Can We Predict the Future? with Charles Liu

Hey, you wondering how you can invest in yourself and work towards a goal that will last?

Rosetta Stone makes it easy to turn a few minutes a day into real language progress.

You've heard me talk about Rosetta Stone in the past, and you know that I love the anytime, anywhere bite-sized lessons that allow me to go ahead and continue to learn Spanish so that I can know exactly what my mother-in-law is saying about me.

Maybe you're gearing up for a trip to another country, or maybe you're going to reconnect with family roots.

Or maybe you just want to impress people with the fact that, yeah, you know another language.

Well, now Star Talk Radio listeners can grab Rosetta Stone's Lifetime Membership for 50% off.

Visit RosettaStone.com slash Star Talk to get started and claim your 50% off today.

Jasla order me amigos.

Rosettastone.com slash Star Talk.

You ever walked around a neighborhood and wish you could see inside somewhere that was available for rent?

Well, let me just give you a tip.

Don't climb up on the ledge and look in the window.

People will call the cops.

Well, maybe you've walked past a place for rent and you wished you could peek inside.

Maybe even explore the layout, envision the natural light streaming through the windows, or plan where your vinyl record collection would go.

Well, at apartments.com, you can.

With tools like their 3D virtual tours, you can see the exact unit you could be living in at all from the comfort of your couch.

And if you end up wanting to see it in person, you can book a tour online without having to speak to a leasing rep.

Really envision yourself in your new home with apartments.com.

The place to find a place.

Gary, I love that topic you selected.

Good.

For special edition, predicting the future.

Yeah.

And getting it wrong most of the time, but when you get it right, it's good.

We talked about the Jetsons.

Love me some Jetsons.

Come on now.

You cannot like the Jetsons.

I like Jane.

Blade Runner and these visions of the future.

Some dystopic, others just kind of fun.

Right.

You know?

I think the Jetsons are pretty dystopic.

Did you say you liked Jane?

Yes.

The Jetsons are.

I didn't think anybody caught that.

And you take me to task on predictions I made in Starry Messenger.

Well, of course.

Here's a prediction.

We're about to do the show.

Coming up.

Star Talk.

Welcome to Star Talk.

Your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide.

Star Talk begins right now.

This is Star Talk, Special Edition.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, your personal astrophysicist.

We got a full house today.

First, Gary O'Reilly.

Gary.

Neil.

Hi.

How are you doing, man?

I'm good.

Oh, good.

Chuck, nice.

How you doing, man?

I'm doing well, man.

Your hair is looking especially coffee.

It's very crisp today.

It's crisp today.

Yes.

I actually microwaved it.

And then I put it on.

People don't realize this.

This is a Steve Harvey wig.

No, no.

It ain't even real.

Come on, play it.

Anyway.

It's rocking like a mini version of a 1978.

That's exactly what I was going for.

I was going for straight up Jim Brown.

Something out of the 70s.

That's what I was going for.

Step right off the screen.

Yep.

Success.

There you go.

Work on some muscles.

Come back and you can say you're Jim Brown.

I'm sorry.

I'm Jim Tam.

So we're going to do predictions

about the future, which I think is the only way you can make a prediction.

And there's some stuff I don't tackle alone.

I got to go to Geek and Chief.

Oh.

Geek and Chief.

There's only one.

We know who that is.

That is Charles Liu, friend and colleague.

Charles.

Neil.

Dude.

Great to see you.

Okay.

Take a geek.

I also microwaved my hair today.

Just leave your brain out.

I think it's fine.

So you're a professor at CUNY Staten Island, City University of New York, which has satellite campuses across the city.

Yes.

And you're in Staten Island and you finally no longer have administrative duties there, is that correct?

Were that the case forever?

Is that the same as quiet quitting?

Not the same.

No, professors.

We're very lucky as professors because we can continually take on positions and leave them and not leave our jobs.

So I could be a department chair for a period of time and leave.

I could run an honors program and then leave.

I could even serve as an acting dean or other administrator and then leave.

And still I'd retain my ability to come back and do the research and the coursework and the teaching that I've done.

And each of those that give you a little bump up in the Moodle.

One host.

One hope.

Every place is a little bit different.

So we've got you here because you think long and hard and deep about predictions made.

in sci-fi.

You probably have some predictions of your own.

The accuracy of these predictions and what they might have looked like at the time and what they look like to us with the benefit of hindsight.

Well, so we're going to get all in this.

Yeah, I think it's good, but I think we should first say right away for everybody that.

Oh, first say right away that you host a podcast called The Luniverse.

That's what we should say right away.

Oh, that's very sweet.

Thank you.

The Lou Universe.

Charles Liu.

You see what he did there?

I didn't do it.

It was my family member.

Not the Lou, the bathroom, but Charles Lou.

But he's Charles Liu, so it's the Lou Universe.

No, no, no.

I can't take any credit for the name.

We talk to scientists who are earlier in their careers.

We talk about people who are doing all the hard work and trying different things, not just necessarily what we think of as a straight-up science stuff, but also thinking about the future, thinking about pop science, culture, things that we like to talk about here on Star Talk, but on a level for...

I got you.

And a lot of fresh, unvarnished ideas come out of that first generation.

Right, we love them.

Some of them can change the world.

Right.

As you know, Neil, the really tough, new pioneer techniques are always done by our younger colleagues.

We can have great ideas and we're like, oh, darn it, if only someone had a way, a technology, a tool that could solve these problems.

And then some guy comes along, some lady comes along and says, yeah, I know how to do that.

And they just bring something new.

And that's how changes happen.

It's no accident that some of the best discoveries, the Nobel awards, come from people in their 20s and their 30s.

They're awarded much later.

Yeah.

Well, they've made their discoveries in their 20s.

Right, exactly.

That's right.

You know, they did a study on that that you're more likely to think in a way that will lead to innovation in your late teens and 20s than at any other point in your life.

That's right, which is why when we hear a talking about predictions, it's not so much our predictions, but what we're predicting other people will do in the future.

That's an important distinction.

Interesting.

And so, when we think about it from a scientific perspective, we don't want to say so much predictions as models.

Right?

We are taking what knowledge we have now and modeling it for the future.

And models are always wrong, but sometimes they're useful.

And therefore, we have the opportunity to think about the future in an informal education.

Yes.

Gary, set the stage here.

Okay, so in your book, Starry Messenger, in the chapter at the end of Exploration and Discovery, you kind of go on a fool's errand and make a raft of predictions for the year 2050.

Did he just call me a fool?

No.

Would you kick his ass over that?

Can it wait?

Okay, a fool's fool's errand.

Yes.

So we're not going to wait 25 years to find out if people are going to be able to do that.

Let me just set that up.

So the whole, a big part of that chapter titled Exploration and Discovery is an exercise in what do people think would be discovered or how differently did they think they'd be living in one era versus one generation later.

And I just, I tightened it to 30 years.

So I go 30-year increments from 1870 up to 2020.

We'll probably take a look at the 2020.

And everybody's getting everything wrong all the time.

Of course.

Okay, and so I said, time for me to join the list, and I'm going to make predictions for 2050 so that in 2050 people can look back and see everything I got wrong so that I'm not.

See, but I disagree.

I don't think that these

predictions are wrong.

I think they're inaccurate.

And there's a big difference.

Oh, don't be all semantic.

Actually, no, get semantic.

Get semantic.

We want to be a teacher on this exam.

I didn't get anything wrong.

It was just inaccurate.

Oh, my God.

Now you know why all my teachers hate it.

We can explore that.

Finish setting this up.

Where do we go for our predictions, the tried and trusted sources?

We'll have a look at that.

Are the people that are making these predictions or writing examples, are they in fact the influencers of the future that are based in the past?

Or if we leave it alone, does the future take care of itself?

We'll get into all the sort of philosophical thoughts about that, but first and foremost...

Do you mean if we didn't predict the future so that there was no groundwork for new ideas,

would future still

have a place to land?

Would it still unfold?

Would it still unfold?

So let's look to science, let's look to science fiction as our

go-to's for what our lives might well be back.

I mean, I'll kick it off, the Jetsons.

Daughter Judy.

Who can make the sound of the Jetsons?

That's it.

There you go.

There you go.

That's every flying car in the Jackson.

So this was made in the early 60s, 1960s, but it's set in 2062.

So it's not that far away from where we sit.

We're in the future.

Yeah, but where we sit today, it's not that far.

So you've got flying cars.

There's a robot in every house.

Yes.

In some places,

that's the case.

First of all, we do have flying cars.

We have them now.

They're just quadcopters, but they're flying cars.

and if you go to japan you're gonna find pretty much some kind of robot and everybody robots everywhere yeah so in fact are the jetsons the most accurate prediction of the near future we have or do we have to look in other places for accuracy so i found this recently was it the year 2020 i was looking for years predicted for the future that are already in our past.

And in the Jetsons, I think George Jetson, you can triangulate based on certain script lines that he was born in the year 2020.

Oh, really?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Cool.

Kind of the Jetsons was the other extreme of the pandemic, baby.

Yeah.

George Jetson.

Pandemic, baby.

Did he know?

Did he know?

I think it was 20, it might have been 2021, but it was

somewhere in that window.

Somewhere in there.

So that's the first point.

So here's what I think they got wrong.

They didn't

understand

that a robot

can be anything that does something that you wouldn't otherwise do.

Right.

Any task.

Any task.

Any task.

So

he's still flying his flying car.

He doesn't push a button to say, take me to work and have the car do the work as we have today.

And by the way, if you have a robot who can run your home, you dial go as sure to have a car that will just take you to work.

Right.

So they missed the fact that a robot did not have to have any humanoid features.

This is the same with Isaac Asimov's iRobot, which predates the Jetsons.

An iRobot, the robots are human.

And

that's not necessary because it assumes the human form is something you want to emulate.

And there's a lot of stuff we don't do well.

Make a machine, do it better.

So all I'm saying is, I don't think they thought.

about a self-driving car, which is itself a form of robot.

Yeah, if you've ever seen the Amazon warehouse,

it's full of robots

and they're just all boxes.

They're all boxes just moving around.

They're moving the boxes

moving boxes, but they're all robots.

Right.

Everyone, they know where they're going, they know where we're going to put it, and they have their ID and their thing.

Now, what you don't know is what those robots do when you leave.

It could be a quantum thing, right?

The secret life of robots.

The secret life of robots.

Like, while you're looking at them, they're looking like they're busy.

Right.

You look away,

then they're partying.

They're out the back with a cigarette, just like the human gosh.

I love that.

You have a book on quantum.

The handy quantum physics answer book.

Answer book.

This, yes, in a series.

That's not your first book.

That's true.

I've done handy astronomy, handy physics, and right now handy quantum physics.

Is it like quantum physics for dummies?

Well,

I assume that you guys aren't dummies.

See, that's where you make a mistake.

No, no, no.

That's your biggest mistake.

Quantum physics is not any harder than classical physics.

It's just different and strange.

So all I'm trying to tell people by calling it a handy answer book is that don't think of it as this thing that's really difficult.

Think of it as just, you can flip to it like a manual.

It's like riding a bicycle and putting together a piece of furniture.

Quantum manual.

So I want the robots in the Amazon fulfillment centers to be reading to two quantum states.

One where they're busy and the other one where they're out back smoking singing.

You came up with fulfillment center.

As a term?

Yeah, it feels right.

That came from a long time.

It's a robot.

It's a warehouse.

It's a warehouse.

It's become a fulfillment center.

Give me a word here.

I don't need a word.

Sears' robot catalog from more than 100 years ago had these warehouse.

It's nothing but Amazon.

That's right.

But they had human beings filling things on the borders.

And at some point in the mid-20th century, the marketing decided to call that instead of a warehouse, calling it a fulfillment center.

And so the idea was...

That was Sears?

We think it was Sears, but certainly all the other big stores at that time had that information.

I mean, and sometimes you say things, but sometimes I have facts at you behind your back.

Please.

No, no, I have to do my

and you're always

right on point.

I gotta do my thing.

When you say something like, yeah, so 100 years ago.

Just like, make it the

once-per-show reaction.

Go ahead.

Why do you know this?

Okay.

But that was early in this show.

Oh, my gosh.

I don't know if I have more than one in me.

I think Charles does.

Keep going.

That's it.

Also, also with the maid.

Rose.

The maid.

Yeah.

Right.

First, it's female, right?

So it's still the genderized robot.

That was sexist.

And with the little

chipron, French, a French.

So she was a thefield.

A massage chair might seem a bit extravagant, especially these days.

Eight different settings, adjustable intensity, plus it's heated, and it just feels so good.

Yes, a massage chair might seem a bit extravagant, but when it can come with a car,

suddenly it seems quite practical.

The all-new 2025 Volkswagen Tiguan, packed with premium features like available massaging front seats, it only feels extravagant.

The best business to business marketing gets wasted on the wrong people.

Think of the guy on the third floor of a 10-story apartment block who's getting bombarded with ads for solar panels.

What a waste.

So when you want to reach the right professionals, use LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn has grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals and 130 million decision makers and that's where it stands apart from other ad buyers.

You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company, role, seniority, skills, company revenue.

So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience.

It's why LinkedIn ads generate the highest business-to-business revenue on ad spend of all online ad networks.

Seriously, all of them.

Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn Ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one.

No strings attached.

Just go to linkedin.com slash star talk.

That's linkedin.com/slash star talk.

Terms and conditions apply.

I'm going to put you on, nephew.

All right, huh?

Welcome to McDonald's.

Can I take your order?

Miss, I've been hitting up McDonald's for years.

Now it's back.

We need snack wraps.

What's a snack wrap?

It's the return of something great.

Snackrap is back.

I'm Olicon Hemraj, and I support Star Talk on Patreon.

This is Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

If we look at the movies and generally you're thinking about major budgets for production, yet things don't always work out.

You take the 1982 Blade Runner movie, Harrison Ford, remember that?

Based on...

I don't know what it was.

Yeah, it's based on a novel by Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K.

Dick.

Yep.

Well, thank you.

And when did he write that?

Early 50s, right?

Quite early.

Yeah.

So it was set in 2019.

The original.

The original movie, right?

The movie, yeah, the 82.

But so much of it doesn't land true.

None of it.

I mean, we have hindsight, which obviously is perfect.

But you're thinking about their humanoid and they're off-world.

The replicants.

Yeah.

Doesn't exist.

The replicants, right?

Yeah, that's what they call it.

They did not have to do that.

So we're not off-world.

No.

We don't have perfectly humanoid replicants.

right and the sun sometimes shines right however we were living in a dystopia so that is a thing and the dystopian future is debatable yeah i i have my issues with dystopian futures because it assumes that whatever the trend line is in a in a culture in a civilization that it continues to descend

without anybody doing anything about it at any time right not the public not the politicians not the military nothing it just continues to descend and hits rock bottom, and then they make a movie out of it.

I have a very,

very quick...

It can happen locally?

I have a very quick theory on why that happens, why they do it that way, because most dystopian futures are a warning against authoritarianism.

Well said.

And that's why that's the...

The authoritarians can take it down the toilet.

Right.

And

that's why they're always written that way.

Here's an interesting

thing

that happened in Blade Runner that we're kind of doing today.

All right.

All right.

Do you remember the scene, very tense scene,

where one of the replicants who's trying to pass as human is getting interviewed by someone whose task it is to identify the replicants who are no longer presenting themselves as replicants?

And the replicants are so good that they have to go through a series of questions where they're testing

the dilation of his eyes

his emotional reactions to certain situations.

Oh, yes, yes, psych profile.

Yes, yes, yes.

And there's a point where he's like he can't react in a way a human being would or would be expected to.

My point is today, when people show me stuff written by ChatGPT, I'm analyzing that.

If they don't tell me that, I'm analyzing it for, is there a human emotion in here that's authentic?

Or is this replicated by something that thinks it can be human?

I'm doing the same thing.

Right, yeah.

You are conducting the Turing test in real time.

But a better, yeah, a really deeper

discerning version.

Tell me about the Turing test.

Tell everybody.

Turing, a famous guy, right, who helped create computers and so forth.

He...

Alan Turing, yeah.

Yes.

It would be important for us to figure out whether or not a machine has become truly intelligent intelligent by seeing if you can tell the difference between the responses of a machine and the responses of a human being.

Without seeing who's behind the curtain.

Right.

And from there, you develop all the details, right?

The Turing test as a general idea became specific about, for example, the things you were talking about, right, Neil?

Analyzing text or analyzing responses like in Blade Runner.

And so in a sense, it was a predictive strategy to try to figure out whether something is what you think it is or what it is.

not a testimony?

Is there so much intelligence as consciousness?

It depends.

Yeah, I was going to say different versions

if machines are intelligent.

Right.

Does it really make a difference?

Well, that depends on what you think intelligence is.

You're some dumbass people.

And if a computer was dumbass, that wouldn't mean they're not.

That's what I'm saying.

They're not a computer.

We don't.

Exactly.

We don't get rid of dumbass people just because they're stupid.

You know, so why can't we have have stupid computers together?

And by the way, we do have smartphones and dumb phones.

Like we're moving in that direction anyway.

But this is our own bias against what is intelligent and what is not, right?

When we judge a person to be stupid, that person's still very intelligent.

There's intelligence.

That person can adapt.

That person is likely conscious.

That person is likely able to figure out puzzles and so forth.

But we claim that they're stupid because somehow they didn't get a joke that we we told or that we, they couldn't solve a math problem and things like that.

Says the comedian.

Right?

That's the measure.

It's a real comedian.

Turing test now.

Did you laugh at my joke?

Did you laugh at my joke?

Dumb it.

Well, there's an episode of the classic Batman TV show where Robin and Batman try to test whether there's a robot or not.

And what happened was that Batman and Robin told a super funny joke, which that robot was supposed to laugh at.

and since they

that's right they were trying to test whether this was a robot or not right and when the thing did not laugh they ripped his head off and he went

because

Batman just told him a super funny joke and he didn't laugh so we knew that it was a robot so

you are the ultimate test Chuck you and your colleagues about intelligence

about actual consciousness

we don't recommend pulling the heads of audience members that don't laugh at your joke that was the only part of the story I liked

I know something that maybe Charles does not know.

Uh-oh.

You know many things about it.

No, no.

Let me enjoy this moment.

We got competitive.

Turing obviously did not call it the Turing task.

Correct.

Do you know what he called it?

I do not remember.

Did you ever know?

I might have.

He called it.

I'm not intelligent enough.

He called it the imitation game.

Ah.

Hence.

The name of the movie.

The title of the movie.

Which profiled his life.

That's awesome.

With Kira Knightley.

Benedict Cumberbatch.

Benedict Cumberbatch.

Oh, that's a good lineup.

Sherlock Holmes.

You've got to watch this movie.

You ever seen

it?

This is the first I ever heard of it, to be honest.

Dude, you got to get out of here.

Both the touring story and the movie.

I mean, it's an idea that either.

His life story becomes tragic.

Can we give it away?

I'm not.

I've just

been teached him.

I'm teaching him.

Tested.

So where else do we go?

I mean, there were series like historically The Twilight Zone.

Absolutely.

Rod Sterling.

That piqued our interest.

The Outer Limits.

And the outer limits.

And we moved through into more recently the Black Mirror.

Yeah, what's his name?

Charlie...

Booker.

Charlie Booker, who is brilliant.

So just to contrast the two, I think

they both leave you emotionally spent and disturbed at the end.

And they're also both.

If you go to the Twilight Zone in its day and you look at sort of the disturbing stories that it told, and it didn't always have a happy ending.

Yeah.

Is this not the Ray Bradbury kind of school of thought?

I need you to think.

Yes.

And if you look at Rod Serling's comment on his show, he said, look, at the end of the day, we're just selling soap.

All right.

So how do you sell soap in a way that people don't feel offended or whatever?

And he says, if you said it in a fictionalized world where that's clearly not your world,

then you can tell stories of people.

Oh, that's just happening in that world.

And later on, they pause and say, wait a minute, that was me, or that was my friend, or my neighbor, or that's how I behaved.

And so he was a storyteller par excellence in that genre.

And especially, like I said, the disturbing feature of so many of those.

And you fast-forward to Black Mirror, which has an authentic science fiction future

foundation to it.

Yes.

But highlight what that future is, because some people might not know.

The future is this.

Black Mirror is a Netflix.

I believe it's a Netflix.

It's third season, the fourth season.

The future is highly

technologically driven.

It's driven, everything is driven by technology.

But the stories are about how we respond to the technological advancements.

It's really never about the technology itself.

Very good.

It's always about our human nature and how it is affected by the technology.

And one thing that they do, which is just only a little out of reach in our imaginings is in that future, which prevails in almost all episodes, because they share the same universe, right?

Like the news that's on the TV is the same news

casters that you see in multiple.

So they're in the same world.

What they all have in common is that the human mind is accessible

in the way hard drives are accessible.

Exactly.

And often mesh in the way...

Right, right.

The way hard drives are accessible.

So if you're connected into someone's head, rewind an event, experience what they saw, see what they see through their eyes, pull it back out, manipulate it,

that's a whole frontier of storytelling that's been unplumbed.

But when you think about it,

it's a frontier of storytelling, but it is also

a different facet of reality because the way you experience something, even though we experience the exact same thing, is totally different from the way I experience it.

And so what he does is he blurs the lines between individual realities, collective realities, and a technologically measured reality,

which is brilliant because I can look around this room and I'm seeing everything as it is seen through my

filter, but I'm also seeing it through human eyes as opposed to like the eyes of, you know, an eagle or an owl.

I'm also.

Or Geordie.

Or jordy right looking where i was next where i was going but what i can't do is see it through the eyes of like an infrared meter you know so all those realities exist at the same time though and that's what makes them so brilliant i love so the idea that you can download your brain and put it on a computer everyone's talking about that yeah black mirror makes it real yeah and it's scary when you see it scary

and you see the nefarious ways people

well the way they'll manipulate it in the way that really explores the darker side of our human nature one of my favorite episodes is there's a guy and he thinks that um he's been in some kind of accident and he's in a log cabin and another guy shows up and he's just like hey man and he's like kind of nursing him back to health he thinks he's been injured and then he gets him to admit that he murdered his family or some some crazy thing that he did.

Wow.

Only to find out that he was in a simulation and he was under interrogation by the police.

Oh, wow.

And then what they did afterwards was they punished him by leaving him in the simulation for a simulated hundred years.

Oh my goodness.

So that he would come out of his prison sentence thinking that he had been

in prison for 100 years when really he had only been in prison for whatever the time dilation mentally was for him.

Maybe it had been a year, but he would think he served 100 years.

So do we we all think this is our future?

No.

Well, it has a possibility.

Why, why?

It feels real enough.

It feels like we're headed there.

The reason I don't think this thing will work is simply because we are assuming that intelligence and perceptions and so forth can be so fully controlled that we can't tell the difference between a reality and what is not real.

We already know that our brains can be fooled.

We already know that.

So technology is not not going to change anything in that respect unless we allow it to happen.

And so I don't think that adding technology here, never mind the idea of whether or not our intelligence is actually digitizable, right?

If it's a quantum situation, then you can never pass qubits and digitize is something called a no-cloning theorem that makes that very difficult.

So you wind up with a circumstance that you...

I was going to say, now you got to stop.

You got to stop, man.

You got to bring it back to the no-cloning cloning theorem.

Because

you can't just walk past that, walk by and just like drop that down.

Just like, oh, here's the no cloning theorem.

Boom.

Moving on.

Well, okay.

The no cloning theorem is just one of many different pieces of quantum computing, sort of like the laws of quantum computing the same way that Isimoff had laws of robotics.

This particular one, the no-cloning theorem, means that if you have a quantum bit of information, you can't just make as many copies of it as you'd like.

You can't make copies.

So like us, we can digitize a photograph, taking little pixels, and then make each pixel exactly the same as another pixel on a hard drive or a USB stick or something, and then you get an exact copy of the previous picture.

Absolutely.

No cloning theorem says that for quantum information, you can't do that.

So anytime you have some quantum...

Why wouldn't you be able to do that with a qubit as opposed to bits and bytes, which we're able to do?

As soon as you read a qubit,

it is destroyed.

That makes sense, because it existed in a superposition to begin with.

Yes.

Right.

So the moment that you actually realize the superposition, all other positions are made null and void at that particular instance.

That's a great way to describe it.

So you take

it.

Tam Chuck.

Give that man a degree.

Can you only capture a freeze frame?

of that, your consciousness at a certain time because if you were to do it five minutes afterwards, it would potentially be different.

That is one consequence of this no-cloning idea.

You can know what you are this very moment,

but you cannot know what is the next moment because the moment after that, the moment after that.

Oh my God.

That's right.

This is why this show is so goddamn great.

Stop.

Don't you understand?

This is science.

This is what this is so awesome.

Why'd you make he blew a gasket?

I'm sorry.

Sorry,

just unplugging.

All right, so if we're thinking about

our future, if we're thinking about getting

on and thinking about 50, 100, so many years in advance,

what you describe in Starry Messenger is the exponential growth of our lives, our inventions, our ideas.

And our understandings, yes.

Right.

And then you sort of frame it in a 30-year gap.

Yes.

I'm just wondering.

And we'll return to exponential growth because I need to know how far away we are from being vertical on the graph.

But if you took someone from 1995 and brought them to 2025,

would they be completely out of sorts with the way we are today?

Yeah, let me tell you why that is definitely the case.

All right.

Okay.

They would not know how to function.

All right.

Little things, like you sit them at a restaurant and say, where's the menu?

Oh, here's the QR code.

They'll have no idea what that is or what it means or what it, but

they don't don't know what social media is They they barely they barely lucky them.

They barely have

an email address because those were on the rise beginning in the 1990s for the general public the the idea that you would have self-driving electric cars just on the road with no driver you walk around LA these cars are just all over the place.

Okay, and what role the smartphone has played in our lives beginning from 2007 onward yeah the idea that you can walk and talk to someone with something smaller smaller than the size of a pack of cigarettes to someone on the Riviera in...

Where's the Riviera in France?

French France.

French.

So, what I'm describing is how the way we currently live and take it for granted would be wholly foreign and exotic and unfamiliar to someone transported from 1995.

Respectfully and with love, I disagree completely.

Because of 95 to 2025 or just in general, a 30-year interval?

No, it's specifically for 1995 to 2025 because we had Star Trek.

We already saw what could be.

We have Jules Verne.

We had H.G.

Wells.

We had Lucian from the second century A.D.

Lucian.

Yes.

He wrote.

I love Lucian.

Well, I do, actually.

But he was...

He was a guy from sort of the Greek area of the world, which at that time was fertile with culture and imagination and so forth.

About when was it?

About the second century AD.

Oh, you know who else was the second century?

I don't know if they had a Ptolemy.

Ptolemy.

Okay.

He wrote I'm a guest.

I do not think he was a coincidence.

That's that.

Because that's a period of time.

Laying out the universal.

These people that Charles has named there.

They're historic.

Yes.

Lucian is not the name.

That's the name of the...

Lucian is the name of the person who wrote, is credited with writing a science fiction novel called A True Story.

Wow.

Yes, voyagers are on a boat and they are caught in a storm and they wind up on the moon.

And at the moon, there are creatures who don't look like humans, but they're engaged in a great war.

These are the kinds of things.

That Greeks want to be.

So clearly other people would be fighting as well.

These are the kinds of things that have been imagined for a long, long time.

And I don't think that anyone in 95 showing up in 2025 would go, oh my gosh, people are talking to a box.

And they'll say, oh, wait, that happened in Star Trek.

Okay, how does this work?

And they just tap, tap, tap.

And because everything was built for humans by humans, they would be able to adapt to the world.

Almost by aliens.

Right, right, right.

Almost immediately because of the commonalities of humans from 1995 to 2025.

Okay, so now let's take it back to, and let's forget second century AD, which is a time of enlightenment.

Yes.

Let's go to a time of darkness.

Uh-oh.

All right.

So

now?

let's go to the middle ages you know what i mean we're dark ages yeah dark ages not the middle ages the dark ages where we go where we're consumed by superstition

and everything is squelched in terms of any enlightenment with those people transported to today

oh and by the way just to be clear

or would everything be witchcraft chuck just to be clear in the book I localized it to the era of the Industrial Revolution, where you can fully expect that inventions will change how you live.

There was a period where no one expected their great-great-grandchildren to be living any differently than they did.

Absolutely.

So I don't know that you can go that far back.

You can't go that far that you can't say that.

No, you can.

You can.

I'll say that.

Because, first of all, we should understand that Dark Ages was a term coined by European historians.

True.

In fact, historians who claim that Rome fell in the year AD 476 did not take into account what we know to be true, that other people ran that area known as the Roman Empire in many different ways for centuries thereafter.

And then there was the Holy Roman Empire that happened starting in 800 with Charlemagne.

Meanwhile, there's an Eastern Empire that was based at Constantinople.

But it's a mission of Orthodox.

That's right.

All of that concept.

And by the way, Rome's still here today.

That's right.

I was there this summer.

It was a beautiful place.

It was very hot.

It's still happening.

Right.

So, our sense of what history is

also makes us think about predicting the past.

What has been framed for us as the Dark Ages was actually a period of great innovation, and people were thinking about a lot of things, but not necessarily in Europe.

In the Arabic-speaking world,

things like algebra were being created, things like mathematics.

Yes, Chuck.

You can't be talking about what brown people did.

Okay.

It doesn't count if it didn't happen in Europe.

You're making my point exactly.

Sure words were never spoken.

And see, this is the point.

That's why you'll be telling me there were pyramids in Africa.

Right.

Right.

I mean, surely no Egyptian people could ever have made these.

It must have been done by aliens because, what, Egyptians aren't as smart as people who look like Europeans and they couldn't do geometry.

This is a very, very

inappropriate way of looking at history.

You know, one of the best feelings in the world is seeing your child excited about going back to school.

And that's when you know they've had some pretty doggone good teachers.

As Back to School gets underway, this is the best time to learn more about how to get involved in your child's school, team up with their teachers, and make sure everyone has what they need to succeed.

The National Education Association is made up of 3 million educators and allies across the country, dedicated to giving every student access to great public education.

Parents and teachers are a team, working together to make sure our students have the resources they need to succeed.

No matter where we live or who we are, our public schools are a place our kids can feel safe, supported, and ready to thrive.

Every child belongs in a great public school.

From big cities to rural towns, public schools belong to us all.

Learn how you can get involved in your public school community at NEA.org/slash back to school.

Gecko, I just love being able to file a claim in under two minutes with the Geico app.

Could you sign it?

Sign what?

The app?

Yes, sure.

Oh, it rubbed off the screen when I touched it.

Could you sign it again?

Anything to help, I suppose.

Get more than just savings.

Get more with Geico.

I'm going to put you on, nephew.

I don't.

Welcome to McDonald's.

Can I take your order?

Miss, I've been hitting up McDonald's for years.

Now it's back.

We need snack raps.

What's a snack rap?

It's the return of something great.

Snackrap is back.

So if we use the imagination of these authors, these filmmakers,

and then we kind of replicate some of the things that they came up with, so we follow, we have sliding doors, we first saw them in Star Trek.

I first saw them in Star Trek.

Yeah, okay, so the thing is, are they shaping the future from their position in the past?

Oh.

And we follow that.

Great idea.

Great point.

That's a lot of fun.

Are you asking,

if we never saw sliding doors as a future feature,

would it have been pursued and would we be trying to open the grocery store door holding our backs?

That's right.

Great question.

Here's my thought on this.

We make predictions all the time.

Probably there are a thousand predictions about the future that are in the literature or just around on newspapers or even written down by people from 100 years ago.

As Yogi Berra said, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

But if you make a thousand predictions, one of them will come true.

And we're looking backwards.

You cherry-pick the future.

Yes, and if the future shows up with sliding doors, you go back and go, hey, remember that?

Like, we don't talk about anybody who predicted doors would go up and down or that doors would squirrel out, but they exist, you know?

So somebody probably did that, even though Star Trek as a show itself didn't have doors that swirled out.

There are ways to do this that we have all thought of.

They just didn't dominate our society for whatever reason.

Okay.

All right, let's go to your 2050 predictions from Starry Messenger.

Yes, okay.

No, no, by the way, I put in my predictions so that in 2050, people can make fun of me.

But we're going to do it right now.

As I highlighted it, we're not waiting for it.

Everybody else's waiting till then.

Exactly.

Everybody else's wrong predictions.

Just quickly, to put this in context, in the book I describe, a prediction in 1900 made for the year 2000.

And in the year 1900, steamships were setting records across the ocean.

Railroads crossed the continents.

And so in this for the year 2000, they had a steamship coming out of the ocean with railroad

wheels flip down, it goes straight onto a railroad track.

It's a turn to a railroad track and then continues on land.

Worst transformer ever.

Oh, yeah.

So, this was and another one.

That's just linear thinking again.

This linear thinking.

It's another one.

Also, how are people getting around through lighter-than-air

balloons, dirigibles, blimps, this sort of thing?

So, they imagine in the year 2000, everyone would have their own personal balloons.

So, there are these balloons that wrap under your, in your armpit, and you you have two.

And so it shows them sort of walking on water, kept buoyant by

these balloons.

Marvelous.

And it's like, okay.

Because

that's the extent of their imagination couldn't go much farther than what

was available.

It's amazing.

All right.

One of your predictions.

The space program becomes a space industry.

Already happened.

Funded not by taxpayers' dollars, but by space tourism and other projects.

That part didn't happen.

Well, it's not 2050 yet.

Now, okay.

Dude.

Well, that's it.

What do you think about that?

Prices are not going to drop low enough for people to want to go into space just for the heck of it.

Not for 30 years?

Not for 30 years.

Unfortunately, you're watching the prices now extrapolating outward into the future.

You just don't see that pattern happening because right now what's happening is that space is still controlled by

governments that are willing to subsidize private corporations.

Once those subsidies are over.

The country on Earth have the same equity in the space.

You would hope so.

But at the moment,

as with any other parts of the world,

the dawn of flight, it was very expensive.

Very few people were on a plane.

If you flew on a plane, that was like the news of the cocktail party that you attended.

And then now everybody can fly because the plane, we figured out how to make it cheap.

The plane was and always was from the very beginning in 1903 a private enterprise activity.

Space has since its beginning been a governmental activity.

Okay, that's missing some information.

So the rapid development of flight between 19, call it 10 and 19

was funded by World War I.

Well, yes, so you had government investments in...

And in the advancement of aviation.

An advancement of aviation.

And the government wanted to deliver mail by plane.

Right.

The birth of airmail.

And so the government said, we're going to give a contract to whoever can outbid whoever else.

And you do it and you win the contract.

I said, I want the contract.

So I make my plane better because I can carry more for the same amount of money that yours does.

Now I win the contract back from you.

And this continues until somebody says, hey,

instead of sacks of mail, I can carry sacks of people.

And then I can, that was the birth of commercial aviation driven by the government's interest in you making a better airplane.

But it made money.

And when we tried to do that with the space shuttle, we didn't make money.

So

until money is made, that track will not stop.

And your sentence had the word until in it.

Fine.

I'm saying by 2050, the until will happen within there.

I do not think so.

Okay, that's what it is.

So here's what I think.

In response to both of you, what's going to happen is there's a lot of money floating around in space.

And it's what, really?

Where?

you and me you gotta know yeah let's go let's go this afternoon yeah i looked in the wrong place and it's in mining and if we can mine what's out there instead of destroying the earth to bring back all these precious rare earths that well they wouldn't be rare earths rare space spice rare space yeah if we can bring that back what happens is to get there it's going to propel the advancement so fast like a gold rush like a gold rush yeah people are going to go so crazy so fast to get out there and get that money that space tourism will be a natural byproduct.

Byproduct.

That's what I'm saying.

So not the target, but the bye-bye product.

Not the target.

It happens so often.

I want to read to you.

We don't have time for this, but I'm going to do it anyway.

I want to read to you a letter that I own.

All right.

Written December 19th, 1918.

Oh.

Oh, I think I know what this will be.

I didn't know you were that old.

This is to Mr.

Alan Hawley, president of the Aero Club of America.

Then I know who wrote this.

Madison Avenue.

Dear Mr.

Hawley, many thanks for your very nice telegram remembering the 15th anniversary of our first flight at Kitty Hawk.

Whoa.

Although Wilbur, as well as myself,

would have preferred to see the aeroplane developed more along peaceful peaceful lines, yet I believe that its use in this great war will give encouragement for its use in other ways.

Signed sincerely yours, Orville Orville.

Yeah.

Look at that.

And in war, take the high ground.

And they took it to another level, pun intended.

Right, let's take another look.

Self-driving electric cars, you go there, and I don't think that's.

That's in there.

Yeah, yeah.

That's not a limb that's going to be breaking.

That's a good thing.

Well, no, there are people who who say that it'll never happen or whatever.

People like driving.

And we already have HOV lanes.

If you say you can only go in that if it's a self-driving car, and the self-driving cars are going 120 miles an hour, three car lengths between each other, because they have instant reflexes and they're not putting on makeup and they're not texting and they're not.

If they could, and they still

have cars being made right now that don't have steering wheels.

So we are going to live in a self-driving car.

Faster than most people agree.

Do you agree or not?

I think that self-driving vehicles will be as prevalent as public transportation is to be good.

There will still be private transportation for which drivers will still be able to get away from the power.

Absolutely.

And listen, you'll drive on the back roads and stuff like that.

You'll be able to drive your car, okay?

But one.

Wait, wait, wait.

At some point, they'll become like horses.

Yeah, okay.

You can still ride your horse.

Your horse is at the stables.

Right.

You go get your horse and you ride.

So now your car, your car is at the

garage, that's a trash.

No, it's a special place where people are.

But that's what I mean, back roads.

They still want to drive their car.

They go there and they drive their car.

Here's when it's going to happen: at some point, you have to make the cars talk to one another and the road itself talk to the car.

Small cars.

And

at that point, you won't be allowed to drive on the road.

You want to switch lanes.

It tells the other cars, I switch your lanes, and they open up for it.

Half all the accidents happen that way.

But then you don't see who's in your blind spot.

But building that infrastructure into the highways and byways is going to be so expensive.

Dude, we went from horse-drawn buggies in 1905 to you couldn't give away a horse in 1915 with gas stations and paved roads for automobile tires.

And that happened in 10 years.

I don't know if you've noticed lately, but things are a bit more expensive.

Yes.

And there are still millions of square miles.

The side of science.

What?

The side of science.

There are still millions of square miles of North America where there isn't high-speed internet.

So you got to remember that these are very regional solutions right now.

We can extrapolate on what's going to happen in New York City, but that driving from Laramie, Wyoming to Fargo, North Dakota is not likely to be the same as driving from

L.A.

Sunset Boulevard.

Many of those farmers still had horse-drawn tractors.

Yes.

But I'm talking about...

We're talking about the entire world.

You're going to have

the Eisenhower freeway system, highway system in the United States.

Right.

It's going to be limited to certain areas.

I'm afraid

neuroscience will advance so far we understand the human minds well enough that mental illness will be cured.

You've also gone into developing antiviral serum and cures cancer.

Do you feel that?

Yes, I saw some cancers.

Yes.

Absolutely.

So with the neuroscience, which is still kind of in its infancy, so I have very high expectations for it.

Psychologists hate it when I say this, but I mean it with love.

That to me, psychology is to neuroscience what alchemy is to chemistry.

How can you mean that with love?

I'm like, hey, listen, I like what you're doing, but one day you're just out of work.

Okay.

I just know this.

There you are.

You got someone on the couch and you, for months and months and months, trying to cure their illness.

The neuroscience has said, where is it?

Oh, it's a nip-tuck right here.

There's a neurosynaptic thing there.

And they nip and tuck, and you're done and you're out, and no one is on the street crazy.

There's no insane asylums.

Is is this where we get to implants that that just bypasses yeah that's a great point

i don't i i don't i don't know if it's surgery or implants or that are removable then you go back to your original right so let's look at ai let's look at the influence ai will have in the world of medicine is this now us getting to a more vertical line on on the exponential

line always looks vertical yeah when you're at that end of the exponential it always looks vertical to you like all the advances happened just in recent years but i want to get to the to the ai point to the extent that can help with medicines i think one of my predictions was we have medicines that this is not some new prediction.

I'm just echoing what's already been floating around, but I'm putting a timestamp on it, that medicine will be tuned to your genetic profile so that there are zero side effects.

Yes, you did make that.

Yes.

And

if we know your, why is it that you break out in hives and you don't, ingesting the same chemical, there's something different about your genetic profile or your hormonal profile.

We will know that, understand it, so that side effects will be a thing of the past.

That's one of the predictions.

You do make that prediction.

I'll get it.

Okay.

It's in that.

Yes.

I think what will happen is that we'll be able to control behaviors very well by 2050.

Right.

But we still won't be able to cure the diseases by 2050.

There's a lot to do.

You think eventually, just not by 2050?

Yes.

Okay.

It's an issue of when.

We are able now technologically.

Did you say when?

No, I said when.

Good, thank you.

Do you say huh?

It depends if I'm speaking to hui huiten or not.

Yes.

And I never like,

in a quarter century, we'll be able to help everybody who have behavioral problems solve their behaviors.

But that doesn't necessarily mean we'll have solved their diseases.

And that is what I would like to see.

That means they'll be living with the disease controlled by some medication or implant rather than have it removed from them entirely.

That's my opinion.

Is it safe to say that going forward into the future that changes will happen even quicker?

That is the nature of being on an exponential.

That's my point.

Yeah.

That there's no doubt.

If you look at the pace of patents, the pace of research papers, the doubling times,

which is how you know you're on an exponential,

they've been consistent over the decades.

So what that means is in a few years, there'll be double the number of research papers on a subject in a field than has appeared up until that point.

That's how you know you're on an exponential.

And the caveat is sometimes the exponentials turn over.

There's a period of exponential growth followed by a leveling off.

For example, the human population.

Thomas Malthus, a couple hundred years ago, predicted that if you use exponential growth, soon there will be so many people in the world that there will be not enough food production ever.

But now we know that our predictions, and here's one that we could test in 30 years.

30 years from now, the exponential growth of the human population will turn over.

We're going to top out worldwide around 10 billion

and stocks.

Yeah, but that's

going to actually start falling,

as it has in many places.

People have already made those.

You put a cart in front of a horse there.

Oh.

Okay.

Malthus is wrong, not because our exponential growth of the population will level off at 10 billion.

He's wrong because we applied science to farming so that now we are producing more food on less land with fewer farmers than ever before.

That's why he was wrong.

He did not imagine that farm production would ever become more efficient or more voluminous than it was at the time.

And he was just doing a linear extrapolation against the population of the planet.

We are awash in food.

Anyone who is starving in the world.

How much of our food goes to wash?

A third of it or something.

I saw the numbers.

So anyone who's starving, it's not because the world doesn't have food to feed them.

There's some geopolitical circumstance that prevents it.

So nobody likes my predictions?

No, no, no, no.

These are the predictions.

Last time I agree.

I credit you for being brave enough to step there.

Yeah, and I even got some critiques in the moment.

Give me each of you one final prediction about something that you would like us to know about.

See, so here's my prediction for it's going to go.

Don't confuse what you want to be true from what will likely be true.

this is my honest assessment not my desire good okay that we are at a global tipping point with respect to democracy globally and it's either going to be that people want to govern themselves through democratic processes or

that we're all so asleep

that uh we descend into authoritarianism worldwide and if we do getting back is going to take so many generations.

None of us will be here to see it.

Gary, a prediction.

That we find the desire to fully engage with climate change because the knock-on effect has influence on so many global societies.

We're suffering from climate migration.

We're suffering from rising sea levels.

And if we can bring the desire to challenge and tackle that positively, I think that will be something we can all look to as the positive steps.

I wonder if you're right.

So do I, but I'm not sure that we will.

I'm not sure what it is.

I hope we find a design.

That'd be great.

By the way, a little-known fact, because I only realized this months ago when I first saw Steven Spielberg's movie AI

from the 1990s.

There's an entire sustained scene underwater.

Yeah.

And you go underwater and there's a Statue of Liberty completely submerged.

Yes.

So they already took...

climate change

to the limit at the time that movie was supposed to take place.

And that was just a side fact because the real movie was about the AI that they were creating.

So cool, man.

Yeah.

But once again, it's take it to the extreme extreme to make the example to make you think we don't

create the future that they invented for you.

Yeah, all right.

What's your best prediction?

That within 25 years, there will be a professional sport played in orbit.

Whoa!

Satellite shooting.

Shoot down satellites.

Look at that.

Spaceballs.

There you go.

Spaceball.

I like that.

Yes.

Because, you know, Chuck is our geek and chief when we talk about sports, too.

Oh, yeah.

So when that happens,

this will be the first thing you do.

We'll do it.

After you can do an episode on your own podcast, the Luniverse first.

I appreciate that.

Thank you so much.

All right, we got to wrap this up.

Dude, I enjoyed this topic.

This is awesome.

And you come up with these cool topics for Special Edition.

This is great.

Yeah, I have time on my hands.

All right, dude.

Charles, Chuck, Gary, thanks for inviting me.

Pleasure.

This has been Star Talk Special Edition.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, as always, bidding you

keep looking up.

At Sutter, caring for women of all ages never stops.

because we know women have unique needs when it comes to health care.

That's why our team of OBs and nurses are committed to building long-term relationships for lifelong care.

From prenatal support to post-menopause guidance, we're here for every woman at every stage of her life.

A whole team on your team, Sutter Health.

Learn more at Sutterhealth.org slash women's health.

This is Marshawn Lynch.

You and I make decisions every day, but on Prize Picks, being right can get you paid.

So I'm here to make sure you don't miss any of the action this football season.

With Prize Picks, it's good to be right.

Download the Prize Pecks app today and use code Pandora to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

That's code Pandora to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

Prize picks, it's good to be right.

Must be present in certain states, visit prizepicks.com for restrictions and details.