Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization

The text suggests that in contrast to evolved patterns of behavior and to emotional responses, evidence-based thinking and widespread rationality would have much more positive impacts on society. Tyson addresses multiple thinking and behavior patterns that likely evolved to ensure human survival. He writes that “[g]roupthink, even when it defies rational analysis, may have conferred survival advantages to our ancestors” (8), which implies that, for early humans, social cohesion was more important than factual accuracy.

The tendency to make assumptions and to view coincidences as imparting meaning, indicating fate, or inciting curiosity is likely another holdover of early survival strategies, which the text illustrates through the example of whether rustling grass results from the wind or a lion: Those who lack curiosity and instead consider the possible results, are more often rewarded. In addition, the text depicts strong emotional responses as a barrier to rational thinking and demonstrates this concept through the combative atmosphere on social media and through ironic perceptions and decisions regarding public safety. Both evolved behaviors and emotional responses have negative impacts in modern society, as they drive damaging irrational decisions; however, Tyson counters that evidence-based thinking can help resolve such issues and make rational responses more commonplace: “If we can’t fully overcome our DNA, maybe an infusion of evidence-based thinking can penetrate the no-evidence posturing” (66).

Tyson introduces the benefits of evidence-based thinking by identifying common areas of logic that people often struggle to comprehend, such as exponential growth and statistics. These two subjects each have a chapter dedicated to explaining how they function because public education often neglects them. Another logical fallacy that the text identifies is the (likely morality-driven) decision not to release mountain lions in the northeast despite the fact that it would save thousands of lives (human and deer) by reducing the incidence of deer crossing highways. Tyson links irrational thinking closely to social divisions, positing that evidence-based thinking can create social unity, thereby eliminating the worst humanitarian issues. For instance, applying evidence-based thinking to the concepts of gender and race erodes distinctions because science shows that sex, gender, and skin color exist on a continuum. Thus, without race or gender distinctions, society would no longer rank humans based on their color or gender expression. Similarly, an evidence-based approach would likely strengthen international relations, and Tyson suggests that “scientists may be uniquely capable of generating and sustaining peace among nations” (67) because what guides them is the mission to discover objective truths rather than the baser desire for superiority. These arguments, along with the author’s vision for Rationalia, exemplify the potential outcomes of evidence-based thinking, encouraging the development of a rational society.