Carl Sagan, the moon landing, and humanism

This week we celebrate the moon landing, on that July 20th of 1969, when Neal Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon. The fact that Neal Armstrong passed away last year makes this the first anniversary celebrated without one of the protagonists. This was widely highlighted in the social medias, and indeed is a cause of pause, especially because no other human being has been on the Moon since 1972.

The anniversary made me go back to the writings of Carl Sagan. In particular, a chapter of Pale Blue Dot entitled The triumph of Apollo. In his elegant language, Sagan goes through the meaning of the landing, in social and scientific values. But one passage in particular caught my attention:

The image says: "For me, the most ironic token of that moment in history is the plaque signed by President Nixon that Apollo 11 took to the Moon. It reads: 'We came in peace for all mankind.' As the United States was dropping 7 and a half megatons of conventional explosives on small nations in Southeast Asia, we congratulated ourselves on our humanity: We would harm no one on a lifeless rock"

It is a common view, even among scientists, that scientists should stay in their niches and avoid talking about social issues, or whatever falls beyond the boundaries of their narrow range of specialty. Carl Sagan is the author of mighty writing in science. Yet, he never shied away from debating social issues, always in a keen, sharp, well-informed, and well-thought way.

This problem is in fact the political equivalent of scientific illiteracy. The vast majority of people in the world are scientific illiterates, living in a world whose natural laws they do not comprehend, and using the technological advances of science as if they were tools of magic. Political illiterates are similarly blind, condemned to live their lives within societies they do not comprehend, and thus with little (if not nonexistent) capacity to make them better.

In our days where the number of scientists has soared beyond the available number of jobs, and the intense competition has been driving several bright young researchers out of the profession, it is becoming rarer to see scientists devoting significant amounts of their time to think and talk about social issues. Which is a pity, because given the education that scientists receive and the milieu they live, we are often well-qualified to voice social opinions. I'm not talking about the 10 years of higher education, which is mostly technical. I'm talking about how this education is often immersed in a humanist worldview. Scientists travel a lot, not only for conferences, but also for living. Especially in Europe, the majority of scientists has spent a significant portion of their lives living abroad. The reason is because the number of scientists in a specific field is limited, so we simply cannot afford to be local. Living in another country is one of the best ways to overcome maladies such as indoctrinations from one's culture, and prejudices toward another. We get the best sensitivity training of all, which is real life in other cultures. This experience, traditionally limited to business expats and diplomats, has become the norm in many subfields of the scientific community. Coupled with the fact that we are not representing the government of our countries of origin, the scientist's experience is made even more international, in the sense that it is without borders, and thus, more human. In fact, the majority of scientists will agree that they find international politics often depressingly tribal, and nationalism a dangerous and meritless idea. The scientific experience tends to shape us into humanists.

Examples of scientists meddling in political discussions abound. I will allow myself three heavy-weight examples. Charles Darwin spoke strongly against slavery, against the concept of human "races", and against ill-treatment of native peoples. Einstein's "How I see the world" dispells the stereotype of the scientist as detached from reality, and reveals a man deeply concerned with social and political issues. Another example is Niels Bohr, the father of modern physics, and his open letter to the United Nations. Going back further through the centuries, one increasingly sees men of science concerned about the pressing sociopolitical problems of their times. Franklin, Lavoisier, Bruno, Brahe, Galileo, were all men that challenged the status quo, not only through their science, but at times through issues completely orthogonal to it.

The reason why scientists tend to be overly interested in politics is hazy. Some say that because they tend to be the brightest minds of their times, they find being governed by inferior intellects an exasperating experience. While this applies to some supreme leaders, I find this opinion exceedingly arrogant, since science is only one sphere of human knowledge: knowing how to solve partial differential equations teaches nothing of relevance to peace efforts such as conflict resolution, or the administrative skills required to oversee and manage an economy. Moreover, politicians such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were intellectual giants that I would gladly have followed. But, doubtlessly, scientists have a worldview that is in general conducive to a dissatisfaction with the state of human affairs. In my opinion, this feeling arises in minds connected to the Universe, because, as said by astronaut Edgar Mitchell of Apollo 14:

when on the Moon, you develop an instant global consciousness, a dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. The borders and divisions we set between ourselves look so petty, that you want to grab a politician, drag him there and say "LOOK AT THAT, YOU SON OF A BITCH".

Full cartoon here.

This is the humanism that science inspires.

Recently in Brazil, a right-wing politician and evangelical pastor (who also claims to be a psychologist) challenged, in an interview viewed by millions, the notion that homosexuality has a genetic basis. 

A friend of mine who is a PhD student in genetics at the University of Cambridge responded by making a video himself, detailing the genetic bases of homosexuality, and answering, point by point, the groundless statements of the politician. He uploaded the video to YouTube, and within hours it had gone viral, four hundred thousand views in the first day. The video now counts over a million and a half visualizations. 

He tells that, after the video, he received several messages from Thankful Joes, mostly teenagers and young adults struggling with their sexualities, who had seen the interview of the politician and felt at first troubled by it. Some said they even contemplated suicide, and that his video had given them the rational arguments and resolve to carry on. 

For these and other reasons, scientists, please do get out of your niche. You are enlightened individuals, usually with a very interesting, informed, selfless, and humanist point of view. Do share you views with the world. The world needs it.