The first 3 episodes of the new “Cosmos” series, while
somewhat different from the original Carl Sagan “Cosmos,” were close enough
that I thought they might be a legitimate heir. But I’m putting the new series
on probation after seeing Episode 4.
Sagan’s series was ground breaking, not just for its
“science for the people” approach, but for its political stance. The original
Episode #4, entitled “Heaven and Hell” looked at craters on the moon, for
instance, and then showed footage of a B-52 carpet bombing Viet Nam. Even in
1980, this was risky stuff. Every one of Sagan’s history of science stories had
a moral, and spoke to the political discourse of the times. That’s what
separated it from spin-offs like “Nova.” (The new Cosmos host, Niel deGrasse
Tyson, came over from “Nova.” I tried not to hold that against him, but now
suspect that this is not an insignificant fact.)
Look at the story in this week’s Episode #4,
about the guy
credited with inventing photography, whose father was an astronomer who
told him how stars
are ghosts, because some have died out before their light got here.
Looking at the stars is looking at the past. Another form of “looking at
the past” is photography, which the son invented. Great little story,
but one
without a moral to apply to modern times. Sagan’s stories always had a
moral
that moved the political discourse of the day. Tyson's tale had no
apparent larger agenda. In Episode #4, he told us about this father and
son Herschel story, a bit about a few others, including Einstein, and he
did a
“thought experiment” of going into a black hole to find a whole
universe, which
is cool, but none of this leads back again to politics. Then Episode #4
ends
with another bit about how Tyson met Sagan in 1975. The ghost of Sagan
is at
the bus stop. The imaginary bus arriving to pick up Tyson is a 1950s
“Montgomery” bus. You could all but see Rosa Parks sitting up front,
refusing
to give up her seat. Of course I was moved, Blackfolk can be famous
astrophysicists, and it is Tyson walking in Sagan’s footsteps. There is
political value in that ending, important political value, and well
worth the
screen time. But given that we now have a black president, this was not
the
risky business of Sagan. Tyson is walking in Sagan’s footsteps with the
new
“Cosmos,” but I’m not convinced he is filling his shoes.
Contrast the new Episode #4 with Sagan’s #4, entitled,
“Heaven and Hell,” a study in “telling it like it is,” and of the never-ending
process of verifying what we hold to be truth as newer scientific techniques
become available. Sagan demonstrated in Episode #4 the method of science;
observation, hypothesis, testing, and independent verification. The Tungusta
Event that starts Sagan’s Episode #4 was more than a story of scientific
sleuthing, more than just giving Soviet scientists credibility at a time when
tension between the superpowers was almost to the breaking point. It was a
segue into comets, which used to be considered portenters of mostly evil, but
became understandable as our science improved. It was 1980, the year Reagan won
the Republican nomination, claiming, among other things, that we could survive
nuclear war by just jumping into a lake while the blast went over us. In that
context, Carl Sagan took the story about comets and drew a lesson about how
easily an impact could be mistaken for an attack, setting off a real nuclear
exchange.
In fairness, Tyson covered comets last week in Episode #3 of
the new show. He used Haley and his comet as a way to quite effectively talk
about Newton and gravity, along with a story of the theft of intellectual property,
where a different scientist tried to falsely claim credit for some of Newton’s
ideas. It was a cool story that gave me greater respect for Newton and Haley,
but still, theft of intellectual property is hardly a leading issue of our day,
except to the likes of Microsoft. Where’s the risk in modern “Cosmos?”
The original Episode #4 went on to tell us about
how
science, centuries later, could verify the tale of the Canterbury monks,
who one night witnessed an impact on the moon. We learned how science
can also disprove erroneous
theories, but must not stoop to suppressing evidence or theory. Sagan
told of
just such a repression by scientists, of an erroneous theory. Turning to
the camera, Sagan said they may do that in religion or politics, but
science
must never play thought police. Then packing the episode full of
greatness, he
went on to describe the multiple Russian Venera probes to Venus and what
they had found.
He used the stories of Venus to show how science proves and disproves
theories
by observing the facts, analyzing the data, finding the patterns. Not
only is
the world knowable, far-off planets and stars are knowable too. And
based on
all that, he spoke to the greenhouse effect, which makes Venus a "hell."
On the comparative "heaven" of Earth, we have a modest greenhouse
effect, seen by Sagan in the 1980 series as a good thing. In
the 1990 update contained on the DVD with the series, Sagan returns to
the
screen to issue an urgent appeal, based on updated understanding,
warning us of greenhouse-induced climate
change here on Earth. He then offered up a 4 point program to save it
all: reduce use of
fossil fuels, develop alternative energy sources, implement
reforestation on a grand
scale, and raise the conditions of the world’s poor, as a way to rein-in
growth
and runaway populations. Risky, insightful, political, Sagan's work
taught the
technique of science to frame the issues, because understanding the big
picture
is a direct guide to action.
In contrast, we got an animation of a back-water astronomer
and his son, and a moral lesson about theft of intellectual property. Not even
close, modern "Cosmos," not even close.
Go find the original series, and watch them episode by
episode. Start with #4, if you want, and realize the greatness of Sagan, all the more
noticeable when directly compared with the imitation.
Randy Rowland
