Looking to make your search bar cast is SAM harris. Just a note to say that if your hearing this, you are not currently honour subscriber feet, We here in the first part of this conversation in order to access full episodes of making sense, podcast you'll need to subscribe. Sam Aristotle, work there, you'll find or private our says. We need to add to your favorite pot catcher, along with other subscriber, only content. We don't run ads on the past and therefore its may possible entirely through the support of our subscribers Sophie and joy. We're doing here, please consider becoming one too. Speaking with martin reese. Partners they well known astronomer and they form a present royal society, a fellow in former master of trinity college, cambridge and america's professor of,

apology and astrophysics at cambridge he's also, for the uk house of lords and his the author of several books, most recently. If science is to save us, which is the principal topic of today's conversation, we talk about the importance of science and scientific institutions the paradoxical provisionally of science and the strange relationship we have to scientific authority. We talk about genius, has a scientific and sociological phenomenon civilizational risk pandemic preparedness, artificial intelligence, nuclear weapons, the far future, the firm. problem, whereas everybody out there in the cosmos the prospect of a great filter explaining the apparent absence of everybody, the multiverse string theory, exo planets large,

scopes. Steps towards improving scientific institutions, wealth inequality, atheists, em, the conflict between science and religion, and this provokes a bit of a debate between Martin was not a fan of what the new atheists were up to noisy a fan of My version of moral realism, so we talk about now. The and ethics unfortunately had a few technical differ These then ran out of studio time, so the debate didn't go on for as long as it might have, but damn we had about thirty minutes there, where we disagree about religion and ethics. a good bit and I enjoyed it and I bring you martin reach, The. I am here with martin reese Martin thanks for join me. Thank you for having so you have a new book if science is to save us, which brings to

Are there many of your concerns about existential risk and that the importance of science helium promise of its along with our failures to fully actualized that promise and as I won't talk about this, I wanna talk about existential risk which you ve written about before analysed Should the inability of our politics and our institutions to properly grapple with it but tat before we jump into those topics, but perhaps you can summarize your your intellectual. Background and in your life and science have would you summarised the kinds of topics youve focused on yes web very lucky in that I've worked most of my career in astrophysics and I'm lucky in that when I started it citing time where we had the first evidence, the big bang, the first there it turns for black holes etc, and I was lucky to be able to rush some of the first papers on those topics and the

I was advise due to starting now to pick a subjects. a new things, are happening so that you could be the first person to do new things, rosin justa, in the gaps as dio guys lift, and so I was lucky there. I've been even more lucky in that the subjects has remained fruitful until describe my work is being phenomena vainly trying to make sense of only phenomena discovered through. observations on the ground and in space, so that'd my main work. But when I got here you ve sixty, I felt I ought to diversify bit because in mice, subleasing partake pillar it was taken over rather by a computational modeling. And I knew I would ever be adept at doing that I felt I ought to do something else, and I therefore took on some other duties outside my academic failed more in politics,

became head of the biggest college in cambridge. I became president the road which is not the kind of science and I became a member of the house of lords. So I had of wide experience in sixty years of doing this sort of thing, and that really is the background to why I wrote a book which has this are the broad coverage, nice, nice. Well, it's a wonderful career and and agnes It has to have someone who has seen so much scientific progress as well as it some failure, both a success. and failures of it to permeate the culture and affect policy too. It is just it is great that you are and where you are and end up spending as much time as you are currently in furthering the public understanding of science. Does the eureka most recent books have definite done that before we jump into questions of essential

risk and the other topics I outlined. I have a first question and a concern that more foundational with respect to how we do science howie, how we understand its progress, how we communicate that progress to non scientists, it it surround this, the issue of the provision ality of science and a that the really the perpetual provisionally of it either. There are no final final answers really and in this goes to the philosophy of science, and you know the PA parian observation that we we never really finally prove something true. We we simply prove false. There is false- and we just here to the best care, the explanation? But there's this does throw up a kind of paradox, because what we have

and science in the culture of science and industry of it is a is a fundamental distrust of authority. Right. We don't want slavishly respect authority. in science, and yet the reality is that they have to first approximation dick authority matters in a wooden. No one has time. run all of the experiments going back to them, You know the origins of of any specific science themselves were constantly relying on colleagues to have done things correctly. To not be perpetuated, fur odd to not be lying to us, and yet the truth is, even a nobel laureate is only as good as his last sentence if his life, his sentence didn't make any sense? Will then a graduate student or any one else can say that doesn't make any sense and in everyone's on the on the same ground, pissed logically speaking. So how do you? How do you think about how we treat authority and the provision of quality of science, both in science and,

and in the communication of it. Whether you are quite right, of course, Assad's is a progressive enterprise is Michelin, collective enterprise and we can never be sure, well, we got two final truth, but I think we ve got to not be to sketch. Could we got to accept that some things are almost incontestable like Newton's laws, ocean, for instance, and also in many areas of but important socially. It is prudent to listen to the experts robinson random person, even though the experts a fallible, and I think people Talk about the idea of revolutions, overthrowing things thomas coup is the famous gloss who did this and I think, come though one or two revolutions? Quantum theory was one but princess. It's not true at any sense that Einstein The true newton newton is still far

Wine is good enough to programme all space cause, I'm going in our solar system, but what I did was got a theory that gave a d The understanding and had a wide applicability but newton, you have laws This had registered ok, so you can't say that duty was falsified. We could say it was a step forward and if he's a confession, again, then our hope would be that there may be some theory. unifying all the laws of nature, the four basic forces and that will incorporate I suppose there is a special case, so it's video progressive in cooperation broadening of our understanding. How do you think out the quasi myth of the loan genius in science and what that has done to the perception of science as a quasi myth, because it is not truly math me just mention newton and when you think about the progress made and about

eighteen months locked in a garret, avoiding the plague, he seemed to have done it now. You know better a century at least of of normal scientific work, but as it had, how do you think about genius and the the idea that We should be shining light of admiration on specific scientists for their breakthroughs, and ignore the value of various ignoring the fact that some one else would have made that breakthrough about fifteen minutes later, if the first person hadn't. Yes, we have close that true under the different phases. Eyes and the arts is that if you and artists than anything you create is distinctly that your work, it may not last, whereas in the case of silence, if you make a contribution, then it will last probably if you're lucky but it'll, be just one brick

the edifice so loses. Individuality ended it almost all cases have been done by someone else if you haven't done it. So that's why there is this difference. and is also why science is a social activity and why those who come themselves off may be able to do some kind of working, say pure mathematics by themselves. But science involves following developments across a fairly broad field and in fact, in my book I discuss this contrast in tat telling us why, in the case of any artists, and proposes that last works are thought their greatest and that's because their influence, where young, by whatever the tastes, were then it's just internal development data

absorb anything else, whereas no scientists could go on for forty years, the sinking by themselves without having to absorb new techniques all the time and its because scientists and everyone gets less good at absorbing new ideas as they get older, that of a few sources of food. Would say that their last works or their greatest henderson, and that's why I decide It is do something else when I was sixty. Has why you, but you you look in the mirror, sanctity and and realise, and we're not gonna start programming that you ve met a lot of great scientists over the course of, yes, many decades it have, you ever met someone who you would hesitatingly call. A genius to Mr Minister seemed their scientific abilities, their intellectual billy's generally just to be a

standard deviation beyond all the other smart people you ve had the pleasure of of knowing. Yes, I think I've met some but, of course, I have a chapter in my book saying that, nobel prizes may do more harm than good, and that is because the people who made the great discoveries did say. People necessarily as those who had the deepest intellect read many of the great discovers obeyed serendipitously. I think in the case, astronomy discover new too stars and of the radiation to the big bang, those from both discovered by people by accident by people who won of any special intellectual eminence, but nonetheless, I think we would accept that the are some people who do have special intellectual It is of the people live noted by feel. I would put stephen why bergen that class museum, and who obviously had the, but they brought intellectual interests,

the ability to work to do a great deal of work, a greater variety of greater speed than most other people generally people clearly in every field to have special talents, but they are not necessary. It is the people who make the great discoveries, which may be partly accidental, opportunistic and also, of course, they are not always the people. Will you want to listen to in a general context and that's why it's a mistake. If thumb nobel prize winners are asked to pontificate on any subject, for they may not be an expert on here, yeah you're Weinberg was wonderful, he died, two years ago, but he was some right, really impressive person and a beautiful writer to yes, did. You know a fine man, nor can it is other bright lights of physics, a new feynman slightly better.

Some of these other people who were exceptional in their abilities and, of course, did keep going. I didn't do just one because- and I also knew francis crack, for instance, Lily was about the special intellect and mathematicians like, andrew wiles, who is it that he did shouted step away for seven years to do his work, but that was exceptional. Y'all talk about a solitary effort that was incredible: huh, okay! Well, let let's talk about the fate of our species which I think, relies less on the lone genius and much more on our failure or hopefully, success in solving a variety of coordination problems and getting our priorities straight actually using what we know in a way that is clear. British and global wait. Wait. We face many problems that are global in character and and seem to cry out for global, so

you, and yet we have a global politics We even have a mood domestic politics in every country that is tied to a short term consideration of assorted, that really, even if the at the existential concerns are perfectly clear, we seem unable to take them seriously because interest it. There is no Google incentive to do that. What what? What? What are your if, if you're gonna list your concerns, that goes by the name of of existential risk, you know? Maybe we should give us a little more capacious than eggs. Daniel, I'm there either just the enormous areas coming on stream. Yes, yes, yes,. he'll, be a few of us left standing to suffer the consequences of our stupidity.

What what are you worried about when I think I do worry about global setbacks and the way I like to put it? Is it a cosmic context? The earth's been around for forty five million centuries, but this century is the first when one species, namely our species, can destroy it's future or set back it's future in a serious way, because we are empowered by technology. And we are having a heavier footprint collectively on the world, and we have the case before and I think that two kinds of things we worry about. One kind is the consequences of our heavier impacts on nature, and this is a climate change loss of biodiversity. At issues like that which are long term concerns and the other is the er, fact that technology is capable of destroying a large tracts of humanity will have been true ever since the invention of the h bomb boats seventy years ago,

But what worries me even more? Is this new technologies, bio and cyber etc can have a similar effect? We know there's a pandemic like covered. Nineteen can spread globally because we are interconnected working in the past, but what is even more scary is that it's possible, engineer viruses, which would be even more IRAN to abort was visible natural ones, and this is my number one nightmare actually, this may happen and it's my number one nightmare, because it's very hard to ensure how we could actually rule out this possibility, integrated

few weapons. We know it needs law, special puffs facilities to build them, and so the kind of monitoring and inspection which we have for the it's nice atomic energy agency can be fairly effective. But even if we try hard to regulate what is done in the biological, abolishes the stage for one's was supposed to be the most secure ones in forcing those regulations globally is almost hopeless as it forcing the drug loss globally. What a tax law globally, because the delinquents can just a few individuals or small companies, and this is a big worry I have, which is, I think, if we want to make the world saith the gates that sort of concern we ve got to be aware of a growing tension between three things. We'd like preserve, namely privacy, security and freedom, and I think, tat,

privacy is gonna have to go. If we want to ensure that somebody not plugged decidedly plotting subsidies could kill us all. So then, there's one month, Lhasa threats getting a little yellow. I want to talk about others by checking. You say more, on how you imagine the the infringement of privacy being implemented here. What? What are you? What would actually help mitigate this risk when obvious Lee we ve given up on my privacy with the cctv cameras and all that sort of thing under nazi we have an internet is probably accessible for surveillance groups, and I think we probably have to accept something like that to a greater extent than says nia in the. U s will be acceptable now, but I think we've got to accept that these risks have very, very high and we may have about thought behaviour in that way, you're what I think we do this one infringement of privacy there. I don't think anyone would care about which is for us to be me,

Monitoring the spread of pathogens increasingly closely I actually just sampling the air and water and waste and end the sampling, everything and get our are high. Amazon so as to detect something, novel and dangerous as early as pie, the ball, given that our ability to vaccinate against pathogens has seems to have gotten were eaten by much faster, if not uniformly better. Yes, when of course that the hope is that the technology of the vaccine development will acceleration that full le contracts of these concerns. But I do think that we're gonna have to worry very much about the the dispread offer

not just natural pandemics. It might have a much higher fatality rate uncovered nineteen, but also visa engineered pandemics, which could be even worse, and I think we got have some sort of surveillance in order to minimize that and of course, the other way which small groups are empowered is through a cyber attacks. You're right, I quoted in my book from a: u s: defence depart the document from twenty twelve, where they point out debtors state level. Cyber attack could knock out the electricity grid on the eastern coast of united states, and if that happened, they say I quote, it would merit a nuclear response. It would be catastrophic. Obviously if the electricity grid shut down a few days and em. What annoys me now is that it may not need a state of an actor

is that sort of thing, because there's an arms race, as it were, between the empowerment of the cyber attackers and the apartment of the cyber security people, but doesn't know which side is going to gain here? We can add ai to this. This picture would sham I tried, which I I know you've been concerned about, I think you're. The group you helped found the the center for existential risk was one of the the sponsors of the that initial conference in puerto rico. In two thousand and fifteen that I was happy to to go to that of the first brought everyone it into the same room to talk about the they thread or or lack thereof. I general I enjoy your end. You know was always seen a ton of pride rest in recent months on narrow way? I of the sort that could be presumably use, to anyone who wanted to make a mess with one of cyber attacks. Indeed, yes, yes, is this. There is a symmetry here which is intuitive

none of it holds across all classes of risk, but it's easy to assume an eye. It seems like it must generally always be accurate to assume that is easier to break and then to fix them or easier to make a mess than it is to clean it up a man as price in related relating to entropy here that we could general S. But how I view, these asymmetric risks, because he a as you point out nuclear risk that the one fortuitous thing about the technology required to make your big bombs is that there are certain steps in the process that are hard. For a single person or even a small number of people to accomplish on their own measures, their rare materials. There ain't there to acquire etc it's more of an engineering challenge than one person can reliably take on board. Not so, with your dna synthesis you if we fall

democratize all those tools, and you can just you order nuclear, in the mail and not so at all, with a cyber and and now a I which gives a bit of a surprise me. They are most of us here. worried about the development of, we powerful ay. I were assuming that the most powerful versions of it would be inaccessible to everyone for the longest time and you'd have unit you'd, have a bunch of researchers making the decision to it as to whether or not a system was safe, but now it seems that our most powerful is being developed already in the wild, with everyone literally millions and millions of people given access to it on a moment by moment basis. Yes, that's right, it's, that is scary, and I think we do need to have some sort of regulation. Rather, like indicated drugs,

We encourage the r and d, but intensive testing is expected before some of these released on the markets, and we haven't had that in the case of a chat, gb t and things of that kind, and I think there needs to be some in some international agreements about how one does somehow regulate these things, so that bugs can be raised before they are released to a large public doesnt, especially difficult difficult in the case of air. I because the field is dominated to a large extent by a few multinational conglomerates and of course, they can, as we know, they pay proper taxation and they cannot have evade regulations by in their country of residence- rounded or less and for that reason

gotta be very hard to enforce regulations globally on those companies, but we ve got to try, and indeed it is asked to months there have been discussions about how this can be done. It's not just academies better. with bodies like the of the g20 and the u n and other bodies, must try to think of some way in which we can regulate these particles. We can't really regulate them completely. because the hundred million people have used this software with a month, so good it vary widely, and I think the only the only point I would make to perhaps have be an antidote to the most scary stuff. I think the idea of of a machine taking over general super intelligence is still far in the future

I mean I with those people who think that, for a long time, you got away far more about human stupidity than artificial intelligence, and I think that's the case, but other hand. We do have to worry about bugs and breaks down breakdowns in these programmes and that's a problem if you become too dependent on them. If we become dependent globally on something which run some gps or the internet, the electricity grid network over large areas, then

are you about the vulnerability if something breaks down and is hard to repair than I do about unintentional attack? Yeah the scary things? It's easy to think about the harm that bad actors with various technologies can commit. But it's so much of our risk is the result of what can happen by accident urgency inadvertently just based on humans to unity or just the failure of of antiquated systems to function properly, and when you think about the risk of nuclear war. Yes, it's scary that people, like you, know Vladimir Putin, of whom we can reach I worry. You know whether he may you nuclear weapons to prosecute his own very narrow aims, but the bigger risk wasted in my view, is that we have a a system with truly adequate technology and its just easy to see how we could stumble into it

a full scale: nuclear war with russia by accident by just misinformation. The addition of a to those pictures- terrifying. Yes, I think so scary. Indeed, I think cub. At least this type in the last few months, as is raised, These issues on the agenda. I that's a very good thing, because one point about getting political action, we're getting these exact political agenda is that politicians have to realise that the public care and everyone now is scared about these threats, and so, if release motivate the public service with politicians to do what they can to achieve some sort of a regulation or ensure that the greater safety of these complex systems- and this is, I think, something which show the public doesnt recognise where he had some politicians

they have scientific advisers, but those advisers have rather little traction, except when is an emergency after covered nineteen, they did, but otherwise they don't and it Then too just lucky shift gears. That's one of the problems get serious action to deal with it, climate change and similar environmental catastrophes because their slow to develop a long range, and therefore politicians don't have the incentive to deal with the urgent because they will happen on a timescale longer than the electoral cycle in some cases longer than the normal cycle of business investment. But nonetheless, if you want to ensure that we don't get some catastrophic changes, it is, I have the century. Did you have to be prioritized and if that's to happen, then the public has to be aware, because the

issues if both his care will take action, and that's why, in my book I point out that we scientists, ah on how not there The cap is magical, influential in general. Also, we depend very much on individuals who do have a much larger following and in my book I quote for people of a disparate quartet who have had this effect in the climate context. The first is to Francis whose is sick nicole in twenty fifteen, got him a standing ovation. Do u n energized his billion followers? I bet it easy to get to consensus at the paris club a confident twenty fifty she's, not a word number two is a secular pope, David Attenborough. Certainly in parts of the world has made people aware of the environmental damage, ocean pollution and climate change. The third I would put it

bill gates, who has some large following and talks a great deal of sense about technological opportunities and what's realistic, what isn't so, I think he's a positive thrust and four we should think greater told book who is at a judge, the younger generation, and I think those four between them have in the last five years raised these issues on the agenda so that governments are started. about how to cut carbon emissions, and even businesses changes rhetoric. Even if not changing its actions very much whites, it is a difficult tangle to resolve with it, that is challenge of public message and virgin the attention of the wider world against the short term incentives that everyone feels

very directly. I mean the the thing that is going to move someone through their day where he lived from the moment they get out of bed in the morning tends to be what they are, where they are in cheer. Truly set of eyes to do in the near term, and even if we're going to live by the light of the most rank, selfishness, everyone seems to hyperbolic early discount thereon interests over the course of I'm so that, which is to say its even hard to care about one's own, far future or even or the future of of one's children. Say nothing of the you know the abstract future of humanity in the long term prospects of the species, yet so this is. It is amazing to me even as someone who do with these issues and fancies himself, a clear eyed ethical vote, as on many of these topics I am amazed at how little time I spend really thinking about the world that

children will inhabit when they're my age and trying to I already ties it up my research, so as to ensure that that is the best. Possible world. It can be a merry arrows. So much of what I am doing is loosely coupled to that outcome, but it's not felt as a moral imperative in the way that responding to near term challenges is it may, maybe maybe you can say something about the ethical importance of the future and yes, and how we should respond to these kind of long tail risks dead in any given month in any given year or not. You know it's hard to argue that their priorities, because each month tends to look like the last, and yet we know that if we can just influence the trajectory of of our progress by one person, the year in fifty years from now will be totally dick

and then, if we degraded by one percent a year. Yes, that's right! That is the problem and of course, most people do really care about the like, charles, if that her grandchildren, who maybe alive or dead of the century- and I think most of us would agree, despite all the uncertain does in climate bottling, that there is a serious risk of a catastrophic change. By the end of the century, if not by twenty fifty- and this is something which we need to try and plan to avoid now under. It is a big ask, of course, and that's why I think of as you call it appeals of people's concern about future generations, but, of course, if

ask about how far ahead one should look, how much so called long term is a month ago for one then has the legitimate concern that if you don't know what the future like, I don't know what the preferences and tastes are going to be a theme of fifty years from now. Then, of course, we cannot expect to make sacrifices because they may be inappropriate for what accede turns out. So, I think, in the case of climate we could fairly well predict what will happen if we gathered, as we all know, but in other contexts. Things are changing so fast that we can't make these predictions into, and so the the idea that we should make sacrifice of people a thousand years from now doesn't make much sense. In fact, in my book I presented an interesting paradox. I think about those who build cathedrals in the twelfth century. Amazing artifacts that were built over a century

and people invested in them and you ever provisional lifetime and they can't ahead. Even though they thought the world would end in a thousand years. Their situation arises were limited to yours, On the other hand, today went up time horizon billions of years aspiration arises fast too. We don't plan ahead. Fifty years from now that making a paradox but there's a reason for it. The reason is

back in the middle ages, although the overall horizon was constricted, they didn't think things would change very much. They thought the life tosses, their children and grandchildren be the same said. They were confident that their grandeur would appreciate the finnish cathedral, whereas I think, apart from I, I would guess, on climate change, perhaps under biodiversity, where we don't want to leave a depleted world for our descendants, we can't really predict what people's preferences will be will be. The key technologies are therefore, it is perhaps inappropriate to plan in too much detail for them. So when things are changing unpredictably, then of course you have a good reason, for it couched in the future, but it wasn't just out too much, especially in cases where we can be confident of the risks of the stages close here where I went out. Some of the rests with we ve already,

and she said to me that we know that living year after year with these invisible dice rolling. But with respect to the threat of, accidental nuclear war as just a game. We should be plain right, we can actually I'll back that risk in any given year nowadays the thing, and so it is with the spread of vat. Democrats you know, engineer at or our living or natural. Yes, let's talk about the future but morgan. I know you have thought about the trans human, possibilities already really inevitabilities of the future. That you're saying, I think, someplace that if you go far enough, our descendants wool not only not be recognizably human, but they will just be the unimaginably different from from what we are now had had you. What do you actually expect and what and what sort of time rising. Would you give that image? if I draw, if drop you back on earth, ten thousand years from now? What would you? What would you expect with respect to our descendants

provided, obviously that we don't destroy the possibility We have survival in this century. Well, I'd expects you difficult differences, but let me put this the cosmic context. We know it's take four billion years or so for any biosphere here, which we are a part today to evolve from simple beginning in the private you'll sly wendy on and some people tend to fail. We are the combination of evolution, the top of the tree, but I was taught to believe that, because we know that the sun is less than halfway through his life, he's been shining for four and a half billion years, but he's got five or six more before it flares up and engulfs. He and the planets and of course, the universe has far longer still maybe going off for ever, and I like to quote woody allen The challenge is very long, especially towards the end. We are maybe not, even the half way stage in

emergence of a progressively greater complexity, and I think this century is going to be crucial in that context too, because it may be the stage when indeed genetic modification could read as I humans and maybe cyborgs were party electronic will develop and that future evolution will be much faster than darwinian natural selection. It's me what I let go, second, I tells the design to beat us under other machines, aiding us designing better next generation. So the future changes intelligence are going to faster Then the slow darwinian ones which have led to the emergence of humans over a few hundred thousand years said be much faster and so

It's completely unimaginable what there will be in billions of years, because they can be rapid changes on this timescale, which is fast compared to civilian timescale if it could recite more specific about by scenario just as a recent article, no roof a merry olivia and some other things I've written? I think that's the first developments of posting men's they happen on mars. And don't let me explain this wretched other book. Last year we don't goes with call the end of astronauts and we made the point that as robots get better, the need for said to humans into space is getting weaker.

in the time, and so I think many of us fear litter, nasa or other public agencies shouldn't spend taxpayers' money on the human spaceflight, especially something as expensive as tried to send people to mars, which is hugely expensive. If you want to make it almost risk free fuel people and feed them for six months on the journey, and gives him stuff the return journey, etc that they very dangerous dim public, probably won't accept the cost of the risk so my story is that we should leave human space flight to adventure is prepared to accept. risks funded by the billionaires Mosca business people like that, because there are people who would be prepared to go to buzz ottawa by trip. In fact, musk himself has said the term he'd like to die on bars, but does an impact and he's now think fifty one and fifty two

as also forty years from now good luck to him and other people like that, it will go they will go on a mission which is very risky, therefore far cheaper than anything that nasa would do because possesses risk averse, and it's not our taxpayers anyway. So my scenario is that there may well be a small colony of people. If you bought by the end of a century. Probably adventure is rather like captain, scotland, abbots and people like that. out. There be tried to live in this, they hostile environment, and I think this will happen. But, incidentally I don't agree with busk. That's that's. We followed by mass, nation of cubans, because living on mars is much worse than living at the bottom of the ocean. At the south pole under deva, climate change on earth is dotted competitor reforming boss,

Some news has done it before the risk. Those people, but the reason I digressed into this topic is that if we think that the user, izzy pod- is on mars. They be ill adapted, but they'd be away from the regulators, and so they will use all the techniques of cyborg a genetic modification to design their progeny to be better suited, to that environment and they will become a different species within a few hundred years the key question that is, we lay still be flesh and blood. Or could it be that too, Human brain is about the limit of what can be done by flesh and blood there, for they will be coming electronic and difficult electronic. Then, of course

well needed atmosphere, they may prefer zero g a day when they're immortal, so then they will go off interstellar space, and so the far future would be one in which our descendants, a remote to sentence mediated by these crazy adventures on mars, will start spreading through the milky way. And that raises the other question: are we the first more or that others are mothers? And of course this leads to seti and all that are developed. A seti is that if we ask what will be the evidence for anything intelligence, it will be, in my opinion, far more likely to be some electronic artifacts than a flesh and blood services like ours, because if you think of the track that our civilization has taken its lasting a few thousand years,

Most then these electronic progeny the last for billions of years, and so if we had a little planet, it's unlikely to be synchronize within a few thousand years in his evolution with our. So if it's got a head start, then it'll go past the fashionable sensational stage and we have left electronic progeny, so the most likely evidence we would find of intelligence would be electronic entities produced by some civilization, which has evolved rather, like, I think, may happen here on our solar system. That, with a start, that's a long decided. That's a future evolution. You're. What do you make of the fact- and this is your steve fermi problem question? What do you make of the fact that we don't see evidence of any of that technology out there when we up and although in our ways of looking up, I got you ask that

think this also issues that problem too, because of the wind evolution favours. Intelligence may be, but also aggression, but these electronic entities maybe evolve to greater intelligence deeper, deeper thoughts, because no reason why they should be aggressive, so they could be out there just thinking deep thought, the eye yeah they'd all be expansionist and come to eat us as it were, doesn't really make sense. So I think they could be out there and under not as conspicuous as a flesh and blood civilization but they got to be out there. But given the the mismatch in timing of the birth of, of intelligence and technology on any a planet. They that you just reference minute. That you know, we in our case mean all the gains we ve made, they could possibly show up at an hence our presence to the rest of the cosmos who have been made in a couple hundred years,

and were now and vision in a situation where of life is combine of. Intelligent life is common in the galaxy either that there are planets. It could be twenty million years ahead of us are more yes, oh dear, if you shift, if you acknowledge the the equally shifts in time. In that way, wouldn't you expect to see an end through leaving an tagging them aside, just the curiosity to explore what do you see to see the galaxy teeming with some signs of technological life elsewhere? If in fact that it exists, it exists whether we don't know what their voters would be. Add we ve no idea about tat. I told you would be so different to bird butler reckon I should. But the point I would make is that some, even if life is already covered in our galaxy,

as origination in many places, then in drinking places to if you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at sam harris dot org once you do, you'll get access to all full length episode of making sense podcast, along with other subscriber, only content, including bonus episodes in a and the conversations I've been having on the waking up at the makings has podcast his ad free in relies. entirely on listener supported and you can subscribe now at sam harris dot org the