Lex Fridman Podcast - #305 – Martin Rees: Black Holes, Alien Life, Dark Matter, and the Big Bang

Episode Date: July 23, 2022

Lord Martin Rees is a cosmologist and astrophysicist at Cambridge University and co-founder of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - Lambda: https://lambdalabs.com/lex - InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off - Indeed: https://indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit - ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free - Onnit: https://lexfridman.com/onnit to get up to 10% off EPISODE LINKS: Martin's Twitter: https://twitter.com/lordmartinrees Martin's Website: https://www.martinrees.uk Martin's Books: If Science is to Save Us: https://amzn.to/3yXRqsc The End of Astronauts: https://amzn.to/3B604ro On the Future: https://amzn.to/3OlzLjB PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (06:39) - Understanding the universe (15:09) - Human limitations and AI (24:05) - Dark matter (31:25) - Vast universe (39:07) - Alien life (52:59) - Space exploration (1:17:22) - Future technology (1:28:44) - Newton and Einstein (1:32:46) - Black holes (1:46:27) - Cosmological threats (2:13:31) - Advice for young people (2:16:02) - Mortality

The following is a conversation with Lord Martin Reese, a meritus professor of cosmology and astrophysics at Cambridge University, and co-founder of the Center for the Study of Existential Risk. And now a quick few second mention of the sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We got Lambda for deep learning, inside track of for longevity, indeed for hiring, express VPN for privacy, and on it for supplements. Choose wise, my friends. And now I want

to the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I tried to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. This show is brought to you by Lambda. Computers, workstations, laptop, service, cloud compute, all for deep learning. I love Lambda. I won't stop sharing how much I love these systems. They just make it super simple for you to do deep learning. They configure everything for you.

I think they have Windows systems, but if you know what's good for you, you're gonna go Linux. Everything works, PyTorch, TensorFlow, everything is set up. The full stack, it just works. And it's super powerful machines. So the laptop obviously is really impressive because it can be out in the go. I'm going to be using it for more mobile robotics, both training. It's really important

to say it's powerful enough to do training. But in general, it's just the incredible company that does both cloud and with the opposite of cloud offline, computing systems, plug and play access to very powerful computation, specialized for machine learning. So you got all the GPUs you can possibly use. There you go, that's poetry. So it's good both for individual researchers and huge companies. What else can I say, you can check them out at lambdelabs.com slash Lex. I just think it's great to support what they're doing for the machine learning community, making it easy, what they're doing

for companies, they're doing for the machine learning community, making it easy. What they're doing for companies they're interested in doing machine learning, just making it easy, making a classy and sexy love what they're doing. Glad there's people like that out there. This show is also brought to you by Inside Tracker. A service I use to track biological data. They have a bunch of plans, most of which include a blood test that gives you a lot of information they can use to make decisions about your health. They have algorithms, machine learning algorithms that analyze that data. That includes your blood data, DNA data, and fitness tracker data that comes from your body, right? This is very specific to your body and gives you a clear picture of what you need to do.

This is obviously what you've done in the 21st century. Combined with my conversation with a demo subsabas from deep mind, but the future of sort of science of biological applications and machine learning medical applications and machine learning is so, so, so exciting. And being able to make these large scale machine learning systems that give you advice based on your specific individual data, that's really, really exciting. Just even outside of it being beneficial to your life, I think you should also consider

supporting them for this big mission. That's going to help a lot of people. So go to inside tracker.com slash Lex and for a limited time, you get special savings for being a listener. This show is also brought to you by Indeed, a hiring website. I've used them as part of many hiring efforts I've done for the teams I've led, especially engineering teams, but all kinds of teams. They have tools like Indeed Instant Match, giving you quality candidates, which resumes that Indeed, fit your job description immediately. I'm actually

currently looking for translators and overdubbers to help me with some of the projects I'm doing here in Ukrainian and Russian. I speak the languages but I want to have like a strong team that brings out the best from these people and I saw a fascinating new challenge and I want to hire the best people in the world to help me. I want to connect the world and language is a barrier that separates us. So I'm looking to hire people to help me and I'll probably tweet about it and all that kind of stuff. Anyway, indeed is a tool I'll definitely use to help me find great folks.

For only a limited time, indeed has a special offer for the listeners of this podcast, check it out at indeed.com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by Express VPN. You should know friends that the ISPs, the Internet service providers can still track you even if you use basic protection like incognito mode on Chrome. They can still get your data. As I travel, whether it's watching shows on Netflix, or just protecting your privacy on the internet, from all the ISPs and everybody who wants to collect your data, or just in general as you travel to different parts of the world

and you want to read different kinds of news. I mean, VPN is essential. And my favorite VPN has always been for many, many years, ExpressVPN, with a big sexy button that just works super fast, works on any device, any operating system, at least any that I know of, including Linux, my favorite operating system. You can go check them out at ExpressVPN.com slash Lex pod for an extra three months free. I've been using it for many years. Why don't you join me friend in this journey that's protected at least in part with a good VPN.

This episode is also brought to you by Onit, a nutrition supplement and fitness company that make alpha brain, perhaps you've heard of it. I don't take it every day but I do take it off when I have a, an especially serious kind of difficult, deep work session, when I'm preparing for certain difficult conversations. I mean, this is particularly for engineering. If I'm unsure how I'm going to solve the different design parts, especially early on in the design stage of the project, but I also think of conversations as a kind of design. And so in trying to sort of visualize the big picture of a conversation and then zooming into a very specific parts of a conversation, I have to really think hard.

And for that, alpha brain can be a big boost. So I'll take it in those cases. It helps clear the mind, helps maintain focus, sleep, and I've got to say power now. Of course, I'm really essential. But on top of that, something like alpha brain really helps. helps clear the mind, helps maintain focus, sleep, and I gotta say power now, of course are really essential. But on top of that, something like alpha brain really helps. You can check them out at lexfreedman.com slash on it to get a special discount. This is the lexfreedman podcast to support it.

Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Martin Reese. [♪ Music playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, you write that, quote, today we know that the universe is far bigger and stranger than anyone's suspected. So what do you think are the strangers, maybe the most beautiful, or maybe even the most terrifying things lurking out there in the cosmos? Well, of course, rest of the groping for any detail on the standing of the remote parts of the universe, but of course what we've learnt in the last few decades is really two things. First we've understood that the universe

had an origin about 13.8 billion years ago in a so-called Big Bang, a hot-ten state, whose very beginnings are still shrouded in mystery. And also we've learnt more about the extreme things in it, of black holes, neutrons, stars, explosions of various kinds, and one of the most potentially exciting discoveries in the last 20 years, mainly in the last 10, has been the realization that most of the stars in the sky are orbited by wretched nukes of planets, just as the sun is orbited by the earth and the other familiar planets. And this, of course, makes the night sky far more interesting. What you see up there on just points of light, but there are plenty of systems, and that raises the question, could there be life out there? And so that is an exciting problem for the 21st century.

So when you see all those lights out there, you immediately imagine all the planetary worlds that are around them, and they potentially have all kinds of different lives, living organisms, life forms, or history. Well, that's, that we don't know at all. We know that these planets are there. We know that they have massisms or which rather like the planets of our solar system, but we don't know at all if there's any life on any of them. I mean it's entirely logically possible that life is unique to this earth, doesn't exist anywhere. On the other hand,

it could be that the origin of life is something which happens routinely given conditions like the young earth, in which case there could be literally billions of places in Igalaxy where some sort of biosphere has evolved. And settling where the truth lies between those two extremes is a challenge for the coming decades. So certainly we're either lucky to be here or very, very, very lucky to be here. I guess that's the difference. Where do you fall, your own estimate, your own guess on this question,

are we alone in the university thing? I think we foolish to give any firm estimate because we just don't know. And that's just an example of how we are depending on greater observations and also incidentally in the case of life. We've got to take account of the fact that, as I always say to my scientific colleagues, biology is a much harder subject than physics. And most of the universe, if you know about it, could be understood by physics, but we've got to remember

that even the smallest living organism, an insect, is far more complicated, with a layer on their complexity than the most complicated star, or galaxy. You know, that's the funny thing about physics and biology. The dream of physicists in the 20th century, and maybe this century, is to discover the theory of physicists in the 20th century and maybe this century is to discover the theory of everything. And there's a sense by that once you discover that theory you will understand everything. If we unlock the mysteries of how the universe works, would you be able to understand how life emerges from that fabric of the universe that we understand.

I think the phrase, there everything is very misleading because it's used to describe a theory which unifies the three laws of microphysics, electrically as it magnetism, the weak interaction, with gravity. So it's important, step forward for particle physicists. But the lack of such a theory doesn't hold up any other scientists. Anyone doing biology or most of physics is not held up at all through not understanding some nuclear physics, they held up because they're dealing with things that are very complicated. And that's especially true of anything biological. So what's holding up biologists is not a lack of a so-called theory of everything.

It's the inability to understand things which are very complicated. What do you think we'll understand first, how the universe works or how the human body works, deeply, like from a fundamental deep level? Well, I think the past we being come back to it later, that there are only limited prospects of ever being able to understand with unaged human brains, the most fundamental theories linking together all the forces of nature.

I think that may be a limitation of the human brains. But I also think that we can perhaps aided by computer simulations understand a bit more of the complexity of nature, but even understanding a simple organism from the atom up is very, very difficult. And I think extreme reductionists have a very misleading perception. They tend to think that in a sense we are all solutions to spreading as equation, etc. But that isn't the way we'll ever understand anything. It may be true that we are reduxious in a sense if we believe that that's the case.

We don't believe in any special life force in living things. But nonetheless, no one thinks that we can understand a living thing by solving certain That's the case, we don't believe in any special life force in living things, but nonetheless no one thinks that we can understand a living thing by solving surely his equation. To take an example which isn't as complicated, lots of people study the flow of fluids like water. My waves break, my flows go turbulent, things like that. This is a serious branch of applied mathematics and engineering. And in doing this, you have concepts of viscosity, turbulence and things like that.

Now you can understand quite a lot about how water behaves and how waves break in terms of those concepts. But the fact that any breaking wave is a solution of Schrodinger's equation for tens of 30 particles, even if you could solve that, which you clearly can't, would not give you any insight. So the important thing is that every science has its own irreducible concepts in which you get the best explanation. So it may be in chemistry, things like balance, get the best explanation. So it may be in chemistry, things like balance, in biology, the concept in cell biology, and in ecology there are concepts like imprinting, etc. and in psychology there are other concepts. So in a sense the sciences are like a tall building, where you have basic physics,

most fundamental, then the rest of physics, then chemistry, then cell biology, etc. All the way up to the economists and the penthouse and all that. And we have that. And that's true in a sense, but it's not true that it's like a building in that it's But it's not true that it's like a building in that it's made unstable, bio-unstable based, because if you're chemist, biologists, or an economist, you're facing challenging problems, but they're not made any worse by uncertainty about sub-neutral physics. And at every level, just because you understand the rules of the game, or have some understanding of the rules of the game doesn't mean you know what kind of beautiful things that game

creates. Right. So if you enter in birds and how they fly, then things like imprintinginting, the baby on the mother and all that and things like that are what you need to understand. You couldn't even imprincidble, solve this very good equation, how an Arbatross wanders for thousands of miles of the southern ocean and comes back and then coughs up food for its young. That's something we can understand in a sense and predict the behavior, but it's not because we can solve it on the atomic scale. You mentioned that there might be some fundamental limitation to the human brain, that limits our ability to understand some aspect of how the universe works.

That's really interesting. That's sad actually, to the degree it's true it's sad. So what do you mean by that? I would simply say that just as a monkey can't understand quantum theory or even Newtonian physics, there's no particular reason why the human brain should revolve to be well matched to understanding a deepest aspect of reality. And I suspect that there may be aspects that we are not even aware of

and couldn't really fully comprehend. But as an intermediate step towards that, one thing which I think is very interesting possibility is the extent to which AI can help us. I mean, I think if you take the example of the so-called theories of everything, one of which is string theory. String theory involves very complicated geometry and structures in 10 dimensions. And it's

certainly, in my view, on the cards, that the physics of 10 dimensions. They completely geometry, maybe too hard for a human being to work through, but could be worked through by an AI with the advantage of the huge processing power, which enables them to learn world championship chess within a few hours just by watching games. So there's every reason to expect that these machines could help us to solve these problems. And of course, if that's the way we came to understand whether string theory was right, it should be in the sense of frustrating because you wouldn't get the sort of a higher insight, which is the greatest satisfaction from doing science. But on the other hand, if a machine turns away a 10-dimensional geometry, thinking how at all possible,

origami is wound up in extra dimensions, if it comes out at the end, it spews out the correct mass of the electron to the fact that there are three kinds of new signals, I mean like that, you would know that there was some truth in the theory. And so we may have a theory which we come to trust because it does protect things that we can observe and check, but we may never really understand the full workings of it. To the extent that we do more or less understand how most phenomena

can be explained in the frontal way. Of course, in case of quantum theory, many people would say, understandably those are mysteries, you don't quite understand why it works, but there could be deeper mysteries when we get to these unified theories, where there's a big gap between what a computer can print out for us at the end and what we can actually grasp and think through in our heads. Yeah, it's interesting that the idea that there could be things a computer could tell us that is true. And maybe you can even help us understand why it's true a little bit. But ultimately it's still a long journey to really deeply understand the why of it.

Yes, that's an imitation of our brain. Well, we can try to sneak up to it in and that's the limitation of our brain. Well, we can try to sneak up to it in different ways given the limitations of our brain. Have you, I've got any chances to spend the day at Deep Mind, Dr. Dema Sassabas, his big dream is to apply AI to the questions of science, certainly to the questions of physics.

Have you got any chance to interact with them? Well, I know quite well. He's one of my heroes, certainly. And I remember... I'm sure he would say this. And I remember the first time I met him, he said that he was like me, he wants to understand the universe, but he thought the best thing to do was to try and develop AI, and then with the help of AI, he'd stand more chance of understanding the universe. Yeah. And I think he's right about that. So, and of course, although we're familiar with the way his computers play go and chess,

he's already made contribution to science through understanding protein folding better than the best human chemists. And so already he's on the path to showing ways in which computers have the path to learn and do things by having a bit of to analyze enormous samples in a short time to do better than humans. And so I think he would resonate for whatever he said that it may be that in these other fundamental questions the computers will play to Chris O'Roe. Yeah, and they're also doing quantum mechanical simulation of electrons, they're doing control

of high temperature plasma fusion reactors. Yes, that's a new thing, which is very interesting. They can suppress the instability in these talkamacks better than any other way. And it's just the march of progress by AI's and science is making big strides. Do you think an AI system will win a Nobel Prize in the century? What do you think? Does that make you sad?

If I can digress and push the plug for my next book, it has a chapter saying, why Nobel Prizes do more harm than good? So I'm quite separate subject. I think the Nobel Prizes do greatly damage to the way science is done. Of course, if you ask who or what deserves the greatest renaissance of discovery, it may be often someone someone has an idea, a team of people who work a big experiment, etc. And of course, it's the quality of the equipment, which is crucial. And certainly, in the subjects I do in astronomy, the huge advances we've had come not from us being more intelligent than Aristotle was, but through us having far, far better data from powerful telescopes on the ground and in space. And also, incidentally, we've benefited

hugely in astronomy from computer simulations, because if you are a subatomic physicist, then of course you crash together the particles in the big accelerator like the one at CERN and see what happens, but I can't crash together to Galaxon's or two stars and see what happens, but in the virtual world of a computer one can do simulations like that and the power of computers is such that these simulations can yield a phenomena and insights which we wouldn't have guessed beforehand and the way we can feel we're making progress and trying to understand some of these phenomena, why galaxies have the size and shape they do and all that is because we can do simulations and tweaking different initial conditions, and seeing which

gives the best fit to what we actually observe. And so that's a way in which we've made progress in using computers. And incidentally, we also now need them to analyze data, because one thinks of astronomy has been to this day rather, data-poor subjects, but the Europeans had a light called Gaia has just put online the speeds and colors and properties of nearly two billion stars in the Milky Way. And it's been a fantastic analysis of, and that of course could not be done at all without just the number of crunchy capacitors computers. And the new method of machine learning actually love raw data, the kind that astronomy provides, organized structure raw data. Yeah, well indeed, because the reason they really haven't benefited over us is that they

can learn and think so much faster. That's how they can learn to play chess and go. That's how they can learn to dog nose lung cancer, better than a radiologist. A book is they can look at a hundred thousand scans in a few days, whereas no human radiologist sees that many in lifetime. Well, there's still a magic to the human intelligence, to the intuition, to the common sense reasoning.

Well, we hope so. For now. What is the new book that you mentioned? The book I mean, it's called If Sciences To Save Us, it's coming out in September. And it's on the, well, the big challenges of science, climate dealing with bio-safety and dealing with cyber-safety. And also it's got chapters on the way science is organized. I'm dealing with bio-safety and dealing with cyber-safety. And also it's got chapters on the ways

science is organized, in a universe, it's an academies, et cetera. And the ethics of science and and perhaps the limits. And the limits, yes. Well, let me actually just stroll around the beautiful and the strange of the universe. Over 20 years ago, you hypothesized that we would solve the mystery of dark matter by now.

So unfortunately, we didn't quite yet. First, what is dark matter and why has it been so tough to figure out? Well, I mean, we learned that galaxies and other large-scale structures, which are moving around, but preventive flying apart by gravity, would be flying apart if they only contain the stuff we see, if everything in them is shining, and to understand how galaxies formed and why they do remain confined, the same size, one has to infer that there's about five times as much stuff producing gravitational forces, then the total amount of stuff in the gas and stars that we see, and that stuff is called dark matter. That's like the leading name. It's not dark, it's just transparent, et cetera. And the most likely interpretation

is that it's a swarm of microscopic particles, which have no electric charge, and the very small cross-section of the hitting each other and hitting anything else. So they swarm around and we can detect their collective effects and when we do computer simulations of how galaxies form and evolve and how they emerge from the big bang, then we get a nice consistent picture if we put in five times as much mass in the form of these mysterious dark particles. And for instance, it works better if we think they're not interacting particles than if we think they're a gas-frict, we'd have shockwaves and things. So we know something about the properties of these.

But we don't know what they are. And the disappointment compared to my guess 20 years ago is that particles aren't seeing this description and not yet been found. It was thought that the big accelerator, the large hydrocholider, that's term, is the world's biggest might have found a new class of particles, which would have been

the obvious candidates. And it hasn't. And some people say, well, Doc Matt can't be there, et cetera. But what I would argue is that there's a huge amount of parameter space that hasn't been explored. There are other kinds of particles called axioms, which behave slightly differently, which are good candidates. And there's a factor of 10 parts of 10 between the heaviest particles that could be created by the large Hadron Collider and the heaviest particles which on theoretical grounds could exist without turning into black holes.

So there's a huge amount of possible particles which could be out there as remnants of the big bang for which we wouldn't be able to text so easily. So the fact that we've got new constraints on what the dark matter could be doesn't diminish my belief that it's there in the form of particles because we've only explored a small fraction of parameter space. So there's this search, you're literally upon unintended searching in the dark here in this giant parameter space of possible particles. You're searching for, I mean, there could be all kinds of particles. It could be, and the sum is maybe very, very hard to detect, but I think we can hope for some new theoretical ideas,

because one point which perhaps you'd like to discuss more is about the very early stage of the big bang. And the situation now is that we have an outline picture for how the universe has evolved from the time we're just expanding in just a nanosecond, right up to the present. And we can do that because after nanosecond, the physics of the material is in the same range that we can test in the lab. After a nanosecond, the particles moving around like those in the large hydrocholider, if you wait for one second, they're rather like in the centers of the hotter stars and nuclear axles, hydrogen, helium, etc., which fit the data.

So we can, with confidence, extrapolate back., which fit the data. So we can with confidence extrapolate back to a new universe with a nanosecond old. I think we can do it with as much confidence as anything a geologist tells you about the early history of the earth. And that's huge progress in the last 50 years. But any progress puts in sharper focus new mysteries. And of course, in sharper focus, new mysteries. And of course, the new mysteries in this context are why is the universe expanding the way it is? Why does it contain this mixture of atoms and dark matter and radiation?

And why does it have the properties of it allow galaxies to form, being fairly smooth but not completely smooth? And the answer to those questions I generally believe to lie in a much much earlier stage of the universe when conditions were much more extreme and therefore far beyond the stage when we had the photo of the experiments very theoretical and so we don't have a convincing theory, we just have ideas until we have something like string theory or some other

clues to the ultra-alien universe, that's going to remain speculative. So this is a big gap. And to say how big the gap is, if we take the observable universe out to a bit more than 10 billion night years, then when the universe is a nanosecond old, that would have been squeezed down to the size of our solar system, or compressed into that volume. But the times we're talking about when the key propulsive universe were first imprinted, were times when that entire universe was squeezed down to the size of a tennis ball, or baseball, if you prefer, and to emerge from something microscopic. So it's a huge extrapolation, and it's not surprising that since it's so far from our experimental range of detectability, we are still groping for ideas. But you think first theory will reach

into that place, and then experiment will perhaps one day catch up. Well, I think in a sense, it's a combination. I think what we hope for is that there will be a theory which applies to the early universe, but which also has consequences which we can test in our present day universe, like discovering my new tree does exist or things like that. And that's the thing which, as I mentioned, we may perhaps need a bit of AI to help us to calculate, but I think the hope would be that we will have a theory which applies under the very, very extreme early stages of the universe, which gains credibility and gains confidence, because it also manages to account for otherwise

unexplained features of the Low Energy World, and what people call a standard model of particle physics, whether lots of undetermined numbers, so it may help with that. So we're dancing between physics and philosophy a little bit, but what do you think happened before the Big Bang? So this feels like something that's out of the reach of science. It's out of the reach of present science because science develops and, as the front is advanced, then new problems come into focus that couldn't be been postulated before. I mean, if I think of my own career, when I was a student, the evidence for the big bang was pretty weak, whereas now it's

extremely strong. But we are now thinking about the reason why the universe is the way it is and all that. So I would put all these things we've just mentioned in the category of speculative science and I don't see a bifurcation between that and philosophy. But of course to answer your question, if we do want to understand the very early universe, then we've got to realize that it may involve even more counter-addurative concepts than quantum theory does, because it's a condition even further away from everyday world than quantum theories. And remember our lives, our brains evolved and haven't changed much since. Our ancestors roamed the African savannah and looked at the everyday world.

And it's rather amazing that we've been able to make some sense of the quantum micro world and of the cosmos. But there may be some things which are beyond us. And certainly as we implied there are things that we don't yet understand at all. And of course one concept we might have to jettison is the idea of feedamances of space and time just ticking away. There are lots of ideas. I mean, I think Stephen Hawking had an idea that talking about what's what hasn't before the big bang, it's like asking what happens if you go north from the North Pole, you know, it somehow closes off. That's just one idea. I don't like that idea, but that's a possible one.

And so we just don't know what happened at the very beginning of the Big Bang, was that many big bangs rather than one, etc. And those are issues which we may be able to get some photo-long from some new theory, but even then we won't be able to directly test the theories, but I think it's a heresy to think you have to be able to test every prediction of a theory. Now, we're giving another example. We take seriously what Einstein's theory says about the inside of black holes, even though we can't observe them, because that theory has been vindicated in many other places, and cosmology and black holes, gravitational waves and all those things. Likewise, if we had a theory which explains some things about the early history of our Big Bang and the present universe. Then we would take seriously the inference if it predicted many Big Bangs not one,

even though we can't predict the other ones. So the example is that we can take seriously a prediction if it's the consequence of a theory that we believe on other grounds. We don't need to be able to detect another big bang in order to take it seriously. It may not be a proof, but it's a good indication that this is the direction where the truth lies. Yeah, if the theory is getting confident in other ways. Where do you sense, do you think there's other universes besides our own? Where do you sense, do you think there's other universes besides our own? There's a sort of well-defined theory, which makes assumptions about the physics at the relevant time. And this time, incidentally, is 10 to the power minus 36 seconds, or earlier than that.

So, it's tiny, it's a little bit of time. And there's some theories, famous by and due to Andrew Lindey, the Russian Cosmologists now at Stanford called the Turnl inflation, which did predict an eternal production of new big bangs as it were. And that's based on specific assumptions about the physics. But those assumptions, of course, are just hypotheses which are vindicated, but there are other theories which only predict one big bang. So I think we should be open-minded and not dogmatic about these options until we do understand the relevant physics, but there are these different scenarios of very different ideas about this. But I think all of them have the feature that physical reality is a lot more extensive than what we can see throughout telescope.

I think even most conservators astronomers would say that because we can see out without telescopes to a sort of horizon which is about depending on how you measure it by maybe 15 billion light years away or something like that. But that horizon of our observations is no more physical reality than the horizon around you if you're in the ocean. And looking at your horizon, there's no reason to think that the ocean ends just beyond your horizon, and likewise, there's no reason to think that the aftermath of our big bang ends just at the bounding for up you can see. Indeed, there are quite strong arguments that it probably goes on about a hundred times further. It may even go on so much further that all combinatorials are replicated, and there's

another set of people like us sitting in a room like this. Every possible combination of... Oh boy. Well, that's not logically impossible. But I think many people would accept that it does go on and contain probably a million times as much stuff as what we can see within our horizon. The reason for that incidentally is that if we look as far as we can in one direction and in the opposite direction, then the conditions don't differ by

more than one pass in a hundred thousand. So that means that if we're part of some finite structure, the gradient across the part we can see is very small. And so that suggests that it probably does go on a lot further and the best estimate say must go on at least 20 times further. Is that exciting or terrifying to you? Just the spans of it all, the wide, everything that lies beyond the horizon, that example doesn't even hold for Earth, so it goes way, way farther. And on top of that, just to take your metaphor further on the ocean, while we're on top of this ocean,

not only can we now see beyond the horizon, we also don't know much about the depth of the ocean, nor the actual mechanism of observation that's in our head. Yes. No, I think there was an answer to this's in our head. Yes. No, I think the focus on how it's always points you make. Yes, but I think even the solaceous is pretty vast by human standards. So I don't think the perception of this utterly vast cosmos need have any deeper impact on us than just realizing that we are very small on the scale of the external world.

Yeah, it's humbling though. It's humbling in depending where your ego is. It's humbling. Well, if you start having very unhumble indeed, it may make a difference. But most of us, I don't think it's the most difference. And, well, there's a more general question, of course, about whether the human race or such is something which is very special, or if, on the other hand, it's just one of many such species, elsewhere in the universe, or indeed

existing at different times in our universe. To me, it feels almost obvious that the universe should be full of alien life, perhaps dead alien civilizations, but just the vastness of space. And it just feels wrong to think of Earth as somehow special. It sure as heck doesn't look that special. When you, the more we learn, the less special it seems. Well, I mean, I didn't agree with that as far as life is concerned, because remember that we don't understand how life began here or

now. We don't understand, although we know there are any evolutions in life to complex life, we don't understand what caused the transition between complex chemistry and the first replicating metabolizing entity we call a life. That's the mystery. And serious physicists came us to now thinking about it, but we don't know. So we therefore can't say, was it a rare fluke? Which would not have happened anywhere else, or was it something which involves a process that would have happened in any other planet where conditions were like they were on the young earth. So we can't say that now.

I think many of us would indeed bet that probably some kind of life exists elsewhere. But even if you accept that, then there are many contingencies going from simple life to present day life, and some biologists like Stephen J. Goode have thought that if you reround evolution, you'd end up with something quite different, and maybe not with an intelligent species. So the contingencies in evolution may military against the emergence of intelligence, even

if life gets started in lots of places. So I think these are still completely open questions. And that's why it's such an exciting time now that we are starting to be able to address these. I mean, I mentioned the fact that the origin of life is a question that we may be able to understand and serious people are working on. It's usually put in the sort of two difficult box ever new was important, but they didn't know how to tackle it or what experiments to do,

but it's not like that now. And that's partly because of clever experiments, but I think most importantly, because we are aware that we can look for life in other places, other places in our solar system, and of course, on the exoplanets around other stars. And within 10 or 20 years, I think two things could happen, which would be really, really important. We might, with the next big telescope, be able to image some of the Earth-Life planets around other stars.

Image, right? Get a picture. Well, actually, let me caveat that it takes 50 years to get a resolved image, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, transit across in front of it. And so we see the dips or their gravitational pull makes a star wobble a bit. So most of the 5,000 plus planets that have been found around other stars, they've been found indirectly by their effect in one of those two ways on the page. You could still do a pretty good job of estimating size, all those kinds of things. The size on the mass, you can estimate. But detecting the actual light from one of these actual planets hasn't really been done yet, except it was two very bright big planets. Well, maybe like James Webb telescope would be. Well, James Webb

may do this, but even better will be the European ground basedbased telescope called Unimaginative, the Extremilars telescope, which has a 39-metre diameter mirror, 39 meters, a zirquete and a cheese of glass. And that will collect enough light from one of these exoplanets around the nearby star to be able to separate out its light from that of the star, which is a million times brighter, and get the spectrum of the planet and see if it's got oxygen or chlorophyll and things in it. So that will come. James Webb may make some steps there, but I think we can look forward to learning quite a bit in the next 20 years, because I like to say, supposedly, the alien is looking at the solar system.

Then they see the sun as an ordinary star, they see the earth as in Carl's Saga's life phrase, a pale blue dot, lying very close in the sky to its star, our sun, and much, much, much fainter. But if they could observe that dose, they could learn quite a bit. They could perhaps get the spectrometry of the light and finally atmosphere. They'd find the shade of blue was slightly different depending on whether the Pacific Ocean or the land mass of Asia was facing them, so they could infer the length of the day and the ocean and continents. And maybe something about the seasons and the climate.

And that's the kind of calculation and inference we might be able to draw within the next ten or twenty years about other exoplanets, and evidence of some sort of biosphere on one of them would of course be crucial and it would rule out the still logical possibilities that life is unique. But there's another way in which this may happen in the next 20 years, people think there could be something swimming under the ice of Europa and then cellulitis and probes are being sent to maybe not quite go under the ice but detect the spray coming out to see if there's evidence for organics in that. And if we found any evidence for an origin of life that happened

in either of those places, now it would immediately be important because if life is originated twice independently in one planet system, the solar system, that would tell us straight away it wasn't there were accident and must have happened billions of times in the galaxy. At the moment, we can't really be really unique. And incidentally, if we found life on Mars, then that would still be ambiguous because people have realised that this early life could have got from Mars to Earth or vice versa. I'll meet you right. So if you found life on Mars, then some skeptics could still say if it's a single origin. But I think...

Well, Europe is far enough. That's far enough away, yeah. Yeah, that's exactly because. So that's why that would be especially... It's always the skeptics that ruin a good party. But we need them, of course, we need them at the party. We need some skeptics at the party. But the boy would be so exciting to find life on one of the moons because it means that hopefully that'll just be any kind of vegetational life.

The question of the aliens of science fiction is a different matter. Intelligent aliens. Yeah, but if you have a good indication that there's life elsewhere in the solar system, that means life is everywhere. And that's, I don't know if that's terrifying or what that is because if life is everywhere, why is intelligent life not everywhere? Why? I mean, you've talked about that most likely alien civilizations, if they are out there, they would likely be far ahead of us, the ones that would actually communicate with us.

And that, again, one of those things that is both exciting and terrifying you've mentioned that they're likely not to be of biological nature Well, I think that that's important of course again, it's speculation, but inspeculating about intelligent life and I I take the search seriously in fact I chair the committee that the Russian American investor, Yuri Milner, supports looking for intelligence life. He's putting $10 million a year into a better equipment and getting time on telescopes to do this.

And so I think it's worthwhile, even though I don't hold my breath for success. It's very exciting. But that does leave me to wonder what might be detected. And I think, where we don't know, we've got to be able to mind about anything, we've no idea what it should be. And so any anomalous objects, or even some strange, shiny objects in the solar system,

or anything we've got to keep our eyes open for. But I think if we ask what about a planet like the earth where evolution had taken more than the same track, then as you say it wouldn't be synchronized. If it had liked behind, then of course it would not have got to advanced life, but it may have had a head start, it may have formed on a plan to run an older star. But then let's ask what we would see. It's taken nearly four billion years from the first life to us, and we now got this technological civilization, which could make itself detectable to any alien life,

aliens out there. But I think most people would say that this civilization of flesh and blood creatures than the collective civilization may not last more than a few hundred years more. I think that the bad people may, some people would say it will kill itself off, but I'm more optimistic, and I would say that what we're going to have in future is no longer the slow Darwinian selection, but we're going to have what I call secular intelligence design, which will be humans designing their progeny to be better adapted to where they are. And if they go to Mars or something, somewhere they're badly adapted, they want to adapt a lot. And so they will adapt. But there may be some limits to what could be done with flesh and blood.

And so they may become largely electronic, download their brains and have and be electronic entities. And if they're electronic, then what's important is that they're near immortal. And also they won't necessarily want to be on a planet with an atmosphere or a gravity. They may go off into the Blue Yonder. And if they're near immortal, they won't be daunted by interstellar travel taking a Leslie want to be on a planet with an atmosphere or a gravity they may go off into the blue yonder and they and if they're near immortal they won't be daunted by interstellar travel taking a long time and so if if we looked at what would happen on the earth in the next millions of years then there may be these electron densities which have been sent out and are now far away from the earth

but still sort of burping away in some fashion to be detected. And so this, this therefore leads me to think that if there was another planet which had evolved like the earth and with the head of us it wouldn't be synchronized, so we wouldn't see a flesh and blood civilization, but we would see these electronic progeny as it were. And then this raises another question, because there's the famous argument against there being lots of aliens out there, which is that they would come and invade us and eat us off. Something like that, you know, that's a common idea. It's a family is attributed to have been the first to say.

And I think there's a escape clause to that because these entities would be, say, they evolved by second and second to design, designed by their predecessors and then designed by us. And whereas Darwinian selection requires two things. It requires aggression and intelligence. This future intelligence design may favor intelligence, because that's what they were designed for, but it may not favor aggression. And so these future entities, they may be sitting deep thoughts, thinking deep thoughts,

and not being at all expansionist. So they could be out there. Yeah. And we can't refute their existence in the way the family paradox is supposed to refute the existence because these would not be aggressive or expansionist. Well, maybe evolution requires competition, not aggression, and I wonder if competition can take forms that are non-expensionary. So you can still have fun competing in the space of ideas, which maybe primarily... It'll be philosophers, perhaps, yeah. In a way, right.

It's an intellectual exercise versus a sort of violent exercise. So what does this civilization on Mars look like? So do you think we would more and, maybe start with some genetic modification and then move to basically cyborgs, increasing integration of electronic systems, computational systems, into our bodies and brains. This is a theme of my other new book out this year, which is called The End of Astronauts and the end of astronauts. The end of astronauts.

Co-written with my old friend and colleague from Berkeley, Don Ghostmith, and it's really about the role of a human spaceflight versus sort of robotic spaceflight. And just to summarize what it says, it argues that the practical case for sending humans into space is getting weaker all the time as robots get better and more capable. Robots 50 years ago couldn't do anything very much, but now they could assemble big structures on space or on in space or on the moon and they could probably do exploration. Well present ones on Mars can't actually do the geology, but future AI will be able to do the geology and already they can dig on Mars.

And so if you want to do exploration of Mars and of course even more of Encelos or Europe way, you could never send humans, we depend on robots. And they're far far cheaper because to send a human to Mars for quals, feeding them for 200 days on the journey there and bringing them back and neither of those are necessary for robots. So the practical case for humans is getting very, very weak. And if humans go, it's only as an adventure, really. And so the line in our book is that human space

flight should not be pursued by NASA or public funding agencies, because it has no practical purpose, but also because it's specially expensive if they do it, because they would have to be risk averse in launching civilians into space. I can illustrate that by noting that the shuttle was launched 135 times, and it had two spectacular failures, which each killed the seven people in the crew. And it had been mistakenly presented as safe for civilians.

And there was a woman's school teacher killed in one of them. It was a big national trauma, and they tried to make it safer still. But if you launch into space, just the kind of people prepared to accept that sort of risk, and of course test pilots and people who go hang gliding and go to the South Pole, et cetera, are prepared to accept a 2% risk at least for a big challenge. Then of course you do it more cheaply. And that's why I think human space should be left to the billionaires and their sponsors sponsors because then the taxpayers aren't

paying and they can launch simply those people who are prepared to accept high risks, space adventure, not space tourism. And we should cheer them on. And as I was saying, they would go, then lower thought with, as a spec, can be done quite cheaply in future, but going to Mars, which is very, very expensive and dangerous for humans, the only people who would go would be these adventurers, maybe on one way trip, like some of the early public explorers and Magellan and people like that, you know, and we would cheer them on. And I expected, I've ever hoped that by the end of a century, there will be a small community of such people on Mars living bay uncomfortably, far less comfortably

than at the south pole or the bottom of the ocean or the top of Everest, but they will be there and they won't have a certain ticket, but they'll be there. Incidentally, I think it's a dangerous illusion to think as Elon Musk has said that we can have mass emigration from the Earth to Mars to escape the Earth's problems. It's a dangerous illusion because it's far easier to deal with climate change on Earth than to terraform Mars to make it probably habitable to humans. So there's no planet B for ordinary risk of Earth's people. But for these crazy adventurers, then you can imagine that they would be trying to live on Mars as great pioneers. And by the end of the century,

then there will be huge advances compared to the present in two things. First, in the understanding genetics, so is the genetically redesigned ones offspring. And secondly, to use cyborg techniques to implant something in our brain or indeed think about our loading, et cetera. And those techniques will, one hopes be heavily regulated on earth, on potentials and ethical grounds. And of course, we are pretty well adapted to the earth.

So we don't have the incentive to do these things in the way they were there. So our argument is that it will be those crazy pioneers on Mars using all these scientific advances which will be controlled here, away from the regulators, they will transition into a new post human species. And so if they do that, and if they transition into something which is electronic eventually, because there may be some limited capacity of fresh and blood brains, anyways, then those electronic entities may not want to stay on the planet like Mars, they may want to go away. And so there will be the precursors of the future evolution of life and intelligence coming from the earth.

And of course, there's one point which perhaps astronomers are more aware of than most people. Most people are aware that we are the outcome of 4 billion years of evolution. Most of them nonetheless, probably think that re-humans are somehow the culmination, the top of the tree. But yes, no astronomers can believe that, because astronomers know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The sun has been shiny for that length of time, but the sun has got six billion years more to go before it flares up and engulfs the inner planets. So, so it's less than half a day through its life, and the expanding universe goes on for a longer still, maybe forever.

I don't like to quote Woody Allen, who said it turned out to be very long, especially towards the end. So we shouldn't think of ourselves as maybe even a half-way stage in the emergence of cosmic complexity. And so these entities who are post-cursors, they will go beyond the solar system. And of course, even if there's nothing else out there already, then they could populate the rest of the galaxy. And maybe eventually meet the others who are out there expanding as well. Yeah, expanding and populating with expanded capacity for life and intelligence, all those kinds of things.

Well, they might, but again, all better off, you can't conceive what they'd be like. They won't be green men and women with eyes on stalks, you know, they'd be something quite different. We just don't know. But there isn't any question actually, which comes up when I sometimes spoke into audiences about this topic, that the question of consciousness and self-awareness, because going back to philosophical questions, I mean, whether an electronic robot would be a zombie, or would it be conscious and self-aware? And I think there's no way of answering this empirically. And some people think that consciousness and self-awareness is an emergent property in any citizen-ecomplicate networks that they would be. Others say, well, maybe it's something

special to the flesh and blood that we're made of. We don't know. And in a sense, this may not matter to the way things behave, because they could be on business still, behaviors that are intelligent. But I remember after one of my talks, someone came up and said, wouldn't it be sad if these future entities, which were the main tellsers in the universe, had no self-awareness? So there was nothing which could appreciate the wonder and mystery of the universe

and the beauty of the universe in the way that we do. And so it does perhaps affect one's perspective of whether you welcome or deploy this possible future scenario, depending on whether you think the future post-human entities are conscious and have an aesthetic sense or whether they're just on this. And of course, you have to be humble to realize that self-awareness may not be the highest form of being, that humans have a very strong ego and a very strong sense of identity, like personal identity connected to this particular brain. It's not so obvious to me that that is somehow the highest achievement of a life form that maybe

this kind of thing. Something collective would be. It's possible that, well, I think from an alien perspective, when you look at Earth, it's not so obvious to me that individual humans are the atoms of intelligence. It could be the entire organism together, the collective intelligence. And so we humans think of ourselves as individuals. We dress up, we wear ties and suits, and we give each other prizes, but in reality, the intelligence, the things we create that are beautiful, emerges from our interaction with each other.

And that may be where the intelligence is, ideas jumping for one person to another, over generations. Yes, but we have experiences where we kind of appreciate beauty and wonder and all that. And, uh, zombie may not have those experiences. Yeah, or it may have a very different, but we have a very black and white harsh description of Zat like a philosophical zombie, zombie. That could be just a very different way to experience. Uh, and, you know, in terms of the explorers that colonize Mars, I, I mean, there's several things I want to mention. One, it's just at a high level. To me, that's one of the most inspiring things humans can do is reach out into the unknown. That's in the space of

ideas and the space of science, but also the explorers. Yes. No, I really like that. And that inspires people here on Earth more. I mean, it did in there, you know, when going to the moon or going out to space in the 20th century, that inspired the generation of scientists. I think that also could be used to inspire a generation of new scientists in the 21st century by reaching out towards Mars. So in that sense, I think what Elon Musk and others are doing is actually quite inspiring. It's not a recreational thing.

It actually has a deep humanitarian purpose of really inspiring the world. And then on the other one to push back on your thought, you know, I don't think Elon says we want to escape Earth's problems. It's more that we should allocate some small percentage of resources to have a backup plan. And because you yourself has spoken about and written about all the ways we clever humans could destroy ourselves. And I'm not sure it does seem when you look at the long art of human history, it seems almost obvious that we need to become a multi-planetary species over a period. If we are to survive many centuries, it seems that as we get clever and clever with the ways we can destroy ourselves, Earth is gonna become less and less safe.

Mm-hmm. So in that sense, this is one of the things, people talk about climate change and that we need to respond to climate change and that's a long-term investment we need to make. But it's not really long-term, it's a span of decades. I think what Elon is doing is a really long-term investment. We should be working on multi-planetary colonization now if we were to have it ready five centuries from now. And so taking those early steps.

And then also there's something happens when you're caught when you go into the unknown and do this really difficult thing, you discover something very new, you discover something about robotics or materials engineering or nutrition nutrition, or neuroscience, or human relations, or political systems that actually work well with humans. You discover all those things, and so it's worthy effort to go out there and try to become cyborgs. Yeah, I agree with that. I think the only different point I'd make is that this is going to be very expensive if it's done in a risk of earth's way. And that's why I think we should be grateful to the billionaires if they're going to foster these opportunities for thrill-seeking risk-takers who we can all admire. Yeah. By the way, I shouldn't push back on the billionaires because there's sometimes a negative

connotation to the more billionaires. Not a billionaire. It's a company versus government because governments are billionaires and trillionaires. Yeah, it's not the wealth. It's the capitalist imperative. So which I think deserves a lot more praise than people are giving it. I'm troubled by the sort of criticism, like it's billionaires playing with toys for their own pleasure. I think what some of these companies, like SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing,

is some of the most inspiring, engineering, and even scientific work ever done in human history. No, no, I agree. I think the people who've made the greatest wealth are people who've really been mega-benefaxes. I mean, I think, you know, some of them. Some of them. Yes, some of them, but those who've founded Google and all that and even Amazon, their beneficiaries, then they're quite different category in my view from those who just shuffle around money or crypto coins and things like that. Now you really talk trash. If they use their money in these ways that's fine. But I think it's true that the far more money is owned by us collectively as taxpayers.

But I think the fact is, as in a democracy, there'd be big resistance to exposing human beings to very high risks, if in a sense we share responsibility for it. I don't know. That's the reason I think we don't much more cheaply by these private funders. That's an interesting hypothesis, but I have to push back. I don't know if it's obvious why NASA spends so much money and takes such a long time to develop the things it was doing.

So before Elon Musk came along, because I would love to live in a world where government actually uses taxpayer money to get some of the best engineers and scientists in the world and actually work across governments. Russia, China, United States, your European Union together to do some of these big projects, it's strange that Elon is able

to do this much cheaper, much faster. It could have to be due with risk aversion, you're right. But I wonder... I think it's that he had all the whole assembly within his one building as it were rather than depending on a supply chain. But I think it's also that he had a Silicon Valley culture, a younger people, whereas the big aerospace companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, they had people who were left over from the Apollo program, in some cases, and so they weren't quite so lively. And indeed, quite apart from the controversial issues of the future of human space flights, in terms of the next generation of big rockets, then the one that Musk is going to launch for the first time this year, the huge one, is going to be far, far cheaper than the one that NASA's been working on

be far far cheaper than the one that NASA's been working on at the same time. And that's because it will have a reusable first stage. And it's going to be great. It can launch over a hundred tons into Earth orbit. And it's going to be make it feasible to do things that I used to think were crazy, like having solar energy from space. There's no longer so crazy, if you can do that. And also for science, because it's knows cone could contain within it, something as big as the entire unfold James Webb telescope mirror. And therefore you can have a big telescope much more cheaply if you can launch it all in one piece.

And so it's going to be hugely beneficial to science and to any practical use of space to have these cheaper rockets that are far more completely reusable than it was NASA had. So I think mosques are a tremendous service to the space exploration and the whole space technology through these rockets, certainly. Plus, it's some big, sexy rocket. It's just great engineering. Of course, yeah. It's like looking at a beautiful big bridge. The humans are capable. Us descendants of apes are capable to do something so majestic. Yes. And also the way they land coming down in this part, that's amazing. It's both controls engineering. It's

increasing intelligence in these rockets, but also great propulsion, engineer materials. I just want to learn your ship. And it just inspires, it just inspires so many people. No, I'm entirely with you on that. So would it be exciting to you to see a human being stepped for our Mars in your lifetime? Yes, I think I'm likely in my lifetime since I'm so ancient, but I think this essentially is going to happen and I think that that will indeed be exciting and I hope there will be a small community by the end of a century. And but as I say, I think they may go with one way

ticket or accepting the risk of no return. So they've got to be people like that. And I still think it's going to be hard to persuade the public to send people when you say straight out that they may have never come back.. Of course, the Apollo astronauts, they took a high risk. In fact, in my previous book, I quote the speech that has been written for Nixon to be read out if Neil Armstrong got stuck on the moon. It Rickrow, one of his advisors, and very eloquent speech about how they have come to a noble end, et cetera. But of course, there was a genuine risk at that time. But that may have been accepted.

But clearly, the crashes of the shuttle were not acceptable to the American public, even when they were told that this was only a 2% risk, given how often they launched it. So that's what leads me to think. It's got to be left to the kind of people who are prepared to take these risks. And I think, I think of them, America's events was a guy called Steve Foster, who was a aviator, he didn't kind of crazy things, you know, and then a guy who fell supersonicly

with the parachute from very high altitude. All these people, we all share them on. They extend the balance of humanity. But I don't think the public will be so happy to fund them. I mean, I disagree with that. I think if we change the narrative, we should change the story. You think so, I think there's a lot of people. Because the public is happy to fund folks in other domains that take bold, giant risks, first of all, military, for example, military.

Obviously, yes. I think this is in the name of science, especially if it's sold correctly. I sure will go up there with a risk. I would take a 40% chance risk of death for something that's... I might want to be even older than I am now. But then I would go. I guess what I'm trying to communicate is there's a lot of people on earth that's the nice feature and I'm sure there's going to be a significant percentage or some percentage

of people that are. They take on the risk for the adventure. So I particularly love that that risk of adventure when taking on inspires people and just the ripple effect that has across the generation, especially among the young minds is perhaps immeasurable. But you're thinking that sending humans should be something we do less and less, sending humans to space. That it should be primarily an effort. The work of space exploration

should be done primarily by robots. Well, I think it can be done much more cheaply, obviously, on Mars. And no one's thinking of sending humans to Enceladus or Europa, you know, the outer planets. And the point is, we will have much better robots because we have taken example. You see these pictures of the moons of Saturn and the picture of Pluto

and the comet taken by probes and Cassini spent 13 years going around Saturn and its moons after a 70-year voice and those are all based on 1990s technology and if you think of how smartphones have advanced in 20 years since then, just think how much better one could do, instrumenting some very small sophisticated probe. I could send dozens of them to explore the outer planets and that that's the way to do that, because no one thinks you could sense humans that far. And I would apply the same argument to Mars. And if you want to assemble big structures like, for instance, Radio Astralis would like to have a big radio telescope on the far side of the moon, so it's away from the Earth's background, artificial radio waves. And that could be done by assembling

using robots without people. So on the moon and on Mars, I think everything that's useful can be done by machines, much more cheaply than by humans. Do you know the movie 2001 Space Odyssey? Of course, yes. But you were too young to have seen it, I've already came out, obviously. I remember seeing it. You saw when it came out. Yeah, 60 years ago. When it was in the 60s. Yeah, that's right. It was in the 60s. Yeah, that's right. And it's still classic. It's still probably me, the greatest AI movie ever made.

Yes, yes, I agree. I wanted the great space movies ever made. Yes. So, let me ask you philosophical questions. Since we're talking about robots exploring space, do you think how 9,000 is good or bad? So for people who haven't watched, this computer system makes a decision to basically prioritize the mission

that the ship is on over the humans that are part of the mission. Do you think how is good or evil? If you ask are, probably in that context, it was probably good, but I think you're raising what is, of course, very much active issue in everyday life, about the extent to which we should entrust any important decision to a machine. And there again, I'm very worried because I think if you are recommended for an operation or not given perot from prison or even denied credit by your bank, you feel you should be entitled to an explanation. It's not enough to be told that the machine has a more reliable record on the whole and humans

have of making these decisions. You think you should be given reasons, you could understand. And that's why I think the presence to subtle trend to take away the humans and leave us in the hands of decisions that we can't contest. It's a very dangerous one. I think we've got to be very careful of the extent to which AI, which can handle lots of information, actually makes the decisions for our oversight. And I think we can use them as a supplement, but to take the case of radiology and cancer.

I mean, it's true that the radiologist hasn't seen as many X-rays of cancer lungs as the machine, so the machine can certainly help, but you want the human to make the final decision. And I think that's true in most of these instances. But if we turn a bit to the short term concerns with robotics, I think the big worry, of course, is the effect it has on people's self-respect and their labour market. And I think my solution will be that we should arrange to tax more heavily

arranged a tax war heavily, the big international conglomerates which use the robots and use that tax to fund decently paid dignified posts of the kind where being a human being is important. Above all, carers for old people, teachers assistants for young, guards in public parks and things like that. And if the people who are now working in mind-numbing jobs in Amazon warehouses or in telephone call centers are automated, but those same people are given jobs where a big human is an asset. Then that's a plus plus situation.

And so that's the way I think that we should benefit from these technologies, take over the mind numbing jobs and use machines to make them more efficient, but enable the people so displaced to do jobs where we do want human beings. I mean most people when they're when they're old, they'll reach people if they have the choice. They want human carers and all that, don't they? They may want robots to help with some things. M.C. to bedpans and things like that, but they want real people. Certainly in this country, I think even worse in America, the care of old people is completely inadequate.

It needs just more human beings to help them cope with everyday life and look after them when they're sick. That seems to me the way in which the money raised in tax on these big companies should be deployed. So that's in the short term, but if you actually just look, the fact is, well, we are today to long term future in a hundred years, it does seem that there is some significant chance that the human species is coming to an end in its pure biological form. There's going to be greater and greater integration through genetic modification than cyborg type

of creatures. So, if the thing, all right, we're going to have to get from here to there. And that process is going to be painful. And that, you know, how there's so many different trajectories that take us from one place to another, it does seem that we need to deeply respect humanness and humanity. Basic human rights, human welfare, like happiness and all that kind of stuff. No, absolutely.

And that's why I think we ought to try and slow down the application of these human enhancement techniques and cyber techniques for humans for just that reason. I mean, that's why I want to lead into people on Mars that them to, but, but, but, you know, just a reason, but they're people too. Okay. People on Mars are people too. Yeah. I tend to, you know, but they are very poorly adapted to where they are.

That's why they need a multiplication, whereas we're adapted to the earth quite well. So we don't need these modifications. We're happy to be humans living in the environment where our ancestors lived. So we don't have the same motive. So I think there's a difference, but I agree, we don't want drastic changes probably in our lifestyle. And that indeed is a worry, because some things are changing so fast. But I think, I'd like to inject a note of caution. If you think of the way progress in one technology goes,

it goes in a sort of spur, it goes up very fast and then it levels off. Let me give you two examples, one we've had already, a human space flight at the time of the Apollo program, which is only 12 years after Sputnik I. I was alive then and I thought it would only be 10 or 20 years further, for the worth of pretenders. But as we know, for reasons we could all understand, that still remains the high point of human space exploration. That's because it was funded for reasoned super power, rival re-achuse, public expense.

But let me give you another case, civil aviation. If you think of the change between 1919, when that was all-cock and Brown's first transatlantic fight to 1979, the first flight to the Jumbo jet was a big change. It's more than 50 years since 1969 and we still have Jumbo jet more or less less the same So that's an example of something which developed fast and say it's ever and to take another analogy And we've had huge developments in mobile phones, but I suspect the high-bone the iPhone 24 may not be too different from the iPhone 13 and bookbuss They they are developed, but then I'm bookbusting, they develop, but then they saturate and then maybe some new innovation takes over instability economic growth.

Yeah, so it's that we have to be cautious about being too optimistic and we have to be cautious about being too cynical. I think that is, well, optimistic is begging the question, I mean, do we want this very rapid change? Right. So first of all, there's some degree to which technological advancement is something, is a force that can't be stopped. And so the question is about directing it versus stopping it. Or slowing it. Well, it can be sort of sloped or slow. We'll take human space flight. There could be have been footprints on Mars if America got on spending 4% of the federal budget on the project after. Yes.

Upon a very good reason, but we could have had supersonic flight, but Concord came and went during the 50 years. But the reason it didn't progress is not because we realize it's not good for human society. The reason it didn't progress is because it couldn't make sort of from a capitalist perspective, it couldn't make, there was no short-term or long-term way for it to make money. So for me, but that's the same as I guess, local versus society. I don't think everything that makes money is good for society and everything that doesn't make money is bad for society, right?

That's a difficult, that's a difficult thing we're always contending with when we look at social networks. It's not obvious even though they make a tremendous amount of money that they're good for society, especially how they're currently implemented with the advertisement and engagement maximization. So that's the constant struggle of... I agree with you, there's many innovations that are damaging. Yes, yes.

Well, but I would have thought that the supersonic flight was something that would benefit only a tiny elite. Sure. A few expensive and environmental damage. That was obviously something which they'd love not to have in my opinion. Yeah, but perhaps there was a way to do it where it could benefit the general populace. If you were to think about airplanes, wouldn't you think that in the early days airplanes would have been seen as something that can surely only benefit 1% at most of the population, as opposed to a much larger percentage, there's another aspect of capital, a system that's able to drive down costs

once you get the thing kind of going. So that, you know, we get together, maybe, with taxpayer money and get the thing going at first, and once the thing going at first. And once it gets going, companies step up and drive down the cost and actually make it so that blue collar folks can actually start using the stuff. Sometimes that does happen. That's good. So that's again, the double-ish sort of human civilization that some technology hurts us, some benefits us, and we don't know

ahead of time, we can just do our best. And we... Does it gap the thing? What could be done? And what we could at least be decided to do. Yes, in the term, we could push forward some developments faster than we do. Let me ask you, in your book on the future prospects for humanity. You imagine a time machine that allows you to send a tweet length message to scientists in the past like the Newton. Yes. Um, what tweet would you send?

It's an interesting thought experiment. What message would you send to Newton about what we know today? Well, I think he'd love to know that there were planets around other stars. He'd like to know that... That would really blow his mind. He'd like to know that everything was made of atoms. He'd like to know that if he looked a bit more carefully through his prisms,

and looked at light, not just from the sun, but from some flames, He might get the idea that a different self-sis emitted light of different colors, and he might have been twigged to discover some things that had to wait two or three hundred years. I'm going to go to get him those clues, I think. It's kind of fascinating to think, to look back at how little he understood people at that time understood about our world. And certainly about the cosmos because of those cosmos. Well, if you think about astronomy, then until about 1850,omy was a matter of the positions of how the stars and the planets moved around

et cetera. Of course that goes back a long way, but you've understood why the planets moved around in ellipses. But he didn't understand why the solar system was all in a plane, what we call the ecliptic, and he didn't understand it, and no one did until the mid-19th century, what the stars are made of. I mean, we thought we made it some fifth essence, not earth, earth, earth, earth, earth, water, like everything else, you know, and it was only after 1850, when people did use prisms precisely to get spectral, that they realized that the the sun was made of the same stuff as the earth and indeed the stars were and it wasn't all

1913 the people knew about nuclear energy and knew what kept the sun shining for so long. So it was quite late that some of these key ideas came in, which was completely transformed, nuisance views, and of course the entire scale of ourselves, of the galaxy and the rest of the universe. It's imagine it came later. What he would have thought about the Big Bang, or even just general relativity. Absolutely.

It's gravity. Just human Einstein talking for a couple of weeks, would he be able to make sense of space time and the curvature of space time? And, well, I think given a quick course, I mean, he was sort of, if one looks back, he was really a unique intellect in a way, you know, and he said that he thought better than everything, everyone else by thinking on things continually and thinking very deep thoughts. And so he was an utterly remarkable intellect, obviously.

But of course, scientists aren't all like that. I think it's one thing that interests me having spent a life among scientists is what a variety of mindsets and mental styles they have. And just to contrast Newton and Darwin, Darwin said, and he thought he was correct, as he thought he just had a common sense and reasoning power as the average lawyer. And that's probably true because his ability was to sort of connect data and think through things deeply. That's a quite different kind of thinking from what was involved in Newton or someone doing abstract mathematics. I think in the 20th century, the, well there's the theory but from an astronomy perspective black holes is one of the most fascinating entities to have been through theory and through

experiment to have emerged from. No, obviously I agree. It's an amazing story that uh um well of course I agree it's an amazing story that, well, of course, what's interesting is Einstein's reaction, because, of course, although, as you know, in how except this is one of the most remarkable predictions of Einstein's theory, he never took it seriously even believed it. Although it was a consequence of a suicide of his equations, which someone discovered

just a year off his theories, War Shield. But he never took it seriously, and not others did. But then, of course, well, this is something that I've been involved in, actually, finding evidence for black holes. And that's coming last 50 years. And so now there's pretty compelling evidence that they exist as the remnants of stars or big ones in the center of galaxies. And we understand what's going on. We have ideas vague how they form. And of course, gravitation waves have been detected. And that's an amazing piece of technology. Lago is one of the most incredible engineering efforts all time.

That's an example where the engineer is the most of the credit because the precision is, as they said, it's like measuring the thickness of a hair at the distance of alpha centauri. Yeah, incredible. 10 to 1 is 21. So maybe actually if we step back, what are black holes?

What do we humans understand about black holes and what's still unknown? Einstein's theory, extended by people like Roger Penrose, tells us that black holes are, in a sense, rather simple things, basically, because they are solution-of-einstein's equations. And the thing that was shown in the 1960s by Roger Penrose in particular and by a few other people was that a black hole when it forms and settles down is defined just by two quantities, it's mass and it's spin. So they're actually based down to the lies of objects, it's amazing that objects are standardised as that can be so big and can

lurk in the vessel's solar system. And so that's the situation for a really formed black hole, but the way they form obviously is very messy and complicated. And one of the things that I've worked on a lot is what the phenomena are, which are best attributed to black holes and what they lead to them and all that. Which I can you explain to that? So what are the different phenomena that lead to a black hole? Let's talk about it.

This is so cool. Okay, well, I think one thing that only became understood really in the 1950s, I suppose, and beyond was how stars evolved differently depending on how heavy they are. The sun burns hydrogen to helium and then, many of them run out of that. It could drag to be a white dwarf. And we know how long it will take, it's about 10 billion years altogether, it's lifetime, but big stars burn up their fuel more quickly and more interestingly because when they've turned hydrogen to helium, they then get even hotter so they confuse helium at a carbon and go up the periodic table, and then they eventually explode when they have

an energy crisis and they blow out that person's material, which as a digression is crucially important because all the atoms inside our bodies were synthesized inside a star, a star that lived and died more than 5 billion years ago before our sources were formed. And so we each have inside us, atoms made in thousands of different stars all over the Milky Way. And that's an amazing idea. And my predecessor is Fred Hoyle in 1946, was the first person to suggest that idea. And that's been born out. That's a wonderful idea.

So that's how massive stars explode. And they leave behind something which is very exotic and of two kinds. One possibility is a neutron star, and he's the first discovered in 1967, 1968. These are stars a bit heavier than the sun, which are compressed to an amazing density. So the whole mass of more than the sun's mass is in something about 10 miles across. So they're extraordinarily dense, they're exotic physics. And they've been studied in immense detail. And they've been real laboratories

because the good thing about astronomy, apart from exploring what's out there is to use the factor to cause more of those providers with a lab with far more extreme conditions that we could ever simulate. And so we learn lots of basic physics from looking at these objects. And that's been to neutron star. But for black holes, that's even more true because the bigger stars, when they collapse, they leave something behind in the center, which is too big to be a stable Y-24 neutron star, becomes a black hole.

And we know that there are lots of black holes weighing about 10 or up to 50 times as much as the Sun, which are the remnants of stars. David detected first 50 years ago when a black hole was orbiting around another star and grabbing material from the other star which swirled into it and gave us X-rays. So the X-rays astronomers found these objects orbiting around an ordinary star and emitting X-ray radiation very intensely, varying all of A-switch or time scale. So something very small and dense was giving that radiation. That was the first evidence for black holes.

But then the other thing that happened was realizing that there was a different class of monster black holes in the centre of galaxies. And these are a response for what's called quasars, which is when something in the centre of a galaxy is grabbing some fuel and outchines all the hundred billion stars also in the rest of the galaxy. Giant beam. Yeah, no, no, no, no. White. And in many cases, it's a beam. Is that a, yeah? That's gotta be the most epic thing the universe produces as quasars. Well, it's a debate about what's the most epic, but quasars maybe, or maybe Gamary Burst or

something, but they are remarkable and they were a mystery for a long time. And they're one of the things I worked on in my younger days. So even though they're so bright, they're still a mystery. And but I wouldn't say they'd only see them. They're less than mystery now. I think we do understand basically what's going on. How are Quasars discovered? Well, they were discovered when astronomers found things

that looked like stars and they were small enough to be a point like, not as old by telescope. But, how to shine an entire galaxy. Yeah. And it is suspicious. Yes. But then they realized that what they were, they were object-fishing now-know-black holes, and black holes were capturing gas, and that gas was

getting very hot, but it was producing far more energy than all the stars added together. And it was the energy of the black hole that was lighting up all the gas in the galaxy. So you've got a spectrum of it there. So this was something which was realized from the 1970s onwards. And as you say, the other thing we've learned is that they often do produce these jets squirting out Which could be detected in in all wave bands. So there's now a picture here black hole generating jets like yeah The center of most galaxies. Yes, that's right. Do we know? Do ever since if every galaxy has one of these big big boys?

ever since if every galaxy has one of these big, big boys, big black holes. Well, most galaxies have big black holes. They're very incised. The one in our galactic center. Do we know much about ours? We do, yes. We know it weighs about as much as four million songs, which is less than some, it's a several billion, other galaxies. And between those, one of the architects hasn't very bright or conspicuous. And that's because not much is falling into it at the moment. If a black hose isolated, then of course, it doesn't radiate.

It only, all that radiates is gas swirling into it, which is very hot or has magnetic heat. It's only radiating the thing it's murdering or consuming. Right. However you put it, yeah, that's right. And so it's thought that our galaxy may have been bright, bright at some time in the past. But now, that's when the Black Hole formed or grew. But now it's not capturing very much gas. And so it's rather faint and detected indirectly.

And by fairly weak radio emission. And so I think you answered your question is that we suspect that most galaxies have a black hole in them. So that means that some stays in their lives. Or maybe one or more stages, they went through a phase of being like a quasar where that black hole captured gas and became very, very bright. But for the rest of their lives, the black holes are fairly crescent because there's not much gas falling into them.

And so this universe of ours is sprinkled with a bunch of galaxies and giant black holes with like very large number of stars orbiting these black holes and then planets orbiting likely it seems like planets orbiting almost every one of those stars And just this beautiful universe of ours. Well, what happens when galaxies collide,

when these two big black holes collide, is that? Yeah. Well, what would happen is that, well, and I should say, this is going to happen near us one day, but not for four billion years, because the Andromeda Galaxy, which is the biggest Galaxy near to us, which is about three million light years away, which is a big disc Galaxy, like Hoses Hub, rather like Har milky way. And that's falling towards us,

because they're both in a common gravitational potential well. And that will collide with our galaxy in about four billion years. But it'll be, it'll be, maybe it'll be less a collision and more of a dance because there'll be like a swirling situation. When it's a swirling, but eventually there'll be, there'll be a merge, there'll go through each other and then merge. In fact, the nice move is to be made of this, computer simulations. Yes. And it'll go through. And then there's a black hole in the sense of a

domicile and a galaxy. And the black holes will settle towards the center. Yes. Then they will orbit around each other very fast, and then they will eventually merge. And that'll produce a big burst of gravitational waves. Yes. Then they will orbit around each other very fast and then they will eventually merge. And that'll produce a big burst of gravitational waves. Very big burst. That an alien civilization with a LIGO-like detector will be able to detect.

Yes. In fact, we can detect these with their lower frequencies than the ways that will be detected by LIGO. So there's a space interferometer which can detect these, it's about one cycle per hour, rather than about a hundred cycles per second. Yes. It's the ones that detected. But that will happen. But thinking back to what will happen in four billion years

to any of our descendants, they'll be okay because the two disc galaxies will merge. It'll end up as a sort of amorphous elliptical galaxy, but the stars won't be much closer together than they are now. It'll still be just twice as many stars in a structure almost as big. And so the chance of another star colliding with our son, which could be very small. Yeah, because there's actually a lot of space between indeed. Star is a class. Yes, the chance of a star getting close enough to affect our solar systems orbit is small and it won't change that very much.

So that would be a real short. A heck of a starry sky, though. Well, that would make much difference even to that, actually. Let's be. short. A heck of a starry sky though. What would that look like? Well, it both make much difference even to that actually. Let's be. Wouldn't that look kind of beautiful when you're swirling or is it because it's rolling so slow? Yeah, they're far away. So we retries as many stars in the sky. Yeah. But the pattern changes. Yeah, the pattern will change a bit. And there won't be the Milky Way because the Milky Way across the sky is because we are looking in the disk of our galaxy and you lose that and because the the disk will be so disrupted and it'll be also the spherical distribution and of course many galaxies are like that and that's probably because they have been through

merges of this kind. If we survive four billion years, we would likely be able to survive beyond that. Oh, yeah. What's the other thing on the horizon for humans in terms of the sun burning out, all those kinds of interesting, cosmological threats to our civilization? Well, I think only cosmological timescale, because it won't be humans because something else even the evolution has got no faster than Darwinian and I would argue it will be farce and Darwinian in the future then we're thinking about six billion years before the sun dies. So any entities watching the death of the sun if they they're still around, they'd be as different from much as we are from slime mold or something, you know, and far more different, still

if they become electronic. So on that time scale, we just can't predict anything, but I think going back to the human time scale, then we've talked about whether there will be people on Mars by the end of a century. And even in these long perspectives, then indeed this century is very special because it may see the transition between purely flesh and blood entities to those with our sort of cyborgs. And that will be an important transition in biology and complexity in this century. But of course, the other importance, and this has been the theme of a couple of my older books, is that this is the first century where one species, namely our species, has the

future of the planet in his hands. And that's because of two types of concerns. One is that there are more of us, we're more demanding of energy and resources, and therefore we are for the first time changing the whole planet through climate change, loss of biodiversity, and all those issues. This has never happened in the past because haven't been enough humans,

haven't been much in power. So this is an effect that obviously is high on everyone's agenda now and rightly so because we've got to ensure that we leave a heritage that isn't eroded or damaged to future generations. And so that's one class of threats. But there's another thing that worries me, perhaps more than many people seem to worry, and that's the threat of misuse of technology. And so this is particularly because technology's empower even small groups of malevolent people, or indeed, in careless people,

to create some effect which could cascade globally. And to take an example, a dangerous pathogen or pandemic, I mean, my worst nightmare is that there could be some small group that can engineer a virus to make it more virulent or more transmissible than a natural virus. This is a container-functioned experiment which was done on the flu virus ten years ago and can be done for others. And of course, we now know from COVID-19 that our world is so interconnected that a disaster in one part of the world can't be confined to that part and was spread globally. So it's possible for a few dissidents with expertise in biotech could create a global

catastrophe of that kind. And also, I think we need to worry about Baylar's Coal Disruption by cyber attacks. In fact, I quote in one of my books, a 2012 report from the American Pentagon about the possibility of a state level cyber attack on the electricity grid in the eastern United States, which is it could happen. And it says at the end of this chapter that this would marry the nuclear response. This is a pretty scary possibility. And that was 10 years ago. And I think now what would have needed a state actor then could be done, perhaps, by a small group, empowered by AI. And so this obviously been an arms race

between the cyber criminals and the cyber security people, not clear which side is winning. But the main point is that as we become more dependent on more integrated systems, then we get more vulnerable. And so we have the knowledge, then the misuse of that knowledge becomes more and more effective and as they buy our enceiber are the two biggest concerns. And if we depend too much on AI and complex systems, then just breakdowns. It may be that they break down and even if it's innocent breakdown, then it may be pretty hard to mend it. And just think how much worse the

pandemic would have been if we'd lost the internet in the middle of it. It would be dependent more than ever for communication, everything else on the internet and zooms and all that. communication, everything else on the internet and zooms and all that. And if that it has been broken down, I've heard that it made things far worse. And those are the kinds of threats that we think need to be more energized and politicians need to be more energized to minimise. And one of the things I've been doing last year through being a member of our part of our parliament is is sort of, I help to instigate a committee to think more on better preparedness for extreme technological risks and things like that. So they're a big concern in my mind that we've got to make sure that

we can benefit from these advances, but safely, because the stakes are getting higher, and the benefits are getting greater as we know, huge benefits from computers, but also huge downsides as well. And one of the things this war in Ukraine has shown, one of the most terrifying things outside of the humanitarian crisis is that at least for me I realized that the human capacity to initiate nuclear war is greater than I thought. I thought the lessons of the past have been learned. It seems that we hang on the brink of nuclear war with this conflict like every single day with just one mistake or bad actor or the actual leaders

of particular nations launching a nuclear strike and all hell broke break. So then add into that picture cyber attacks and so on, they can lead to confusion and chaos and then out of that confusion, calculations are made such that a nuclear launch is a nuclear weapon is launched and it's and then you're talking about, I mean, I don't directs probably 60-70% of humans on Earth are dead instantly. And then the rest, I mean, it's basically 99% of the human population is wiped out in the period of five years. That's a real devastation for civilization, of course. And of course, we were quite right that this could happen very quickly,

because of information coming in, and there's hardly enough time for human collected and careful thought. And there have been recorded cases of false alarms. This is therefore where there have been suspected attacks from the other side and fortunately they've been rehearsed with false alarms soon enough. But this could happen and there's a new class of threats actually which in our centre in Cambridge people are thinking about which is the in our centre in Cambridge people are thinking about, which is that the command control system of the nuclear weapons and the submarine fleets and all that is now more automated and could be subject to cyber attacks. And that's a new threat which didn't exist 30 years ago. And so I think which didn't exist 30 years ago. And so I think indeed, it's really a sort of scary world, I think.

And it's because things happen faster, and human beings aren't in such direct and immediate control, because so much is delegated to machines. And also, because the world is so much more interconnected, then some local event can cascade globally in a way it never could in the past and much faster. Yeah, it's a double-ish sword because the inter-contactiveness brings a higher quality of life across a lot of metrics.

Yeah, it can do, but of course, there again, I mean, if you think of supply chains where we get stuff from around the world, then one lesson we've learned is that there's a trade off between resilience and efficiency and it's resilient to have an inventory and stock and to depend on local supplies, whereas it's more efficient to have long supply change. But the risk there is that a breaking one link in one chain can screw up car production. This has already happened in the pandemic, so there's a tradeoff. And there are examples, I mean, for instance, the other thing we learned was that it may be efficient to have 95% of your hospital intensive care beds occupied all the time, which has

been the UK situation, whereas the dual to Germans do and always keep 20% of them free for an emergency is really a sensible precaution. And so I think we've probably learned a lot of lessons from COVID-19 and they would include rebalancing the trade off between resilience and efficiency. Boy, the fact that COVID-19, a pandemic that could have been a lot, a lot worse, brought the world to its knees anyway. It could be far worse in terms of its fatality rate or so many other areas.

So the fact that that, I mean, it revealed so many flaws in our human institutions. Yeah, yeah. And I think I'm rather pessimistic because I do worry about the by actor or a small group who can produce catastrophe. And if you imagine someone with access to the kind of equipment that's available in university labs or industrial labs, and they could create some dangerous pathogen, then even one such person is too many. And how can we stop that? Because it's true that you can have regulations.

I mean, academies are having meetings, et cetera, about how to regulate these new biological experiments, et cetera, make them safe. But even if you have all these regulations, then enforcing regulations is pretty hopeless. We can't enforce the tax laws globally. We can't enforce the drug laws globally. And so similarly, we can't readily enforce the laws against people doing these damage experiments, even if all the governments say they should be prohibited. And so my line on this is that all nations are going to face a big trade off

between three things we value, freedom, security and privacy. And I think different nations will make that choice differently. The Chinese would give up privacy and have more, certain more security, if not more liberty. But I think in our countries, I think we're going to have to give up more privacy. Let me say, that's a really interesting trade-off. But there's also something about human nature here where I personally believe that all humans are capable of good and evil. And there's some aspect to which we can fight this by encouraging people, incentivizing people towards the better angels of their nature.

So in order for a small group of people to create, to engineer deadly pathogens, you have to have people that, for whatever trajectory, took them in life wanting to do that kind of thing. And if we can aggressively work on a world that sort of sees the beauty in everybody and encourages the flourishing of everybody in terms of mental health, in terms of meaning, in terms of all those kinds of things. That's one way to fight the development of weapons that can lead to atrocities. Yes, and I could be to agree with that and to reduce the reason why people feel embittered. Yes. But of course, we've got a long way to go to do that because if you look

at the present world, nearly everyone in Africa has reason to feel embittered because their economic development is lagging behind most of the rest of the world and the prospects of getting out of the poverty trap is rather bleak especially the population grows because for instance they can't develop like eastern tigers by cheap manufacturing because robots are taking that over so that they will naturally feel embittered by the inequality. And of course, what we need to have is some sort of mega version of the Marshall Plan that helped Europe in the post-World War II era to enable Africa to develop. That will be not just an altruistic thing for Europe to do, but in our interests, because otherwise those in Africa will feel massively disaffected. And indeed,

it's a manifestation of the excessive inequality. It's the fact that the 2000 richest people in the world have enough money to double the income of the bottom billion. And that's an indictment over the ethics of the world. And this is where my friend Stephen Pinker and I have had some contact. We wrote joint articles on bio threats and all that. But he writes these books being very optimistic about quoting figures about how life expectancy has gone up, infant mortality has gone down,

literacy has gone up, and all those things, and down, literacy's gone up, all those things, and he's quite right about that. And so he says the world's getting better. And the, do you disagree with your friends too, Pinker? Well, I mean, I agree with those facts, okay? But I think he misses our, he misses our part of the picture

because there's a new class of threats, which hang over us now, we didn't hang over us in the past. And I would also question whether we have collectively improved our ethics at all, because let's think back to the Middle Ages. It's true, as Pinker says, the average person was in a more miserable state

than they are today on average, for all the reasons he quantifies, that's fine. But in the Middle Ages, there wasn't very much that could have been done to improve people's lot in life because of lack of knowledge and lack of science, etc. So the gap between the way the world was, which is pretty miserable, and the way the world could have been, which wasn't all that much better, was fairly narrow, whereas now the gap between the way the world is and the way the world could be is far, far wider. And therefore, I think we are ethically

more at fault in allowing this gap to get wider than it was in medieval times. So I would very much question and dispeuse the idea that we are ethically in advance of our predecessors. That's a lot of interesting hypotheses in there. It's a fascinating question of how much is the size of that gap between the way the world is in the way the world could be, is a reflection of our ethics, or maybe sometimes it's just a reflection of a very large number of people. Maybe it's a technical challenge too. It's not just about political systems, political systems, like how many, and we're trying to

figure this thing out. Like, there's a 20th century tried this thing that sounded really good on paper of collective, the communism type of things. And it's like turned out at least the way that was done there, at least atrocities and the suffering and the murder of tens of millions of people. Okay, so that didn't work.

Let's try democracy. And that seems to have a lot of flaws, but it seems to be the best thing we've got so far. So we're trying to figure this out. As our technologies become more and more powerful, have the capacity to do a lot of good to the world, but also unfortunate, I have the capacity to destroy the entirety of the human civilization. And I think it's social media generally, which makes it harder to get a sort of moderate consensus because in the old days when people got their news filtered through responsible

journalists in this country, the BBC and they made newspapers, etc. They would muffle the crazy extremes, whereas now of course, they're on the internet and if you click on them, you get to the war extreme. And so I think we are seeing a sort of dangerous polarization, which I think is going to make all countries hard to govern and that's something we find pessimistic about. So to push back, it is true that brilliant people like you highlighting the limitations of social media is making them realize the stakes and the failings of social media companies. But at the same time, they're revealing the division. It's not like they're creating it, they're revealing it in part.

So that puts a lot of responsibility into the hands of social media and the opportunity and they have a social media to alleviate some of that division. So it could in the long arc of human history result. So bringing some of those divisions and the anger and the hatred to the surface so that we can talk about it. And as opposed to disproportionately promoting it, actually just surfacing it so we can get over. Well, you're assuming that the fat cats are more public spiritual than the politicians. as opposed to disproportionately promoting it, actually just surfacing it so we can get over. Well, you're assuming that the fat cat saw more public spirit to the politicians, and I'm not sure about that.

I think there's a lot of money to be made in being publicly spirited. I think there's a lot of money to be made in increasing the amount of love in the world, despite the sort of public perception that all the social media companies had they're interested in doing is making money, I think that may be true, but I just personally believe people being happy is a hell of a good business model. And so making as many

people happy, helping and flourish in a long-term way, that's a lot of ways to make people, that's a good way to make, well, I think guilt and shame, all good motives to make you behave better in future. Okay, so that's most very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, back to the certainly in case. But it does make sense now that we can destroy ourselves when nuclear weapons with engineered pandemics and so on, that the aliens would show up. That if I was the, you know, had a leadership position, maybe as a scientist or otherwise in an alien civilization, and I would come upon Earth, I would try to watch from a distance,

do not interfere. And I would start interfering when these life forms start becoming quite, have the capacity to be destructive. And so, I mean, it is an interesting question when people talk about UFO sightings and all those kinds of things that at least for benign aliens, you'll think you'll, for one time.

Benign, yes. I mean, a benign, almost curious, almost partially, as with all curiosity, partially selfish to try to observe, is there something interesting about this particular evolutionary system? Because I'm sure even to aliens, Earth is a curiosity. Yes. Well, it seems very special stage.

Especially in a special stage. Perhaps it's very short. It's very special. Yes. Among the 45 million centuries, the Earth experienced already. It is a very special time where they should be specially interested. But I think going back to the politics, the other problem is getting people who have short-term concerns to care about the long term.

By the long term, I now mean just looking 30 years or so ahead. I know people who've been scientific advise us to governments and things, and they may make these points, but of course they don't have much traction because, as we know very well, any politician has an urgent agenda of very worrying things to deal with, and so they aren't going to prioritize these issues, which are longer term and less immediate and don't just concern their constituents if they concern disempower to the world. And so I think what we have to do is to enlist charismatic individuals to to convert the public, because if the politicians know

the public care about something, climate change is an example, then they will make decisions which take cognizance of that. And I think for that to happen, then we do need some public individuals who are respected by everyone and to have a high profile. And in the climate context, I would say that I've mentioned four very disparate people who've had such a big effect in the last few years. One is Pope Francis, the other is David Attenborough, the other is Bill Gates and the other is Greater the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day,

the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, the other day, can't let these issues drop down off the agenda if there's a public clamor and it needs people like that to keep the public clamor going. To push back a little bit so those four are very interesting and I have deep respect for them. They have, except David Annembrole, David Annembrole, it's the really, I mean everybody loves him. I mean I can't say that, but the you know with Bill Gates and Greta, there is, there also create a lot of division.

Oh, sure. And this is a big problem. So it's not just charismatic. I put that responsibility actually on the scientific community. And the Pope goes too, yeah. Yeah. And the politicians, so we need the charismatic leaders.

And they're rare. Yeah, yeah. When you look at human history, So we need the charismatic leaders. And they're rare. Yeah, yeah. When you look at human history, those are the ones that make a difference. Those are the ones that not deride, they inspire the populace to think long-term. The JFK, we'll go to the moon in this decade, not because it's easy, but because it is hard.

There's no discussion about short-term political gains or any of that kind of stuff in the vision of going to the moon, or going to Mars, or taking on gigantic projects, or taking on world hunger hunger or taking on climate change and the education system, all those things that require long-term significant investment that requires. It's hard to find those people and incidentally I think another problem, which is a downside of social media is that of younger people I know, down side of social media is that of younger people I know, the number who would contemplate a political career has gone down because of the pressures on them and their family from social media. It's a hell of a job now. And so I think we are all losers because the quality of people who choose that path is really dropping. And as we see

by the quality of those who are in these compositions. That said, I think the silver lining there is the quality of the competition actually is inspiring because it shows to you that there's a dire need of leaders, which I think would be inspiring to young people to step into the fold. I mean, great leaders are not afraid of a little bit of fire on social media. So, if you have a 20-year-old kid now, a 25-year-old kid, it's seeing how the world responded to the pandemic, seeing the geopolitical division over the war in Ukraine, seeing the brewing war between the West and China,

we need great leaders. And there's a hunger for them. And the time will come when they step up. I believe that. But also to add to your list of four, he doesn't get enough credit. I've been defending him in this conversation, Elon Musk in terms of the fight and climate change, but he also has led to a lot of division.

But we need more David Adenberg. No, no, no, I'm a fan. Definitely. I've heard him describe as a 21st century Brunel for his innovation, and that's true, but whether he's an ethical inspiration, I don't know. Yeah, he has a lot of fun on Twitter. Well, let me ask you to put on yours, Wise Sage Hat.

What advice would you give to young people today? Maybe their teenagers in high school, maybe early college. What advice would you give to a career or have a life that can be proud of? Yes. Well, I'd be very different really about offering any wisdom, but I think they should realize that the choices they make at that time are important. And from the experience of I've had with many friends, many people don't realize that opportunities are open until it's too late. They somehow think that some of it is only open to a few privileged people and they don't even try, and that they could succeed. But if I focus on people working in some profession,

I know about like science, I would say pick an area to work in where new things are happening, where you can do something that the old guys never had a chance to think about. Don't go into a field that's fairly stagnant, because then it must have to do, or you'll be trying to tackle the problems that the old guys got stuck on. And so I think in science, I can give people good advice that they should pick a subject where there are exciting new developments, and also of course something which suits their style, because even with

in science, which is just one profession, there's a big range of style between the sort of solidly-thinker that the person does field work, the person who works in a big team, etc. And whether you like computing or mathematical thought, et cetera. So pick some subject to choose your style and where things are happening fast. And be prepared to be flexible. That's what I'd say, really. Keep your eyes open for the opportunity throughout, like you said. Go to a new field. Go to a new cool stuff is happening. Yeah. Just keep your eyes open. Yes, that's past the student. But I think most of us, and I believe myself in this, didn't realize these sort of things are too late.

Yeah, I think this applies way beyond science. What do you make of this fine-knightness of our life? Do you think about death? Do you think about mortality? Do you think about your mortality? And Do you think about death? Do you think about mortality? Do you think about your mortality? And are you afraid of death? Well, I mean, I'm not afraid because I think I'm lucky. I feel lucky, I've got a lot of as long as I have. And to have been fairly lucky in my life

in many respects compared to most people. So I feel very fortunate. new respects compared to most people. So I feel very fortunate. This reminds me of this current emphasis on living much longer, these so-called out-of-slaboratories, which have been set up by billionaires. This one in San Francisco, one in La Jolla, I think, and one in Cambridge. And they're funded by these guys who, when young, wanted to be rich, and now they're rich, they want to be young again. They won't have that quite so easy.

And do we want this? I don't know. If there was some elite that was able to do much longer than others, that'd be a really fundamental kind of inequality. And I think if it happened to everyone, then that might be an improvement, it's not so obvious. But I think for my part, I think to have lived as long as most people

and had a fortunate life is all I can expect and it's a lot to be grateful for. Those are all the past issues. Well, I am incredibly honored to use the doubt with me today. I thank you so much for life of exploring some of the deepest mysteries of our universe and of our humanity and thinking about our future with existential risks that are before us. It's a huge honor, Martin, that you sit with me, and I really enjoyed it. Well, thank you, Lex. I thought we couldn't go on for as long as this,

but we could have gone on for as long as we could. Exactly. Thank you so much. Thank you for listening to this conversation with Martin Reese. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Martin Reese himself. I'd like to widen people's awareness of the tremendous time span lying ahead for our planet and for life itself. Most educated people are aware that we're the outcome of nearly 4 billion years of Darwinian selection. But many tend to think that humans are somehow the culmination.

Our Sun, however, is less than halfway through its lifespan. It will not be humans who watch the Sun's demise 6 billion years from now. Any creatures that then exist will be as different from us as we are from bacteria or amoeba. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time. you