which is too big to be a stable white
link |
two or four neutron star becomes a black hole. And we know that there are lots of black holes weighing
link |
about 10 or up to 50 times as much as the sun, which are the remnants of stars. They were detected
link |
first 50 years ago, when a black hole was orbiting around another star and grabbing
link |
material from the other star, which swirled into it and gave us X ray. So the X rays astronomers
link |
found these objects orbiting around an ordinary star and emitting X ray radiation very intensely,
link |
varying out of a short time scale. So something very small and dense was giving that radiation.
link |
That was the first evidence for black holes. But then the other thing that's happened was
link |
realizing that there was a different class of monster black holes in the center of galaxies.
link |
And these are a response for what's called quasars, which is when
link |
something in the center of a galaxy is grabbing some fuel and outshines all the
link |
100 billion stars or so in the rest of the galaxy. A giant beam of light. And in many
link |
cases, it should be, it should be. Is that that's gotta be the most epic thing the universe produces
link |
quasars? Well, it's a debate about the most epic, but quasars maybe or maybe gamma ray bursts or
link |
something. But they are remarkable. And they were a mystery for a long time. And they're
link |
one of the things I worked on in my younger days. So even though they're so bright, they're still
link |
a mystery. And I wouldn't say they're a little mystery now. I think we do understand basically
link |
what's going on. How were quasars discovered? Well, they were discovered when astronomers
link |
found things that looked like stars and they were small enough to be a point like and not resolved
link |
by a telescope, but outshone an entire galaxy. Yeah. And that's suspicious. Yes. But then they
link |
realized that what they were, they were object which you now know are black holes. And they were
link |
black holes were capturing gas. And that gas was getting very hot. But it was producing
link |
far more energy than all the stars added together. And it was the energy of the
link |
black hole that was lighting up all the gas in the galaxy. So you've got a spectrum of it.
link |
So this was something which was realized from 1970s onwards. And as you say, the other thing
link |
we've learned is that they often do produce these jets squirting out, which could be detected in
link |
in all wave bands. So there's now a picture black hole generating jets like the center of most
link |
galaxies. Do we know? Do we have a sense if every galaxy has one of these big, big boys?
link |
Well, most galaxies have big black holes. They vary in size. The one in our galactic center.
link |
Do we know much about ours? We do, yes. We know it weighs about as much as four million
link |
suns, which is less than some, it's a several billion other galaxies. And but we know this
link |
the one in our galactic center isn't very bright or conspicuous. And that's because not much is
link |
falling into it at the moment. If a black hole is isolated, then of course it doesn't radiate. It only
link |
all that radiates is gas swirling into it, which is very hot or has magnetic fields.
link |
It's only radiating the thing it's murdering or consuming or however you put it.
link |
Yeah, that's right. And so it's thought that our galaxy may have been bright,
link |
bright at some time in the past. But now, and that's when the black hole formed or grew. But
link |
now it's not catching very much gas. And so it's rather it's rather faint and detected indirectly
link |
and by fairly weak radio emission. And so I think the answer to your question is that
link |
we suspect that most galaxies have a black hole in them. So that means that some stays in their
link |
lives, or maybe one or more stages, they went through a phase of being like a quasar where
link |
that black hole captured gas and became very, very bright. But for the rest of the lives,
link |
the black holes are fairly quiescent because there's not much gas falling into them.
link |
And so this universe of ours sprinkled a bunch of galaxies and giant black holes with
link |
like very large number of stars orbiting these black holes and then planets orbiting.
link |
And that's right. And just this beautiful universe of ours. So what happens when galaxies collide,
link |
when these two big black holes collide? Is that? Yes. Well, what would happen is that well,
link |
and I should say that this is going to happen near us one day, but not for four billion years,
link |
because the Andromeda galaxy, which is the biggest scan of the galaxy,
link |
is going to be the biggest scan of the galaxy. And it's going to be the biggest scan of the galaxy.
link |
Four billion years, because the Andromeda galaxy, which is the biggest galaxy near to us, which is
link |
about three million light years away, which is a big disk galaxy with a black hole in its hub,
link |
rather like our Milky Way. And that's in falling towards us because they're both in a
link |
common gravitational potential well. And that will collide with our galaxy in about four billion
link |
years. But it'll be maybe it'll be a lesser collision and more of a dance because it'll be
link |
like a swirling situation. Well, it's a swirling, but eventually there'll be a merger. They'll
link |
go through each other and then merge. In fact, the nice move is to be made of this computer
link |
simulations and it'll go through. And then there's a black hole in the sense of Andromeda and our
link |
galaxy. And the black holes will settle towards the center. Then they will orbit around each other
link |
very fast and then they will eventually merge. And that will produce a big burst of gravitational
link |
waves, a very big burst. That an alien civilization with a LIGO like detector will be able to detect.
link |
Yes. Well, in fact, we can detect these with their lower frequencies than the
link |
ways that have been detected by LIGO. So there's a space interferometer which can detect these.
link |
It's about one cycle per hour rather than about a hundred cycles per second. Yes.
link |
It's the ones that are detected. But that will happen. But thinking back to what will happen
link |
in four billion years to any of our descendants, they'll be okay because the two disk galaxies
link |
will merge. It'll end up as a sort of amorphous elliptical galaxy. But the stars won't be much
link |
closer together than they are now. It'll still be just twice as many stars in the structure,
link |
almost as big. And so the chance of another star colliding with our sun would still be very small.
link |
Yeah. Because there's actually a lot of space between stars and planets.
link |
Yes. The chance of a star getting close enough to affect our solar systems orbit
link |
is small and it won't change that very much. So you can be reassured.
link |
A heck of a starry sky though. What would that look like?
link |
Well, it won't make much difference even to that actually. It'll just be...
link |
Wouldn't that look kind of beautiful when you're swirling or because it's swirling so slow?
link |
Yeah, they're far away. So it'll be twice as many stars in the sky.
link |
Yeah. But the pattern changes.
link |
The pattern will change a bit and there won't be the Milky Way because the Milky Way
link |
across the sky is because we are looking in the disc of our galaxy. And you lose that.
link |
Because the disc will be so disrupted. And it'll be also the spherical distribution.
link |
And of course, many galaxies are like that. And that's probably because they have been through
link |
mergers of this kind. If we survive four billion years, we would likely be able to survive beyond
link |
that. What's the other thing on the horizon for humans in terms of the sun burning out,
link |
all those kinds of interesting cosmological threats to our civilization?
link |
Well, I think on the cosmological time scale, because it won't be humans because
link |
even the evolution has got no faster than Darwinian. And I would argue it will be faster than
link |
Darwinian in the future. Then we're thinking about six billion years before the sun dies.
link |
So any entities watching the death of the sun, if they're still around, maybe it's different
link |
much as we are from slime mold or something. And far more different still if they become
link |
electronic. So on that time scale, we just can't predict anything. But I think going back to
link |
the human time scale, then we've talked about whether there'll be people on Mars by the end of
link |
a century. And even in these long perspectives, then indeed, this century is very special,
link |
because it may see the transition between purely flesh and blood entities to those which are
link |
sort of cyborgs. And that'll be an important transition in biology and complexity in this
link |
century. But of course, the other importance, and this has been the theme of a couple of my older
link |
books, is that this is the first century where one species, namely our species, has the future of
link |
the planet in his hands. And that's because of two types of concerns. One is that there are more
link |
of us where more demanding of energy and resources. And therefore we are for the first time,
link |
changing the whole planet through climate change, loss of biodiversity and all those issues.
link |
This has never happened in the past, because having enough humans have been much in power.
link |
So this is an effect that's obviously is high on everyone's agenda now, and rightly so, because
link |
we've got to ensure that we leave a heritage that isn't eroded or damaged to future generations.
link |
And so that's one class of threats. But there's another thing that worries me, perhaps more than
link |
many people seem to worry. And that's the threat of misuse of technology. And so this is particularly
link |
because technologies empower even small groups of malevolent people or indeed, even careless people
link |
to create some effect which could cascade globally. And to take an example, a dangerous
link |
pathogen or pandemic. I mean, my worst nightmare is that there could be some small group that can
link |
engineer a virus to make it more virulent or more transmissible than a natural virus. This is so
link |
called gain of function experiments which were done on the flu virus 10 years ago and can be
link |
done for others. And of course, we now know from COVID 19 that our world is so interconnected
link |
that a disaster in one part of the world can't be confined to that part and we spread globally.
link |
So it's possible for a few dissidents with expertise in biotech could create a global
link |
catastrophe of that kind. And also, I think we need to worry about very large scale disruption by
link |
cyber attacks. In fact, I quote in one of my books, a 2012 report from the American Pentagon
link |
about the possibility of a state level cyber attack on the electricity grid in eastern United
link |
States, which is it could happen. And it says at the end of this chapter that this would
link |
merit a nuclear response. This is pretty scary possibility. That was 10 years ago. And I think
link |
now what would have needed a state actor then could be done perhaps by a small group empowered
link |
by AI. And so there's obviously been an arms race between the cyber criminals and the cyber
link |
security people, not clear which side is winning. But the main point is that as we become more
link |
dependent on more integrated systems, then we get more vulnerable. And as we have the knowledge,
link |
then the misuse of that knowledge becomes more and more of a threat. And I say bio and cyber
link |
are the two biggest concerns. And if we depend too much on AI and complex systems, then just
link |
breakdowns, it may be that they break down. And even if it's an innocent breakdown, then it may be
link |
pretty hard to mend it and just think how much worse the pandemic would have been if we'd lost
link |
the internet in the middle of it. Because we depended more than ever for communication,
link |
everything else on the internet and zooms and all that. And if that had broken down,
link |
that would have made things far worse. And those are the kinds of threats that we I think need to
link |
be more energized and politicians need to be more energized to minimize. And one of the things I've
link |
been doing the last year, through being a member of our part of our parliament is sort of a, I
link |
have to instigate a committee to think more on better preparedness for extreme technological
link |
risks and things like that. So they're a big concern in my mind that we've got to make sure that we
link |
can benefit from these advances but safely because the stakes are getting higher and the benefits
link |
are getting great, as we know, huge benefits from computers, but also huge downsides as well.
link |
And one of the things this war in Ukraine has shown, one of the most terrifying things outside
link |
of the humanitarian crisis is that at least for me, I realized that the human capacity to initiate
link |
nuclear war is greater than I thought. I thought the lessons of the past have been learned.
link |
It seems that we hang on the brink of nuclear war with this conflict like every single day
link |
where just one mistake or bad actor or the actual leaders of the particular nations launching a
link |
nuclear strike and all hell breaks loose. So then adding to that picture cyber attacks and so on,
link |
they can lead to confusion and chaos. And then out of that confusion,
link |
calculations are made such that a nuclear weapon is launched and then you're talking about,
link |
I mean, direct probably 60, 70% of humans on earth are dead instantly. And then the rest,
link |
I mean, it's basically 99% of the human population is wiped out in the period of five years.
link |
Well, it may not be that bad, but it will be a devastation for civilization, of course.
link |
And of course, it will be quite right that this could happen very quickly because of
link |
information coming in and there's hardly enough time for human collected and careful thought.
link |
And there have been recorded cases of false alarms. There's everywhere,
link |
where there have been suspected attacks from the other side and fortunately,
link |
they've been realized to be false alarms, but this could happen. And there's a new
link |
class of threats actually, which in our center in Cambridge, people are thinking about,
link |
which is that the commander control system of the nuclear weapons and the submarine fleets and all
link |
that is now more automated and could be subject to cyber attacks. And that's a new threat,
link |
which didn't exist 30 years ago. And so I think, indeed, it's really a sort of scary world, I think.
link |
And it's because things happen faster and human beings aren't in such direct and immediate control,
link |
because so much is delegated to machines. And also because the world is so much more interconnected,
link |
then some local event can cascade globally in a way it never could in the past and much faster.
link |
Yeah, it's a double H sword because the interconnectedness brings a higher quality
link |
of life across a lot of metrics. Yeah, it can do, but of course, there again,
link |
I mean, if you think of supply chains where we get stuff from around the world,
link |
then one lesson we've learned is that there's a trade off between resilience and efficiency and
link |
it's resilient to have an inventory in stock and to depend on local supplies, whereas it's more
link |
efficient to have long supply chains. But the risk there is that a break in one link in one chain
link |
can screw up car production. And this has already happened in the pandemic. So there's a trade off.
link |
And there are the examples. I mean, for instance, the other thing we learned was that
link |
it may be efficient to have 95% of your hospital intensive care beds occupied all the time,
link |
which has been the UK situation, where to do what the Germans do and always keep 20% of them free
link |
for an emergency is really a sensible precaution. And so I think we've probably learned a lot of
link |
lessons from COVID 19 and they would include rebalancing the trade off between resilience
link |
and efficiency. Boy, the fact that COVID 19, a pandemic that could have been a lot, a lot worse,
link |
brought the world to its knees anyway. It could be far worse in terms of its fatality rate or
link |
something. Fatality rate, yeah. So the fact that that, I mean, it revealed so many flaws in our
link |
human institutions. Yeah, yeah. Yes. And I think I'm rather pessimistic because I do worry about
link |
the bad actor or the small group who can produce catastrophe. And if you imagine someone with
link |
access to the kind of equipment that's available in university labs or industrial labs, and they
link |
could create some dangerous pathogen, then even one such person is too many. And how can we stop
link |
that? Because it's true that you can have regulations. I mean, academies are having meetings,
link |
et cetera, about how to regulate these new biological experiments, et cetera, make them safe.
link |
But even if you have all these regulations, then enforcing regulations is pretty hopeless. We can't
link |
enforce the tax laws globally. We can't enforce the drug laws globally. And so similarly, we can't
link |
readily enforce the laws against people doing these dangerous experiments, even if all the
link |
governments say they should be prohibited. And so my line on this is that all nations are going to
link |
face a big trade off between three things we value, freedom, security, and privacy.
link |
And I think different nations will make that choice differently. The Chinese would give up
link |
privacy and have more security, if not more liberty. But I think in our countries, I think we're
link |
going to have to give up more privacy in the same way.
link |
That's a really interesting trade off. But there's also something about human nature here, where
link |
I personally believe that all humans are capable of good and evil. And there's some aspect to which
link |
we can fight this by encouraging people, incentivizing people towards the better angels of their nature.
link |
So in order for a small group of people to create, to engineer deadly pathogens, you have to have people
link |
that for whatever trajectory took them in life wanting to do that kind of thing. And if we can
link |
aggressively work on a world that sort of sees the beauty in everybody and encourages
link |
the flourishing of everybody in terms of mental health, in terms of meaning, in terms of all those
link |
kinds of things, that's one way to fight the development of weapons that can lead to atrocities.
link |
Yes. And I completely agree with that and to reduce the reason why people feel embittered.
link |
Yes. But of course, we've got a long way to go to do that, because if you look at the present world,
link |
nearly everyone in Africa has reason to feel embittered, because their economic development
link |
is lagging behind most of the rest of the world. And the prospects of getting out of the poverty trap
link |
is rather bleak, especially if the population grows. Because for instance, they can't develop
link |
like the Eastern Tigers by cheap manufacturing, because robots are taking that over, so that they
link |
will naturally feel embittered by the inequality. And of course, what we need to have is some sort
link |
of mega version of the Marshall Plan that helped Europe in the post World War II era
link |
to enable Africa to develop. That will be not just an altruistic thing for Europe to do,
link |
but in our interest. Because otherwise, those in Africa will feel massively disaffected.
link |
And indeed, it's a manifestation of the excessive inequalities, the fact that the
link |
2000 richest people in the world have enough money to double the income of the bottom billion.
link |
And that's an indictment of the ethics of the world. And this is where my friend Stephen
link |
Pinker and I have had some contact. We wrote joint articles on bio threats and all that.
link |
But he writes these books being very optimistic about quoting figures about how
link |
life expectancy has gone up, infant mortality has gone down,
link |
literacy has gone up, and all those things. And he's quite right about that.
link |
And so he says the world's getting better.
link |
Do you disagree with your friends, Stephen Pinker?
link |
Well, I mean, I agree with those facts. But I think he misses out parts of the picture,
link |
because there's a new class of threats which hang over us now, which didn't hang over us in the past.
link |
And I would also question whether we have collectively improved our ethics at all,
link |
because let's think back to the Middle Ages. It's true that, as Pinker says,
link |
the average person was in a more miserable state than they are today on average.
link |
For all the reasons he quantifies, that's fine. But in the Middle Ages, there wasn't very much
link |
that could have been done to improve people's lot in life because of lack of knowledge and lack
link |
of science, etc. So the gap between the way the world was, which is pretty miserable,
link |
and the way the world could have been, which wasn't all that much better, was fairly narrow.
link |
Whereas now, the gap between the way the world is and the way the world could be
link |
is far, far wider. And therefore, I think we are ethically more at fault in allowing this gap
link |
to get wider than it was in medieval times. And so I would very much question and dispute
link |
the idea that we are ethically in advance of our predecessors.
link |
That's a lot of interesting hypotheses in there. It's a fascinating question of how much
link |
is the size of that gap between the way the world is and the way the world could be
link |
is a reflection of our ethics, or maybe sometimes it's just a reflection of a very large number of
link |
people. Maybe it's a technical challenge too. It's not just one of our political systems.
link |
Political systems. And we're trying to figure this thing out. There's a 20th century
link |
tried this thing that sounded really good on paper of collective communism type of things,
link |
and it turned out at least the way it was done there,
link |
that leads to atrocities and the suffering and the murder of tens of millions of people.
link |
Okay, so that didn't work. Let's try democracy. And that seems to have a lot of flaws,
link |
but it seems to be the best thing we've got so far. So we're trying to figure this out
link |
as our technologies become more and more powerful, have the capacity to do a lot of good to the world,
link |
but also unfortunately have the capacity to destroy the entirety of the human civilization.
link |
I think it's social media generally, which makes it harder to get a sort of moderate consensus,
link |
because in the old days when people got their news filtered through responsible journalists
link |
in this country, the BBC and the main newspapers, et cetera, they would muffle the crazy extremes.
link |
Whereas now, of course, they're on the internet, and if you click on them, you get to the war
link |
extreme. And so I think we are seeing a sort of dangerous polarization, which I think is going
link |
to make all countries harder to govern. And that's something which I'm pessimistic about.
link |
So to push back, it is true that brilliant people like you highlighting the limitations
link |
of social media is making them realize the stakes and the failings of social media companies,
link |
but at the same time, they're revealing the division. It's not like they're creating it,
link |
they're revealing it in part. And so that puts a lot of, that puts the responsibility into the
link |
hands of social media and the opportunity in the hands of social media to alleviate some of that
link |
division. So it could in the long arc of human history result, so bringing some of those divisions
link |
and the anger and the hatred to the surface, so that we can talk about it. And as opposed to
link |
disproportionately promoting it, actually just surfacing it so we can get over it.
link |
Well, you're assuming that the fat cats are more public spirited than the politicians.
link |
And I'm not sure about that.
link |
Yeah. I think there's a lot of money to be made in being publicly spirited. I think there's a
link |
lot of money to be made in increasing the amount of love in the world, despite the sort of public
link |
perception that all the social media companies heads are interested in doing is making money.
link |
I think that may be true, but I just personally believe people being happy
link |
is a hell of a good business model. And so making as many people happy, helping them flourish in a
link |
long term way, that's a good way to make money. Well, I think guilt and shame are good motives
link |
to make you behave better in future. That's my experience. From maybe in the political
link |
perspective of certainness in this case. But it does make sense now that we can destroy ourselves
link |
with nuclear weapons, with engineered pandemics and so on, that the aliens would show up.
link |
That if I was the, had a leadership position, maybe as a scientist or otherwise in an alien
link |
civilization, and I would come upon Earth, I would try to watch from a distance,
link |
do not interfere. And I would start interfering when these life forms start becoming quite,
link |
have the capacity to be destructive. And so, I mean, it is an interesting question when people
link |
talk about UFO sightings and all those kinds of things that at least...
link |
These are benign aliens you're thinking of.
link |
Benign, yes. I mean, benign, almost curious, almost partially, as with all curiosity,
link |
partially selfish to try to observe, is there something interesting about this particular
link |
evolutionary system? Because I'm sure even to aliens, Earth is a curiosity.
link |
Yeah. Well, it's in a very special stage, you know what I mean?
link |
It's special. It's special. Perhaps a very short...
link |
This century is very special among the 45 million centuries the Earth experienced already.
link |
So, it is a very special time where they should be specially interested. But I think going back
link |
to the politics, the other problem is getting people who have short term concerns to care about
link |
the long term. By the long term, I now mean just looking 30 years or so ahead. I know people who've
link |
been scientific advisors to governments and things, and they may make these points.
link |
But of course, they don't have much traction because, as we know very well,
link |
any politician has an urgent agenda of very worrying things to deal with. And so,
link |
they aren't going to prioritize these issues which are longer term and less immediate and
link |
don't just concern their constituents if they concern distant parts of the world.
link |
And so, I think what we have to do is to enlist charismatic individuals
link |
to convert the public. Because if the politicians know the public care about something,
link |
climate change is an example, then they will make decisions which take cognizance of that.
link |
And I think for that to happen, then we do need some public individuals who are respected by
link |
everyone and to have a high profile. And in the climate context, I would say that I've mentioned
link |
four very disparate people who've had such a big effect in the last few years. One is Pope Francis,
link |
the other is David Attenborough, the other is Bill Gates, and the other is Greater Taunberg.
link |
And those four people have certainly had a big shift in public opinion and
link |
even changed the rhetoric of business, although how deep that is, I don't know.
link |
But politicians can't let these issues drop down off the agenda if there's a public clamor.
link |
And it needs people like that to keep the public clamor going.
link |
To push back a little bit, so those four are very interesting and I have deep respect for them.
link |
They have, except David Attenborough, David Attenborough is really, I mean, everybody loves him.
link |
I mean, I can't say anything. But Bill Gates and Greta, they also create a lot of division.
link |
Oh, sure. Yeah, yeah.
link |
And this is a big problem. So it's not just charismatic. I put that responsibility actually
link |
on the scientific community. And the populace too, yeah. And the politicians. So we need
link |
the charismatic leaders. And they're rare. When you look at human history,
link |
those are the ones that make a difference. Those are the ones that
link |
not the ride, they inspire the populace to think long term. The JFK, we'll go to the
link |
moon in this decade now because it's easy, but because it is hard. There's no discussion about
link |
short term political gains or any of that kind of stuff in the vision of going to the moon,
link |
or going to Mars, or taking on gigantic projects, or taking on world hunger, or taking on climate
link |
change, or the education system, all those things that require long term, significant investment
link |
that requires. But it's hard to find those people. And incidentally, I think another problem,
link |
which is a downside of social media is that of younger people, I know the number who would
link |
contemplate a political career has gone down because of the pressures on them and their family
link |
from social media. It's a hell of a job now. And so I think we are all losers because the
link |
quality of people who choose that path is really dropping. And as we see by the quality of those
link |
who are in these compositions. That said, I think the silver lining there is the quality of the
link |
competition actually is inspiring because it shows to you that there's a dire need of leaders,
link |
which I think would be inspiring to young people to step into the fold. I mean, great leaders
link |
are not afraid of a little bit of fire on social media. So if you have a 20 year old kid now,
link |
a 25 year old kid is seeing how the world responded to the pandemic, seeing the geopolitical
link |
division over the war in Ukraine, seeing the brewing war between the West and China,
link |
we need great leaders. And there's a hunger for them. And the time will come when they step up.
link |
I believe that. But also to add to your list of four, he doesn't get enough credit. I've been
link |
defending him in this conversation. Elon Musk in terms of the fight and climate change.
link |
But he also has led to a lot of division, but we need more. David Edinburgh.
link |
Yeah, no, I mean, I'm definitely, I mean, I've heard him described as a 21st century Brunel
link |
for his innovation. And that's true. But whether he's an ethical inspiration, I don't know.
link |
Yeah, he has a lot of fun on Twitter. Well, let me ask you to put on your wise sage hat.
link |
What advice would you give to young people today? Maybe they're teenagers in high school, maybe
link |
early college. What advice would you give to a career or have a life they can be proud of?
link |
Yes. Well, I'd be very different, really, about offering any wisdom. But I think they should
link |
they should realize that the choices they make at that time are important. And from the experience
link |
of I've had with many friends, many people don't realize that opportunities are open until it's too
link |
late. They somehow think that some opportunities are only open to a few privileged people. And
link |
they don't even try. And that they could succeed. But if I focus on people working in some professor
link |
I know about like science, I would say, pick an area to work in, where new things are happening,
link |
where you can do something that the old guys never had a chance to think about.
link |
Don't go into a field that's fairly stagnant, because then there's not much to do, or you'll be
link |
trying to tackle the problems that the old guys got stuck on. And so I think in science,
link |
I can give people good advice that they should pick a subject where there are exciting new
link |
developments. And also, of course, something which suits their style, because even when in
link |
science, which is just one profession, there's a big range of style between the sort of
link |
solitary thinker that a person does field work, the person who works in a big team, etc. And
link |
whether you like computing or mathematical thought, etc. So pick some subject that suits your style
link |
and where things are happening fast. And be prepared to be flexible. That's what I'd say,
link |
really. Keep your eyes open for the opportunity throughout, like you said. Go to a new field,
link |
go to a field where new cool stuff is happening. Just keep your eyes open. Yes, that's
link |
patitudinous. But I think most of us, and I include myself in this, didn't realize these
link |
sorts of things are too late. Yeah, I think this applies way beyond science. What do you make of
link |
this finiteness of our life? Do you think about death? Do you think about mortality?
link |
Do you think about your mortality? And are you afraid of death? Well, I mean, I'm not afraid,
link |
because I think I'm lucky. I feel lucky to have laughed as long as I have. And to have been
link |
fairly lucky in my life in many respects compared to most people. So I feel very fortunate.
link |
This reminds me of this current emphasis on living much longer than these so called
link |
Altos laboratories, which have been set up by billionaires. There's one in San Francisco,
link |
one in La Jolla, I think, and one in Cambridge. And they're funded by these guys who,
link |
when young, wanted to be rich. And now they're rich, they want to be young again. They won't
link |
find that quite so easy. And do we want this? I don't know if there was some elite that was able
link |
to do much longer than others. That would be a really fundamental kind of inequality. And I think
link |
if it happened to everyone, then that might be an improvement. It's not so obvious. But I think
link |
for my part, I think to have lived as long as most people and had a fortunate life is all I can
link |
expect and a lot to be grateful for. Those are all past issues. Well, I am incredibly honored
link |
that you sit down with me today. I thank you so much for life of exploring some of the deepest
link |
mysteries of our universe and of our humanity and thinking about our future with existential
link |
risks that are before us. It's a huge honor, Martin, that you sit with me. And I've really
link |
enjoyed it. Well, thank you, Lex. I thought we couldn't go on for as long as this, but we could
link |
have gone on much longer. Exactly. Thank you so much. Thank you for listening to this conversation
link |
with Martin Rees. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And
link |
now let me leave you with some words for Martin Rees himself. I'd like to widen people's awareness
link |
of the tremendous time span lying ahead for our planet and for life itself. Most educated people
link |
are aware that we're the outcome of nearly four billion years of Darwinian selection,
link |
but many tend to think that humans are somehow the culmination. Our sun, however,
link |
is less than halfway through its lifespan. It will not be humans who watch the sun's demise
link |
six billion years from now. Any creatures that then exist will be as different from us as we are
link |
from bacteria or amoeba. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.