Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2022

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Preface-Overture

Chapters 1-3

Chapters 4-5

Chapters 6-8

Chapter 9-Coda

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Chapters 4-5Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 4 Summary: “Conflict & Resolution: Tribal Forces within Us All”

Tyson suggests that people are free to disagree in a democracy but questions whether people would prefer a totalitarian society in which disagreement is not allowed. He targets religion and politics as the cause of conflict, including war. Tyson argues that evidence-based thinking, as opposed to groupthink, will result in fewer conflicts and lead to social and scientific progress, such as finding a way to harvest resources from space. Scientists may be able to maintain peace between nations because they share evidence-based thinking patterns. In a hypothetical situation, Tyson suggests that scientists from different nations would continue working peacefully together if their home countries went to war while they were working on the moon. Tyson experienced something similar while serving on a White House commission and working with individuals from Europe, East Asia, and Russia. Although the atmosphere was tense with the Russians at first, the social barriers eroded when they began discussing space exploration: “I felt like I had known every Russian in the room my entire life” (69). The building and maintenance on the International Space Station (ISS) is the second-most expensive act of international cooperation, surpassed only by war. Although tensions were high between the US and USSR in the 1970s, the countries agreed to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1972 and sent astronauts into space in 1975 under the terms that the Russians spoke English and the Americans spoke Russian.

Tyson, a liberal, was commissioned by George W. Bush despite their political differences. While serving, he worked with people across the political spectrum, and they compromised. The experience was “refreshing” and helped reinforce his resolve to think for himself and to reject social labels. He explores four tropes through a scientific perspective. First, he disputes the idea that conservatives prioritize the nuclear family, demonstrating that conservative states have high numbers of divorces and out-of-wedlock births, but also notes that liberal states have high levels of cheating spouses. Thus, neither end of the political spectrum can claim superior family morals. He negates the trope that conservatives are science deniers and that liberals are science supporters: While conservatives often deny climate change and evolution, liberals are associated with supporting belief-related medical practices, such as crystal healing and feather energy, and rejecting GMOs and big-pharma. Both liberals and conservatives are prominent in anti-vaccine movements, and more homeopathic products are now marketed toward conservative markets. In addition, the national science budget has increased more under conservative presidents than under liberal ones. Tyson refutes a third trope—that liberals are socially tolerant while conservatives are not—by examining the history of the political parties, in which these traits were reversed, and by demonstrating that conservatives have made numerous liberal appointments and rulings. Judging humans from afar leads to narrow-minded misconstructions. He further demonstrates this by sharing that his liberal friends reacted negatively when he announced he was to host the show Cosmos on Fox Network, as they assumed that Fox would restrict the show and promote a conservative political agenda. The final trope Tyson addresses is one that paints conservatives as patriots and assumes that liberals want to reform the US into a socialist nation. He counterargues by showing that conservative states benefit from government programs and by arguing that the nation’s wealth is largely dependent on liberal states. Tyson questions whether humans can create a peaceful society, and he points to ComiCon to support the capacity for humans to form a rational and tolerant society.

Chapter 5 Summary: “Risk & Reward: Calculations We Make Daily with Our Own Lives and the Lives of Others”

Humans do not intuitively comprehend statistics—a branch of mathematics that first emerged during the Golden Age of Islam and became more prominent in the 1800s after Carl Friedrich Gauss developed important statistical methods, such as the bell curve. Humans evolved to see patterns and ascribe meaning, which the text elucidates through an example of rustling grass that may be caused by wind or a lion. Those who assumed that a lion caused the rustling and ran away were safe, while those who were curious and risked being eaten to investigate were less lucky. Casinos and lotteries exploit humans’ inability to understand statistics. In 1986, Vegas’s MGM Grand offered to host a gathering for a group of physicists; the physicists, trained in statistics, refused to gamble, and the hotel had its worst financial week ever. Most states run a lottery, which brings in around $100 billion yearly despite the small odds of winning and the fact that winnings are often diluted; however, state lottery earnings are often spent on social programs. Tyson notes that statistics is not regularly taught in schools, suggesting that if citizens were taught statistics, the lottery system would be less profitable. Another example the text cites of the explicit devaluation of science is the lack of a science section in the McCarran Airport bookstore. Tyson hypothesizes that visiting aliens would see how humans exploit each other and decide there was no intelligent life on Earth.

People tend to attach meaning to random events, as demonstrated through a coin-flipping exercise involving 1,000 people in which the winner declares that it was their destiny to win. The stock market works similarly; market outcomes are random, which is why the leading traders fluctuate. Distrust of GMOs is likewise influenced by a lack of statistical understanding. Ben & Jerry’s switched to non-genetically modified organism (non-GMO) corn after trace amounts of glyphosate was found in GMO corn. Tyson compares the lethal level of several substances and finds that the sugar content of the ice cream is some 20 times more lethal than the trace amounts of glyphosate. Studies analyzing cancer risk are similarly misleading, as many interpret increased risk on its own; the increased risk applies to one’s baseline risk. For instance, if a person’s baseline risk for colorectal cancer is 4.3%, and eating grilled meats results in a 15% increased risk of cancer, a person’s total risk becomes 4.9%. Additionally, humans struggle to relate to long-term consequences, such as the negative impacts of smoking cigarettes. He questions whether smokers would continue smoking if, one day, one in eight smokers immediately died while the survivors could smoke consequence-free for the rest of their lives. Tyson asserts that, contrary to popular opinion, cities are safer than suburbs. He then examines how emotions impede statistical thinking; people express outrage at mass violence like 9/11 yet do not express similar alarm at the number of traffic-related deaths. Likewise, people are more willing to accept higher rates of death from hitting deer over the lower risk of death from introducing large predators into the environment. Tyson questions whether legislation should be driven by evidence or emotion. Self-driving cars would likely result in fewer deaths, but people focus on the deaths, rather than lives protected, by self-driving cars. A reference to Gulliver’s Travels in which Gulliver relates to the Yahoos more than the Houyhnhnms complements the discussion on human irrationality. Tyson suggests that people analyze information rationally before responding emotionally.

Chapters 4-5 Analysis

These chapters further develop The Role of Science in Society as a theme through depictions of the consequences of ignoring evidence-based thinking and through suggestions that evidence-based thinking would result in a more ethical society. In the process, the impact of both evolution and ethics becomes a sub-theme. Tyson demonstrates that groupthink and assumptions are evolutionary responses that help humans socialize and survive. Groupthink emerged as a mental social tool that bonded humans together, resulting in better chances of survival. Assumptions and assigning meaning to random occurrences potentially benefit survival, as the rustling grass example illustrates: “Notice who’s rewarded here: those who saw patterns, whether or not they were real, and those who had no curiosity” (88). Multiple facets of society have exploited these evolved traits; for example, political leaders use groupthink to garner support, and casinos and governing bodies capitalize on the public’s lack of statistics understanding by promoting gambling. After demonstrating such unethical attributes of society, Tyson reincorporates The Importance of Evidence-Based Thinking as a theme to suggest that this thinking style may positively impact ethics by creating unity and by educating the public so that citizens can avoid self-destructive behaviors. However, Tyson does note the paradox between education and the lottery:

If instead, probability and statistics were a fundamental part of the K-12 curriculum, taught to every student, across multiple grades, and if state lottery revenue were allocated to make that happen, then the lottery might just put itself out of business by inoculating its own citizens against the lottery itself (93).

The ambiguous ending of this discussion reflects Tyson’s stance that, while evidence-based thinking may enhance society, he is not claiming that it will easily resolve all issues. To make the discourse more relatable, Tyson uses numerous literary devices, including two questioning devices: rhetorical questions and hypophora. Chapter 4 opens with a series of rhetorical questions, or questions posed without expecting an answer. His line of questioning runs as such:

What happens when democracy fails? What happens when we hold no tolerance for views that differ from our own? Do we instead desire a dictatorship in which all views of the land agree with those of the dictator? Do we pine for a system where dissenting views are suppressed, buried, or burned? Do we long for a world where the moral code, our values, and our judgements—all that we believe is right and wrong—are deemed correct and unassailable? (65).

This chain of rhetorical questioning is designed to guide the reader through a reflection process. It becomes more complex by integrating satirical sarcasm and by alluding to the idea that freedom depends on social tolerance. Hypophora is a similar device in which one or more questions are followed by an answer. Tyson employs hypophora when examining the camaraderie between the American and Russian Scientists. He asks, “Didn’t we . . . hate each other? Weren’t we . . . mortal enemies?” and then answers, “Actually, no. The politicians were all that” (69). This example of hypophora also incorporates satirical sarcasm, and the ellipses impact the sound, allowing the reader to, in a sense, hear the satirical tone. Other devices that enhance the text’s creativity and satirical mood include metaphor and allusion. During his discussion on distance and judging, Tyson uses the metaphor of a lawn, which from afar is a patch of green and up close is composed of individual cells. He incorporates another rhetorical question to complete the metaphor by asking, “At what distance will you choose to formulate your opinions and perspectives about the lawn beneath our feet?” (80). This metaphor demonstrates that judgments are often arbitrary. At the end of Chapter 5, Tyson’s uses a direct allusion or reference to Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift. While allusions often assume that the reader is familiar with the external source, Tyson explains the premise of the relevant section of the novel to ensure that readers properly interpret his reference. He agrees with Swift’s satirical comparison between humans and “a hairy, smelly, irrational, species of human-ape called the Yahoos” (107). The allusion serves to shows that he is not alone in his criticism of human irrationality. The use of these literary devices is intended to create a relatable and enjoyable reading experience.