Michael, looks like you're using a Blue Yeti microphone, right? Don't point it directly at yourself like that. You're supposed to talk more into the side. Here's an image of how to use it and how NOT to use it: raelyntan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-16-at-5.13.30-pm-1024x578.png
Great discussion. I feel the exasperation with any online discussion on anything; it's a howling choir of genetic fallacies and misattributions that masquerades as "debate". Would be great to see similar analysis (military vs space funding) to the development of nuclear power and LWR preference.
18:30 Space X is a private company with only a few "angel" style investors, so it doesn't run based on "quarterly reports" etc. So I like to just think of Elon as the president of space. But we know that the president of space is SR Foxley.
Thanks Skeptic.☺ Thanks Michael.☺ Thanks Neil.☺ "My, how you Do go on?" Not that it isn't always interesting? Your "how to think right" classes must be at least as good as your space travel arguments? "Ship as many hopefuls as possiblle into space", many say?😀
The Space force would mean a huge amount of money invested in space related technologies. Satellites and rockets etc and that would end up helping exploration.
Thank You for this interview! Neil deGrasse Tyson Is just Awesome. PS: We are not even welcome to explore space!. If we can't get along down here! Way the **** do some individuals think we are going to be loving species up there. Totally agree with Tyson.
At around 58:00 they talk about government funding, can someone explain why if you take $100B from the military budget you couldn't spend it somewhere else?
Two things. 1. They set the budget, they know they "can" spend that, or at least think they do. 2. If you then cut 100 billion here, it's get's redistributed among all other branches, not just one. Should they do that? I don't know, I wouldn't think so, but that's how it works. Why not let it flow back to society? And lose all those government jobs that were paid with that 100 billion?
@@kilroy205 it wouldnt actually cut the deficit because most of that is payed when the person or country who is holding the bonds wants to or had agreed to turn them in for their matured value. A fun fact would be that the American people are the number one holders of American debt, not so bad when you put it like that.
@JA Anthony ok, doesn't change the fact that americans are still the majority holder. Also the American economy is rated to be one of the most stable investment's you can make, meaning the debt can be paid. I agree we should not keep increasing the debt ceiling as we do, but alot of people like to exasperate the facts to make it sound worse than it is. (Its still pretty bad)
"Unlimited resources" is a misnomer. Not all resources are within the same distance, of the same quality or equally accessible. You're assuming that this resource explosion won't trigger a population explosion too. Shortsighted for being a genius.
Havent yas heard, its AM:PM now , AfterMum PreMum, AKA AfterMud PreMud, in Australia they used todo AS PS , it was whispered in knowledge before my mum was about to die.
Dr. Ed MItchell said when he blocked out the Earth with his thumb ... he was overcome. 3 billion people, everybody he ever knew, all behind his thumb, and how silly any human squabbles seem that far from your home.
but normal people have never been the ones who've decided to put up statues of military, political or religious leaders. Statues such as hes talking about are more related to the persons place in securing or increasing the power of a power structure than that tgose individuals were actually like by most people. statues of civil rights leaders and people who found the cures to a disease is relatively new. hes literally bypassing the reality of class in society, defense contractors who work on the level hes talking about have little shared interests with the majority of the over 300 million americans. We should never create, or promote, a profit motive for death and killing. to talk about Hitler almost as an isolated individual without acknowledging that there were many other drivers and facilitators such as IG Farbin and other corporations who were undoubtedly economic drivers, or institutions such as the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) which facilitated alot economically is ignoring a large part of history.
If GAS BONDING is a fact, Gravity/Black Holes are not ! All downward falling motion, including Newtons apple, begins when rising gas molecules becomes trapped gas molecules, known as GAS BONDING, which take on a state of solid mass, blocking out it's electrons motion, it's fire power, thus becomes ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules, and falls downward in real time, following it's electrons unlimited potential velocity, at the speed of light connecting with the earth ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM, establishing a downward falling path for trapped lifeless gas molecules/solid objects only. Equating the above fact with the physical universe, same as Einstein E = MC2 equates with the physical universe. E = ENERGY = MM = MOLECULE MOTION = Molecules in motion within star flames earth gases birds and balloons plains and rockets, even us humans rise from molecules in motion, creating an ENERGY FLOW, the ruling force of the universe. M = MASS = GB = GAS BONDING = Gas Binding take on a state of solid mass, blocking out it's electrons motion it's fire power, thus becomes ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules, and falls downward in real time. C2 = LIGHT SPEED = E = ELECTRONS = Electrons Unlimited Potential Velocity, at the speed of light, connects with the earth ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM, establishing a downward falling path, for trapped lifeless gas molecules/solid objects only. This they should've known ! Gravity is a mythical concept that's applied mentally ! So as to guarantee results to it's point of origin , the BRAIN
Dicourse is necessary... but why talk a good thing to its death. Just do it and fix problems along the way! That has always been Elons take on things... and see how far it has gotten him/us!? :d
Maybe Jews are (rightly) the strongest proponents of BCE/CE. The C means Christ, I.e. the Messiah. Since he is not the Messiah to Jews, BC alone is a slap to Judaism, let alone Anno Domini. There is more than history to the phrase. Anno Domini means you are calling Jesus our god. Sorry, Dr Tyson, you do a lot of great work, but you call people out for smaller points than the one you are ignoring here.
unfortunately the word "atheist" has been heavily poisoned by preachers and Christian apologists. There's so much baggage associated with the word I can understand why Neil avoids the label.
mdiem - he's a science educator. Who needs science education the MOST? Religious people. If he wears the atheist label the vast majority of Christians will tune him out (to maintain their god delusion). By solely focusing on the Science, 100% of viewers can get educated, and perhaps will abandon their god belief in the future once they learn what science is and why it works.
From what I can make of his explanation, the negativity from preachers and the like and the "baggage" associated with the word just aren't the reason he avoids it. The reason he's avoiding the label has more to do with complaints from atheists than anything else. And I get that too. I don't believe in God. But there's a lot of stuff where I don't line up with the prevailing expectations of many people in the atheist community today. So I get told told that I'm "not really an atheist, that I'm a "porch-atheist" or "secretly a Christian apologist". After a while you just say fuck it and drop the label entirely. It's not worth the hassle. And that's got very little to do with the negativity spread by preachers around that word. It's got much more to do with just a lot of people in atheism trying to purity test everybody and impose some sort of dogma that goes well beyond simple non-belief in God.
PeRK - if you believe in god you're a theist, if you don't, you're an atheist. That's it. There's no dogma, no purity test. Atheists can come in all different shapes and colors, the only thing they all have in common is they're unconvinced that a god exists (due to lack of evidence of god or the supernatural). I'm sure Neil calculated the cost vs benefit of whether or not to say he's an atheist and figured it's better in the long term if he keeps his mouth shut. That way he can educate 100% of people about science, rather than have up to 50% of Americans tune him out (and remain science-illiterate) because they don't want to risk hearing something that threatens their god delusion
+Zenon B Yeah I agree. But that's the theory. I'm talking about experience. Neil's first explanation about why he doesn't use the label atheist involves people complaining about him still using BC and AD instead of BCE and CE. Those people aren't theists. Those people are atheists. You and I might think it's stupid, but there's a lot of people like that, especially since the mid 2000s. So when Neil is calculating the cost/benefit, he's not just thinking he should keep his mouth shut coz he's going to scare the theists away, he's also thinking he should avoid the issue entirely coz he might drive the atheists away. So yeah, I get it man. In theory there's no dogma and no purity test. But in reality you run up against that sort of stuff all the time if you happen to have a minority view on certain issues.
