“We’re All Made of the Same Star Stuff” – Carl Sagan

July 17th, 2013 by Michael Tabor


The title of this blog sounds very “New Agey” but the truth of the matter is it’s grounded and supported by hard science.  Scientists and cosmologists know a lot of things, are learning and discovering new facts about the universe every day, and can even tell you what happened 1/1000 of a second after the big bang. The one thing (I’ve blogged about this before we are clueless about is what happened or what was going on a second before the big bang. However, we don’t have to have this information to know for sure that we are all made of the same star stuff.

A man living in Yemen, a worm in your garden, a venomous snake slithering around in the Amazon jungles of Brazil, a country rat, a rock, a piece of chocolate, the planet Pluto, a star that is positioned 100 light years away from our planet earth, just absolutely everything, etc. Now some of the aforementioned things are living entities, but everything I mentioned  is indeed matter and occupies space. Another fact is that all this “stuff” came from the same source – an unspeakably and unfathomably hot and dense infinitesimally small particle which exploded 13.798 billion years ago.

This scientific fact means that dualism or the notion that there is a distinct and separate unconnected self is therefore an illusion. Everything is one and is the basic tenet of eastern philosophy and Buddhism which was established 2,550 years ago and now confirmed by science last century.

So WhaDaWeThink ? What do you think ? I did not even touch on real entities that have no matter, yet certainly exist such as gravity, dark – matter, anti – matter, love, empathy, emotions, etc.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

5 Responses to ““We’re All Made of the Same Star Stuff” – Carl Sagan”

  1. magdalena Says:

    We are stardust. We are golden. And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden. Joni knew of what she spoke.

  2. Michael Tabor Says:

    Response from Kevin:

    Thanks, Mike. Forgive me, as I never quite followed this (let alone carefully) – but…

    The question of what one – or something – is made obviously has intuitive interest; but when we venture toward implications of the same, it seems we become less vigilant than might be helpful. It often seems as if we systematically miss equally or more rife principles – for instance, that of “Gestalt” (or the ‘whole’ being importantly more than the ‘sum’) both in and beyond perception.

    The question of a given reality’s ‘composition’ seems to become more or less compelling based on the issue of the scale of review. I intuit/assume, for instance, that – on the most minute scale – it might be quite impossible to distinguish any thing from any other. This would be consistent, of course, with the notion that what makes entities importantly distinct is not, for instance, that each is made of different kinds of ?? neutrons and protons, lets say, but – rather – that each is ‘infinitely unique’ in its composition per se – that is, its configuration (…of the most utterly basic possible realities).

    Without the leap to ‘preferred implications,’ the notion that largely physical realities share the most miniscule basics might seem less novel. To use a limited analogy, the customary marvel here may seem similar to a hypothetical marvelling that “…all the words in this book come from the same alphabet!”

    I think this fascination might be based on a proto-gnostic, pre-conscious reticense to embrace the deep, utterly real physicality of human being and on a number of preferred and ‘jumped-to’ conclusions – each seen as necessarily following from the observation about the half-intuitive, most basic ontological sharing among creatures (things).

    The recognition of the real physicality of human being – and the entailed sharing (in universal physical ‘economy’) – easily gets misconstrued, reduced in simplistic ways, however: e.g., Human persons are ONLY physical. That seems an obvious metanymic reduction. The Holy writ has it, of course, that we were indeed made from dust – AND that this was both ‘formed’ and God-‘breathed.’

  3. Rick Says:

    The creation of the universe. The power of an awesome God in which we can not comprehend, and will never comprehend until will face him at the end of our physical life. Scientific theories about the universe are just that Mike. We are giving the best scientific guess at what occured. A guess is not fact. You believe in the best scientific “Guess” which in turn could be a “fairy tale”. Thought I would through that in since you call “my God” a fairy tale. The fact is there is creation.

  4. Rick Says:

    Again forgive my spelling, Mikey

  5. Michael Tabor Says:

    Never, ever worry about spelling or grammar, etc….it’s the message that’s important , not punctuation

Leave a Reply