The New Universe and the Human Future: How a Shared Cosmology Could Transform the World  . By Nancy EllenAbrams and Joel R.Primack . New Haven/London : Yale University Press , 2011 . XVII + 238 pages, 72 illustrations. $28.00 .

The  authors of this book—an outstanding astrophysicist and his spouse, an attorney turned cultural philosopher and a former student of Mircea Eliade—write against the “culture of cynicism” (157) regarding the bleak future of human survival on planet Earth. Based on the 2009 Terry Lectures at Yale University, Abrams and Primack passionately argue for realizing human potential and responsibility in the present “pivotal moment in time,” since “we humans have to think about [the meaning of life on Earth]for Earth because … we are the only ones who can” (164, original emphasis). Beyond that, humans have also a “responsibility to the universe”—namely “to protect humanity, because humanity is the guardian of an extraordinary occurrence in cosmic evolution—a brain that can conceive of the universe” and, thus, “our existence matters to the universe” (ibid.). The authors want to initiate a “great conversion from short‐term fragmental identities to the first serious long‐term species identity” by calling for the formation of a well‐informed “cosmic society now” (165). This ambitious goal sets the tone and structure of the book written from an American perspective and for an American audience. The style is popular and reflects a sense of urgency, sometimes turning into straightforward preaching, while the print makes frequent use of italics and lavish illustrations—some of which, however, are quite trivial.

The book is divided into eight chapters. The first four unfold the fascinating new view of the universe, while the remaining four show how this knowledge may—and should—impact human behavior to save conscious life from extinction. An extensive section on “Frequently Asked Questions” follows (167–206), containing additional background information to statements made earlier, as also do some of the “Notes” (207–12). The “Recommendations for Further Reading” (213–21) is a brief annotated bibliography for the general public, while “About the Illustrations” (223–31) and the Index (233–38) furnish important details to key images and direct interested readers to related online sources and videos—as occasionally done in the main body of the text as well.

The authors are convinced “that there is a profound connection between our [the humans’] lack of a shared cosmology and our increasing global problems” and optimistically declare that if “we had a transnationally shared believable picture of the cosmos, including a mythic quality story of its origins and our origins … we humans would see our problems in an entirely new light and we would almost certainly solve them” (XII). “The real focus of the book” they say, “is on the invitation, and in fact the imperative, to free our society from obsolete, dangerous misconceptions of physical reality, open our minds to the new universe, and begin to teach and cultivate the existing connection between our universe and both our internal sense of power and our external, political outlooks. In short, this is an invitation to create a cosmic society” (XVII, original emphasis).

What is special about the new understanding of the cosmos, according to the Double Dark theory (or Lambda CDM) presented here, is the insight that the universe is “controlled by two invisible things” (4): gravitational dark matter forming galaxies, stars, and planets, and dark energy driving local groups of galaxies apart at an exponential rate; the latter was not discovered until 1998 and modeled for the first time with a supercomputer in the so‐called “Bolshoi simulation” in 2009 only. Contraction and expansion operate on different cosmic scales, each following its own set of rules. The space inside local groups of galaxies is “tamed by gravity,” while the space outside such clusters is “wild space” marked by expansion (57). Dark energy accounts for 70 percent of the universe, while dark matter makes for 25 percent; only 0.5 percent is visible matter, and the tiny fraction of a mere 0.01 percent of the universe consists of heavy atoms—“stardust” as they call it—the basis of life. Therefore, “from a cosmic point of view we intelligent, self‐reflective beings are rare and precious beyond calculation—but we are only possible because of the composition of the rest of the universe” (66).

The preciousness and responsibility of intelligent life in the universe are highlighted further by factoring in the dimension of time, since humans “are stardust plus time” (78) and live in a “cosmically pivotal moment … at the midpoint of time on multiple timescales” (79–80), namely on that “of the cosmos, the solar system, Earth, and humanity” (81). Thus, humans have to rise to the occasion “to figure out quickly how to transition out of the current period of worldwide human inflationary growth as gently and justly as possible. Cosmology can help—by providing a model for this seemingly insurmountable task” (90, original emphasis). However, drawing on the analogy to cosmic events for appropriate human action in order to make “the transition from rampant growth [analogous to the spark of cosmic inflation] to sustainability [analogous to the slowly expanding Big Bang] that we humans must make” (92) implies that cosmic evolution and human actions are happening within frames of the same scale, which they obviously do not. No doubt, humans are the product of cosmic evolution and their actions have an impact far beyond the immediate horizon. Yet, humans are also individual personalities, each with a concept of life of his or her own informed by contingent cultural and religious plausibilities, something the species consciousness of a cosmic society, which the authors want to instill, is not eager to entertain. Cosmic society, instead, demands to “see the new cosmos not just as a new idea in physics but as our shared mental homeland” (117, original emphasis), which is “true for everyone” (120). Therefore, anyone disagreeing challenges not just a particular way of interpreting phenomena, but “sabotages our own future,” since such disagreement would be a “rebellion against nature's own revelation, as though it were nothing but an opinion” (141).

Accepting science as “the only possible foundation for a globally unifying story of ourselves” (121) leads to monism with a totalitarian claim. Yet, the authors still want to believe “that we can preserve kaleidoscopic diversity on the scale of our local lifestyles, while … finding consensus about events on the encompassing scales of the planet and the universe” (141). This, however, is wishful thinking, since it is precisely certain well‐informed lifestyles that cause the disastrous global catastrophes experienced today, something the authors seem to realize, too, because they timidly admit at one point that “subtle changes in both lifestyle and technology” will be necessary (148), a phrasing not in step at all with the otherwise serious urgency of the text.

Being fully aware of the fact that scientific accuracy and rational argument are not strong enough to bring about the “great conversion” necessary to warrant survival of the human species Abrams and Primack finally draw on the meaning providing imaginary power of mythology to effect the necessary motivational boost by sketching an origin story based on the new cosmology (119–42, 164–65). They regard it as a “potentially empowering, transcendent origin story … that could unify so many around the world who may not see eye to eye on other things” (142). Cautioning that the “choice of metaphors to portray the new universe must be strategic,” since any “particular metaphor will have a certain kind of impact on people” (157), they become very particular in the final section of their book about how to educate youngsters in and for a truly cosmic society and close their argument with appealing once again to the unique challenge, “This is an age for heroism—for people willing to start believing the evidence that we are at the center of a new universe and at a pivotal moment for humanity, and that we must act accordingly” (162–63, original emphasis).

The New Universe and the Human Future is certainly a very stimulating reading beyond the ordinary. Yet, the transition from scientific to moral reasoning as suggested here is highly questionable because humans are not just “stardust and time.” Humans are also complex individual personal agents driven by more than rationality and emotions, something that certainly would have been addressed if a dialogue between this new cosmology and the new anthropology were attempted—a challenging topic for a desirable sequel.