Get Your Weekly Digest

Receive the best podcast summaries and insights delivered to your inbox every week.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.

StarTalk Radio

Cosmic Queries - ALIENS! with Jake Roper

with Jake Roper

Published October 24, 2025
View Show Notes

About This Episode

Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-host Chuck interview YouTube science communicator Jake Roper in a Cosmic Queries episode focused on aliens in movies and TV. They discuss the plausibility of alien diseases, energy weapons, and iconic movie aliens, as well as how humanity might react to first contact, whether governments would hide evidence of intelligent life, and why self-replicating machines are a likely form of extraterrestrial visitors. Throughout, they compare cinematic depictions with basic physics, biology, and astrobiology concepts to assess what could and could not work in reality.

Topics Covered

Science fiction Non-human intelligence Space exploration Government secrecy Existential risk Robotics Artificial intelligence Fermi paradox First contact protocols

Disclaimer: We provide independent summaries of podcasts and are not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by any podcast or creator. All podcast names and content are the property of their respective owners. The views and opinions expressed within the podcasts belong solely to the original hosts and guests and do not reflect the views or positions of Summapod.

Quick Takeaways

  • Biological cross-contamination between humans and truly alien organisms is probably unlikely because most pathogens are highly species-specific, but caution would still be warranted with any extraterrestrial life form.
  • Depictions of instant vaporization death rays in films require enormous, precisely targeted energy and often ignore how much liquid must first be boiled away from the human body.
  • Many cinematic aliens are thinly veiled reflections of human behavior, especially our tendency toward aggression and colonization, rather than realistic projections of advanced extraterrestrial motives.
  • From a physics and engineering standpoint, the most plausible first visitors may be intelligent machines or self-replicating probes rather than flesh-and-blood aliens.
  • If a civilization is advanced enough to cross interstellar distances, it would almost certainly be technologically far beyond us, undercutting the fantasy that we could fight them with contemporary weapons.
  • Movies like Contact and Arrival capture more realistic elements of first contact, such as scientific decoders, linguistics, and chaotic human social reactions, even if they stretch some scientific details.
  • Government secrecy around aliens, as imagined in Men in Black, is plausible in a narrative sense, but real space missions are already openly searching for microbial life on other worlds.
  • The Fermi paradox highlights that self-replicating machines could, in principle, spread through a galaxy far faster than its age, raising questions about why we don't yet see evidence of such probes.

Podcast Notes

Episode setup and introduction

Archive framing and show identity

Neil introduces the episode as a special selection from the StarTalk archives to satisfy "cosmic curiosities"[1:40]
StarTalk is framed as the place where science and pop culture collide[1:55]

Cosmic Queries format and topic

Neil notes that in Cosmic Queries episodes, audience questions drive the conversation and experts are brought in[2:17]
Today's subject is explicitly stated as "Aliens in film and TV" and also described later as "Aliens in the movies and TV"[2:35]
Neil comments that aliens are a huge subject "for something for which there's no data"[2:40]

Neil's stance on whether we are alone in the universe

Belief vs inference about aliens

Chuck asks Neil directly if he believes in aliens and whether we are alone in the universe[2:59]
Neil replies that it is not about "belief" and calls it inexcusably egocentric to suggest Earth is alone in the universe[3:12]
He cites the age of the universe, the prevalence of organic chemistry, and the relatively quick emergence of life on Earth (about 100 million years) as reasons it would be astonishing if we were alone[3:19]
• Neil notes that 100 million years sounds long but is short compared with Earth's and the universe's timescales

Introducing guest Jake Roper and his background

Guest introduction and work

Neil introduces "the one and only Jake" and references his resume[4:01]
Jake is described as host of the Vsauce3 science channel on YouTube and host of the series "Could You Survive the Movies?"[4:03]
Neil praises the concept of putting people through movie scenarios and exploring them scientifically, calling it a "brilliant concept" and "his job"[4:21]
Jake confirms that his job is to watch movies and explore them scientifically, and that he is paid to do so[4:33]

Easiest alien movie to survive and E.T.'s biology

Question about survivability in alien films

Chuck asks Jake what is the easiest alien movie to survive, specifying physically surviving an alien film[5:34]
Jake initially suggests E.T. as the easiest to survive[5:48]
He notes that in E.T. the authorities quarantined the alien because of unknown bacteria or viruses, highlighting real concerns about cross-species contamination[6:00]
• Jake imagines a darker postscript where the kids later develop horrific growths due to exposure, even though E.T. has already left and the film ends

Steven Spielberg's view of E.T. as a plant-based life form

Neil recalls having Steven Spielberg in his office and being told that Spielberg imagined E.T. as a vegetable, i.e., a plant-based life form rather than an animal[6:56]
Neil connects this to E.T.'s relationship with plants in the film, such as reviving flowers[7:03]
He notes that because E.T. walks, talks, and has humanoid features, audiences naturally think of him as animal life, even though Spielberg conceptualized him as plant life[6:59]

Likelihood of catching an alien disease

Neil discusses the question of how likely humans would be to catch a disease from an alien like E.T.[8:13]
He explains that most diseases we know are very specific to the life forms they infect; for example, an oak tree will not get whooping cough[8:24]
Neil notes that many viruses cannot cross species without mutation and that even on Earth, many pathogens only affect certain species despite shared DNA[8:38]
He concludes that the chance an alien from another planet has something contagious to humans is probably low, but agrees with Jake that caution and quarantine would still be wise[8:42]

War of the Worlds death ray and physics of turning humans to ash

Description of the War of the Worlds weapon

A listener asks about the 2005 film War of the Worlds in which alien machines eviscerate people with white laser beams that turn them into ash[9:25]
The question is whether it is possible to harness light into a super-laser that could do that, and where one could go to stay safe or how to defend against such a weapon[9:33]

Jake and Neil on feasibility of such a weapon

Jake notes that in the movie, the aliens are ultimately defeated by a virus, tying back to humans as contaminants that kill them[10:32]
He says in principle it is possible to generate enough energy to completely eviscerate a person; the weapon need not literally be "light" as depicted but must deliver enormous energy[11:00]
Neil generalizes that a laser is just another way of moving energy from one place to another, analogous to a bow and arrow, bullet, or gunpowder explosion[11:08]
• He suggests abstracting the question to: how can you have energy over here and put it over there with more energy than the target has, which is the essence of any weapon

Energy requirements to reduce a human to ash

Jake points out that for someone to instantly become ash, the beam would need to encompass the entire body, not just a small region, otherwise it would simply bore a hole like a bullet[12:06]
He and Neil agree that because the human body is full of water, the weapon would first need to vaporize all moisture before burning the remaining material to ash[12:16]
• Neil emphasizes that the beam must deliver enough energy to boil blood to a rolling boil, evaporate it, and then combust the rest, which likely takes longer than depicted in the film
They note an inconsistency: in the film, only people are turned to ash while the beam does not similarly destroy the ground, buildings, or plant life behind them[13:35]

Selective energy interaction and real non-lethal weapons

Neil introduces the idea of tuning a weapon to specific molecules, mentioning real-world non-lethal crowd-control weapons that use microwaves[14:00]
• He describes a military truck-based system that emits microwaves causing people to feel their skin burning, prompting crowds to disperse
• He explains that microwaves interact strongly with water molecules, which is why food heats in a microwave oven but the plate may not
Neil suggests that, analogously, a beam tuned to human biology could hypothetically vaporize humans within its footprint without damaging inanimate objects behind them[14:42]
Jake adds a real-world example of stores in the UK using high-frequency sounds that only teenagers can hear to discourage teen loitering, illustrating selective interaction based on biology[15:03]

Men in Black-style secret agencies and hiding alien contact

Could an MIB-like organization exist?

A listener asks whether a secret organization like Men in Black could be established if the government found aliens and whether Neil and Jake would make films more reality-bound[16:15]
Jake says he assumes yes, an organization would be created, though it would probably not be as cool and glamorous as the one depicted in Men in Black[16:49]

Would authorities hide knowledge of intelligent aliens?

Neil asks whether government or the scientific community would shield the public from knowledge that we are not alone, focusing especially on sentient, human-like aliens[17:00]
Jake distinguishes between microbial life sought on Mars or Europa and the public's idea of "life" as sentient beings that walk, talk, and think for themselves[17:29]
He says that for microorganisms, we are already openly hunting for life, but for walking, talking aliens, he assumes government would likely hide such information because it would be highly disruptive[17:52]

Deep ocean life as "alien"

Jake comments that deep ocean creatures appear so foreign compared to land life that they feel "alien" in appearance and environment[18:48]
Neil replies that whether they are truly alien is testable via DNA overlap, but agrees it's fun to think of them as alien-like[18:58]

Favorite fictional aliens in movies and why

Chuck's favorite: the xenomorph from Alien

A listener asks each of them for their favorite fictional alien from movies or games and why[24:11]
Chuck enthusiastically chooses the alien from the movie Alien, praising its cunning intelligence, unknown motivation, love of fighting, and terrifying design[24:49]
• He highlights its nested mouths ("a mouth in a mouth in a mouth"), acid blood, rapid movement, and complex life cycle involving face-huggers, host impregnation, and emerging "snake"-like creatures

Jake's favorite: the Thing

Jake says he loves Alien but picks the creature from John Carpenter's The Thing as his favorite alien[26:31]
He describes the Thing as an organism that takes the shape of its host, acting like an intergalactic parasite and shapeshifter so that no one knows who is infected[26:38]
• He finds it particularly spooky that the host may or may not be aware they are no longer human, raising the conundrum of whether someone could believe they are themselves while actually controlled by a parasite
Jake compares The Thing to Invasion of the Body Snatchers, noting both involve aliens taking over humans but differ in tone and stated motivations[29:03]

Neil's picks: The Blob and the unseen alien from Contact

Neil calls The Blob the most imaginative Hollywood alien because it is not a humanoid in a costume and initially appears colorless, only turning red after consuming its first person[29:32]
• He emphasizes its ability to ooze through any opening like vents or under doors and the fact that bullets are essentially irrelevant to it rather than being resisted in a conventional way
Neil's "cop-out" favorite alien is the one in Contact, which is never visually shown; instead, it presents itself in a comforting form and remains materially undefined[30:56]
• He notes that in both Contact and 2001/2010, the aliens are not depicted visually, which he likes because it leaves their nature beyond simple material representation

Can we even comprehend alien forms?

Jake's idea of incomprehensible aliens

Jake suggests that if we truly saw aliens, we might not be able to comprehend them at all and would instead force them into familiar shapes like the classic "gray" alien stereotype[31:57]
He argues that because we only understand shapes we currently know, something not bound by our understanding could look entirely different, and we might mentally reframe it[32:05]

Neil's counterpoint and Star Trek's Horta

Neil counters that if observers are open-minded, they can simply add new categories when confronting unprecedented forms, using the Horta from Star Trek as an example[32:26]
• He describes the Horta as a rock-like life form that moves through silicates like humans move through air and notes that it was a creative alien precisely because it is not humanoid

Arrival, who to send into an alien spacecraft, and communication issues

Who should represent humanity in Arrival-type scenarios?

A listener references the movie Arrival, where a particle physicist and a linguist are sent, and asks who Neil and Jake would choose to send into an alien spacecraft[33:55]
Jake critiques the choice of a particle physicist and says he would prefer a biologist, given unknown alien biology, while acknowledging the logic of sending a linguist once it's known communication is happening[34:11]
Neil says he would send an astrobiologist and a cryptographer instead of a particle physicist, since astrobiologists and cryptographers both know math and can handle biological and encoding challenges[35:09]
Chuck suggests a theoretical mathematician, arguing that any civilization capable of interstellar travel must have used math we could share[34:46]
• Neil counters that astrobiologists are trained in math as part of their curriculum, so they could cover that domain while also addressing life sciences

Mirror-image problem with the heptapod writing

Neil raises a specific realism issue in Arrival: the aliens write on transparent glass, and the humans assume the writing is oriented toward them rather than toward the aliens' side[36:06]
He questions how they knew the symbols weren't mirror images meant for the aliens themselves, suggesting the team should have considered studying the mirrored version[35:52]
Jake humorously replies that the aliens are considerate and intentionally draw backward for the humans' convenience[36:17]
Chuck criticizes the idea that aliens smart enough for intergalactic travel couldn't quickly learn English, calling that his main problem with the movie[36:44]

Close Encounters and unrealistic longitude/latitude clues

Neil describes a scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind where aliens send coordinates via teletype that decode to Earth's longitude and latitude for Devil's Tower[36:57]
He explains that Earth's latitude runs from 0 to 90 degrees, subdivided into 60 minutes per degree, and longitude is based on a politically chosen prime meridian through Greenwich[37:36]
Neil argues that for aliens to use those coordinates, they would need to understand our sexagesimal system and the historical politics behind our coordinate grid despite there being no visible grid on Earth[37:44]
• He concludes that if aliens knew that much about human culture, they could simply send a plain-language message like "I'm landing to the left of Devil's Tower at 4:30" instead of coded coordinates

If aliens attacked Earth: reactions and strategies

Personal responses to an alien attack scenario

A listener asks what the first thing they would do would be if the planet were being attacked by aliens, specifying an attack rather than a peaceful visit[42:17]
Jake answers that he would likely just relax, pour himself a glass of wine like Merlot, and wait, reasoning that he personally couldn't do much against a giant mothership attack[42:27]
He distinguishes between a distant mothership bombardment (where he feels helpless) and a ground-troop invasion (where he might fight back door to door)[43:28]
Neil notes what he would not do: run outside and shoot guns at the sky, mocking that common movie trope[43:04]
Neil says he would provision Jake with very good wine and then go out to try to "kick some alien ass", while Chuck jokingly asserts that Neil would actually be in a bunker advising generals[43:13]

Most believable depictions of aliens in modern sci-fi

Jake's choice: Arrival as relatively realistic

A listener asks for the most believable depiction of aliens in modern sci-fi[45:46]
Jake chooses Arrival again, saying the way humans interact with the aliens and the aliens interact with humans feels grounded in science realism, despite some liberties[46:08]
He criticizes common invasion films where aliens' first instinct is to destroy us, questioning why an advanced species' immediate action would be aggression[46:49]
• Neil responds that many scripts project human behavior-especially our history of aggression and colonization-onto aliens, making them mirrors of us

Other relatively realistic portrayals

Neil brings up Contact as showing an authentic range of human societal reactions to the discovery of an intelligent species, including both scientific and social upheaval[48:14]
Chuck and Neil briefly mention The Day the Earth Stood Still and the idea that first contact might involve non-biological entities or robots rather than directly encountering the alien minds themselves[47:24]

Relative intelligence of aliens and scenarios like WALL-E

Would aliens be more or less intelligent than humans?

A listener asks whether they would prefer aliens to be far more intelligent or far less intelligent than humans[48:45]
Jake notes that if aliens visited us, they would intrinsically be more intelligent or advanced, as they managed interstellar travel while we did not find them[49:26]
He briefly muses on what intelligence means, suggesting aliens might know more than us in some areas while we might surpass them in others, but Neil pushes back[49:16]
Neil argues that a civilization capable of crossing intergalactic space in a spacecraft would likely know more about everything than we know about anything[49:29]

WALL-E scenario of advanced tech and "dumb" humans

Neil introduces the film WALL-E as a scenario where humans become physically and intellectually degraded passengers on an AI-run ship, reliant on machines for every need[49:59]
He points out that such a group could arrive somewhere with astonishing technology while its human occupants themselves are relatively inept "fatties floating around on chairs"[50:02]
Jake humorously revisits E.T., calling him an "idiot" for not knowing what Reese's Pieces are despite being able to travel to Earth, further playing with the intelligence theme[50:42]

First contact protocols and choosing human ambassadors

Is there a true first contact protocol?

A listener from London asks if there is a true-to-life first contact protocol if we ever contact an alien species[51:13]
Jake admits he has never thought carefully about that, noting constraints like the light cone and the speed limit of information transmission[51:37]
• He points out that if aliens are far away and send a message, by the time we respond, the original senders might be long gone due to the vast timescales involved
Neil distinguishes between protocols for replying to a radio signal and a scenario where aliens simply show up physically, in which case you must decide who to send to meet them[51:59]

Sending the most likable human: Paul Rudd

Neil asks whether we would send diplomats or a head of state, then passes the choice to Jake[52:07]
Jake proposes sending actor Paul Rudd as an ambassador, arguing you should send the most likable human because everyone likes him[52:13]
Neil and Chuck agree that if aliens do not respond well to Paul Rudd, humanity is "boned", as there would be little hope if they dislike such a friendly representative[52:43]

Self-replicating alien machines, the Fermi paradox, and realistic colonization

Replicators from Stargate and machine first contact

A listener asks about Stargate's replicators, robots that replicate themselves using local resources, and whether this is the most probable form of alien life we might encounter[53:10]
Jake links this to earlier discussion, saying it's reasonable that first contact would be via some kind of machine or inorganic construct rather than an organic alien body[53:29]
He references concepts of advanced AI and the singularity, where machines become advanced enough to create and replicate themselves without human input[53:44]

Neil's explanation of the Fermi paradox and colonizing probes

Neil brings up the Fermi paradox, framed as: if alien civilizations existed long ago, why haven't they already visited or colonized everywhere in the galaxy?[54:23]
He explains that one justification is self-replicating robotic probes: a probe reaches a planet, uses local resources to make two copies, then those two travel to two more planets, and so on exponentially[54:46]
• Neil notes that with exponential doubling (2, 4, 8, 16, etc.), it would not take many doubling times to place a probe on every habitable planet in the galaxy in far less time than the galaxy's age
He analogizes colonization by pointing out that we speak English in the United States because England sent colonists, and those descendants eventually went to the Moon, illustrating far-reaching consequences of initial colonization[55:25]
Neil concludes that if there were a truly colonizing species using such probes or biological colonists, we might expect to see evidence, which sharpens the puzzle posed by the Fermi paradox[55:12]

Closing remarks and future topics

Wrap-up and possible future Matrix episode

Neil and Chuck praise Jake and say they want to bring him back on the show, specifically suggesting doing a whole episode on The Matrix[56:00]
They joke that only the first Matrix really counts for deep analysis, while the sequels are less clear in their value to them[56:32]
Neil signs off the episode as "StarTalk, Cosmic Queries, Alien and Aliens Edition" and urges listeners to keep looking up[56:50]

Lessons Learned

Actionable insights and wisdom you can apply to your business, career, and personal life.

1

When dealing with truly unknown systems-like hypothetical alien biology-you must resist projecting familiar Earth-based assumptions and instead start from underlying principles while maintaining cautious protocols.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in your life are you assuming that new situations will behave like old ones, rather than examining the underlying principles at work?
  • • How could you build in simple "quarantine" safeguards-tests, pilots, or buffers-before fully exposing yourself or your organization to an unfamiliar environment?
  • • What is one current project where you should explicitly list the assumptions you're importing from past experience and then stress-test whether they really apply?
2

Abstracting problems to their core elements-like seeing weapons as ways of moving energy from one place to another-helps you compare options, spot inconsistencies, and invent more creative solutions.

Reflection Questions:

  • • What complex problem are you facing now that you could restate in more basic terms (e.g., flows of information, energy, money, or attention)?
  • • How might reframing a technical or interpersonal challenge in more abstract, general language reveal new approaches you haven't considered?
  • • This week, where could you deliberately practice stripping away domain-specific jargon and describing an issue in simple, physical or logical terms to clarify your thinking?
3

Stories we tell about others-whether aliens, rivals, or customers-often reflect our own tendencies and fears more than objective reality, so examining those stories is a way to uncover hidden biases.

Reflection Questions:

  • • In what situations do you find yourself assuming that "others" will be hostile or competitive by default, and how might that mirror your own mindset?
  • • How could you audit your team's narratives about competitors or stakeholders to distinguish between projection and evidence-based assessment?
  • • What is one relationship (personal or professional) where changing the story you tell yourself about the other party might open up better collaboration or understanding?
4

Choosing representatives and first points of contact matters enormously; sending the most trusted, likable, and broadly resonant emissaries can buy you goodwill and margin for error in high-stakes encounters.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Who currently acts as the "face" of your projects or organization, and do they genuinely inspire trust and rapport across different audiences?
  • • How might your outcomes change if you deliberately paired technical experts with highly empathetic communicators when engaging new partners or skeptical stakeholders?
  • • What upcoming interaction-pitch, negotiation, or introduction-deserves more thoughtful selection of who is in the room and who does the talking?
5

Technologies that can scale or replicate themselves-whether software, automation, or organizational processes-can spread their impact surprisingly fast, so you must think hard about their long-term consequences before unleashing them.

Reflection Questions:

  • • What tools or systems in your work have a kind of "self-replicating" potential, where once started they can grow or spread with little additional effort?
  • • How could you better model or imagine the second- and third-order effects of a new technology or process before you deploy it widely?
  • • What safeguard, kill switch, or governance mechanism could you add now to any fast-scaling initiative so that you can steer or stop it if it evolves in an unexpected direction?
6

Recognizing when you have little direct agency in an overwhelming situation-and focusing instead on preparation, information, and calm decision-making-can be more rational than performative but ineffective action.

Reflection Questions:

  • • In stressful scenarios, where do you tend to resort to symbolic gestures (like "shooting at the sky") instead of steps that actually change outcomes?
  • • How might you define in advance what is and isn't within your control for a major risk you worry about, and plan your responses accordingly?
  • • What is one recurring stressor where you could shift from reactive thrashing to a pre-planned, calmer protocol that accepts limits on your influence?

Episode Summary - Notes by Remy

Cosmic Queries - ALIENS! with Jake Roper
0:00 0:00