Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization

“But if you handpick pre-consensus scientific research to serve cultural, economic, religious, or political objectives, you undermine the foundations of an informed democracy.”

Tyson emphasizes the importance of scientific consensus, and his argument suggests that the presentation of new knowledge as truth, without the scientific rigor to confirm that knowledge as objective truth, can have adverse social effects. His assertions serve to delineate scientific data from the overall field of science—concepts which are often conflated. His linguistic choices, such as “handpick” and “serve,” suggest that some individuals purposely exploit the misunderstanding of science versus scientific data.

“Differences in opinion enrich the diversity of a nation, and ought to be cherished and respected in any free society, provided everyone remains free to disagree with one another and, most importantly, everyone remains opens to rational arguments that could change your mind.”

Tyson respects the value of personal truths because they create social diversity. However, he includes two caveats: that everyone is given equal freedom to hold personal beliefs, and that everyone keeps an open mind and considers the weight of rational arguments. Personal (or political) truth that creates social division rather than social diversity, however, goes beyond the bounds of rational behavior and can harm society.

“With that run of societal advances, small wonder that in places such as the US, the wisdom of elders carries only marginal sway, which accounts for much of the tension that roils multigenerational Thanksgiving dinners. Their advice is predictably out of touch for what your college major should be, what jobs you should seek, what cars you should buy, what medicines you should take, what jokes you should tell, and what foods you should eat.”

The text explains the common discord between generations through the exponential growth in collective knowledge and in scientific and social progress. Such growth, combined with the notion that one should respect and follow the advice of elders, often results in contention.

“When we think of civilization, we commonly reflect on how engineering and technology have shaped our lives. Dig a little deeper and find ongoing scientific discovery that enables and empowers this progress.”

By demonstrating that science has a profound impact on civilization, Tyson counterargues against skeptics who argue that humanity should focus on social issues rather than funding science programs. Here, the author intends to inspire support for space exploration by arguing that it will benefit humanity.

“With only one or two human-made structures visible from Earth orbit, everything else that divides us—national borders, politics, languages, skin color, who you worship—is invisible to you.”

A literal cosmic perspective (which Earthrise and other images of the planet from space provide) removes visible cues of social division. This supports the idea that a figurative cosmic perspective has the ability to unify humanity by dissolving arbitrary social partitions.

“I can know all this intellectually for having read about it, but when I confront it from above, with details stripped away, I don’t see the politics, the history, the skin colors, the languages, the bigotry, the racism, the protests. I’m instead plagued by a simpler thought that, as a species, we might not possess the maturity or wisdom the future requires to assure the survival of civilization.”

While Tyson maintains a positive tone in much of the book, he takes a pessimistic tone when addressing social oppression. One of the goals of a widespread cosmic perspective would be shifting the focus away from human differences to focus on the idea that we are all earthlings.

“From deep space the entire Earth is laid bare. As the cosmos intends you to see it: a fragile juxtaposition of land, oceans, and clouds; isolated and adrift in the void of space, with no hint of anybody or anything coming to rescue us from ourselves.”

The language describing the how Earth appears from the moon depicts Earth as vulnerable. Tyson implies that humans have traditionally taken Earth for granted and do not understand the planet’s fragility. Instead of conserving its resources, humans fight over them.

“[W]e take better care of our cats and dogs than we do of homeless humans in the street. If we serve as pets to aliens, might they take better care of us that we ever will of ourselves?”

Tyson uses numerous literary devices to illustrate his views. These lines ponder an anecdote emphasizing his point, using a hypothetical alien perspective to reinforce the concept of a cosmic perspective. He also includes irony and satire, criticizing society for treating animals better than fellow humans, whereas many would likely expect unhoused humans to be taken care of before pets, and extrapolating this idea to the satirical idea of humans receiving better care as the pets of aliens than among each other.

“We look for one of three outcomes: either I’m right and you’re wrong, you’re right and I’m wrong, or we’re both wrong. That’s an implicit contract we carry into all arguments on the frontier of discovery. Who decides the outcome? Nobody does. Arguing more loudly or strenuously or more articulately than your opponent simply reveals how annoying and obstinate you are.”

The idea that evidence-based thinking would result in fewer conflicts is an example of logos—a rhetorical device that uses a logical argument. Arguments that rely on evidence are more likely to reach a peaceful resolution, because the evidence will prove the individuals who are arguing either right or wrong. In addition, evidence-based thinking can lead to new discoveries as the individuals search for the correct answer.

“The brushstrokes with which we paint and characterize the views of others tend to be broad and without nuance, leaving us susceptible to bigotry and prejudice.”

This statement reflects Tyson’s earlier comment that he dislikes labels. Humans tend to categorize other humans into groups and form generalizations based on such labels, which leads to shallow and inaccurate judgments. These narrow perspectives then create logically artificial social and political conflicts.

“If instead, probability and statistics were a fundamental part of the K-12 curriculum, taught to every student, across multiple grades, and if state lottery revenue were allocated to make that happen, then the lottery might just put itself out of business by inoculating its own citizens against the lottery itself.”

Tyson uses a satirical catch-22 scenario rife with irony to examine the relationship between the lottery and education in the US. While lotteries often generate revenue for social programs, including education, they function as well as they do only because of widespread statistical illiteracy. If schools taught statistics, the lottery would likely generate less revenue for social programs like education.

“If we value sentience, then we could rank animals by the complexity of their nervous system, and either eat none of them, or invoke some kind of cutoff.”

Tyson’s discussion on the ethics of eating sentient species becomes sarcastic as morality-based dietary choices are shown to be biased and arbitrary. Choosing to value one species over another, generally based on their genetic relationship to humans, is called speciesism.

“The lines of division in modern civilization seem endless. We willingly sort ourselves by hair color, skin color, what we eat, what we wear, who we worship, who we sleep with, what language we speak, what side of the border we live on, and so forth.”

Humans tend to categorize themselves and others, which scientists believe is an evolved social response. Tyson’s remarks reflect the extent of social division and carry a satirical tone, implying that the divisions are arbitrary.

“The presumed binary of sex in nature is rife with exceptions, not only in ourselves but also in the rest of the animal kingdom.”

This remark implicitly criticizes the belief that cisgendered heterosexuality is biologically normal and that deviations are abnormal. Sex and sexuality are not binary phenomena in the animal kingdom, supporting the chapter’s overall message that imposed sex- and gender-based social divisions are arbitrary and irrational.

“White people don’t disappear when they walk in front of snowbanks. And while skin color can get very dark, nobody is pure black. You’ve surely never met anyone fire-engine red or lemon yellow. So our color categories are simply lazy and feed whatever racist proclivities we might otherwise possess.”

The linguistic identifiers for various races project racist attitudes. Tyson’s argument here supports the theme of The Importance of Evidence-Based Thinking by demonstrating that the historical and current division of human races is irrational and flawed.

“My urge is to gesture a forgiving nod to the past while I display a furrowed brow to the future, wondering how today’s most progressive creations may appear to our ever-more-enlightened descendants a hundred years from now.”

Society progresses over time, meaning that what is currently considered progressive may be considered offensive or oppressive in the future. In addition, Tyson implicitly suggests that people interpret the past within its proper context rather than judging it purely based on modern standards.

“Because in the end—or rather in the beginning—we’re all African.”

Tyson argues that people “cherry-pick” their heritage, proving that ancestral identity is arbitrary. All humans can trace their lineage to Africa—a point that emphasizes the absurdity of racism.

“Legal systems at their best are prerequisites for anything we call civilization, as they protect us from the destabilizing basal urges of our own primal instincts.”

Society depends on legal systems as social contracts that promote community among individuals. Tyson’s assertion that legal systems protect people from primal instincts implies that human nature itself is not always conducive to social organization and community behaviors.

“In the court of law, if truth and objectivity are neither sought nor desired, then we must admit (or confess?) to ourselves that at least some parts of the justice system are the opposite of Aristotle’s edict, and are instead all about feelings and emotions.”

Aristotle’s edict—“Law is reason free from passion”—does not align with the modern justice system. Tyson explicitly criticizes the US justice system for its disregard for evidence-based thinking. He cites the example of being omitted from the jury pool on three occasions because of his rational mindset.

“In theory, everyone should get a fair trial, but in practice a high-profile attorney can sway a jury to feel one way or another, on a level that influences their interpretation of the data, and thus, in a choice moment, sow bias in the courtroom—bias that might not have otherwise been present when the trial began.”

Lawyers are taught various techniques to influence jurors’ opinions, and these techniques remove true objectivity from trials by a jury of one’s peers. Tyson suggests that this occurs in “high-profile” cases, which often include more severe crimes and consequences and have greater publicity.

“The clarion call to fund practical research over fundamental research, and the persistent plea to not spend money in space when we could spend it on Earth, represent noble but underinformed desires.”

Some individuals argue that practical research should receive priority, but Tyson disagrees. Branches of science often overlap, and fundamental research results in practical applications. One example Tyson gives is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology, which was discovered by a physicist. Tyson’s goal is to encourage people to support funding for all branches of science.

“For example, if you don’t need a curb cut to reach the sidewalk from the street, but a person in a wheelchair does, yet the person in the wheelchair knows vector calculus and you don’t, shall we classify your mathematical illiteracy as a disability?”

Tyson poses rhetorical questions to inspire reflection about assumptions and the boundaries of definitions. By posing the question above, Tyson challenges the notion of disability, thereby provoking thought about society’s perception of what constitutes disability.

“There is perhaps no greater de-motivating force than the knowledge you will live forever. If true, then knowledge of your mortality may also be a force unto itself—the urge to achieve, and the need to express love and affection now, not later. Mathematically, if death gives meaning to life, then to live forever is to live a life with no meaning at all.”

The final chapter ponders the meaning of life. Tyson asserts that life receives meaning from the certainty of death, and he uses this concept to explain why humans seek purpose in life, whether through personal achievements or through relationships. His ideas reflect a rational and biological life purpose other than procreating, which religion-based and conquest-based societal perspectives have often considered the main purpose of life.