Cosmos Will Get a Sequel • Hacker News Board

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#41

Post by mortenjorck » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 11:21 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #38

Alex3917 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally with Seth Godin when he says that the two elements that make a great presentation are respect and love: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/03/the-two-elem... What makes Carl Sagan so good is that he has an extraordinary amount of love for the audience. It's pretty clear that this stems from his use of empathogenic drugs like cannabis. (Or at least, it would be extremely rare for someone to be…

Or at least, it would be extremely rare for someone to be able to project that much love and empathy for others without the use of psychedelics or empathogens, at least in western society. It's rare with or without drugs, let's be honest. I've known lots of stoners and they didn't seem particularly empathetic. I don't think Mr. Rogers ever smoked weed, and he's the best example other than Sagan of a TV personality th…

That's actually quite an interesting parallel you draw. I never considered Fred Rogers and Carl Sagan in the same thought, but despite being in some ways polar opposites, Sagan being a very liberal, science-minded individual, Rogers being a very conservative, faith-minded individual, they had almost more in common, given that these leanings both stemmed from a deep, gently- and eloquently-expressed love and concern for humanity.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#42

Post by hugh3 » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 11:24 PM UTC

markbao wrote: post #2

Yes. Incredible. With Cosmos, Carl Sagan opened my mind up to the incredible wonders of space and what's out there a few years ago. It's up there with Planet Earth on the scale of seriously remarkable television series. Seeing this continue with none other than Ann Druyan and Steven Soter themselves gets a resounding hell yeah from me. If you haven't watched Cosmos already, I highly, highly suggest it. Start with Epi…

Y'know, I've never actually seen much of Cosmos, but I'd like to put in a plug for my favourite 80s documentary series, David Attenborough's Life On Earth.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#43

Post by mortenjorck » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 11:27 PM UTC

klbarry wrote: post #37

Alex3917 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think Sagan's love for the audience could be the byproduct of the chemicals he used. Here are Sagan's own words about how cannabis use has increased his own love and empathy for others: "The cannabis experience has greatly improved my appreciation for art, a subject which I had never much appreciated before. The understanding of the intent of the artist which I can achieve when high sometimes carries over to…

Interesting. Not that I doubt Sagan's experiences, but I can't say the people I know who smoke cannabis seem any more empathetic than others.

Just as alcohol will make aggressive people more aggressive and friendly people more friendly, cannabis will make aloof people more aloof and empathetic people more empathetic.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#44

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 11:29 PM UTC

bcrescimanno wrote: post #6

frossie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but Neil de Grasse Tyson, fine chap that he is, doesn't have anything like Carl Sagan's charisma.

I'm a huge Sagan fan, and while I agree that Tyson doesn't have quite the same charisma, he does have a charisma of his own. The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul, will the show be able to take the same stance on religion as its original incarnation. Will Tyson be allowed to refer to religion as, "a reassuring fable?" For the sake of the integrity of a successor…

[deleted]

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#45

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 11:30 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #39

drgath wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tyson tweeted out yesterday: "Simple Logic: Worried that FOX viewers don't know, think, or care about science? That's why COSMOS belongs on FOX." It's being written by the same writers (aside from Carl) as the first one, and produced by Seth MacFarlane, someone who doesn't take shit from FOX. Tyson also doesn't seem like a guy who would corrupt his morals, he knows the value of scientific passion. FOX isn't Fox News,…

FOX isn't Fox News, so don't worry too much. I'm not, at least. What people don't realize is that Fox News serves a commercial rather than an ideological agenda. The rest of the news media (especially when Fox News started) has a slightly liberal bias, which means the big business opportunity for Fox was right-wing news. It's not that they have a political agenda, they're just giving people what they want--news cover…

[deleted]

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#46

Post by hugh3 » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 11:32 PM UTC

bcrescimanno wrote: post #6

frossie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but Neil de Grasse Tyson, fine chap that he is, doesn't have anything like Carl Sagan's charisma.

I'm a huge Sagan fan, and while I agree that Tyson doesn't have quite the same charisma, he does have a charisma of his own. The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul, will the show be able to take the same stance on religion as its original incarnation. Will Tyson be allowed to refer to religion as, "a reassuring fable?" For the sake of the integrity of a successor…

The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul

Murdoch is Australian, and conservatism and Christianity don't have nearly as much overlap as they do in America.

I would be extremely surprised if Murdoch himself were anything other than agnostic/atheist.

Incidentally, I've never been sure why anyone ever thought that religion was supposed to be "reassuring". I was raised Catholic, and all I got from religion was the assurance that God was going to torture me for all eternity if I didn't correctly obey a set of impossible, largely contradictory and incredibly vague rules. That's the least fucking reassuring thing you can tell someone.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#47

Post by lightcatcher » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 12:44 AM UTC

sorbus wrote: post #32

geoffry wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you collected all the atoms that made up a person's brain, the most important information is lost. For starters, how would you know how those atoms were configured?

Given sufficiently god-like technology, you could run a simulation of the entire world repeatedly, modifying variables until you get a world with a copy of Sagan who fits exactly all the historical information available with him. Something like this is implied to be happening towards the end of Stross's Accelerando , which I highly recommend (there's a free ebook edition). However, note my use of the term "god-like".…

Quantum randomness. Hate to break it to you, but not happening.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#48

Post by hugh3 » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 12:59 AM UTC

spottiness wrote: post #20

drgath wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Neil is an amazing speaker and educator on science. I'd say the best since Carl Sagan. Like Carl, I'd be willing to sit down and listen to him talk about anything he wanted, for hours and hours, with the same sense of wonder and inspiration. If Carl was a poet, Neil is an orator. Here's a great example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o Sure I'd love to have Carl back to do Cosmos II as well, but u…

I have mixed feelings about Neil. He certainly have the credentials and I like him, although he's never serious enough for me. I just watched the Youtube video that you pointed to, and there he sounds like a religious preacher. I found very weak points in his arguments, easily refutable. I hope that the sequel also targets a sophisticated audience: those of us that loved the original when we were kids and have contin…

To me, Neil always seems like he's talking to children.

This is great for children. But as an adult who already knows 95% of what he's talking about it comes across as a bit grating.

Carl Sagan could tell you what you already knew, and you'd still be happy to hear it, because he'd just remind you how awesome this stuff you already know actually is.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#49

Post by rbanffy » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 1:06 AM UTC

lightcatcher wrote: post #47

sorbus wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given sufficiently god-like technology, you could run a simulation of the entire world repeatedly, modifying variables until you get a world with a copy of Sagan who fits exactly all the historical information available with him. Something like this is implied to be happening towards the end of Stross's Accelerando , which I highly recommend (there's a free ebook edition). However, note my use of the term "god-like".…

Quantum randomness. Hate to break it to you, but not happening.

Is it really random or is it that we don't know how all the rules work?

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#50

Post by mkr-hn » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 1:22 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #39

drgath wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tyson tweeted out yesterday: "Simple Logic: Worried that FOX viewers don't know, think, or care about science? That's why COSMOS belongs on FOX." It's being written by the same writers (aside from Carl) as the first one, and produced by Seth MacFarlane, someone who doesn't take shit from FOX. Tyson also doesn't seem like a guy who would corrupt his morals, he knows the value of scientific passion. FOX isn't Fox News,…

FOX isn't Fox News, so don't worry too much. I'm not, at least. What people don't realize is that Fox News serves a commercial rather than an ideological agenda. The rest of the news media (especially when Fox News started) has a slightly liberal bias, which means the big business opportunity for Fox was right-wing news. It's not that they have a political agenda, they're just giving people what they want--news cover…

Ailes is an advocate for his political views, and business is just the latest way he advances them. Even if he's somehow uninvolved in content direction, Fox News doesn't get a free pass with "it's just business." A lot of destructive things have been done in the name of profit, and poisoning the national discourse is no different.