Latest / Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History / Aliens, Secrets, and Science: What Are They Not Telling Us?

Transcript

Aliens, Secrets, and Science: What Are They Not Telling Us? · Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History

0:21
Hello and welcome back.
0:22
Today we are going to discuss the report
0:24
from the 1960s called Proposed Studies on the
0:29
Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs,
0:33
also known as the Brookings Report.
0:36
The Brookings Report was created by the Brookings
0:39
Institute for NASA in 1960 and according to
0:45
the report itself it was created to understand
0:48
the consequences of peaceful space activities.
0:55
The report itself can be found on the
0:58
home page of NASA if you like.
0:59
It's still there as pdf and you can
1:01
just download it.
1:03
But the purpose of the report was to
1:07
understand the consequences of peaceful space activities.
1:13
Basically what happens if you find life in
1:15
space?
1:16
How will people react?
1:18
How will religion react?
1:20
How will politics be changed etc?
1:23
What kind of social and cultural consequences will
1:26
this have also back on the peaceful space
1:31
activities?
1:32
It has an additional purpose and that was
1:36
also to help NASA with future decisions.
1:40
The report should be used for long-term
1:42
planning, for policies and for statistical, strategical choices.
1:49
But also it has another purpose that was
1:53
to inspire additional science both in academia, in
1:57
industrial as well as in governments.
2:00
So it was not just an analysis but
2:02
an agenda for future explorations.
2:09
The report methodology itself was quite comprehensive and
2:13
serious.
2:14
It has more than 200 interviews with all
2:17
kinds of experts on all major areas.
2:23
So workshops and conferences etc was all hosted
2:27
by the Brookings Institute in order to create
2:30
this report.
2:32
The purpose of the analysis was to understand
2:35
the society consequences.
2:38
So how will new technology change the society?
2:43
How will the reaction be on scientific discoveries?
2:47
But also to understand human behavior.
2:50
How will people react on the unknown?
2:54
For instance if we discover that we are
2:56
not alone in the universe.
2:59
It includes the cultural as well as psychological
3:03
effects.
3:06
But also institutions and politics was under the
3:13
scrutiny of the report.
3:15
Because how will governments react on this new
3:21
knowledge if for instance we are not alone
3:25
in the universe?
3:27
But also in terms of international relations.
3:32
We could also look at the communication and
3:35
information.
3:36
How should information be shared?
3:39
And what about the risk for panic or
3:41
misinformation?
3:43
As you probably heard there was in 1938
3:47
a well-known radio program by Wells called
3:52
War of the World.
3:56
I will return to it but basically it
4:00
started some panic.
4:03
And the thing was that in the 1960s,
4:07
which was only 20 years later, there was
4:11
an understanding that we need to spend some
4:14
time in investigating this.
4:16
Because if rumors actually could start panics around
4:20
in the US, perhaps we should investigate some
4:24
resources in this.
4:27
If we look at today, more than 60
4:29
years later, almost 70, you could argue that
4:37
big changes have happened since.
4:40
But interestingly enough some of the founding problems
4:45
are still the same.
4:46
If we do a small comparison, in the
4:51
1960s there was a space race between the
4:54
Soviet Union and USA.
4:57
There was also a possibility of life in
5:01
space.
5:03
And we need to discuss how humans will
5:07
react on, should we say, big scientific discoveries.
5:12
But also how the state itself should handle
5:16
this new knowledge.
5:18
So we have a lot of uncertainty.
5:21
We have a Cold War and we got
5:24
a lot of what-if scenarios.
5:27
Today things are, should we say, more practical.
5:32
Because at that time the question was, what
5:35
if we find life?
5:37
Today we are working with Mars missions, satellites,
5:43
economics in space, etc.
5:45
So you could say that the focus has
5:47
gone from theory to practical stuff.
5:52
Also today we have multiple operators.
5:57
We do not only have the state, because
5:59
at that time we have NASA and the
6:04
Soviet Union, that was it.
6:06
But today we have private actors like SpaceX,
6:10
Blue Origin, Starlink.
6:13
So you could say that the space exploration
6:16
has become commercial and global.
6:21
But we also have new, should we say,
6:23
problems.
6:24
In the 60s, the bookings report were concerned
6:28
about, should we say, a cultural shock, religion
6:30
and physiological reactions.
6:34
Today the concern is more about surveillance from
6:40
satellites, internet control, for instance Starlink.
6:45
We got garbage in space.
6:48
We got ownership of space, for instance, is
6:51
it allowed to own the moon?
6:54
The problem has been more, should we say,
6:56
concrete and political.
6:59
And then we have something entirely new.
7:01
We got AI.
7:03
At the time in the bookings report, we
7:07
do not have artificial intelligence, but we have
7:10
it now.
7:11
And that means that AI is assisting a
7:13
lot of, should we say, pictures of space
7:16
in terms of analysis.
7:19
It is automating a lot of science tasks
7:22
and it helps in decision making.
7:28
So you could say today, if we're riding
7:31
a little up, today we do not have
7:33
the same fear for panic.
7:35
At that time the bookings report was very
7:40
concerned, will people panic if we find life?
7:44
Today we could say that humans, we are
7:50
more hardened in terms of new knowledge.
7:56
The internet and global information, should we say,
8:01
makes us more robust in terms of new
8:05
knowledge.
8:07
So you could say that the focus has
8:08
gone from psychological shock to governance and ethics.
8:14
But what has not changed?
8:16
Well, today we are still very much, in
8:25
terms of new technology that change the society,
8:29
we are still 100%.
8:31
We do not know all consequences and that's
8:36
still the same.
8:37
Instances take out the physical intelligence and the
8:40
space.
8:42
We still have a need for science across
8:46
sectors and that is not only technology, it's
8:50
also sociology and politics.
8:53
So yes, a lot of things has changed.
8:58
Space and space activities has been, should we
9:02
say, every day's work and industry.
9:07
And the problem has been more concrete and
9:10
political.
9:12
New technologies like AI is having a central
9:17
role in this.
9:18
But the, should we say, the main ideas
9:21
from the 1960s are still relevant.
9:24
Because when new technology occurs, we must understand
9:28
the impact for society.
9:32
Okay, let's challenge the bookings report a little.
9:37
Imagine this, would panic break out like in
9:46
the radio show in 1938 if we, for
9:51
instance, discovered aliens?
9:54
Or imagine that, for instance, what if our
9:57
gods was just astronauts that was passing through?
10:03
So let's work with that.
10:05
We start with the aliens as gods.
10:11
Is that idea still valid?
10:15
Yes, it is.
10:16
But in a different way.
10:19
In the 1950s and the 1960s, you are
10:22
seriously concerned about that the discovery of aliens
10:26
could, you know, challenge religion, could create existential
10:31
crisis, because people could think, our gods is
10:36
not gods, but aliens.
10:39
And that was why the report at that
10:40
time was cultural and religious investigating, you could
10:48
say, because you want to analyze the shot
10:51
of the culture and religion, if you found
10:55
out that it was not gods, it was
11:00
simply just, you know, aliens, ancient aliens.
11:05
Today, these thoughts are still there, but it's
11:08
a lot more mainstream.
11:10
Because today we have ancient aliens theories, we
11:13
got a lot of conspiracy theories.
11:16
But it's also a fact that a lot
11:18
of religions has actually changed to the idea
11:24
that there's life in space.
11:29
And the main conclusion is basically that this
11:33
does not change anything.
11:35
So today, you could say that there's less
11:39
shock, and more, you know, one among multiple
11:45
explanations.
11:49
So you could say that what they were
11:54
concerned about in the 1950s and 1960s is
11:58
today already absorbed in culture and debate, simply
12:03
by, you know, look at all the movies
12:07
where we have aliens, look at all the
12:09
different, not only reports, but all kind of,
12:21
not only movies, but TV shows and all
12:24
these kind of things where we have absorbed
12:26
this idea.
12:27
So you could say we are a lot
12:29
more hardened there.
12:31
One of the things, if you return back
12:32
to the War of the World in 1938,
12:35
that was a radio theater, and it was
12:40
sent in, should we say, in news style.
12:44
So some people actually thought that the Earth
12:47
was being invaded, and they were scared.
12:51
But today we know that it was saturated
12:55
a lot in the medias, and it was
12:59
far less that actually went into panic than
13:02
you initially thought.
13:04
One of the key things here is actually
13:05
that the radio was in competitions of, should
13:10
we say, users with the written press.
13:14
Traditional papers was actually exaggerating the effects quite
13:22
a lot, probably because they want to sell
13:25
more newspapers, and that's probably why it was
13:29
exaggerated.
13:35
If we look at the concerns of the
13:37
Perugin's Report from 1960, they were actually using
13:42
these kind of examples to ask questions like,
13:45
will people be able to absorb this shocking
13:49
new knowledge, or should we basically control information.
13:57
At that time it was a real concern
13:59
in the report.
14:01
Today I think that the most scientists will
14:04
think, no, we will not be going to
14:09
panic if somebody is discovering, listen, we are
14:12
not alone in the universe, we have, I
14:15
don't know, four different races here, 10 different
14:19
races, 2000.
14:21
It will not be the same shock as
14:23
it would be at that time.
14:26
But also today we have an information society
14:29
where news is spreading fast.
14:34
But also you have a lot of sources,
14:37
so that means that it's less likely that
14:40
you will just take one story and then
14:45
blow it out of, should we say, what
14:52
it is, and today we're also a lot
14:55
more skeptical.
14:57
I mean, fake news is today something that
15:00
is, you know, a part of everyday life.
15:04
I live in Europe, we have fake news
15:06
all over, the Russians are flooding us with
15:09
this kind of things.
15:11
So today we have a lot of conspiracy
15:19
theories, we have social media that actually can,
15:23
you know, go crazy, we have uncertainty and
15:28
we also have fear in some groups, and
15:31
we also have political and religious debate.
15:34
It will not be panic like in 1938,
15:36
but it will be chaotic, no doubts about
15:39
that.
15:40
So in the 1960s we have a real
15:47
fear for shock and panic.
15:49
Today it's more about misinformation and chaotic.
15:53
Will people panic today?
15:55
Probably not.
15:57
But the reaction could be more complex, it
15:59
will probably be digital and there will be
16:03
a lot of fragments.
16:10
You could also ask if NASA was spending
16:13
money on a report with 200 interviews, with
16:18
conferences, etc.
16:20
That cannot be cheap and it probably wasn't.
16:25
So I think that the fear was not
16:29
without reason, but it might not be realistic
16:36
in the form that you initially, you know,
16:39
thought.
16:40
So if we start why NASA actually took
16:44
this serious, it is correct that NASA used
16:50
resources, for instance on the Brookings report before
16:56
the moon landing.
16:57
It says something important because NASA took the
17:02
uncertainty regarding new discoveries very serious.
17:09
And one other thing was actually in terms
17:11
of technology, we think that today we have
17:16
a lot of new technology, but you know,
17:18
in the 50s and 60s a lot of
17:20
the population, you know, they went to see
17:23
the atomic bomb.
17:25
We have space rockets, we have satellites, we
17:27
have possibilities of life in space.
17:31
We have that from the White Brothers to
17:35
jet, to space flight, all in a single
17:40
life.
17:41
So you could say that people, they have
17:46
discovered on their own body that science could
17:48
change the world dramatically and also in a
17:52
dangerous way.
17:53
So if technology has created the global fear,
17:59
you know, atomics, why not on space exploration?
18:03
And I think that's a valid point.
18:06
Furthermore, at that time we have the Cold
18:08
War.
18:09
The Soviet Union was actually quite expansive.
18:13
So in that context, it was US versus
18:16
the Soviet Union.
18:18
We had a lot of propaganda and psychological
18:20
warfare and also a fear for destabilization.
18:25
So if you had, should we say, an
18:28
alien's discovery, in theory it could be a
18:32
part of that game.
18:37
So bottom line was that NASA's conclusion was
18:40
we needed knowledge about human reaction.
18:46
How will people react on world changing information?
18:51
So was the fear realistic?
18:54
I would say yes, because you stood here
18:58
on something entirely new.
19:02
We had a history that showed that people
19:06
could react irrationally, like in the War of
19:09
the Worlds scenarios, and communication was slower and
19:14
less controlled.
19:16
So you could say this was responsible risk
19:21
management.
19:24
But it was also, I mean, there was
19:28
no mass panic.
19:29
So the War of the Worlds scenario was
19:32
exaggerated.
19:34
People was a lot more stable than initial
19:37
thought.
19:38
There was no religious collapse.
19:40
Today we see religions that, should we say,
19:45
adopt new knowledge and faith does not evaporate.
19:51
For instance, the Vatican has an observatory, I
19:54
think it's in Montana, but if I'm wrong,
19:58
it's one of the other northern states in
20:01
the US.
20:02
Bottom line is that what is, should we
20:07
say, what is the spiritual explanation of having
20:13
an observatory looking at the stars for the
20:16
Vatican?
20:18
Anyway, it's there.
20:20
But also that today a single shock will,
20:27
yeah, perhaps create a global reaction, but it
20:30
will not be, you know, a global disaster.
20:34
And I think the most important was here
20:37
that if we look at the report, the
20:40
Brookings report, it is not primarily about fear
20:45
for aliens.
20:46
It is about how society reacted on large
20:53
scientific breakthroughs.
20:56
So you could say alien was just the
20:58
most extreme example.
21:01
If I go further down the rabbit hole
21:03
and we could, you know, ask what if
21:06
aliens was massive technological ahead of us and,
21:14
for instance, eat humans in the same way
21:17
as we are having, you know, kettles and
21:19
so on.
21:21
Was that investigated?
21:23
And the short answer is no, it was
21:25
not.
21:27
It was not about how alien was, but
21:30
how people would react if we discovered aliens.
21:35
So the purpose of the report was to
21:39
investigate the social consequences, the political consequences, the
21:43
psychological reactions, and of course, cultural and religious
21:48
changes.
21:52
And it was only indirect, you know, if
21:55
it was, should we say, dangerous or aliens.
22:02
The report does mention that contact with aliens,
22:08
but they will probably say something like, this
22:15
extreme examples does not make sense to do
22:19
science in.
22:20
For instance, they mentioned that extraterrestrials are something
22:25
that is out of, you know, practical science.
22:29
So you could say, in other words, that
22:31
they were actually rejecting to analyze concrete alien
22:35
scenarios.
22:36
So it was very indirect, this analysis in
22:40
terms of dangerous aliens.
22:47
If I should go a step further and
22:49
say, how would science actually describe this?
22:57
I think they would say something like that,
22:59
you know, we are working with science, this
23:01
is no speculations.
23:03
They would focus on what they believe as
23:06
realistic problems.
23:11
They will not do it, go into science
23:13
fiction.
23:14
So stories regarding that, you know, aliens that
23:17
eat humans, that is not something you can
23:19
do a policy about.
23:20
So that we will not waste time on.
23:23
They will probably say something like that.
23:27
And they will also say something like that,
23:28
you know, the focus is on information, not
23:31
on contact.
23:33
What they were interested in, what is, what
23:38
if we discover sickness, what if we find
23:40
microorganisms and so on.
23:43
It was not a very, in terms of
23:45
what if we are getting invaded and things
23:47
like that.
23:49
And the last thing I would say here
23:51
is that they would also probably say something
23:55
like that, despite that NASA is actually on
23:59
the Department of Defense, or should I say
24:03
the Department of War, despite that NASA is
24:07
a civil institution and by definition a peaceful.
24:11
So the report was quite explicit regarding peaceful
24:16
space activities.
24:17
That is about science, it's about cooperation and
24:20
technology.
24:21
That is not war against aliens.
24:23
And that is why they would not waste
24:26
money and time of this hostile alien scenario.
24:36
And they will also probably say something like,
24:39
you know, the most important in this is
24:42
not the different scenarios, but that is the
24:45
human reactions on the unknown.
24:47
That is far more important than the unknown
24:50
itself.
24:52
And that's why they would analyze attitudes, values,
24:58
institutions and so on, but not aliens' biology
25:01
or intentions.
25:09
But you would also say, what is different
25:13
from today versus that time?
25:15
Has NASA changed its policies?
25:17
Yes, NASA has changed the policies, but not
25:21
the total change.
25:23
I think it's fair to say that NASA
25:25
is still thinking about the consequences, but how
25:33
they do it and what the focus is
25:35
has changed significantly, if you ask me.
25:39
In the 1960s, NASA's focus was about what
25:43
if we discover life, how would humans react?
25:48
At that time, they were doing, should we
25:50
say, large analysis.
25:53
They were using different kinds of sciences.
25:57
And the way of thinking was created by,
26:01
you know, a lot of concern that the
26:04
Cold War and the fear for society's reactions.
26:09
That was why they created a report that
26:13
was, you know, basically, let's prepare for all,
26:17
also the unknown.
26:19
If we look at it today, you could
26:21
say that, at least that's my impression, that
26:25
there's a lot less focus on human panic.
26:29
NASA does, at least to my knowledge, no
26:31
longer create reports like the Brookings that ask,
26:35
you know, basically, will people go into panic?
26:38
Today, they are more general.
26:39
You would say that the society is a
26:42
lot more robust and is used to new
26:46
knowledge.
26:47
But also, NASA has the focus on concrete
26:50
systems.
26:51
Today, NASA is working with, you know, Mars
26:53
missions, with exoplanets, search for possible life, astrobiology,
26:59
and so on.
27:00
But the focus is how do we find
27:03
life, not what it does with religion.
27:08
But also, they have clear protocols, and that,
27:10
I think, is a new one.
27:13
So, instead of broad speculations, you now have,
27:15
should we say, detection and announcement protocols.
27:19
If NASA finds life, results should be verified,
27:26
the data should be shared openly, and society
27:30
should be informed, should we say, controlled.
27:36
But back in the 60s, in reality, there
27:39
was only US and Soviet Union.
27:42
Today, you have international cooperation with ESA in
27:47
Europe, and you have different international society networks,
27:52
and you basically got a lot less paranoia
27:55
and a lot more cooperation.
28:00
But you also have today new concerns.
28:05
Today, NASA is, you know, very much concerned
28:09
about, you know, contamination.
28:12
Can we bring bacteria to Mars, and can
28:16
we bring something back?
28:18
It's about data and evidence, it's about climate
28:21
and Earth observation, and so on.
28:24
So, you could say that today the risk
28:26
is about biology and technology, not about science
28:29
fiction.
28:32
You could also ask, has NASA entirely dropped
28:36
the Brookings report's way of thinking?
28:40
Not completely.
28:42
I think that the founding idea is still
28:44
living there.
28:45
We are still thinking about, or sorry, NASA
28:48
is still thinking about consequences, about being prepared,
28:54
about cooperation with other sciences.
29:03
So, if we sum this up, you could
29:05
say that the official line of NASA is
29:07
now focused on microbiology, microbiology, yeah, I can't
29:12
say that, I'll try again, microbiology, life, and
29:17
biosignature, and not on intelligent civilization or alien
29:20
invasions and things like that.
29:22
Not because it's impossible, but because it's outside,
29:26
should we say, practical science.
29:29
That, I think, this is what they would
29:30
say.
29:39
One of the, should we say, critical questions
29:43
you could ask is that, imagine that aliens
29:46
does exist, what does the report say about
29:50
the negative effects about, you know, publicizing this
29:55
into the public?
29:59
But I think it is fair to say
30:02
that the report does not conclude that you
30:04
should hide the evidence of aliens.
30:12
It's more, should we say, nuanced.
30:16
And I think that we need to discuss
30:18
this a little more thoroughly.
30:23
The report says we do not know how
30:26
people will react, and that's why we need
30:29
to investigate it further.
30:32
The report says some groupings could react negatively,
30:38
especially if their, should we say, worldview is
30:41
challenged.
30:48
And that is one of the, should we
30:50
say, most cited points.
30:54
It is that, from the report, it is
30:57
that some societies or groupings could have problems
31:01
with, you know, handling this new knowledge.
31:05
But this hypothesis is not a recommendation.
31:09
The report does not say, okay, then we
31:11
don't tell them.
31:13
That is not what the groupings report says.
31:17
But it works with questions like, who will
31:21
react negatively, under what circumstances, and how do
31:25
we communicate this on the best possible way?
31:29
So you could say that the focus is
31:31
about how do we inform this in a
31:34
responsible way, and not to, you know, to
31:38
hide the information.
31:45
But if I'm going to be the devil's
31:47
advocate, I would say something like that the
31:49
Brookings Institute report from 1960s is actually a
31:53
recipe in how to control information.
31:57
Because I think it's a valid point to
31:59
discuss that the US military, especially, but not
32:03
only US military, all militaries in the Western
32:06
world, has, you know, been keeping back recordings
32:10
of, you know, UFOs and UAPs and so
32:16
on.
32:16
And if I read the Brookings report, it
32:21
is as a recommendation to, you know, control
32:24
information of aliens.
32:27
And if that is the case, that's happened
32:29
for over 60 years.
32:31
And I think that's a valid point.
32:34
They will probably say, if we ask the
32:40
writers of the report, if possible, that they
32:48
will probably say that, to some degree, it's
32:51
correct that the US has, you know, kept
32:54
back UFO recordings.
32:57
Because for many years, US military has classified
33:01
observations of UFOs and UAPs.
33:05
They have not published the data.
33:09
And they, for instance, in the Pentagon videos
33:11
from, I believe it's 2017 and 2020.
33:18
And to some extent, they might be right
33:20
there.
33:20
Because I think that the primary reason was,
33:24
you know, basically military security.
33:27
It was also in terms of technology.
33:30
And that could also be uncertainty, what it
33:33
is that you've actually seen.
33:35
But that's not the same as to say
33:38
that the military itself, you know, knew if
33:41
this was aliens.
33:47
But does it mean that the Brookings reports
33:51
was followed as, you know, as a manual
33:53
for secrecy?
34:01
I would say that they would probably answer
34:05
that the Brookings report does not recommend secrecy.
34:09
It would say something like, you know, that
34:12
investigate reactions, prepare communication, and you should be
34:18
probably be aware of consequences.
34:21
So I think the writers would say this
34:25
is an analysis.
34:26
It's not, you know, how to keep it
34:28
secret policy.
34:33
But even if we have no aliens in
34:35
the picture, there could be valid reasons for,
34:39
you know, to hide military technology.
34:42
Because in some of this video, you can
34:44
actually see some, you know, radar and sensor
34:47
systems.
34:49
They are secret.
34:50
And if you show this, you actually, you
34:54
know, tell your enemy what your capacities are.
35:00
And then there's also the uncertainty, you know,
35:03
a lot of observation is not explained.
35:07
And you could argue that the military was,
35:11
you know, trying to avoid spread false information,
35:15
and, you know, basically to create uncertainty.
35:23
But it's also in terms of intelligence, you
35:26
know, some of this unknown object, they could
35:28
be, you know, enemy systems, it could be
35:32
test airplanes, it could be drones, etc.
35:37
So I think that the secrecy is not
35:41
the same as proof of aliens.
35:46
But the thing is here, how do we
35:50
know?
35:52
And that is actually one of, I think,
35:57
the key problems.
35:59
Because we know that, for fact, that especially
36:05
in US, where you have the Freedom of
36:08
Information Act, I think it's a well known
36:12
factor that the especially the military, but also
36:19
the government itself, you know, they keep things
36:22
secret.
36:23
And the thing is that we do not
36:25
know what's secret and what is not.
36:28
And what is valid and what is not.
36:30
Because how can we as society, you know,
36:33
raise the right Christians, if we, if we
36:35
are not informed about what is happening.
36:40
But, and that is actually, I think, the
36:43
key thing in science, because science will say
36:48
that, you are keeping things secret, because we
36:58
are used to work with not having all
37:01
the information.
37:06
I would say one of the key problems
37:07
in terms of, you know, the state, that
37:11
is that if the state keeps something secret,
37:15
how can we trust anything?
37:17
Because, you know, if important knowledge is hidden,
37:24
how can we verify what, you know, what
37:28
the picture is?
37:33
We cannot, you know, use open evidence, because
37:37
what we know is based on data that
37:41
can be tested.
37:42
But if we have no data to test
37:44
because they are kept secret, how can we,
37:47
you know, do open evidence?
37:50
The same goes with repetition, or should I
37:53
say replication?
37:56
Because if other scientists should be able to
38:00
do the same result, that is required that,
38:04
you know, we basically have, you know, sensors,
38:07
it's open, what's happened in this, the specification
38:11
of the sensor is known.
38:12
So we can, you know, basically test this
38:15
again.
38:17
If the sensors is redacted or perhaps hidden
38:21
in secret files and so on, how can
38:25
we, you know, do this kind of things?
38:28
And how can we be sceptic in terms
38:31
of science, if we don't know what to
38:36
be sceptic about?
38:40
And that is what I think here.
38:43
If you ask a science, they will probably
38:46
say, no, it does not destroy anything from
38:50
science, but it creates some, should we say,
38:55
limitations.
38:56
So if the data, sorry, if the military
38:59
has data that the scientist does not see,
39:02
then science, you know, will miss this information.
39:07
But science can still work with what is
39:10
accessible and what can be tested.
39:14
And that is, I think, a false idea.
39:29
I think that if we do not need
39:33
to know everything, but secrecy is generating a
39:38
problem.
39:40
I think also it's fair to say that
39:42
it does not destroy science, but it limits
39:46
it quite severely.
39:48
I don't think it necessarily works anymore, because
39:53
it's built on what is able to be
39:55
tested and to be shared.
39:58
But if not everything is, you know, on
40:03
the table, then how can we do this?
40:08
And that is actually why I think that
40:11
the Brookings report is actually, you know, a
40:16
recipe in order how to control information.
40:19
Because the thing is, by the end of
40:21
the day, we have the war of the
40:25
world scenarios in 1938.
40:27
We have the report created in the 1960s.
40:32
And the thing is that even if it
40:35
does not say that information should be controlled,
40:39
it does say that, you know, it should
40:42
be investigated further.
40:44
We do not know as citizens if this
40:46
report was created.
40:48
Was it investigated further?
40:50
And what was the recommendation of that?
40:52
And that, I think, is a little troublesome
40:55
in terms of, you know, checking these things.
41:01
Because how would we know the right questions
41:06
to ask if nobody tells us and if
41:09
anything related to this is kept secret?
41:14
And that's the main thing.
41:16
Actually, I think that the Brookings report was
41:19
a quite important contribution in how to control
41:23
knowledge.
41:24
Because it basically says that if we do
41:29
not control knowledge, we can end up in
41:31
all these scenarios.
41:34
And that, I think, is a little understated
41:37
in the analysis of the Brookings reports.
41:42
Because it says what happens to society, but
41:46
it's also pinpoint a recipe in order to
41:49
make sure that the society does never get
41:53
the information that is required.
41:56
Thank you for listening.