Neil deGrasse Tyson SCHOOLS Bill Maher’s MAGA Mind on his OWN show!

追加: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]And do we have evidence that we've actually destroyed their capacity to purify uranium cuz that was the whole point of the whole exercise. Everybody's now focusing on the straights and oil prices and and the like. But if you purify uranium above certain level, it's weapons grade. And no one should lose sight of that fact.

[00:00:17]>> think missions to the moon like Artemis are worth the money the government spends on them? I saw a picture in the paper yesterday a diagram of what it's going to look like when we have a base on the moon.

[00:00:27]>> Yeah, so yes, what is it worth? Uh if it's exploration, you're doing something that's never been done before, you are not in a position to [clears throat] judge the value of that to our future. Do you realize we're in the centennial decade of the discovery of quantum physics? And at the time you would have said, "Why are you studying that? I'm a carpenter. I got wood atoms. That's all I care about." And we learned about how atoms work and molecules and it is the foundation of the creation, storage, and retrieval of digital information.

[00:00:56]>> In today's video, Neil deGrasse Tyson schools Bill Maher on Overtime with Bill Maher as they clash over space exploration, science, and innovation.

[00:01:06]Neil deGrasse Tyson fires back with facts while Bill Maher challenges the value of investing in humanity's future.

[00:01:13]So, let's dive in and watch how Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down Bill Maher on Overtime with Bill Maher.

[00:01:21]>> Uh Neil, if first contact happened tomorrow, who [clears throat] who would you trust most to serve as humanity's ambassador? Probably you.

[00:01:30]>> Well, >> [cheering] >> Well, you say that you you say that It's got to be somebody >> [applause] >> Uh you say the universal language is math.

[00:01:41]>> Yes.

[00:01:41]>> by the way, this is what Mr. Politi told me in high school. He said he said that's the universal language. We need >> Was he a teacher of yours or some other person in your life?

[00:01:48]>> No.

[00:01:49]>> [laughter] >> He was He was my priest and I don't want to tell you what happened next. Anyway, um no, he was my math teacher. Uh but it would have to be someone who speaks math. You speak math.

[00:01:59]I don't.

[00:02:00]>> Yeah, I do speak math. And so, math is a language of the universe. You want to commune with the cosmos, you become fluent in math. An alien comes, they would not have come here without some understanding of math. That is a certainty. So, whoever's in the room when it happens, you got to at least have someone who's fluent in math. I don't mind there's some politicians that want to jump in on this. Good The ones that are more diplomatic. Because maybe there's a tense negotiating point that's need You got to bring in a diplomat to solve that the Scientists have no experience [laughter] in Uh So, it would definitely be the scientists [clears throat] up front.

[00:02:38]What I would do, it's not an individual.

[00:02:40]I would be delighted to have a first encounter.

[00:02:42]But, I take them immediately to the National Academy of Sciences. And then we have the biologist, the chemist, the engineers, and then we will do right by that encounter.

[00:02:56]>> [applause] >> Um National Academy of Sciences written into law by a Republican president.

[00:03:03]>> That's right.

[00:03:03]>> It was Abraham Lincoln.

[00:03:05]>> Okay.

[00:03:06]>> What does the panel think >> a shout-out across the aisle here.

[00:03:09]>> [laughter] [cheering] [applause] >> What does the panel think of the idea that was put out today that maybe the Iran war will end because there's a talk of a $300 billion rebuilding fund. In other words, we're going to rebuild Iran. We're going to We're going to make it into like, you know, remember Gaza was going to be Okay. What do you think?

[00:03:34]>> One thing that supports this perspective is that many of humanity's biggest breakthroughs started as projects that seemed unnecessary at the time. The internet, GPS, weather satellites, and MRI technology all benefited from government-funded scientific research.

[00:03:51]What begins as exploration often creates practical benefits that that improve everyday life years later. The idea that mathematics could be a universal language is also grounded in science.

[00:04:02]Mathematical patterns appear throughout nature, from the motion of planets to the structure of atoms. Because of that, many researchers believe any advanced civilization capable of traveling across space would almost certainly understand the same mathematical principles we do.

[00:04:19]History also shows that science can unite people across political divides.

[00:04:23]The International Space Station brought together countries with competing interests, yet scientists and engineers successfully worked together for decades. That kind of cooperation demonstrates how scientific goals can sometimes accomplish what politics cannot. When discussing rebuilding countries after conflict, history suggests caution. The Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe after World War II, but other reconstruction efforts have struggled when political stability and public trust were missing. Money alone does not guarantee lasting peace or successful reform. What stands out is that evidence-based thinking tends to produce better outcomes than decisions driven purely by ideology. Whether the topic is space exploration, international relations, or technological development, societies that invest in research, education, and innovation usually gain long-term advantages. The benefits are not always immediate, but history repeatedly shows that scientific progress drives economic growth, creates new industries, and expands opportunities for future generations. That is why investing in discovery remains one of the most valuable long-term decisions a society can make.

[00:05:38]>> Now, it sounds a little like when Obama gave Iran money, and that was like the worst thing that could ever happen. But >> is totally going to be different.

[00:05:45]>> Okay. Yeah.

[00:05:47]That's that old story, The Mouse That Roared? Do you remember?

[00:05:50]>> but wouldn't there Yes, wouldn't there have to be regime change first?

[00:05:54]>> You would think so.

[00:05:55]>> So why are we even talking about giving them money until we know that the people who >> Because the Strait of Hormuz is closed and we need it open. That's the only way to get it done.

[00:06:03]>> I see.

[00:06:04]>> I I don't see Congress authorizing the money and I don't see this administration giving them that money. So um at the end of the day, how this ends is very important for [clears throat] the world. Uranium cannot be there and they cannot control the open waters.

[00:06:18]That's That's how it has to end.

[00:06:21]>> Can Donald Trump get there?

[00:06:22]>> I believe so.

[00:06:23]>> How? I mean, we've already played all the cards.

[00:06:26]>> You know, it's easier to get in war than to get out. It's It's a greater threat to to threaten use military force than when you're already in it.

[00:06:35]Look, I think at the end of the day Iran has some severe pressure on their point, too, but this is a regime that likes to kill their own people. They'll sit and wait it out. They'll probably wait till try to wait till after the election. I like the idea of the other countries joining the Abraham Accords and that this becomes a bigger solution than just the strait.

[00:06:54]>> Right.

[00:06:56]But Kevin, I was sympathetic to the idea.

[00:06:59]>> I know. I know.

[00:07:00]>> But [applause] you know, I just feel like we went into Iraq and Iran won that war.

[00:07:05]And every time [laughter] we go there, it seems like Iran wins the war.

[00:07:08]>> So you think that he has another option other than boots on the ground if he wants to meet those goals?

[00:07:14]>> Yeah, I don't see what the and the other option is. We And we don't want to do that. And it plainly he doesn't want to do that.

[00:07:20]>> I don't think he ever will. No, that's that's a much different battle.

[00:07:24]>> And do we have evidence that we've actually destroyed the capacity to purify uranium? Cuz that was the whole point of the whole exercise. And everybody's now focusing on the straits and oil prices and and the like. But if you purify uranium above certain level, it's weapons grade. And no one should lose sight of that fact. All right.

[00:07:42]final question Final question for you. Do you think missions to the moon like Artemis are worth the money the government spends on them? I saw a picture in the paper yesterday a diagram of what it's going to look like when we have a base on the moon.

[00:07:54]>> Yeah, so yes, what is it worth? I if it's exploration, you're doing something that's never been done before, you are not in a position to judge [clears throat] the value of that to our future. Do you realize we're in the centennial decade of the discovery of quantum physics?

[00:08:09]Now, at the time you would have said, "Why are you studying that? I I'm a carpenter. I got wood atoms. That's all I care about." And we learned about how atoms work and molecules, and it is the foundation of this creation, storage, and retrieval of digital information. It is It is 40% of the world economy exploited by knowing what the quantum is and how and why it works. So, that's if you were around back then, would you say, "Don't study this. This is a waste of money. Go build another railroad or go build something else." Somebody's got to be on the frontier cuz that's what pulls civilization into the future.

[00:08:44]>> What really stands out in this is how differently both sides define solutions when it comes to Iran and broader Middle East strategy. One approach leans toward immediate pressure and military leverage, while the other prioritizes diplomacy, monitoring, and long-term stability. History tends to show that quick end games in complex conflicts rarely hold. On nuclear issues, destroying infrastructure doesn't erase scientific knowledge. After past strikes on suspected facilities in the Middle East, analysts have repeatedly found that expertise in enrichment and engineering can be rebuilt faster than physical sites can be rebuilt or replaced. That's why international verification systems like those led by the IAEA are often seen as more reliable than force alone. Large-scale reconstruction plans also carry a long record of mixed results. In Iraq and Afghanistan, US spending reached into the trillions, but long-term stability outcomes were uneven. Studies in conflict economics consistently show that money without strong institutions often fails to produce lasting peace.

[00:09:52]Science and space investment tell a different story. NASA's research has produced real-world technologies like GPS, satellite communications, and medical imaging advances. These are direct examples of how long-term scientific funding creates economic value far beyond its initial purpose.

[00:10:12]What's often missed in these conversations is that deterrence without diplomacy tends to escalate uncertainty rather than reduce it. Even Cold War history shows that communication channels and treaties played a major role in preventing larger escalation between nuclear powers. Overall, history and evidence keep pointing in the same direction. Durable progress usually comes from verification, diplomacy, and sustained investment in knowledge rather than short-term force or reactive policy decisions.

[00:10:45]>> So, what did what did >> [applause] >> You say quantum mechanics.

[00:10:49]>> I I'll give you an example. Give you an example.

[00:10:52]>> Okay, [applause] but like connect that to somebody like a layman like me who like how did that affect my life? What did that bring to you?

[00:10:58]>> I have a better example. My physics professor in college, he studied molecules in space and he discovered a new phenomenon where the nucleus responded to uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh >> Ah.

[00:11:21]>> It's based on a principle of physics discovered by a physicist who had no interest in medicine.

[00:11:25]>> Mhm. It was a frontier.

[00:11:26]>> MRIs.

[00:11:27]>> It's an MRI. In fact, it's technically it's an NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance imager, but that's one of the two N words you're not supposed to use in Well, so they they took away the nuclear cuz you're not going to go into a a cavity that this is the nuclear They're not going to do that. So they took away the word MRI. This is an example of a frontier dis- And you don't you can't pre-select that. So you have to allow This is what made America great is that we funded curiosity-driven research and that had a pathway through through creative engineers right at the directly into our economy. And so so we Our economy is the envy of the world.

[00:12:06]You know, I've I've heard um a guy say this that if England the UK were a state of the United States >> Yeah, they'd be 51st.

[00:12:14]>> 50 51st in GDP per capita.

[00:12:17]>> Yeah.

[00:12:18]>> Oh my gosh. Don't take it for granted that we live in this country and the investments in science >> Right.

[00:12:25]>> that has occurred over the over the centuries.

[00:12:28]>> Private [applause] space is doing so much.

[00:12:31]And look where you live now, too. If you If you want to have the internet and you're sitting in Ukraine, thank Elon Musk for that. I mean, a lot of it which >> The return >> Yeah.

[00:12:42]>> Yeah.

[00:12:42]>> Yeah. So so yes, so private enterprise gets you so far, but there is the research that does not feed the quarterly report or the annual report.

[00:12:51]The government invests in that. That creates the industries that the government then draws tax-base funding.

[00:12:57]>> And think about how many young kids got so excited when they saw that Artemis go around the >> Oh yeah.

[00:13:02]>> and the new young astronauts. And what did they go back in class and study? I mean, I think the return on the investment is more than we'll ever spend on.

[00:13:08]>> And [applause] and well, if we were only going to do science, I would say, yes, just send robots. But when you come back and describe what the far side of the moon looked like, you realize I don't think anyone ever gave a ticker tape parade to a robot. I don't think anyone ever named a high school or medical school after a robot. There's something about the human element of discovery that we There's been with our civilization from the beginning that we cherish the the accounts of what people have for seeing something that no one has seen before.

[00:13:42]>> What really anchors this is how often people underestimate where real-world technology actually comes from. A lot of the tools that feel normal today didn't start as consumer products at all. GPS, for example, began as a Cold War military navigation system before becoming essential for Uber rides, aviation, and even farming logistics.

[00:14:04]That pattern shows up again and again when governments fund long-horizon science that has no immediate commercial payoff. Medical imaging is another clear case. MRI and PET scan technology both grew out of fundamental physics research into particle behavior and magnetism, not medicine itself. The same applies to semiconductor development, quantum mechanics research in the early 20th century eventually enabled microchips, which now power almost every digital device in existence. These aren't coincidences. They're predictable outcomes of curiosity-driven funding.

[00:14:41]That's why cutting basic research budgets often backfires economically.

[00:14:45]Studies from institutions like the National Science Foundation consistently show that every dollar invested in early-stage scientific research generates multiple dollars in downstream economic activity, sometimes decades later. Private companies tend to focus on short-term returns, which is why government-backed exploration still plays a unique role. Even space programs demonstrate this clearly. NASA's Apollo-era engineering challenges led to advancements in material science, computing efficiency, and even fire-resistant textiles. More recently, satellite networks and reusable rocket systems have reshaped global communications and launch economics. So, while short-term political arguments often focus on immediate costs, the historical record keeps pointing in the same direction. Long-term investment in open-ended science consistently produces the most transformative and widely shared benefits for society over time.

[00:15:42]Pause. Are you getting tired of getting half the story from biased news sources?

[00:15:47]One outlet says one thing and another says the complete opposite. How are you supposed to know what's actually true?

[00:15:54]That's where Ground News comes in. It lets you compare how different media outlets, left, right, and center are covering the same story. So, you can see the full picture instead of just the echo chamber. And here's the best part.

[00:16:08]Click the link in the description and get 40% off the Vantage tier, which gives you even deeper insights into media bias and political trends. Stay informed, think for yourself, and check out Ground News in the description down below.