Rose Center Anniversary Isaac Asimov Debate: Is Earth Unique?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2010
- Watch the 2020 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate on Alien Life: • 2020 Isaac Asimov Memo...
Join astrophysicist and Hayden Planetarium Director Neil deGrasse Tyson as he hosts and moderates a panel discussion dedicated to the perennial question "Is Earth Unique?" With what we now know about the stars in our galaxy and the planets that orbit them, we can begin to address this question with informed debate.
Panelists are selected for their diverse expertise in geology, biology, chemistry, and physics and for the ways they have applied these fields to address the past, present, and future of planet Earth.
This event is a special Asimov Panel Debate in celebration of the Rose Center's 10th Anniversary. For more information, visit www.amnh.org
2017 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: De-Extinction
• 2017 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?
• 2016 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2015 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Water, Water
• 2015 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2014 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Selling Space
• 2014 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
• 2013 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Faster Than the Speed of Light
• 2012 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Theory of Everything
• 2011 Isaac Asimov Memo...
Rose Center Anniversary Isaac Asimov Debate: Is Earth Unique?
• Rose Center Anniversar...
***
Subscribe to our channel:
ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
Check out our full video catalog:
/ amnhorg
Facebook: naturalhistory
Twitter: / amnh
Tumblr: / amnhnyc
Instagram: / amnh
This video and all media incorporated herein (including text, images, and audio) are the property of the American Museum of Natural History or its licensors, all rights reserved. The Museum has made this video available for your personal, educational use. You may not use this video, or any part of it, for commercial purposes, nor may you reproduce, distribute, publish, prepare derivative works from, or publicly display it without the prior written consent of the Museum.
© American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 
Наука
Sometimes I just want to grab Neil by the collar and shout, "shut the fuck up and quit trying to be a comedian!"
hahaha if he was funnier I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that
Some of the finite details of science can be boring or hard to grasp, but I don't care to be taught it by someone acting like a clown. Especially when his humor is at the 6th grade level. I'm 52 I was brought up on Sagan. He can be dry, but what he said and how he said it, was stellar!
52 and still dominated by neurosis. I could say that it is curious, but it is very common.
I agree to a certain extend. He is not a entertainer nor an actor. Compare to the others he is assumed to be one of the best to present these kinds of events for TV that is. He is also black so he is put there to be a role model for black kids which is very important for future. He is very popular as he is very big, so people instinctively respect and like him. So sometime we must compromise and tolerate imperfections.
The humour aspect is a double edge sword. It either makes it very entertaining such as session about Nothing, which to me, is worth more than a Hollywood blockbuster to me, or it can be very off-putting. These shows are not very popular as most people do not like science despite what may think, so there is not enough budget or intensive to train them properly or get the best producer. People are so used to watching TV who employs the most talented entertainers that we assume anyone appearing on TV must also be a very talented entertainer. There are a lot of doctors, oxford graduates etc who become entertainers because they are talented in that area and it pays much more. They adlib most of the time. But it is getting better. But you have a point as trying to dumb down science to suite idiots for cheap laugh is not going to the science nor the audience any good. So we should talk about science in purely scientific way.
However, his loud voice and bullish attitude is extremely irritating. He intimidates the panel and they cannot finish what they were saying.
Neil's mic is at 10. The 4 panelists also get 10, but have to divide between themselves.
This is a clause in his contract.
Current exoplanet status (from wikipedia):
2111 planets in 1354 planetary systems, including 510 multiple planetary systems, have been confirmed, as of 2 May 2016).[3]
On 2019, the number is now above 4000.
@@hrgwea 4,354 exoplanets as of October 2020
These Asimov debates, and also "The Great Debate" episodes at ASU with Krauss are truly wonderful discussions! I watch/listen to many of these debates in the background at work!
The kids always ask the best questions during the Q&A s while the adults go up and ramble wasting time with an incoherent question.
W
Bro I’m currently doing that now to make the time go faster as well as educate myself 😭😭
I can't stand listening to Krauss. While what he says is intelligent and interesting, his stuttering and horrific speech patterns and the need to try to be funny is so aggravating that I just can't listen to him anymore. His speech just keeps getting worse and worse. Why none of his family or friends don't tell him so he can get help for it is beyond me. It's not like he has a physical problem that cant be fixed. His way of speaking is completely fixable and if you're going to do the talks he does then he needs to fix himself up. Another thing is he has a habit of wanting to be the one talking and will talk right over people. For me, he went from hero to zero.
@@katiekat4457 Who? Krauss isn't on the panel? i went through the names again I didn't find a Krauss I think your on the wrong video.
I love these Asimov debates so thank you for the upload! Keep up the good work!
Great debate. Amazing to see How Scientists argument with each other. How they address the problems, the questions and the possible solutions and the limitation of the knowledge.
The way they all think (the scientific method) was the best part for me.
Great talk. I greatly enjoyed it. And while I agree Tyson's microphone volume was quite a headache, I thought it was bearable enough to enjoy the talk.
This is a wonderful discussion but the audio quality disparity is most unfortunate.
Science. Science. Science. I can't get enough. Keep the uploads coming! I greatly appreciate them.
What I wouldn't give to be able to hear Asimov himself and Sagan speaking at this meeting. Great idea to have these debates in memory of Asimov and his life's work.
Loved this conversation. Science never ceases to amaze me
The audio was horrendous, so glad it has improved over the years.
I wish to live in a world where these kind of debate are daily occurrence and mainstream!
this is one of my favorite asimov debates, they all have very interesting things to say, especially the biogeochemist (wouldnt know how to spell his name and its not in the info) blew my mind!
Paul G. Falkowski - Rutgers University. Very humbling for him to admit time and time again some of the life origination processes that we took for granted actually remain mysteries. And fascinating to think of life logically based on chemistry.
Great panel.
Thanks for sharing.
lovely, more of this please! :)
Blimey these talks are great, thanks very much for the upload!
I like these aswell. Shame Neil's mic is about 5x as loud as that of the others...
I mean, he's the moderator... 🤣
NDT set the mic volumes
A guy near the end suggested we'd find out if we are alone or not in the cosmos before we figure out the chemistry that led to self-replicating molecules like RNA. I think it's possible we could get a message from space in the next decades, or find a world with an oxygen atmosphere, but we can't prove that we are alone in the cosmos.
I didn't think I'd learn much new in such a speculative conversation, but it was nice to see them tick off the things that make life on Earth what it is, as well as factors like the moon, magnetic field and plate tectonics which apparently are not a deal-breaker if a planet doesn't have them.
A fascinating talk. Thanks for sharing.
NDG never needs his mic volume turned up like this. It’s not good for his image. It would also help if he sat with the guys.
It's all about Neil.
42:50 what kind of watch? i seriously can not tell what he said. someone tell me, please.
all in all this was fascinating.
was it so hard to get HD cameras in 2010??
Thanks for sharing love this stuff!
Wow, I learned a lot of good stuff from these talks. Well done. Wish the panel had mics that were as good as Neil's though. And he was awesome as usual!
Any idea who the guy is at 1:31:00 from whom Neil takes a question after telling everybody that the guy created the video about the LHC for the Rose Center? Neil went on for a minute or so about the guy's video but never said his name.
Great discussion, we need more of these out on the net!
Baby baby p
Baby
Pl
P
Pp pppppp
Lparap
Plus lplppppppp ml p
Lpp
Ppppppp
Pp
Po pplpppppppppppp love ppppppp
Baby Baby p po ppp
Baby I'll Pl it baby baby pero I ppl who want the ☕️ of
Ppppp
Baby pp
Pwede po
Pwede pwede ppppppppp
Pwede pwede is a a pre pwede for p
Pp pp ppp
Pppp
Ppplppppl
Pp lpp
Pp a week
Pwede p
Ppp
P
P
Mo p
Pp love 💗 I pp
Baby baby ppm is ppppppp
Ppp polo po and and pppppp
Pwede pwede pwede is pwede a time you can l
Pre is this p
Lopsided pppppp
Baby baby pppppppppp pppppppppp
Ppppppplpppp ml pppppp
Turn Tyson's mic down, way down.
It's ok Dr. Paul :P Being from Louisiana in regards to 36:30 I forgive you ;) . Great work describing redox couples btw, very informative data.
Thank you very much
What happened to the previous debates?
thank you
Brilliant discussion.
wow this is one of the greatest discussion I've heard at these Asimov debates, the discussion is grounded on our current understanding of natural phenomena. However I would argue that there is a selective advantage for eye color and other traits that at the surface appear trivial but are actually artifacts of our evolutionary history
Superb discussion, learned some really great stuff. Only two glaring errors; Venus is hot not because of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere but rather because of the very high air pressure and Earth has a greenhouse effect because it has an atmosphere.
can i ask you an honest question? why did you come to the American Museum of Natural History's youtube page?
Okay I tried to look up Sysiphian, nothing in the online dictionary! But,,, Thanks I learned something new Sisyphus, rolling the stone uphill and losing it near the top! Although it is spelled Sisyphean. gonna try to remember this one! :)
This discussion turned me into a scientist !
Great talk! There should be one of these weekly
Did somebody else remember Milton Waddams from the movie Office Space, as the Copenhagen geology professor talked?
To much bass in DeGrass's mike.
When he raises his voice my speakers spark, and the dog wakes up. Please get a proper sound guy to fix shit like this.
With all due respect, their audio tech is garbage. :)
NDT, AMoNH. hey guys. did ANYBODY record the older Debates? before 2010? could you publish them here on your RUclips channel???? even low-res SMARTPHONE videos might be cool. :) I'm watching them in reverse chronological order and I'm on the 2011 one right now. :) yes, I'm binge watching science stuff. :) have been on a science RUclips video addiction for almost 15 days now. something about the new decade and NewYears etc. got me started. :) I like the Google Talk and The Royal Institution ones along with NDT's stuff as well. :D
As a skeptic, I was disappointed that all the guests and the moderator agreed that Earth was not unique wrt life; when there is at present *no* evidence for extraterrestrial life. As Christopher Hitchens observed, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
this was a fascinating discussion, but it would've been nice to hear what the panel members had to say without his interruptions. in particular, if you want to know if the earth is unique, perhaps donald brownlee, author of "rare earth," might have had a few substantive ideas about the topic. (maybe if neil could chill his own ego a bit)
Excellent, fire the sound person though, jesus. I can barely hear the panel speak and the host is so loud my speakers crackle
great thanks
It's kind of obvious and I'm sure someone has brought it up before but around 47 mins he is talking about how conditions on asteroids should be forming life. Am I just dense or wouldn't the gravitational pull of the Earth and possibly even the Moon be needed or at least extremely helpful in laying down the foundations for life?
I wasn't being sarcastic. Though I will say I prefer the classy Star Trek sideburns that Tyson rocks.
So many good and smart people, very interesting.
Have you watched the video to the end of the discussion (before the Q&A)?
Why is Roger Ebert on the panel?
46:30 it easy or rather it's a stronger case for panspermia
We cannot even do sound equalisation today. And we think ourselves so clever. Tysons microphone is too loud. I switched off after a couple of minutes.
0 dislikes :), i like that. awesome stuff
I amazed that no one adressed the question about the Moon until about1:26:00.
And I'm disappointed that it was laughed away so easily; Would animal (not just microbial) life have been here without it?
Apart from that; Wonderful show ;-)
Show me any historical record genealogy or calendar that is more than 5,000 years old.
Who said there was a "maker"?
I agree about the moon, it needs a bit more explanation, otherwise it's great fun to wonder about life.
Dr Tyson it’s time to reconvene this same panel of experts 10 years later ….🤔
Neil: You've been owned @ 40:09. We still love you man!
magnificent
There are written directives inside of you that are observable so there is a Director just as sure that you were born.
As much as I enjoy Dr. Tyson's lectures, I feel like he was a tad overbearing during this debate. There doesn't seem to be much of a point to having a panel of specialists if the host is going to interrupt with his own opinion every thirty seconds.
It's all about Neil.
You said "conclusion", but completely at odds with the conclusion reached in the video, making it very likely you did not watch the video at all, or at the very least, pay attention.
чё?!! с 2010 года и никто не перевел?!!! где перевод, люди? интересно же!
@hobatu
Gottamit, that's pretty funny.
Tyson turned his own microphone up to hear himself better ? LOLOL.
intressting!
Ha! How amazing we humans are. In this vid only 4 years ago, they are like we have found 400 exoplanets. Now we have over 1800, boom!
I have just wished our planet got more interested in colonising the moon, we should be sending materials and supplies by rocket for use on the moon to build with like dozer, etc
And still zero evidence of life on any of them.
James Ritchie Our planet is proof life exist in space
As of 7/30/2016 there have been 3,310 confirmed exoplanets!
10.10.2021
nice to see no dislikes
@smcam3 Life isn't beginning or evolving the same way it was back in the beginnings of life because the same microbes don't have an environment that is good for evolving. They would get consumed by more advanced life. I forgot the actual source for that, but you can try the TalkOrigins website just to be sure.
Why do sediment layers require a global flood?
Why are you conflating genetic information with (computer) programming?
It's been a while since the thought but: I think I meant that it would be like a blacksmith making bronze. He would know what the ingrediants and procedures are, but he may not know how copper and tin are formed in the earth and what their ultimate role in the ecology in the planet are. He might not understand how the atoms behave - or why they behave. so I guess that life would be crafted without ever being fully understood at it's ultimate core and reality.
@marredsun
They only had 2 hours. . .
The record says the land and seas were teaming with life.
I saw a lecture Dr. Tyson did with Richard Dawkins where they actually talked about the life that was recently discovered in the extreme environments at the bottom of the sea, which, according to them, has given scientists a lot more leeway than they previously thought they had in searching for life on other planets, since these extremophiles can live and thrive in conditions previously thought to be incompatible with life. Anyway, just food for thought. The vid is called The Poetry of Science.
" He is what is all knowing and all powerful regardless of the relative state of matter that is subject to be changed by Him at any time." tell me how you know this mr expert.
How dare he refer to Bon Jovi as heavy metal.
I bet the guy frrom Denmark knows metal
Quite easily, I imagine.
He said not bon jovi
i wish i knew what they're all saying.
okay, so i just want to clarify: you came to the youtube account of a museum, staffed by scientists, to stamp out ignorance?
1:23:00 Wouldn't earth count?
So 2 in 500
The guy talking about "our knowledge about h2o structure and we cannot split it".... is he trying to say "we are unique" or he is trying to say "we are still primitive"?
It’s a discussion and not a conversation.
How do you get rid of the extra 7 billion cubic km of water it would require to submerge the highest mountain ranges as described in Genesis?
You have to love Mr. Mars sandals
Have you ever thought about bringing on a non expert from different communities that may be just as passionate knowledgeable enough and maybe just not had the opportunity to learn formally and obtain a degree? Maybe help close the gap between generations and show our children, yeah, we could have gone that far if we went to school. Get more people involved and interested and I the field to get half of this figured out! Just a thought.
1:17:05 faulty question. We can only measure for life in the immediate area, local to the instruments. We have no tools capable of long distance measurements for life.
The maker of pasta is not made of pasta.
Likewise, your Maker is not made of matter because matter is not able to do anything it is not significantly sequenced to do.
oh geez....now it´s "spirits" involved...
What´s next Unicorns?
0 dislikes. This is good sign.
Not an intellectual, but I would like to ask Neil a question. Here is is. Since everything has a point of origin. Could time have been born, was time ever young, or do the laws of physics etc. Never apply to TIME.' Because time is an absolute certainty
+artfromsaturn nothing is an absolute certainty my friend, space and time are one thing and were both born at the big bang is whats mainly believed atm i think
+artfromsaturn
sound, light. darkness and time, which comes first.
time darkness, sound and light. within a speck of a second vibration was created. this is my theory
Not true. Time had to begin before a single atom could move one ten trillionth of a nanometer. There can be zero movement without time, so when time began is, so far, an unanswerable question, but it was certainly, without doubt, before any expansion took place because there can be no movement of any kind without time.
You have to prove objects made you, without being directed before you can say they did.
You said "Genetic errors never programme anything." So what the hell are you talking about.
And WHY does the depth of sediment layers require a global flood? It doesn't logically follow, you'll have to go into more detail rather than "because they are as much as two miles deep..."
@moneyman10k Lol, ya, I knew the answer as soon as I read the question. Didn't leave much in the way of a surprise.
That is why he said you are listening to them as though they are having a conversation in a bar.
They aren't asserting it without evidence, and every one of them admits only their expectations, and that they do not yet know.
You should look up the Drake Equation.
big bang theory profe from the qur'aan
( أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاء كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ )
(Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and We made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? )
21:30
+Naseem Abunada quick, everyone. Burn your science books and learn the Quran from now on. While you are at it, maybe kill the non believers. :D
nobody told you to burn our scinse books
infact nobody told you believe in this or die
infact I challange you and everyone in the universe
to point at one sinsce fact in the qura'an that condridicts
the sinsce unlike the bible.
so believe what ever thing you want to believe
at the end it's your own destiny but remember
that there is eternal hapinniss or eternal hellfire
so choose your destiny.
nobody told you to burn our scinse books
infact nobody told you believe in this or die
infact I challange you and everyone in the universe
to point at one sinsce fact in the qura'an that condridicts
the sinsce unlike the bible.
so believe what ever thing you want to believe
at the end it's your own destiny but remember
that there is eternal hapinniss or eternal hellfire
so choose your destiny.
+Naseem Abunada I'd rather the hell fire than having to meet Allah, for he/she must be a sick, twisted, perverse, megalomaniac.
Different kinds of something are not related to each other? You actually wrote that. That’s uh…well that’s not very bright.
You seem to have forgotten natural selection. The 'bad' mutations are killed off by natural selection while the good ones thrive. Therefore the populations as a whole becomes better at doing whatever they do over time.
Also, about the sediments, you didn't say why it requires a GLOBAL flood. Why not separate erosion processes? Do you have any references backing up the depth of the sediments?
I love the Mars nerd with the sandals and socks under his Stephen Tylers.