(APPLAUSE) Good evening, and welcome
to this Q&A science special. I'm Tony Jones. Here to answer
your questions tonight, geology professor
Martin Van Kranendonk, who's looking for signs
of ancient life in Australian rocks, celebrated particle physicist,
stargazer and science documentary maker
Brian Cox, astrophysicist, Wiradjuri woman, and science communicator
Kirsten Banks, marine biologist and president
of Science and Technology Australia, Emma Johnston, and atmospheric
and climate scientist David Karoly. Please welcome our panel.
(APPLAUSE) Thank you very much. Q&A is live in eastern Australia
on ABC TV, iview and NewsRadio. Well, there's a universe
of questions. Let's travel at warp speed. The first comes from Bill Bowman. Thank you very much. In terms of preserving
the native flora and fauna, the native plants and animals, Australia has
the dubious distinction of being the worst,
the worst in terms of extinction. How did we earn ourselves
this dubious honour, and what's the implications
to biodiversity of losing such a large range
of our flora and fauna? Martin Van Kranendonk,
I'll start with you. Well, Australia is
a unique continent in many ways, as we all know. And it's actually
a very fragile continent because it's used to
these extremes of climate. And it has been ever since human occupation of Australia
has been known. There have been droughts going back
for hundreds of years, so it's part of the natural cycle. But as we know,
that climate has been shifting, and those extremes
are getting more extreme. And so the flora and fauna
are finding, you know, this extreme stress
that they're under. And one of the things about,
you know, this event that we're actually
living through at the moment is the rate of change. And I think it's been
very well documented, through all different kinds
of measurements, observations, people going out on ships
and measuring the ocean water and the land temperature
and the air and everything, that those changes
are getting more extreme faster and faster and faster. And it's the ability of
the flora and fauna to keep change with
that pace of change that they're struggling. And so because Australia
is such, you know, a very sort of tipping-point
kind of continent, it's almost like
the canary in the coalmine. And we're seeing the effects
of climate change right in our backyard. Now, Martin,
what does ancient history - the ancient history of Australia -
tell us? Because there have been
mass extinctions here before. Will the country simply adapt, or will the extinctions
be worse this time? Well, one of
the extraordinary things from really reading
the rock record - and this is going back millions,
and in my case, billions of years - is you can see these abrupt changes
in the record of life on Earth. And those changes are caused
by extinction events. And the most famous that
you all would have heard about is the famous event when
the dinosaurs went extinct. And that was caused by
a meteorite impact. But, actually,
extinctions comes in all flavours and sizes and shapes, and durations. But it turns out
the most extreme event that wiped out
95% of species on Earth was caused by a thermal maximum. And that's a long time back
in the geological past, but at that time,
there was a huge amount of volcanism that the Earth went through, and... So, we think of the Earth
as this sort of planet that just sort of bubbles along,
but it goes in waves and pulses. And at that time, there was this big pulse
of volcanic gases that belched out CO2,
and it changed the atmosphere. And it changed it so fast that
the species could not keep up, and 95% of all species on Earth
went extinct. Brian, is that the kind of fear
that scientists have now? I mean, we've seen the UN report
on mass extinction. Australia is particularly vulnerable,
according to our questioner. Yeah, and I think that's
the key point, that it's not... I mean, there are
long-term climate cycles, as you said, but
it's the pace of change, I think, is what worries the professionals. And I get the sense,
in the last few years, that the pace has taken people
by surprise. So, it's actually rather worse,
I think, and faster than many of
the climate models have suggested a few years ago. Absolutely. And David is more
of a professional on this than I am, but the IPCC reports
have all been very cautious. They've been based on, you know, the minimums of what
they can confidently say, and as they go through
year after year, past these reports, the changes that they've predicted
have happened faster. OK, we've got to work
our way to David, but I want to hear Kirsten first. What does this mean
to an Indigenous scientist? It's very sad to me. We're losing all of
our flora and fauna. And to think as well
Australians have been here... Indigenous Australians,
Aboriginal Australians, have been here for 65,000 years, and that number is just getting
bigger and bigger and bigger. And we're all about sustainability. We've done very well to preserve
and keep those species alive. And it's just very sad
that it's all going away, without the influence
of Indigenous scientists. We're going to come back and speak
more about that in a little while. Emma, for a marine biologist, it has a different perspective,
I imagine. It does have
a different perspective, and I think the important thing
to remember here is also that the extinction event
happening in Australia has actually started
well before climate change, and it's been mostly
to do with pest species. So, introduction of foxes,
introduction of cats. A lot of changes to habitat,
a lot of clearing, overgrazing. And we persist with
those problems today. So, we've got
climate change layering on top of what was already
a very, very damaged ecosystem. And that's why, unfortunately, we're famous for having
the worst mammal extinction record of any continent on Earth. And what's happening
as the seas warm? So, the seas are different. We've had fewer extinctions
in the oceans, and there are a lot of
different reasons for that. Potentially greater connectivity
in the oceans. Also because we haven't actually changed the habitat
in oceans as much. But we're still looking at
extinctions in the future, and some of those
are related to climate change. For example,
seals that require sea ice to give birth to their pups. Well, in the Arctic, the sea ice is
no longer thick enough to keep the weight of
the mother seal as she births the pup,
so the sea ice breaks. And so there's awful,
awful predictions around the vulnerability of species
that are stuck in these habitats that are changing really,
really rapidly. The coasts, in particular, are being squashed by human activity coming right down
to the edge of the coasts, as we all move towards the coast
and we build on the coast. So, 50% of the shoreline of Sydney Harbour
is already built on. They estimate 50% of the Chinese
entire shoreline is built on. And so you've got
all this construction and loss of habitat. And then you've got sea level rise
coming in the other direction, and increased storms. And so animals like turtles that need to nest
in those shoreline areas, anything that kind of lives
in those coastal areas is really squeezed
and under a lot of pressure. David, could the mass extinction
include humans? Look, there's many aspects... The one advantage that humans have is the capability
of upping and moving, or managing the environment
in which they're living. And, so,
humans have some advantages, but, in fact, humans have also... And I think one of
the critical issues for the mass extinctions
that we're seeing already is the fragmentation of
the natural landscape habitat, because what many of the,
if you like, climate influences are leading to
is a need to move to the environment in which these species have evolved. And that means moving
into a cooler... ..currently cooler environment -
what they were used to before. What that means is either
moving up, vertically, or moving southward,
away from the equator. If you're in Australia
and you're on the southern coast, there's not much land
until you get to Antarctica, and most of the plants
and very few of the animals can actually swim that far. So, we're talking about break-up
of the landscape corridors that would allow movement
of animals, movement of plants, that would allow the connectivity to move southward
into cooler environments. That's a critical factor. For people, we can move. But, certainly,
there's at least one - probably more - climate scientists in Europe
that have said that the long-term sustainable
population of people on the Earth is about 1 billion people in 2100 - not the foreshadowed United Nations
population estimates of about 10 to 12 billion people. That's not good news. No, it's a shocking equation,
actually. Let's go to some of
the reasons for this. The next question is a video. It's from Kurt Niebling
in Rochedale South, Queensland. G'day, panel. My question is in regards to CO2
in the atmosphere. I have conversations
with friends of mine about climate change
and global warming, and one of the questions
that has come up is how CO2 in the atmosphere
allows heat from the sun through, whilst also trapping heat in,
creating the warming effect. Could someone explain the science
behind that, please? OK, David, we'll go back to you,
obviously. Sure. Look, the answer is
relatively easy. I mean, carbon dioxide
is a visibly transparent gas. In other words,
it allows sunlight to pass through. But infra-red radiation,
or long wavelength radiation, is absorbed by carbon dioxide and many, many other
greenhouse gasses, which absorb the infra-red radiation and then reemit that,
both vertically, upwards, but also back down to the surface. That infra-red radiation
is basically heat radiation that's emitted by the surface
of the Earth upwards. When we have lower concentrations
of greenhouse gasses, that infra-red radiation will
penetrate through the atmosphere and go up to space. And we're currently at
much, much higher concentrations, not only of carbon dioxide, but many other
long-lived greenhouse gasses, including methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and their increase in the atmosphere
over the last 100 years have been primarily
due to human activity. Now, David, scientists sometimes -
quite often, in fact - change their mind
due to experimentation. I'll take you back to 1986,
33 years ago, because you were sceptical then
about human-induced global warming, and you began
a series of experiments. What happened? Well, what I was doing was
not so much doing experiments as analysing new data collected
from all around the Earth. And this was...
I was trying to be CSI. But this isn't
Crime Scene Investigators, this is Climate
Scientists Investigating. (LAUGHTER) And so what
I was doing was saying, "Look, I'm going to look
for fingerprints" - the spatial patterns
of temperature change that would be due to increases
in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would be different from
the spatial fingerprints in the vertical structures
of the atmosphere, say, due to increasing
strength of the sun. Because there's a range
of commentators who say, "Well, actually,
the warming we've seen "is just due to a hotter sun." What we know is that if
the sun is getting stronger, it would certainly
warm up the surface, but it would also warm up
the upper atmosphere, where ultraviolet radiation
and sunlight is absorbed by ozone and oxygen. But the influence of carbon dioxide
is to warm up the lower atmosphere, but actually to lead to a cooling
of the upper atmosphere. And I looked for that fingerprint
in temperature data from across the weather stations
in the Southern Hemisphere, and then separately did it
for the Northern Hemisphere. And what I found was, the more we looked,
the stronger was the evidence. And that became, in fact, seen as a fingerprint
that could distinguish between climate change
due to greenhouse gasses and climate change
due to any other cause - natural variability,
sunlight from the sun, climate change due to
an absence of volcanoes. All those could lead
to warming of the surface. But what we found was
there's convincing evidence, and that led to a conclusion
10 years later. So, my first research papers
on climate change were published in 1987 and 1988, first looking at
the Southern Hemisphere and then looking at
the Northern Hemisphere profiles of this, and we found, even then,
30 years ago, more than 90% confidence
that human emissions of greenhouse gases
were causing that warming, as observed over the last 30 years.
OK. There are people who doubt
whether CO2 has the effect that you're talking about. And you've had
one of those on your... True.
The next question is about that. It comes via Skype. It's from Craig Roberts in
Matraville, New South Wales. Craig? Thanks, Tony. Look, I saw the radio commentator
Alan Jones on TV recently, and he said that 0.04% of
the world's atmosphere is CO2. 3% of that, human beings create
around the world, and of that,
1.3% is created by Australians. Alan's words, not mine.
Is that correct? And if it's true, is human activity
really making a difference? So, David, back to you
to explain this, and then we'll hear from
the rest of the panel. Go on. Sure. So, look, Alan Jones is
a very well-known radio commentator, but not everything he says
is factually accurate. He did... When he was on this program,
he prefaced his statements by saying, "I am not a scientist, but..."
Yeah. So, you ARE a scientist.
(LAUGHTER) I AM a climate scientist,
and Alan Jones is wrong. And the reason he's wrong is that,
we know that, yes, the greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere - essentially the carbon dioxide
concentration now - is 400 parts per million. And this was the one thing
he was reasonably accurate on - that that corresponds to... About 0.04% of the whole
of the atmosphere is made up of carbon dioxide. All his other numbers were wrong. Because we know that
that carbon dioxide concentration, 100 years ago, was about
280 parts per million, or 0.028%. But it's gone from
280 parts per million to 400 parts per million. It's grown 120 parts per million,
or about 40%, and that 40% increase
is due to human activity. We know that for absolute certain. So, he's wrong about only 3%
due to human activity. It's 40%. And of that 40%, he's right - Australians have contributed
about 1.5%. Now, that sounds
like a small amount, but, actually,
Australia only makes up 0.3% of the global population, and we're contributing 1.5%, roughly, of the increase
in greenhouse gases. So, is it fair that 0.3%
of the global population has contributed 1.5%? We've contributed much more
than our fair share, if it was equally distributed
around the world, emissions of greenhouse gases, contributing to
this global warming increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. OK, let's hear from
some of the other panellists. Emma, you wanted to get involved. Well, I think the point here
is that this is a global issue, it's a global responsibility. And at the moment,
we've got agreements - you know, the Paris Agreement - that is trying to commit the world
to limiting climate change, or global warming,
to 1.5 degrees, on average. Now, I don't know
if many people know, but at our current rate, because we are still increasing
the emissions at the moment... They're still going up globally. In fact, they went up in Australia
last year as well. At the current rate,
including those increases, if they continue,
we hit that 1.5 degrees in 15 years. So, we don't have time
to kind of faff around and say, "Oh, it's someone else's fault," or, "It's someone else's
responsibility." Everybody has to chip in,
and we have to chip in now and take responsibility. And I've heard people argue
in certain places - you know, could be parliament - that, um, you know...
(LAUGHTER) ..that, actually,
we're just a small emitter, and, in fact, our coal is cleaner,
et cetera, et cetera. Well, I cannot imagine
being in a court of law and saying to the judge, "Yes, you know,
I stabbed him, Your Honour. "I did. I stabbed him to death.
But it was a clean knife." Right? "And if I hadn't have stabbed him
to death, "the other fellow would
with a rusty knife." I mean, I would not be let off
for that kind of debate. And that's the kind of argument
we're making when, in fact,
what we should be doing is what the UK just did,
which is upped their commitments and said, "We're going to be at 0%. "We're going to be
at 0% emissions by 2050." That's where
the whole world needs to be. And, in fact, after that, we need to get into
negative carbon emissions, so we have to start geoengineering,
planting trees, potentially finding ways of
sequestering carbon in other ways, in order to keep...in order
to keep the Reef, you know? In order to keep
the Great Barrier Reef. Because if we hit 1.5... The Reef has already been hit
by two massive bleaching events. 1.5 is going to cause
even more damage. Every government report says
that the number one threat to the Great Barrier Reef
is climate change. Yeah.
We're going to lose it. Um, Brian, I'm going
to bring you in here, and start back
with the Alan Jones premise - that such a tiny amount of a gas,
human-induced or otherwise, couldn't cause the effect. I think one of
the primary misconceptions you see is people think that
this is...it's simple. So, the climate is simple and therefore
you can just use common sense. And then you hear it... In that argument,
you're realising the fact it's a very small amount of gas, therefore it can't have much effect. And that sort of seems
to make some sort of sense. But, actually, the climate is,
as you know, extremely complicated. These models are very,
very complicated and constantly evolving. Supercomputer models.
Lots of different variables in it. So, are you confident
the models have got it right? Because if we're relying
on computers, some people doubt the veracity
of the computer modelling. There's one thing to say to that,
which is, if you don't do that,
you can't do anything. So, first of all,
the point I'm trying to make is, you can't just figure it out
in your head because it's a very complex system. But secondly, of course,
and perhaps you'll talk about this, but those models are tested
backwards and forwards, so they're not just in isolation. They're not just making
random predictions just about the future. They're also run into palaeoclimate
and backwards and forwards, so... But I think the key point is that
I think many people - I see this on social media - assume that, somehow,
you can just... ..it's common sense. You can just work out
what the climate's going to do and just dismiss the... But it's actually
a very complex system, and that's the key point, isn't it? I'm just going to go quickly
to another question, which is related, and then
I'll come back to you, Martin. The next question is from
Lily van Eeden. Lily? OK, so, we need good
science communicators, like yourselves, but is there a risk that there might be seen
to be a blurry zone where scientists, um,
are seen as advocates, accused of having
a...a direct interest in the outcome of their research? Martin? Well, I'm glad
you asked this question because it actually was leading into
the point I wanted to make. And, you know, I think... It came up in the discussion
that David mentioned, and then with Alan Jones - you know, if your car
wasn't doing well, would you take it to,
you know, a butcher? No, you'd take it
to an auto mechanic. And so, you know, for the source
of data on scientific matters, I personally wouldn't go to
an Alan Jones or somebody else. I'd look for the best known sources for that material,
and people I trust. And I think that would be true
for everyone, if it's, you know, about the health
of your son or daughter, or your grandparents or so on - you would go to
the best specialist around. And I think
there's something in society that we need to really question in terms of
our accepting science into our home. You know, there's this perception
that scientists are sort of out there doing
their nefarious little tricks in a dark alley somewhere, and concocting these models for fame
and fortune and glory and money, but that's not at all
how science works. And, you know, all the people
that I know in science are passionate about
understanding the natural world and about finding out ways
to make it better. And so, you know,
there is this sort of perception that's been put out
in the news media that scientists have made
some sort of cabal to feather their own nests and have gotten together
in climate change, and it just makes me laugh,
you know? Because when I was a...when
I was a student at university, I'd go out, and the first
really good geologist I know said, you know, "Be careful,
because when you get on an outcrop "with two geologists,
you come away with three opinions." (LAUGHTER) And, you know, the fact
that the scientific community, across such an enormous range
of different disciplines - so, climate specialists,
but also biologists, lake specialist scientists, marine scientists,
botanists, biologists - they've all come
to the same agreement, through endless hours, thousands of hours
of being in the field, measuring, observing... It's... You know,
it's not just models. It's actual physical work
and observing the natural world. And that's led to our understanding
of the rates of change, and then using models
to forecast into the future by using those measurements to develop the early stages
of the models, and then let those models go. So, scientists aren't in it... We don't make money, you know. If we get a grant, or if we do something like this
for free, because we love it... But scientists, if they get a grant,
it's for doing science. It's not something
that they get extra as, you know, pocket money
to go and buy a yacht and go off to Florida -
which would be lovely... (LAUGHTER)
..but that's not the way it works. And, you know,
something that Brian mentioned and Tony alluded to
is that science moves forward by always questioning
and testing the evidence, right? And in that way,
I think it's really important for the community to know that science is not the same
as opinion. We have seen an enormous rise
of opinion in the news media and in society in general,
and it's given almost equal footing, I feel, as actual news reporting,
or science, and they really are not
the same thing. And I think it's really important
that people are aware that scientists base their opinions,
their views, based on data
collected by people like you and me and everybody in this room. We're all part of the same community
trying to understand the system, the planet, the universe we live in
in a better way. David, I want to come to you
just briefly on this 'cause we've got to get
to other questions. But a blurry zone? Are you operating,
as the questioner asks, in a blurry zone
where you can't really be sure? Well, I think, if I, as Martin said, was going to try
and get work done on my car, I'd be going to an expert. I'm hoping that the policymakers are taking advice
from climate scientists and not filtering
that information... You're a climate scientist. Do you know who they are?
I AM a climate scientist, and I have played major roles
in a couple of different committees, providing advice to
the Australian federal government and to
the Victorian state government. I was a member of
the Climate Change Authority, providing advice
to both the Labor government in the period from 2012, and then to the Liberal Party
Coalition government in the period after 2014, and so... So, do you get the sense that they
listen and understand the science? There are certainly some people
in the governments that understand the science. There are also a range
of different people, including, I guess, Malcolm Roberts, who had very different opinions
when he came on Q&A and had discussions with Brian... But he's not in the government. He is not.
Yes. But I think the point here
is also that the blurry area is only if you don't stick
to the evidence and you don't do your homework and you don't go
to the peer-reviewed literature. You know, the scientific world
has developed a lot of different techniques
to try and remove bias. We use replication,
we use peer review, we critique, we test again and again and again. And if you go...if you stick
to that evidence base, then you can stay very strongly
in a safe space, and you can communicate it
very clearly. What we'd like parliamentarians
to be doing is to be requiring that
every new bit of legislation, every new policy, actually has documented
that evidence base. Are we making this decision
based on sound evidence? And that needs to be documented
so that all of the public can see that the parliament
is moving forward based on really solid ground. OK, we'll leave it on that question because it's one
that ought to be followed up and followed up again by the public.
Now, remember... And journalists, obviously. Remember, if you don't believe
our scientists have got it right, then let us know on Twitter. We'll send in the fact-checkers. And keep an eye on
the RMIT ABC Fact Check... BRIAN: (LAUGHS)
It doesn't actually matter. ..and The Conversation website
for the results. I'm not saying there were
any factual errors there, Brian. (LAUGHTER)
Um, the next question is a video. It's from the students
at Purnululu School in the Kimberley region
of Western Australia. ALL: Hello! We are high school students from Purnululu School
in the Kimberley. This is our question
about the stars. Kirsten, I'll start with you, and...
Thank you. ..you must be a bit proud, right?
I am very proud! And, oh, those kids are
so gorgeous and so precious and I'm so thankful that they were
able to ask this question. Um, I'm going to relate this
to my heritage, actually - Wiradjuri heritage - and show how the view
of the Milky Way actually changes from our view as well. So, some people may have heard of
the Dark Emu before, where we... It's this big constellation. It's a little bit different
from Western constellations where you connect the dots
between the stars. You instead use the dark patches, the dust and gas
that naturally blocks distant stars, and it's within this manifestation
that you can find the Dark Emu - this big, massive emu shape
in the Milky Way. And for us in Wiradjuri, when it's positioned
on the eastern horizon, it looks like
it's running along the horizon, and that tells us that
now the emu are running around, looking for a mate. Very good time! Um...
(LAUGHTER) Later in the year, when the emu
has moved to the top of the sky, and the body is now
directly above you in the night sky, just after sunset,
we don't see it as an emu anymore, but instead we see it
as an emu egg in a nest. And that indicates to us that it's now usually
the coldest part of the year, and that's when
emu eggs are available to go around and go collect. And this has worked
for 65,000 years. Just saying. But in science,
what's actually happening? The Earth is twisting around
during the seasons? That's right. So, the Earth
is moving around the sun, and so we're seeing different parts
of the Milky Way as we move around the sun. So, if my left fist is the sun
and we have the Earth here, and my thumb is pointing
towards night-time - of course,
'cause the sun's over here - we're looking at this side
of the Milky Way. But as we rotate around, we look on to the other side and we see beautiful
different manifestations, different constellations. We see Orion during the summer,
the scorpion right now in winter, and it's just fantastic
to see those different views of the Milky Way
as we travel around our host sun. Brian, and I know you can imagine what it must be like
for those kids in Kimberley, looking up at a night sky
their city cousins would die for. Just give us a sense
of your answer to their question. Well, as... I mean,
one wonderful thing to say is that, here,
in the Southern Hemisphere, you do see the Galactic Centre. In the North,
because of the orientation of the solar system and the Earth, We don't see the Galactic Centre,
certainly from London, or Manchester, or Scotland. And so, you have the...
here, the beautiful view of the night sky - the Emu,
not visible from the north. So, you are seeing the geometry
of the solar system, and the relative orientation
of the solar system to the galaxy. And remember, the beautiful thing
about astronomy, I think, is the more you learn,
the more wonderful it is. And often...you know, there's a...a completely
false narrative sometimes - it goes back to what
you were saying about science and how wonderful it is - that, somehow, more knowledge
kind of removes the mystery. But it doesn't -
it generates far more mystery. When you know that the Milky Way
is an arc of 200 billion stars... And now, in the last 20 or 30 years, we've discovered that most of those,
now, we strongly believe, have planetary systems around them. Discovered over - what? -
I think 4,000 planets now around distant stars. So, it allows us to say that,
probably, one in ten of those stars will have a potentially rocky,
Earth-like planet around it, which, potentially, has oceans
on the surface. So, the more we unpick
and the more we understand what it is that we're looking at,
the more we can see... We're going to come back
to the possibility that some of those Earth-like planets
may contain life. Now, the next question is a video
from Noah Noble in Robinson River School,
Northern Territory. Why do stars blink? (LAUGHTER) Very straight question!
MARTIN: Nice and direct. Very straight question,
and I love it so much! It's very straightforward too.
Why do stars blink? I love it so much. So, why do stars blink? Well, it's our atmosphere. But... ..it can be intrinsic
to the star itself, as well. So, we have these stars
called variable stars, which can, intrinsically,
change their brightness and we can see that, as well. And Indigenous traditions
have also seen that, too. I have to...have to mention that,
of course! Brian, yeah, so, what do you think
about astrophysics as an entry point
for education in science? Because clearly, what we're seeing
from these kids, it is. Well, it is. It's one
of the sciences that you can do with no apparatus,
or you can use your eyes. You can just go out there and see. You know,
as we talked about earlier, the changing of the seasons, the change in the constellations
that are visible. That's telling you something about the way that we're moving
around the sun, and indeed, you know, the
solar system's orientation and such. But I think that...
I was actually asked the other night about the variable stars. They are very interesting because... Um, I'd been giving a lecture. I was
talking about Einstein and people. And I had a great question, which... She said, "Well,
what about women scientists? "What about...?" And actually, there's a great
scientist called Henrietta Leavitt, who set, essentially, the way
that we measure distances out. How do we know
that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2 million light years away,
and so on? And a big part of it
came from variable stars 'cause she noticed
that some of them vary, and the period of variations, you know, bright to dim,
and then bright again, is related
to their actual brightness. And she noticed that
just by looking at data. We were talking about
the magic of data earlier. She just saw the data. Once you know that, then you know... ..when you see one of these things,
you know how bright it actually is. And then, you can see
how bright it looks, and you can work out
how far away it is. Now, that's one of the key ways
that we look out and measure, certainly, the distances
to nearby galaxies and out across the Milky Way. Now, Emma, these guys are doing
a great job getting kids to look up. I imagine you could do something
similar if you took them out under water? Yes, yes. You do have to be careful,
though, when you jump in. Make sure they can swim!
(LAUGHTER) Yes, that's pretty...
That helps, yes! But the wonders of the sea
do fascinate every age group, and they are another entry point
into science. I think nature in general
is an entry point into science. We get an enormous amount
of wonder and...and calm, and all sorts of wonderful feelings
from being out in nature. But we also get
that sense of discovery. And I think that's part
of being human, is trying to work out
how the world works. And so, it's a big part of keeping
the natural curiosity of kids going throughout quite a few years
of institutional education and making sure
they don't lose that passion. And especially in science, because in Australia,
we do see declining participation in science subjects
and in mathematics. And that's really sad because you've got this passion
when you're young. If we can just keep it going,
then you're looking down the career, which might be being an astronomer,
like Kirsten, you know? And it might be
being a mathematician who solves some incredible
new mathematical problem, or... Might be being a climate scientist. Well...
How to save the planet! I'm going to ask David...
Yeah. They're great jobs. How did... As a young boy, what was it that inspired you
to go on and become a scientist? Well, I was always interested
in the natural environment, but I also found maths really easy, as well as physics. And so, I ended up
going to university, and studying maths and physics, but I couldn't relate
that maths and physics to what I was really
passionate about, which was getting out
from the suburbs into the bush as often as I could,
which meant looking at the skies, particularly looking at the stars, but also looking at the natural
flora and fauna, and going hiking and rockclimbing and caving
and canoeing as often as I could, until I watched clouds
forming over a mountain ridge. And as the winds went over,
the clouds were forming below it. Then, I got a summer vacation job
at CSIRO, where I learnt that I could apply the maths
and physics that I was doing to understanding the behaviour
of the atmosphere - a subject, which has got
a really long name, called geophysical fluid dynamics, the fluid behaviour
of the atmosphere and the ocean. And I could combine
maths and physics to continue to understand
the weather and the climate. And I decided to switch,
consciously, because I thought, "Everyone knows something
about the weather and climate." And I just wanted to know more
and apply it. And I've ended up, over this period,
spending more and more time trying to understand what I think
are interesting problems, not just to me, but to everyone. Understanding El Nino and the variations of rainfall
in Australia. Understanding the stratospheric
ozone depletion, and now trying to better understand
climate change and its impacts. Let me go to Martin and ask,
do you have a similar story about what inspired you
to become a scientist? Yeah, it's almost a parallel story.
You know, I was lucky. I had parents
who took me out hiking, and I started looking at birds
and flowers and the rocks and, you know, the natural world. And I think we were very lucky
in some ways to still have access
to the natural world. And I just wanted to follow on
from what David said because I think...
at least, I often hear that people think, "Oh, science
has all been done," you know? "There's actually no way in." But there's such incredible
opportunities for science, and it really is a wonderful way
of staying engaged with the natural world, you know? People want to be environmentalists
and save the planet and stuff, but science actually is, I think, a pathway for hope
in this changing world because we're constantly
finding out new things about how the planet works,
about how systems work in a whole variety of ways -
through measurements, through going out into the field,
through computer modelling, through geophysical fluid dynamics,
through all sorts of things. And with new technologies
and new problems, there's just such an incredible
range of opportunities. So, you know, if I'm looking out
at the students in the audience, I'm saying we need you... (LAUGHS)
..to help the planet, you know? As we move
into this very uncertain future, science will provide the answers,
because they study... Not to mention that hope is maybe
the precious commodity. Brian. Do you know, I must say,
It's a really important point, that. What is science? It is ultimately just...
It's a response to nature. I'd like to say it's an emotional
response to nature, in the same way that music or art
is an emotional response to nature. You look at something,
and you'd like to know some more about it
and how it works. And that's the basis of science. And it goes all the way back
to this... We were talking earlier about,
you know, scepticism about science. I mean, ultimately,
I think science is, um... ..it's a very simple pursuit. It is just purely that attempt
to understand what you see. And from that, we build
quite remarkable things. You know, we can measure the age
of the universe since the Big Bang, and so on. But ultimately, it's about
very simple observations. That's why there's the, um...
the questions we had about why do stars twinkle. And those were...
MARTIN: Yeah. That's a scientist! All science builds
from answering simple questions. And we build very complex ideas, and understand the way
the world can develop, and so on. But it...at its heart, it's that -
it's a response to nature. Alright. Let's go to
the other half of the equation, which is what humans do
to the natural environment. Patrick Duffy has a question for us. Thank you very much.
So, generations before me have supposedly been reducing,
reusing and recycling since the '90s, to avoid
a plastic pollution crisis. But recently, National Geographic
researchers have found out that 90.5% of plastic waste
that has ever been made has never been recycled. With the Great Pacific Garbage Patch
estimated to contain 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic,
weighing around 80,000 tonnes, and fish, birds and other animals
eating the pieces of plastic and toxic chemicals that stick
to the surface of those plastics, have we irreversibly contaminated
our oceans with plastics that are so small
we can never collect them? And with so much plastic
entering the food chain, what health problems are we likely
to see in the human race and other animals? Great question, Patrick!
EMMA: Yeah, well done! Thank you so much.
And so well researched. Emma, go on. You're the best person
for that one. Yes, thank you.
It is one of my research areas, and it is rather horrifying,
the figures that you hear. We're producing hundreds of millions
of tonnes of plastic each year, as a society. And let me start by saying
plastic is a fantastic product. It's so versatile.
We use it for lots of things. We've just been very lax
about the way we use it, and we've overused it, and we've been really casual
about single-use plastics and putting it into products
that are completely unnecessary. And as a consequence,
we have a major issue. A lot of that plastic
has got into the ocean already. And as you mentioned, a lot of it
is too small to get back out again. Some people have suggested,
you know, great big Hoovers, but if you hoover the ocean,
you hoover all the animals in it, as well as the bits of plastic,
right? So, that's not going to work. So, the best thing we could do is prevent plastics getting
into the ocean in the first place, and that means, also,
working globally because this is a global issue. The sources of plastic are,
you know, right around the world. Some countries have less recycling
going on than others, and we need to work
with those countries to prevent the plastic getting in. I work on microplastics and did the first work
in Sydney Harbour. And we found microplastics
throughout Sydney Harbour, as well. So, this is not just a...
someone else's problem. Um, most... How do they get into the food chain,
Emma? Because that's one of the things...
Yeah. ..that Patrick is obviously
worried about, is we'll end up ingesting this stuff and the consequences
could really affect our health. So, lots of different methods,
that they get into the food chain. But, for example, if most
of the contamination in the world ends up in the sediments
of marine environments - so, it's in the sea floor -
a lot of fish will come along and just grab a great big mouthful
of sediment and filter out the sand and eat all the animals within. When they do that, and sometimes they just take
the whole mouthful of sediment into their gut, they end up with the microplastics
in their gut. And we, then, looked in the guts
of the fish, some of the fish
that are eaten by people, and we found, in 50% of the fish
in Sydney Harbour that we sampled, microplastics in their guts. Sure enough,
in amongst the sediment. Interestingly, when we
look at those so-called plastics... And this is where science
is really important. When things get really small - we're talking less than 5mm
down to, say, 1 micron, so 1,000th of a millimetre - they tend to all look the same. It's really hard to tell
what's what. So, when we did spectroscopy,
which is a chemical technique, on these debris fibres,
which we thought were all plastic, 50% of them turned out to be wool
and bone, and natural products, cotton. So, it's very important, and this is the very beginning
of a research field. In the microplastic space,
we have... You know, you can count on your hand
the number of studies we have which actually demonstrate
the toxicity of microplastics in a marine organism. This is really just
the starting point. But it's very important that
we stick to very rigorous methods, and we don't try
and make assumptions about what the impacts are,
on people in particular. So, I've just read, recently,
that we're... So, you're saying it's a risk,
but we just don't know at this point? It's a risk. I mean,
that doesn't mean we shouldn't prevent it
in the first place. We should obviously prevent
plastic pollution. But let's not get too hyped up
about the impacts, and particularly on humans,
of ingesting microplastics. We're all breathing them in
right now. If I wash this top... About 10,000 microfibres of plastic
will come out of this top when I wash this top. So, we are surrounded by them. We're not sure what the toxicity is.
We need a lot more research. At the moment,
I'm building a laundromat at UNSW. KIRSTEN: Can I wash
my clothes there? Don't tell the vice-chancellor.
So... So, we're building a laundromat
so we can test the filters. Because if you put a simple filter
in your washing machine, you can actually prevent
90% of the fibres getting out into oceans and getting out into the wastewater
treatment plants. Simple idea, but it seems like we need
a bit more proof before the company's
going to introduce them back into the machines. Kirsten, what does it...? Listening to the range of horrors that were outlined by Patrick there,
what do you think when you hear that? And we know this massive swirl
of waste plastic exists in the Pacific. Well, I remember
doing an assignment on this when I was actually about your age. And it's terrifying. Like, there's this massive island
of garbage. I don't think... Not much more needs
to be said about that. There's a massive island
of garbage in the ocean. Well, one thing can be said - we need to treat it
as an emergency... Well, of course.
..and do something about it. Yes, definitely. Definitely.
I'm going to move on because we've got
so many questions to get to. You're watching
a Q&A science special. Our next question
comes from Stewart Dunn. Hi. Currently, an Australian team
has made the semifinals for the Mars Society
global competition to establish a colony on Mars with a bold plan
to put 1,000 colonists on Mars for $6 billion. Given the reduced costs
associated with space missions, an increase in space start-ups
in Australia, and the foundation
of the Australian Space Agency, what role can Australia play in helping to explore
and establish a colony on Mars? Let's start with Brian, because I know you think
there will be Martians drawn from the human population
at some point. Well, ultimately. I mean, it's worth,
sort of, rewinding, 'cause the question's about
what role Australia could play. And it's worth pointing out that we've already
industrialised space, and it's extremely important. So, all the data we have for the climate science
we've been discussing - a lot of it comes from space. Your GPS satellite,
satellite navigation, communications and so on. So, it's already
a multibillion-dollar industry. So that's the first thing, so it's economically sensible
to be involved in that. But I think you're asking more
of a question about the... ..dreaming about the future now, and, particularly,
human exploration of space. When I said there will be
Martians and they will be us, what I meant there,
I didn't mean tomorrow, necessarily. Hmm. It's worth pointing out
that if we are to go somewhere else, at some point, beyond the moon, then Mars is the only place
we can go, first of all. You know, Venus is too hot,
runaway greenhouse effects, 450 degrees on the surface
and so on. A lot of the planets are
gas giants. Mercury's too hot. So, Mars is a... Does it make any sense going there,
spending all the money to go there? I mean, what will we find?
What would they do? How would you live? I mean,
is terraforming a possibility? So many questions. I don't think so, in the near-term. I mean, terraforming,
you're talking about changing the climate of a planet
to that extent, probably not. The interesting thing
about Mars, though, is that what we know about Mars is that 3.8...
let's say 4 billion years ago, Mars was a very Earth-like world. So, it had oceans, it had rivers. And that means that, today, it has
many of the things that we need. If we want to build...begin
to build a colony on Mars, there is water subsurface, there
are all the minerals that we need. So, it's a... The history of Mars tells us that if we wanted to,
we could go there. But then you get into the... Briefly, there's an interesting,
sort of, literature around this, and particularly if you look
in the United States, there are people who are strong
advocates for going to Mars. And they tend to be people
who think rather more emotionally about what it means to be human, and the driving forces
behind our civilisation. So, they tend to think
in terms of frontiers, and there are people,
in a civilisation like ours, that enjoy...
that want to go to frontiers, who want to push themselves
and push technology and find new ways of living
and so on. And it's just...I think,
as that kind of romantic goal at some point in the future,
it's quite...it appeals to me. But I think we, you know... No-one is suggesting that we can
make a mess of this planet and then move to another one. That is certainly
not the suggestion. Let me go to Martin. And, I mean, you obviously have
some sort of expertise on the notion of water on Mars. But, I mean, the fact
there's water there, does that...? How much does that help? I mean, obviously,
it's one of the basics, but the air is not there
to start with. Yeah, there's a lot of things
that aren't there on Mars. (LAUGHTER) You know, it's actually,
geologically, a pretty simple planet. It just has volcanoes,
and it had water and... But it hasn't concentrated
huge resources, like iron, you know,
which we use in everything. It would be difficult
to make this glass. I mean, there are
a number of things. And if you think
about the resources you need to establish
a viable human colony there, it's a big problem still. It's a huge problem. The biggest payload that
they have so far been able to launch and successfully land on Mars
has been about the size of an SUV. And so if you then talk about... And I guess, you know,
getting to your question, and this idea
of colonising Mars is, what is the driver for doing that? And you touched on that,
and so that romantic vision and the technological development
that space exploration brings - those are all fantastic,
and new frontiers, absolutely. From the Australian point of view, you'd imagine the Prime Minister
would at least be happy that you can have an SUV!
(LAUGHTER) I guess he would. But I think, you know,
in terms of, as you said, almost abrogating
our responsibilities to Earth and establish a new colony
for, what, humanity on Mars? You know, if you think about
the cost of even sending one rocket, it's $2 billion. Imagine what you can do to that,
you know, huge ocean of plastic
for $2 billion. Like... And Mars is not
a warm and welcoming place. It doesn't have
a hydrological cycle now. Yes, there is some water
we could use as a resource. But it's very cold, it's very far from the sun. There's no food, there's no bacteria
or fungi in the soil to help grow food. I mean, there's just
insurmountable problems. So, from my point of view, any realistic establishment
is still science fiction. Now, in terms of Australia's role, we run the Centre for Astrobiology,
which is about studying life, and we're involved with NASA
to look for signs of life, ancient or living, on Mars. And that's really exciting. But, you know, Australia's very much
a pragmatic country. And it's just started... The Australian Space Agency
is one year old. And they're in the business of helping develop
that space business that Brian talked about -
about measuring our resources, monitoring change
on the Australian continent. But so far, they haven't really
got to that sort of dreaming big, into missions to Mars
for exploration. We're all about that, and we're engaged with different
parts of the global community to try and advance that,
because we think... Elon Musk will get there first
if he doesn't go bankrupt. Now, we're going to move on
because we've got another question. It's related to what you were
talking about, in fact. It's from Peggy Holmwood. Kirsten Banks, you're a science
communicator and astrophysicist and have spoken at schools
across New South Wales and talked on radio shows
about space and astronomy and have quite the passion
for the subject. So, do you think all astrophysicists
have their ultimate goal in finding an alien species
to communicate and connect with? Kirsten. Not the sort of life
that he was talking about but something more sophisticated,
perhaps. First of all, I have to say,
you have done your homework! (LAUGHTER) Well, not all astrophysicists
are looking for life. I mean, I myself, I'm looking at how the biggest
and brightest galaxies in the local universe are evolving and will continue to evolve
in the coming... ..well, million years, of course. But we're all about looking
at specific things. Like, Brian,
you're a particle physicist. I am more of an astrophysicist
with galaxies. There are star people,
there are planet people, there are alien people as well. There are?! What, amongst us?
In a sense. Yeah!
(LAUGHTER) Do you work with any of them?
I cannot confirm nor deny. (LAUGHTER) No, but we're all looking
at specific things. And, I mean, it would be exciting. I would be excited
to find life on other planets, that isn't the Earth. Anyone else?
BRIAN: It's a fascinating ques... I mean, I'd be...
I wouldn't be surprised. I'd be interested
to know what you think. I wouldn't be surprised to find
that life had existed on Mars, perhaps even still may, subsurface. Or on the...some of the moons
of Jupiter or Saturn. Primitive life you're talking about?
Yes. But I would be very surprised if it were anything other
than single-celled at best. But the question is about aliens,
about civilisations. We don't know. We've looked a bit. We have the SETI program,
we've heard nothing. Astronomers have a term for it,
they call it "the great silence." Which is a...
But it is possible. And I... The biologists I talk to - I'll be fascinated to know
what you think about this - the biologists I talk to tend to say if you look at the history
of life on Earth, then it seems clear that, for around...let's say,
3 billion years or so after the origin of life,
around 3.8 billion years ago, up to less than 1 billion years ago,
it was single-celled. And complex, multi-cellular life
is a relatively recent development. So, on Earth, you need... We had about 4 billion years to go from the origin of life
to a civilisation. And if that is in any way typical -
and we don't know - then the astronomers will tell you that perhaps there aren't
so many worlds that have stayed stable enough
for long enough for that process to continue. We don't know.
We don't know whether... It could have been earlier,
it could have been... We just don't know. There are some people who think
it's a terrible folly to be transmitting out there to, possibly, advanced civilisations
of aliens that we exist. I think there's a key point here,
and it's a message again, it links back
to what we talked about at the start of this program,
actually. But it is at least conceivable
that worlds like this are very rare in the sense that
there's a very complex ecosystem, a civilisation, intelligence, you can make an argument that there could be, on average,
one per galaxy, at any one time. You can make the argument. And I think that does feed back into what we've talked about
all night, that this world, the more you learn about
our position in the universe, our position in the Milky Way
galaxy and so on, the more you learn
about the history of life on Earth, the more you realise that we have
a tremendous responsibility not to mess this place up. And I think, so, the perspective
astronomy gives us is very valuable. It's a strong point, but what would
happen if the great silence ended? Would there be a global panic? Would the scientists keep it secret
with government...? Scientists can't keep
anything secret! Scientists
can't keep anything secret. But I'm just interes... Very quickly, I'm interested
to know what you think about that - the probability of complex life? Complex life is a big ask. And I think that point you raised about a planet being stable
with water on the surface... Yeah. And the climate being stable.
..that's amazing. And when I first got involved
with Mars, I wasn't very excited, because it didn't have
plate tectonics, it didn't have global oceans,
there were a lot of things missing, and a very short history
before it went cold and dead. But the more I found out about it, I found that it actually has what
looked like the right ingredients. And the exciting thing about looking
at the rock record on Earth is that we are starting to find that life got started just about
as soon as it could on our planet. So as...you know,
in the very early history, we were being bombarded
by huge meteorites that were vaporising the atmosphere. But soon after all that ended,
at about 3.7 billion years ago, we have traces of life. And so we know that Mars was warm
and wet at 3.7, 3.6, further on. So, it has
that early similar history, and so I, all of a sudden,
got really excited and thought, "Yeah, it's got the right
ingredients, to some degree. "It has that, sort of,
evidence for liquid water." So there's definitely an excitement. And that's shown
by the fact that, in 2020, five different nations are
launching missions to Mars - two of them to look directly
for signs of life. And, as a scientist, that's just
an incredible experiment. And it's testable, because we have
scientific machines going. We're going to zap rocks, and collect them and bring them
back to Earth.. It's a golden age
for my kind of work. OK, let's go metaphysical. We've got a web question,
it's from Keith Xiao in South Wentworthville
in New South Wales. "Is there a place for God
in science?" And, Brian, I'll start with you, because I know you don't like
being referred to as an atheist. Well, only because... So, I don't have a...
I don't believe in a god. However, I don't like the antagonism that occurs or is produced
by this question. I mean, what you can say
if you're a cosmologist, what you should say is... So, we know that the universe
was very hot and dense 13.8 billion years ago. We don't know
how it got hot and dense. We don't even know, actually, if the universe had
a beginning in time. We don't know. So, that, to me, is where
the science... Science starts for me with, "I don't know the answer
to that question." Getting more to the point...
So, I've not got... You had a bit of an argument
with famous atheist Russell Brand, who is also a comic, as we know. But you said...
No, Russell is not an atheist. He's not?
Russell strongly believes in... OK, I got that wrong, I'm sorry. You said to him that science doesn't
rule out the existence of a creator. No, but in the sense
that I just said, that I think
we're overstepping the mark. I do not believe
there's any evidence for a creator. However, there certainly isn't no... You know, the point is
that the correct thing to say is we don't even know whether
the universe had a beginning. I don't even know
whether it was eternal. Nobody does. So, that was the point I was making. I think we're stepping into an area
where we don't really need to be. Yeah, and I think a point... And, as scientists, we need
to be humble about the fact that we don't know everything. And we shouldn't pretend
to know anything on a lot of questions, because climate change
is so incredibly complex, the marine system is... All these different inputs and
circulations and different drivers. And so, you know, we get
to the limit of our knowledge. And I think, really,
what you're trying to say is, we need to be careful not to go
beyond what we know. Yeah, the great Richard Feynman, the great Nobel Prize winner, he has a beautiful quote
where he says... ..he says,
"What is the meaning of it all?" And he said, "In the end,
we have to admit "that we do not know. "But in admitting that, we may
have found the open channel." That's the key to science.
We don't know. David? What do you think? So, I completely agree
with all of those comments. But there's obviously lots of, if you like, mysticism
that helps people understand their unexplained observations. Science is one way that we use for trying to explain
and gather evidence to help understand a range of,
if you like, previously unexplained phenomena. Others in the past, and some presently,
also use their own observations and then faith
to help them explain that. I think those
are different perspectives. None is better or worse
than the others. But we need to be careful that if we want to understand
natural phenomena, I think what we have to think about
is how can we use the evidence that Emma talked about before
to make policy decisions? I would much rather base those on well-founded,
well-collected evidence than faith. Fair enough. Kirsten? What do you think?
It's an interesting question. Do you think there is
some sort of creative being that exists beyond science? I'm going to give you
my favourite answer to give to any science question
if I don't know. I don't know. I'm with you, Brian. We don't know. It's like Brian says, I'm going
to say there is null evidence. Not "no," not "some." Null.
There is just... There's a very quick,
serious point I'd like to make which is that I remember once I was
giving a talk to schools in London. And London is
a very, very diverse population of many people, many faiths
and none, and I was asked that question - "Is it possible to be a scientist
and believe in God?" And I was taken back, actually.
So I said, "Yes." And I was going to have
some common caveat. Like you said, a caveat is the... But I got a round of applause. And I thought, "This is important "because the last thing
someone like we should do "is close off that possibility
of being a scientist "because someone has faith." Well, I mean,
Professor Hanbury Brown, who built the interferometer
up in Parkes, I think, he believed in God. I grew up with him, I know that. So, the worst thing to do would be for, you know,
a room full of students to say, "Well,
you can't be a scientist "because you believe this thing
or that thing or the other." That would be a terrible thing. We have time for... Sorry.
A quick comment and we'll move on. No, I mean, if we say God, everybody would imagine
something different, I suppose. And we have to realise
that it's probably not sort of the literal translation
of the Bible about the Earth was created in
seven days and all the rest of that. Certainly, from the scientific
perspective, that would be hard to adopt. But going back further in time
to some of the unknown questions that are still confronting us... So, I think we have to be
a little bit open-minded about what God is to people
and what it could be. We've got time for one last question, and go beyond God
to the end of the universe. It's from James Goodchild. Thanks, Tony. My question to the panel is, do you believe in
the cold death of the universe? So that is, everything achieves
a thermal equilibrium where it is so cold that life cannot...no life
can survive? Brian, I'll start with you, because
it has to be your special subject! It's usually called
the "heat death." I mean, what we know about
the universe at the moment is that it's expanding and it's expanding
faster and faster, which was actually an Australian
Nobel Prize, Brian Schmidt. So, we know that. And in such universes... You said, "Look at the galaxies "and star formation rates
in galaxies." There comes a time in the universe - if nothing else happens -
when the stars will no longer shine. Stars do not continue
to form forever. Matter gets locked away. So in that sense, the standard model
of cosmology is that the age of starlight, if you want to call it that,
is finite. And I have the number in my head,
actually, that you can calculate. It is something like
10 trillion years, when the last star
ceases to shine, or fusion in stars ceases
and switches off. That's a long time. But it's a finite amount of time. And I find that quite
a powerful thought, actually. Will there still be black holes
at that point? There will be black holes, but
we think even they evaporate away on an extremely long timescale. That's what Stephen Hawking
is famous for. We're talking about "one with
100 noughts after it" years. So, it's a long time. I think just that basic idea that the age of complexity
and structure in the universe, as far as we can tell, is limited,
tells us something. It tells us that we are fortunate. Again, I go back to that point, science does... There is some...I don't know,
spiritual nourishment, if you like, or philosophical nourishment
to be had from the science. And just these very ideas,
that the universe is not... ..it may be eternal, but the structures in the universe
are not eternal, is an important... Well, I mean, actually it sounds
a bit depressing to me because, I mean, you are saying that there is nothingness
at the end of everything, and that nothingness is profound. Is it...? I mean,
it's like human life. I think about this quite a lot. What does it mean
to live a finite life? If you don't believe in God,
as we talked about, you may well think,
"Well, this is it." But that, to me,
is a remarkable thought. It's the only
interesting thought, to me. In my live shows,
I tend to say sometimes that, for me,
the only interesting thought is how to live an intensely
meaningful life, which we do, in an ultimately
meaningless universe, which goes to the end of time,
you know, with the heat death. That, to me, is the only
interesting philosophical point. (LAUGHTER)
Emma, what do you think? Do you feel like
you're living a meaningful life in a meaningless universe?
(LAUGHTER) I'm very fortunate to have
a meaningful life, I think. I think I don't focus so much
on the end, but on the beginning. And for me, what we really
should be focusing on is that the child born today, no matter where they're born
around the world, is...knows and grows up knowing that they have
been born at the right time. You know, that we, through science, have made incredible advances
in disease, preventing disease, in alleviating poverty,
in making sure people are fed. And we need to have
the next generation of kids - and my kids are in
the audience here today - growing up not being scared
of Armageddon turning up in 50 years' time, which is what they are scared of
now through climate change, but knowing they were born
at the right time, that we have created
a sustainable system, that we have pulled back
on our consumption, and we've adopted all of
the new, wonderful technologies that are around in renewables, etc, and we have created something
that will last for them as long as it needs to last,
which is the length of their lives. We've time for short answers
from everyone. Kirsten? What do you think? First of all,
how cool is the universe? (LAUGHTER)
The heat death... BRIAN: About 2.7 degrees
at the moment! (LAUGHTER) DAVID: Getting cooler! Got him! One minute he's a poet and the next minute
he brings us down to mere numbers. No, but seriously, how impressive
is our universe that it can continue to go on and on
and be finite as well? But also...I mean... My favourite thing about space, and every sort of situation
someone brings to me when I'm telling a story about space
and astronomy, is we are probably going to die. (LAUGHTER) Sorry to put it
on such a morbid point. But it's just... Every situation that
you bring forward about space... Like, if you go into space,
you take off your space suit, yeah, you probably die. If the universe continues to expand,
and then slows down, goes to a turning point, comes back, we're all going to go
into a big crunch. Yay!
(LAUGHTER) Nice optimism!
Which is so cool! The future is inevitably
not so bright. Yeah, you're right. David, briefly? So, I have both positive views
and negative views. Glass half full, glass half empty. But I think I can enjoy life
much better if I think about the problems
and the solutions and aim at using science to help us best manage
our problems to a sustainable long-term future
for as long as possible in this ever-changing world. Good one. Martin, you obviously have spent
a lot of time looking backwards. Do you ever pause,
as your neighbour here Brian does, and look forwards into
the bleak future of the universe? I think we're brothers in that way because he does dimension
and my dimension is time, but actually they are the same because the starlight you see
is billions of years old and the life I look at
is billions of years old. I think the message I take away from studying that part
of the history is that we're
this incredible product of four billion years of evolution, on a planet that has nurtured life
its entire time. And to me,
that's a really emotional thought that we have this ability to be able to understand
and perceive our world and the life that we're living
at this moment as a product of that incredible
amount of time. And so, yeah, I'm optimistic
about the future. I know the planet will survive for
as long as you can imagine it would. I know that life will survive
even this current extinction. I'm not sure it's going to be
great for humans, but we have this enormous capacity
to adapt. And I think that's something we can,
will, and have to embrace. And with
the developing technologies, I think there's a bright future. On that note, we have to leave it. And if anyone who's not ready
to be a scientist is not now ready to be one,
I would be very surprised. That's all we have time for tonight. Please thank our panel -
Martin Van Kranendonk, Brian Cox, Kirsten Banks, Emma Johnston and David Karoly. Thank you very much. You can continue the discussion with Q&A Extra on NewsRadio
and Facebook live where Tracey Holmes is joined
by Professor Richard Kingsford from
the Centre for Ecosystem Science. Next week on Q&A, the Minister
for Education, Dan Tehan, the Shadow Minister for
Infrastructure, Catherine King, and Centre Alliance Senator
Rex Patrick who is shaking things up
in Canberra with his calls for government
accountability and transparency. Until then, goodnight. (APPLAUSE) Captions by Red Bee Media Copyright Australian
Broadcasting Corporation
