Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization

Tyson argues that humans are “a sack of chemicals” (183) that require constant maintenance and that benefit from medicines. Scientific advancements have exceeded human senses, as seen in MRI technology, which was discovered by a physicist, as were numerous other examples of medical technology. This example supports the notion that all science—not just practical science—should be funded. Tyson connects the anti-abortion movement to Christianity, noting that the most religious states were prepared to ban or restrict abortion before Roe v. Wade was overturned. He then compares the rates of miscarriage and medical abortions to suggest that the religious basis for the pro-life movement is irrational. Next, he challenges the concept of disability through examples of disabled individuals who achieved great feats, including Beethoven, a deaf musician; Helen Keller, who was both blind and deaf; Matt Stutzman, a champion archer born without arms; Jahmani Swanson, a basketball player with dwarfism; Temple Grandin, an animal scientist with autism; Stephen Hawking, the famed physicist with ALS; Oliver Sacks, a neurologist with prosopagnosia, or “face blindness”; and Jim Abbott, a baseball player born without his right hand. Tyson suggests that these individuals’ disabilities helped them achieve success, and he posits, “Maybe everybody is disabled in some way. If so, that means nobody is disabled” (193).

The idea that humans use only 10% of their brains is untrue but is perpetuated because people like to imagine that they have greater potential. While humans have found themselves the most intelligent species on Earth, their intelligence may pale in comparison to extraterrestrial intelligence, similar to the difference in human and chimpanzee intelligence levels despite the fact they are 98% genetically similar. Tyson argues that humans often underestimate the intelligence of other animals, and he demonstrates that neither brain size nor brain-to-body-weight ratios account for human intelligence. As such, he questions whether visiting aliens would first try to communicate with non-human species. Humans are incapable of communicating meaningfully with chimpanzees despite our genetic closeness; therefore, it is “audacious” of humans to believe that they could communicate with alien lifeforms. Tyson questions whether the universe can create something more complex than itself. He notes that computers have become more intelligent than humans and continue to get smarter, and he suggests that humans overestimate their intelligence, citing the human tendency toward irrationality. He also considers whether humans exist within a simulation, though he feels it is unlikely given the level of irrationality that humans have consistently exhibited.

Tyson posits that birth and death are two of the “rarest common” occurrences in life, and four people are born each second while two die. Modern life expectancy is twice that of the 1900s and will likely continue to rise. Tyson poses the question, “[I]f you could live forever, would you?” (200), and he suggests that the inevitability of death is what drives the motivation to achieve. That death is important is further demonstrated through the idea that bouquets of real flowers are more meaningful than fake flowers and through the emotional significance of dogs. Both Earth and the larger universe are deadly: Earth has experienced at least six major extinction events, and humans are contributing to the destruction of ecosystems and to the extinction of more species.

Earth cannot support immortal humans; to survive, humans would need to find suitable planets and invent terraforming and technologies that allow long-distance space travel. Tyson takes a rational and biological approach to life and death, stating that humans are able to live because they take in energy, and death involves the cessation of energy metabolization; a dead body contains energy, which is released through cremation or decomposition. No evidence exists for consciousness beyond death; thus, in death, a person ceases to exist, per Tyson. Financial value is often placed on human lives. One method of examining this is to consider the average cost of raising a child; if someone dies in young-adulthood—such as often happens with individuals who die at war, they have not repaid their financial debt to society. Tyson argues, “If it’s better to be alive than dead, then the ultimate payback would instead be to do whatever it takes not to kill one another for harboring different views of the world, ensuring a long and healthy life for everyone” (206). He criticizes the invention of war technology designed to kill in an instant, and notes that hundreds of thousands are killed via homicide yearly; however, mosquitos remain the deadliest animal. Life is exceedingly precious, each life is unique, and life should be celebrated. Tyson feels that, on his deathbed, he will regret not witnessing future advancements and regret missing his adult children’s lives, although he notes that it is normal for the parent to predecease the child. He does not fear death but fears a life in which he does not reach his potential, and he believes the urge to look up is greater than the urge to kill. People only live once and should live life to its fullest.