Scan barcode
valtimke's review against another edition
2.0
I tend to really enjoy Neil deGrasse Tyson's critical thinking and engaging thought processes. This collection of letter correspondences was thoroughly engaging (though still took me half the year to read because admittedly I probably won't retain half of the information I learn in here). However, Neil repeatedly mentions in the face of skepticism that morals can withstand without the face of God, and that he has made it his mission to contribute to less suffering. I find this view/mission of his incompatible with the views (or lack thereof) he presents in here about animal suffering.
For example, the tweet on Twitter about cows being biologically designed to convert grass into steak. I can appreciate how he argues this statement is opinion neutral when faced with opposition from vegans, but he also purposefully omits an opinion on it. Yet, the fact that he cared enough to post it means he surely has one. Is Neil really so cocky as to pretend he doesn't have biases?
Another contradiction I found was his repeated assurance that doing what is right is never easy. He even goes so far as to say those who haven't read the Bible but follow it are guilty of not engaging their mental faculties. He is surely right, but how come when he then states that it is much easier to advance science to grow a steak than to convince millions of people not to eat steak? Is he incapable of engaging in an argument just because it is difficult? He skirts the issue entirely and refuses to be in conversation with it. If he really wants to reduce suffering, well, why not make a statement about animal suffering and environmental damages to the Earth from factory farming?
Neil, if you ever see this, and I hope you do, you can't see the stars from a planet too hot to survive on. Or maybe science should just skirt the issue and invent a way to survive the temperatures. You say you like to read. Read Eating Animals or watch an Earthling Ed video.
For example, the tweet on Twitter about cows being biologically designed to convert grass into steak. I can appreciate how he argues this statement is opinion neutral when faced with opposition from vegans, but he also purposefully omits an opinion on it. Yet, the fact that he cared enough to post it means he surely has one. Is Neil really so cocky as to pretend he doesn't have biases?
Another contradiction I found was his repeated assurance that doing what is right is never easy. He even goes so far as to say those who haven't read the Bible but follow it are guilty of not engaging their mental faculties. He is surely right, but how come when he then states that it is much easier to advance science to grow a steak than to convince millions of people not to eat steak? Is he incapable of engaging in an argument just because it is difficult? He skirts the issue entirely and refuses to be in conversation with it. If he really wants to reduce suffering, well, why not make a statement about animal suffering and environmental damages to the Earth from factory farming?
Neil, if you ever see this, and I hope you do, you can't see the stars from a planet too hot to survive on. Or maybe science should just skirt the issue and invent a way to survive the temperatures. You say you like to read. Read Eating Animals or watch an Earthling Ed video.
adinatantalo's review against another edition
5.0
It’s difficult to rate this as any less than 5 stars because it’s exactly what it’s promised to be- a collection of letters written to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and his responses. It’s not necessarily all about the cosmos, but there is still a lot to learn and take away from this book, especially in regards to humanity as a whole. Neil is always gracious (even in his perfect response to Moby), but matter of fact, which is exactly why I love him. Listening to the audiobook narrated by Neil himself was a treat.
nerdy_scholar's review against another edition
5.0
A very touching collection of personal correspondence. It was a great thing to see some still care too much about Pluto's status after all those years!
reasie's review against another edition
3.0
Smooth and polished, it definitely gives you a thorough look at Neil deGrasse Tyson's personality.
He's blunt and pulls no punches. Ardently moderate.
I liked learning he dabbled in calligraphy.
The 9-11 recollections were the most intimate part of the letters, with the greatest glimpse directly into his life.
Also a clear sign of how very many letters famous people get that are gently hinting "Give me something" without outright saying it. Sometimes I thought Dr. Tyson was being purposefully obtuse when he answered people, but more often, I could see how that sort of tact saved face all around.
If you're looking for deeper insights, his other works would be better, though. This is mostly very casual stuff, easy to read but not terribly engaging.
He's blunt and pulls no punches. Ardently moderate.
I liked learning he dabbled in calligraphy.
The 9-11 recollections were the most intimate part of the letters, with the greatest glimpse directly into his life.
Also a clear sign of how very many letters famous people get that are gently hinting "Give me something" without outright saying it. Sometimes I thought Dr. Tyson was being purposefully obtuse when he answered people, but more often, I could see how that sort of tact saved face all around.
If you're looking for deeper insights, his other works would be better, though. This is mostly very casual stuff, easy to read but not terribly engaging.
booksmithscientist's review against another edition
Just not the format for me 🤷🏻♀️