It’s important to remember history so it does not repeat itself, that is, within the right context. On CBS Mornings Plus, hosts Vladimir Duthiers and Adriana Diaz kept pushing the delusional thought that there could be people “trying to colonize” the moon in the style of European colonization of the global south. No, that was not a joke.
Astrophysicist and author of Just Visiting This Planet, Neil deGrasse Tyson, was invited on the show to give his input regarding President Trump’s administration planning to but a nuclear reactor on the moon within the next five years. Tyson gave a reality check for the power behind the reactor and quell fears:
It’s a small reactor. I mean, the word “nuke” spooks everybody, but this reactor could sustain 50 hairdryers. That’s about it, 100 kilowatts…If we have plans to set up a colony anywhere, you’d want an energy source.
When Tyson used the word “colony” to describe life on another celestial body, the hosts took it and ran with a victim mentality to remind Tyson of the colonization they “clearly” have experienced firsthand in the 21st century of the United States.
Diaz first poked the bear by asking: “Is it inevitable that we’re going to have to go to the moon and try to colonize the moon like?” Tyson gave a mini lecture on what NASA could have done, but did not answer the question Diaz hoped to push the “colonization” narrative.
In hopes of getting a new answer, Diaz phrased a follow-up question regarding whether people should look to find “long-term” life “elsewhere.” Tyson admitted that after roughly “10 billion years,” sure, people may need another planet to rely on.
Seemingly having the latest Avatar movie on his mind, Duthiers jumped into action to ask:
Will it serve as a functional life source eventually for human beings? And B, we know how the age of colonialism worked on this planet. Should we be trying to colonize and saying that there’s a keep out zone that not other countries can participate in having?
As bizarre as this conversation was, the main concern should be whether the hosts knew anything about first locations humans would colonize.
Tyson caught on to what the hosts were trying to insinuate and humbled them:
Well, the real problem with the colonization history in Western civilization is that there were people already there, right? There are no moon beings that we’re displacing…or Martians. I’m just saying the moon and Mars, yes. They would be the next place you might put people, but I don’t see it as a-it makes a good headline and clickbait- but I don’t see it as a realistic way to deal with our overpopulation or overconsumption.
You would think this would be a conversation between first-grade students, but no, it is CBS that misunderstood the nature of the Moon and Mars on live TV.
On a planet earth note, what the liberal media hoped to convey was a jab towards the Trump administration to paint them as people who will “invade” or “control” any space to have leverage, even in space.
Let this be another example of the left-wing media taking a conversation out of context to fit their agenda: to make the Trump administration look bad or to find a way to be a “victim”- most importantly, on the moon.
Click here for the transcripts.
CBS Mornings Plus
8/6/25
9:21 am Eastern
VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: All right but turning these plans into reality might not be so easy, given the administration’s proposed cuts to NASA. They include a nearly 50 percent cut in science missions and a 20 percent reduction in staff on top of that, the building of the reactor seems to be dependent on NASA’s Artemis mission, which was set back, which was set to put humans back on the moon in 2024, but that’s been delayed until 2027.
So, here to discuss all of this is astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’s the author of the upcoming book, Just Visiting This Planet. Revised and updated for the 21st century. Good to see you as always.
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Hello. Yeah, thanks for having me back.
(…)
9:22 am Eastern
DUTHIERS: So, how would a reactor like this in outer space, even work?
TYSON: It’s a small reactor. I mean, the word “nuke” spooks everybody, but this reactor could sustain 50 hairdryers. That’s about it, 100 kilowatts.
DUTHIERS: Okay, so what I’m thinking is-
TYSON: I know, I know, I know, so don’t get too spooked out about it, A. B, if we have plans to set up a colony anywhere, you’d want an energy source. So that’s not a weird fact.
DUTHIERS: Okay.
TYSON: What makes this announcement a little different is that this plan, which would have possibly extended well into the 2030s, he wants to push it into the 2020s. And why? Because their musings in China, that, and Russia, that they want to do the same. And for the past 65 years, we’ve been highly reactive to that kind of real or perceived threat by other nations, especially, of course, in the Apollo era, the Soviet Union. So this is on brand for America to do this.
DUTHIERS: Right.
TYSON: What’s not on brand is to cut science programs not only in NASA but across the board and then say, “we want to excel in this one spot.”
Well, in the 1960s, science was a major investment profile of the United States. And by the way, it’s not on brand even for Republicans, because Republican administrations since the Second World War have had a higher annual increase, average annual increase in the science budget than even the Democrats. So, Trump’s decision to cut science is not on brand for even being a Republican. And to say, “let’s cherry pick where we want to show the world where we’re the best,” you can’t really do that without the rest of a science foundation.
DUTHIERS: You raise a good point, because in the 1950s and the 1960s, when the United States realized that they were a step behind the Soviets in the race to space is when all sudden there was an increased focus on science, technology, and importantly, in schools.
TYSON: Yes, science. Thank you. I meant to say that. So, it wasn’t just government programs, it was, there was a general deep interest that went into the schools, into teachers and people’s attitudes towards science was completely different. And so if you want to lead the world, you can’t cherry-pick a thing and believe that that’s going to work, because science is highly cross-pollinating. I mean, just take a look at the iPhone example. Steve Jobs didn’t invent GPS or solid state storage or touchscreen, he didn’t invent any of that. Put it together, this is the cross-pollination of different engineering and science frontiers.
ADRIANA DIAZ: Right so, Neil, I mean, even when Vlad was reading this intro, like it sounds like science fiction, but is this just like manifest destiny? Like, is it inevitable that we’re going to have to go to the moon and try to colonize the moon like?
TYSON: Well, consider that we could have stayed there in 1972, but we didn’t. Could have gone back in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, but we didn’t. All of a sudden we have the Artemis program. We’re going back to the moon, why? China says they’re going back to the moon. Once again, we’re being reactive. I don’t have a problem with that. I just want people to be honest about the motives. So when he says-
DIAZ: Isn’t there a reality where, like, we’re this planet is not going to be able to sustain us for the long term, and we’re going to have to find elsewhere?
TYSON: Well, okay. By sane estimates, it looks like our population will level off at about 10 billion. And, but if we want to keep growing a population or if we want to live forever, all right, we’re going to need another planet.
DUTHIERS: So, is that the moon? Because A-
TYSON: I don’t want to live on the moon.
(Laughter)
DUTHIERS: Right. Will it serve as a functional life source eventually for human beings? And B, we know how the age of colonialism worked on this planet. Should we be trying to colonize and saying that there’s a keep out zone that not other countries can participate in having?
TYSON: Well, the real problem with the colonization history in Western civilization is that there were people already there, right? There are no moon beings that we’re displacing.
DIAZ: As far as we know.
DUTHIERS: As far as we know.
TYSON: Or Martians. I’m just saying the moon and Mars, yes. They would be the next place you might put people, but I don’t see it as a- it makes a good headline and clickbait- but I don’t see it as a realistic way to deal with our overpopulation or overconsumption.
