Science and Politics

Why Whine about Discussing Science and Politics?

Why, when I (or any blogger) writes a science blog and we comment on political issues (like the recent and incendiary Planetarium Overhead Projector Gambit), do commenters show up whining about how we should be talking about science ONLY and forget this political stuff?

I am puzzled. To take a simple action that people do every day to illustrate how everything can be political, you can’t spit in some places without it being political. You do so and you have the anti-spit faction complaining that such things should be made illegal because they affect the march of progress and mess up the sidewalks. You have the pro-spit faction complaining that barring spitting in public would ruin the rural character of the town (or village or hamlet or big city or whatever place they call home).  For all I know, you could have the Holy Spit faction whining about how spitting should only be done between one man and one woman or in church or behind closed doors or after six hours of prayer or in conjunction with a donation to the church or whatever it is that helps them think that they are the spiritual arbiters of spitting.  And so it goes.  Everybody has an opinion about how everybody else should spit. And it’s all political. All that from something as simple as getting rid of saliva.

When it comes to science, it’s a whole lot more complex. And, science gets political because it’s part of our culture and society.  Science is a way of understanding the natural world. To do science, you have to ask questions about cause and effect, the physics of an event, the processes that cause things to happen in the natural world.  If you’re asking questions about physics, nobody gets too excited because, let’s face it, to paraphrase Barbie Dolls, “physics is haaarddd…”  But, let physics (or any other science) intersect some belief system or political viewpoint, and suddenly science is evil or good or out of touch or elitist or useful or anti-this or anti-that or pro-this or pro-that, or whatever else that our increasingly pluralistic societies want to say about it.

So, to those who bring their fine whines to the science blogs when it comes to politics, I say the following:  deal with it. Science and politics often cannot be separated, and in fact, at times should not be. If you don’t like to talk about politics and science together, talking about science alone is going to limit the conversations quite a bit.  So, stop complaining about how “politics” is sullying science and look at how the two co-exist and accept that sometimes you have to talk about both when it comes to issues of science and society.

How Many Degrees of Separation

from the Big Bang?

Did you ever play the game “Six Degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon”, where you try to find six links between you and the actor (or some other famous person or event)?  It’s always interesting to see how many legitimate links you can find.  For example, I have one degree of separation from walking on the Moon if I count the times I’ve met Apollo astronauts over the years. Or, taking it in another direction, I am two degrees from meeting the president of the United States through one of my relatives. If I think about it long enough, I can probably find links to other famous (or even everyday) people throughout the world due to my work with planetariums and science centers or through the people who have bought my books.

Whats Your Link to the Big Bang?
What's Your Link to the Big Bang?

But, what’s my link to the Big Bang? To the Big Kahuna event that started the expansion of space and time and the evolution of “stuff” that we know of today? Well, aside from the fact that I (and you and everything we know about is part of the universe), it’s kind of fun to simplify it down according to the rules of the game.

For this iteration, let’s look at the materials that make up our bodies–the basic elements.

At that level, I’m one link away (and so are you). How so?  We all have hydrogen in our bodies, and that’s the most abundant element in the universe and the first one created in the Big Bang.  So we go from Big Bang where all the hydrogen was created.

Of course, it’s not a straight-line “transmission” of hydrogen. In other words, we don’t go from hydrogen to humans in one fell swoop. There have to be some intermediate steps. So, we look inside stars, which first formed a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Atoms of hydrogen gas inside those stars were heated to tremendously high temperatures and fused to create helium and carbon and oxygen. And, of course, we have carbon in our bodies and we breathe a mixture of oxygen and other gases to stay alive. So, the action of nuclear furnaces early in the history of the cosmos function at two and possibly three degrees of separation between us and the Big Bang.

But, you still don’t have a straight line from the Big Bang to life.  There are some additional transformative events that give us more degrees of separation from the Big Bang. What are they? In the process of stardeath, new elements are created and spread out to interstellar space. Over time, they combine to create new stars and eventually planets. Earth came about as a result of the deaths of other stars and the subsequent formation of the Sun–which was NOT formed right after the Big Bang, but was born from a mixture of interstellar hydrogen and elements ejected from older stars that WERE formed right after the Big Bang. This makes the Sun a Population l star, as opposed to the first-generation stars which are the so-called Population III stars, and the stars that followed them, which are called Population II.

Somewhere in that complex mixing of old material and new stuff, the chemical complexity was enough to spur the formation of places where life could exist, and where, indeed, life began and evolved.  How many degrees of separation is THAT from the Big Bang?  Astonishingly, it’s probably only five generations from Big Bang to Life.  First, you start with Big Bang and hydrogen. Secondly, you go to the first populations of stars, which created heavier elements and then died and spread their “stuff” out to the cosmos.  Thirdly, you see new generations of stars being born out of a mix of second-generation stuff and first-generation hydrogen.  Then, fourthly, you see at least one (and probably more) planets arise with the ability to support the chemical mixing that encourages the formation of life. That’s four degrees.  Take it two steps further: the evolution of life at degree five, and then on to step six: the evolution of intelligent life forms (who contains elements from earlier links in the chain in their bodies) and who are smart enough to ponder these questions.

Of course, it’s all more complex than what I’ve just described — but remember, I’ve used the skeleton of the Six Degrees Game to construct the separations. You could make it 12 or 200 or 735 or 6,000, and at each level, you’d find astonishing degrees of complexity. It’s almost like a Mandelbrot fractal…

You might think that I’m leading up to the idea that the universe evolved so that intelligent life could come about to ponder such questions. Nope. Not a chance. It’s just one way of seeing how interconnected everything in the universe is, and what some of those connections are.

Exploring Science and the Cosmos

Spam prevention powered by Akismet