In a conversation that could have easily devolved into a casual chat about music and space, Benn Jordan and Mark SubbaRao pivot sharply to the most urgent crisis facing modern science: the emotional roots of denial. Jordan frames the issue not as an intellectual deficit but as an identity crisis, arguing that the path to truth requires empathy before evidence. This distinction is vital for anyone trying to navigate a world where facts are increasingly treated as optional preferences.
The Psychology of Denial
Jordan, a seasoned science communicator, begins by dismantling the assumption that scientific illiteracy is merely a lack of information. He notes that early in his career, fringe theories seemed harmless, but the landscape has shifted dramatically. "What's happened in the last five years is the explosion of these theories and in particular... in areas that really matter and can really impact our lives," Jordan observes. He points to the tangible cost of this shift, citing research suggesting that "130,000 extra people would be saved if we were everybody wore a mask."
The core of Jordan's argument is that logic alone cannot penetrate the walls of denial because those walls were not built with logic. He explains that while science relies on rational thought, denial is often "emotionally derived." Consequently, attacking the person or their intelligence backfires. "Calling them stupid doesn't help; that actually makes that probably turns them from the science denier to the science hater," Jordan warns. Instead, he advocates for a strategy rooted in listening and finding common ground, a method that acknowledges the human need for community and identity.
This approach is particularly effective because it addresses the root cause rather than the symptom. Jordan references the documentary Behind the Curve to illustrate that for many, rejecting a scientific fact means rejecting their entire community. "People have found a community of people who believe the same way they do and it's so embedded in their identity that being presented with having to reject it that idea is also really rejecting who they are," he explains. By reframing the conversation from a debate of facts to a negotiation of identity, Jordan offers a more humane, albeit slower, path to persuasion.
Critics might argue that this empathetic approach is too slow to address immediate existential threats like climate change or pandemics, where rapid consensus is needed. However, Jordan's point is that speed without buy-in is illusory; without addressing the emotional underpinnings, policy changes will always face insurmountable resistance.
People have found a community of people who believe the same way they do and it's so embedded in their identity that being presented with having to reject it that idea is also really rejecting who they are.
The Kessler Syndrome and the Space Junk Trap
Shifting from the social to the physical, the discussion turns to the growing peril of space debris. Jordan and SubbaRao tackle the terrifying possibility of the Kessler Syndrome, a scenario where low Earth orbit becomes so cluttered with debris that it triggers a runaway chain reaction of collisions. The stakes are incredibly high, as orbital speeds mean that even a small collision can generate tens of thousands of new fragments. "One collision will make many more things... and it's just a runaway effect where we now fill low Earth orbit with debris," Jordan describes.
The conversation highlights a critical gap in global governance. While the Outer Space Treaty exists, it primarily governs territorial claims and lacks robust mechanisms to limit the number of satellites launched. Jordan notes that the barrier to entry has lowered, making it easy for private entities to launch small satellites, yet there is no clear international agreement to restrict the volume of traffic. "I'm not sure there are solid agreements to limit the number of stuff that goes up there," he admits, underscoring the regulatory vacuum.
This lack of coordination is dangerous because the physics of space is unforgiving. The risk isn't just that we might lose access to space; it's that we could seal ourselves in a "trash tomb," preventing the very technologies needed to clean up the mess. The urgency is compounded by the rapid deployment of massive satellite constellations, with Jordan noting that even established networks have already seen a significant percentage of their units fail and become debris.
The Martian Dream and the Energy Barrier
The final segment explores the feasibility of human colonization of Mars, a topic that blends hard physics with human ambition. Jordan, who once applied for the Mars One program, offers a grounded perspective on the challenges of interplanetary travel. He distinguishes between a one-way trip and a round trip, noting that the energy required to return is a massive multiplier. "The difference between just going there and staying and going and come back is a factor of like eight in energy," Jordan explains.
Beyond the energy equation, the biological and psychological hurdles remain immense. The conversation touches on the necessity of creating a self-sustaining ecosystem, referencing the fictional potatoes of The Martian as a metaphor for the real challenge of food production. "It's not just bringing people back; it's staying alive once you're there," Jordan emphasizes, pointing to radiation exposure and the six-month transit time as critical barriers.
Despite the grim realities, Jordan remains optimistic about the timeline. He believes that a human mission to Mars will happen within our lifetime, driven by the same technological momentum that has already sent rovers to the Red Planet. However, the discussion also touches on the theoretical nature of multiverse theories, linking black holes and the concept of wormholes to the idea of parallel universes. Jordan explains that while these concepts are mathematically plausible through Einstein-Rosen bridges, they remain speculative. The most standard cosmological model, chaotic inflation, suggests that the universe's rapid expansion could have created a multiverse, but this remains a theoretical framework rather than an observed reality.
Bottom Line
Jordan's commentary succeeds by humanizing the abstract, whether discussing the psychology of denial or the physics of space travel. His strongest argument is that scientific communication must evolve from a lecture on facts to a dialogue about identity. The biggest vulnerability in his space analysis is the lack of concrete policy solutions for the debris crisis, leaving the problem identified but unresolved. Readers should watch for how international bodies attempt to regulate the exploding number of satellite launches, as the window to prevent a Kessler Syndrome event is closing rapidly.