Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Space Aliens may be surprised to learn that Humans have multiple...

[kpete]

Link to tweet

[Charles Bukowski]

2. Space Aliens may be surprised to

learn that man who doesn't know his ass from his elbow is currently the US President.

[LittleBlue]

3. I expect much more from a scientist

We don't kill one another because we speak different languages and have different cultures. That's far too simplistic an explanation for human conflicts. A thorough explanation of conflict can't be reduced to 140 characters.

[randome]

5. There's also the assumption that aliens will always be superior to us.

We lack any evidence to support that, to say the least.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is -hockey- Conservative values!"
-Slap Shot (1977)[/center][/font][hr]

[get the red out]

9. My opinion

JMO, but if "space aliens" have a society that has existed long enough to gain the scientific knowledge necessary to get to our little blue planet without destroying themselves long before, they probably are at least a bit superior to us.

[randome]

12. Traveling to America from Europe was once an epic undertaking, too.

But the best and brightest and most ethical were not always among the travelers. I'm just saying that we really have no idea what may happen. In fact, on a journey of millennia, a society could actually regress no matter how awesome their propulsion systems are.

We just don't know.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is -hockey- Conservative values!"
-Slap Shot (1977)[/center][/font][hr]

[get the red out]

14. We certainly don't know

That's for sure.

[sammythecat]

36. My strong opinion as well

Interstellar space travel for Earth's humans will likely remain a fantasy for as long as we have a functioning civilization and, in my own very humble opinion, the odds that Earth will have a functioning advanced civilization a thousand years hence are very low. In the meantime, any alien visitors, for the reasons you point out, will almost certainly be much smarter and also wiser than us. And by "much" I mean a whole hell of a lot.

[Mosby]

48. There is also that pesky speed of light problem.

[L. Coyote]

53. Not if they live in our solar system. Life is a property of matter, after all.

[uriel1972]

61. uh no... life is not...

Life is a pattern of energy and matter, not a property like mass.

[Binkie The Clown]

16. Aliens who are not superior to us wouldn't survive very long.

It follows that those wise enough to avoid their own extinction are probably smarter or wiser (or both) than us.
From that it follows that in any random sampling of surviving alien civilizations, the vast majority are superior to us.

[Warpy]

17. Well, that's because they'd presumably arrive here

long before we'd managed the technology to get there. That implies a certain amount of technological superiority.

Don't worry, they're probably going to be dunderheads in other areas.

[randome]

41. "Oh, so superior, are you? Tell me when Kim and Kanye married then! Yeah, didn't think you'd know."

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[LittleBlue]

23. Agreed. If there are any aliens near us with our brainpower

At our current rate of technological growth, if you consider the billions of years the universe has existed, one should have progressed far beyond our current level of technology. Scientists have estimated that over 1 billion species may have ever existed on earth, possibly up to 4 billion, and only 1 out of all those species are even close to the level of intelligence necessary to explore the stars. The next most intelligent species can't even progress to anything close to what our ancestors 4000 years ago accomplished.

It's possible we are alone, despite the astronomical number of creatures in the galaxy.

[greyl]

6. He didn't say that was the cause of all murder. nt

[StubbornThings]

7. You can't be serious. nt

[jberryhill]

13. Seems serious to me

There are more people of the same language and culture who are quite happy to kill one another.

There is no shortage of civil wars, for example.

I don't think North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese had remarkably different languages/cultures. The same can be said for countless civil wars, revolutions, and disputes over monarchical succession.

[LanternWaste]

32. Stating we kill each other because of A does not also deny we kill each other due to B.

Stating we kill each other because of A does not also deny we kill each other due to B... unless we're trying to look clever.

[jberryhill]

35. Humans kill each other for a wide variety of reasons

Cultural and linguistic differences rank very low on the list.

The enthusiasm with which humans kill one another is remarkable among mammals generally. There are mammals which do kill others of their own species, but nothing approaches the regularity of the practice among humans.

[beam me up scottie]

19. It's a tweet. It's meant to make people think, not explain all of recorded history.

While I much prefer Brian Cox's style to Tyson's at least he's using social media as a platform to inspire others.

I still miss Carl Sagan.

[LittleBlue]

24. It's simplistic crappola

I once saw him, in a tweet, make a basic physics error when doing a calculation. Some student from a small school corrected him. He proves himself with every tweet not to live up to the hype.

[ProfessorPlum]

30. What a lovely urban legend

Did the little child also tell them to let some air out of the tires?

[beam me up scottie]

38. Right?

I'm always amused by those stories about NDT.

I know the right hates him with a passion but it's weird to see him disparaged here. It's a damned tweet, not a course in astrophysics.

[LittleBlue]

44. Errr okay here's the link

http://www.inquisitr.com/1793482/neil-degrasse-tyson-takes-correction-on-deflate-gate-science/

TL;DR He messed up a deflategate calculation for air pressure in a football. He's also made some weird comments defending Scientology and incorrect statements about animal reproduction .

[beam me up scottie]

49. LOL. "defending scientology" He said it was no more crazy than other religions. And he was right.

His exact words were:

“So, you have people who are certain that a man in a robe transforms a cracker into the literal body of Jesus saying that what goes on in Scientology is crazy? Let’s realize this. What matters is not who says who’s crazy, what matters is we live in a free country. You can believe whatever you want, otherwise it’s not a free country—it’s something else. If we start controlling what people think and why they think it, we have case studies where that became the norm. I don’t care what the tenets are of Scientology. They don’t distract me. I don’t judge them, and I don’t criticize them.”

Do I wish more people would criticize religion including NDT? Certainly. But let's not pretend he was defending Scientology when he was actually defending the right to believe whatever crazy shit people want to believe.

[ProfessorPlum]

50. Jeez what a nothing burger

What he screwed up was a physical chemistry calculation, not physics, and it didn't even change the conclusion he drew (air inside not hot enough). I think it somehow doesn't tarnish his excellent reputation as an advocate for and communicator of science. But your mileage may vary, of course.

Where was the part where a little child corrected him? Did he stand up in the middle of the classroom and leave NDT speechless? That would make it perfect.

[LittleBlue]

51. Me: He's wrong now and he's made mistakes before

DU crowd: total fiction, you made it up
Me: Okay, here's the link.
DU crowd: geez, nothing burger

DU or NDT fanclub?

[ProfessorPlum]

54. I never thought he hadn't ever made a mistake

That's a rather high standard to hold.

I was just amused by the urban legend touch of the young person correcting him.

Don't know why you are trying to discredit him based on some small errors. Maybe he just gives you an icky feeling. That's ok. We don't have to admire or trust the same people. I just thought your mistrust was based on something more substantive.

[LittleBlue]

55. Then why are you rebutting me when I'm defending myself against

accusations that I fabricated the statement? Reread the thread.

He's been wrong numerous times in the past and he's really wrong now. His statement doesn't stand up to an amateur's understanding of the history of warfare. Julius Caesar didn't enslave and subjugate millions of Gauls and then fight a civil war because those people are of different cultures/languages. I can sit here all day reciting hundreds of the biggest wars in history and proving they had nothing to do with different languages or cultures. It's a really ignorant, indefensible statement.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Except he didn't say that all wars were caused by cultural differences. He didn't even mention war.

Your claim:

His statement doesn't stand up to an amateur's understanding of the history of warfare. Julius Caesar didn't enslave and subjugate millions of Gauls and then fight a civil war because those people are of different cultures/languages. I can sit here all day reciting hundreds of the biggest wars in history and proving they had nothing to do with different languages or cultures. It's a really ignorant, indefensible statement.

NDT tweeted:

Humans have multiple languages & cultures and we kill one another because of it.

Nothing in there about the history of warfare.

At all.

So how can this be an "ignorant, indefensible statement" when he never stated that?

Are you going to claim that human beings don't kill each other over cultural differences?

I agree with the other poster, you seem to have something against Tyson because you keep misrepresenting his statements.

And I'm not a member of his fan club. I don't think Neil DeGrasse Tyson is in the same league as Carl Sagan or Brian Cox but I'm not going to condemn him for a tweet.

[LittleBlue]

59. The largest mass killings in history are due to warfare

If you want to extend this to common crimes like murder, I would argue that the vast majority of murders have zero to do with culture or language.

His statement is wrong on so many levels it isn't worthy of this serious a discussion. I think people are just defending it because they like him personally.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Again he didn't mention mass killings or warfare.

If you want to extend this to common crimes like murder, I would argue that the vast majority of murders have zero to do with culture or language.

You're moving the goal posts from wars to the "majority of murders". He never mentioned either of those things.

Here's his tweet again:

Humans have multiple languages & cultures and we kill one another because of it.

We do kill each other because of cultural differences. You created a straw man by claiming NDT was referring to wars:

His statement doesn't stand up to an amateur's understanding of the history of warfare. Julius Caesar didn't enslave and subjugate millions of Gauls and then fight a civil war because those people are of different cultures/languages. I can sit here all day reciting hundreds of the biggest wars in history and proving they had nothing to do with different languages or cultures.

What NDT actually tweeted:

Humans have multiple languages & cultures and we kill one another because of it.

So his statement wasn't wrong at all. You knocked down a straw man, you didn't disprove what he actually posted.

[LittleBlue]

65. I read if differently based on his past statements

I think he's saying that in relation to human conflict. That's how I read it

Almost all armed conflict in the history of the world came about because opposing sides believed different things to be true.

https://mobile.twitter.com/neiltyson/status/832352653053095937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2017%2F02%2F16%2Fneil-degrasse-tyson-uses-science-to-explain-why-we-have-wars%2F

Which also isn't true. He actually thinks that human conflict is caused mostly by different beliefs. I don't have to die on any hill to follow his history on Twitter.

[beam me up scottie]

66. How is what he posted untrue?

Almost all armed conflict in the history of the world came about because opposing sides believed different things to be true.

He said nothing about 'beliefs', he said "opposing sides believed different things to be true". There's a big difference between beliefs (noun) and believe (verb). I read his tweet as referring to how opposing sides believe they're right, that their side is the one that has a lock on truth.

If you're trying to portray Neil DeGrasse Tyson as some sort of anti-religion crank you're going to have to do better than that. If anything he's gone out of his way to avoid stepping on the feelings of religious people.

[ProfessorPlum]

69. I think NDT is quite openly anti-religion

that's not a reason to admire or not admire him, but it's a thing. Check out some of his conversations and presentations on YouTube.

And religion has most DEFINITELY been the cause of killings, both large and small.

So, still not understanding blue's point.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Not as anti-religion as many claim. He's very supportive of religious beliefs in general.

In fact I wish he would be more critical of religion and come out as an atheist. He's way too squishy about using that word - he seems to think it would distract from his science advocacy and he may have a point. Still, I'm a big fan of embracing the label and countering the stigma. We're not radicals, we just don't believe in gods.

And religion has most DEFINITELY been the cause of killings, both large and small.

So, still not understanding blue's point.

Agree on both counts, I don't think this is even debatable.

[ProfessorPlum]

64. I dont give two figs about NDT

But what he said us plainly obvious on its face. People often kill each other based on differences in culture. And nations often war against each other because of differences in culture.

What he tweeted is right on so many levels.

[ProfessorPlum]

63. I am also not sure why this is the hill you want to die on

You've chosen as your thesis that NDT is an idiot because he said that people kill each other based on language and culture differences. So you are asserting that people never kill each other based on language and culture (which includes religion, nationality, and economic issues like will we continue to exploit slave labor).

Your thesis is plainly wrong on its face. Every killing, from the individual to wars between industrial countries, can be traced back to cultural differences, at least in part. And sometimes they play a HUGE roll, especially in getting the rank and file all worked up for a war.

I'm not sure what any of that had to do with NDT's intelligence level. But I know that what you are asserting is completely stupid and ahistoric . And incorrect on its face. Unless you mean something entirely different by "culture". Maybe I just don't understand how you are using that word.

[LittleBlue]

67. I read it differently

I think he's talking about human conflict. He has already stated he believes most conflicts in history are caused by differing beliefs.

Almost all armed conflict in the history of the world came about because opposing sides believed different things to be true.
https://mobile.twitter.com/neiltyson/status/832352653053095937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2017%2F02%2F16%2Fneil-degrasse-tyson-uses-science-to-explain-why-we-have-wars%2F

None of this is true.

[ProfessorPlum]

68. none of what is true?

you aren't making any sense at all.

I want to understand your point, but I can't figure out what it is. What are you saying? That different beliefs cause conflict? Different beliefs == culture.

[LittleBlue]

71. I think his entire perception of conflict is wrong

The vast majority of wars and killings weren't fought based on beliefs, or culture or language. I read his original tweet, "killing ne another", as a common way of saying human conflict.

I think politics and desire for resources, arable land and wealth are the cause of the majority of wars in human history, and the main motivating factor of conflicts and killings between people.

[ProfessorPlum]

72. greed is certainly a motivating factor

but so is religion, nationalism, and racism.

Your attack on NDT based on his tweet is ridiculous.

[kpete]

39. I miss

Carl Sagan Too!
& thank you,
I love your comment as it explains -why I post & what I post...

peace,
kp

[beam me up scottie]

42. Thanks! Check out my sig line.

Carl Sagan also said:

Imagine, a room, awash in gasoline. And there are two implacable enemies in that room. One of them has 9,000 matches. The other has 7,000 matches. Each of them is concerned about who’s ahead, who’s stronger. Well, that's the kind of situation we are actually in. The amount of weapons that are available to the United States and the Soviet Union are so bloated, so grossly in excess of what's needed to dissuade the other that if it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable.

Human beings might be an intelligent species but that doesn't prevent us from being very, very stupid at times.

[hunter]

21. Yes it can. Humans are not that bright.

140 characters are plenty.

The universe is very big. Humanity is very small.

Dust.

[LittleBlue]

26. Only if you want a simplistic worldview where human beings are mostly stupid animals

Thankfully humanity isn't that stupid. Generals like Tokugawa Ieyasu, Napoleon and Alexander the Great had genius level intellects and they conducted warfare for political reasons, not because their neighbors had different languages.

[LanternWaste]

33. It's fun to pretend his tweets are the totality of his work.

It's fun to pretend his tweets are the totality of his work. Inaccurate, self-validating and petulant, but still very, very fun.

[LittleBlue]

40. Who did that?

It's fun to pretend his tweets are the totality of his work

Discussions must be easy when you ignore what people say and pretend they said something else.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Irony.

Discussions must be easy when you ignore what people say and pretend they said something else.

[LittleBlue]

45. Link?

Where?

[beam me up scottie]

58. How about quotes?

Only if you want a simplistic worldview where human beings are mostly stupid animals.

NDT didn't say this was his worldview and he never said humans were mostly stupid animals.

He's also made some weird comments defending Scientology

NDT never defended Scientology, he simply said it wasn't any more crazy than other religions.

His statement doesn't stand up to an amateur's understanding of the history of warfare. Julius Caesar didn't enslave and subjugate millions of Gauls and then fight a civil war because those people are of different cultures/languages. I can sit here all day reciting hundreds of the biggest wars in history and proving they had nothing to do with different languages or cultures.

Again NDT said nothing about wars or the 'history of warfare'. He said humans kill each other over cultural differences and we do.

[ProfessorPlum]

31. Your concern is noted

I'm sure NDT will try to live up to your expectations next time.

[icymist]

4. Space Aliens may be surprised to learn that Humans

knowingly destroy the very planet they live on.

[Buns_of_Fire]

8. Humans may be surprised to learn

that Space Aliens really DON'T find us very tasty.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Or Interesting

To me, it would seem like they'd be looking at us like clever pets.

[hurple]

11. Humans may be surprised to learn...

IT'S A COOKBOOK!

[Binkie The Clown]

15. A hive mind like the Borg is the best way for a civilization to survive.

Everybody pulls together, and nobody disagrees or obstructs.

Not a good situation for innovation and progress, but "progress" and "survival" are two very different things. A civilization could easily survive without progressing, and progress often (usually?) has a negative effect on survival of a civilization. Progress brings us bigger and louder bombs.

[Calculating]

20. Ultimately you need progress to survive though

Otherwise you'll just be waiting around for the next big asteroid to come and wipe out your society. Scientific progress actually gives us a chance at avoiding such events.

[Skittles]

18. why do we assume they are not doing the same?

[neeksgeek]

22. Calvin and Hobbes

[Buckeye_Democrat]

25. Space aliens might be surprised that we all eat other life!

The could come from a world where life evolved from consuming inorganic material and energy.

If they get judgmental about it, we'll just tell them that we RECYCLE organic material on this planet!

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

27. Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Space Aliens may be surprised to learn that Humans have multiple...

orgasms.

[WePurrsevere]

29. It's so nice to know that I'm not the only one...

Whose mind went in that direction first.

[StevieM]

60. No. You are not. (eom)

[democratisphere]

28. Space Aliens may be surprised to learn that if they attempted to land

in the USA, they would immediately become illegal Space Aliens and deported the same day.

[Nay]

34. Space aliens, having been subjected to the same evolutionary pressures, can

be assumed to be as assholey as humans.

Now, if they've intellectually been able to control their own assholery better than humans have, they'll have the upper hand. But I wouldn't assume that the aliens would be surprised with how we behave.

[sammythecat]

37. So well put.

Especially the part about "evolutionary pressures" leading to "assholery".

All my life I've been a big believer in there being oodles of intelligent life scattered throughout this indescribably huge universe, but not anymore. I think those evolutionary pressures and consequent assholery would be present wherever intelligent life would arise. To me, those two factors would almost certainly prevent any civilization from achieving the peace, cooperation, dedication, technology, and tremendous disposable wealth it would take for manned interstellar exploration. For sure, that ain't gonna happen on this planet. Ever, I don't think.

[randome]

46. It's like the assumption that Spock can be thrown off guard by emotions because he's logical.

Emotions don't need to be felt in order to be comprehended and well understood. That's been a fallacy of the Star Trek franchise since the start. In fact, the original Mr. Spock as portrayed by Mr. Nimoy was a much more volatile individual.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[sarisataka]

47. Scientists may be surprised to learn

that space aliens are not necessarily one-dimensional pacifists.

Or perhaps the scariest thought of all is we are the advanced civilization in the universe...

[L. Coyote]

52. Space Aliens may be surprised to learn that Humans taste just like monkeys.

Adapted from that old jungle adage, "Missionary tastes just like monkey."

[Buns_of_Fire]

56. I really thought you were going to say "tastes like chicken." nt

[backscatter712]

73. Their reaction would be similar to humans' reactions to the Drazi from Babylon 5.

The Drazi literally pick purple or green cloths out of a hat to determine whether they're on Team Purple or Team Green, then they start fighting to the death over which team gets political power over the Drazi homeworld.