Brian Cox

And what's interesting to me is I've got interested in Oppenheimer's writing post-war. And I've been interested in it. The BBC asked me to look at... There's a thing called the BBC Reith Lectures that are very famous in the UK. And every year someone gives these lectures after Lord Reith, who founded the BBC. And Oppenheimer did them in 1953, I think it is, 53 or 54.

And what's interesting to me is I've got interested in Oppenheimer's writing post-war. And I've been interested in it. The BBC asked me to look at... There's a thing called the BBC Reith Lectures that are very famous in the UK. And every year someone gives these lectures after Lord Reith, who founded the BBC. And Oppenheimer did them in 1953, I think it is, 53 or 54.

And what's interesting to me is I've got interested in Oppenheimer's writing post-war. And I've been interested in it. The BBC asked me to look at... There's a thing called the BBC Reith Lectures that are very famous in the UK. And every year someone gives these lectures after Lord Reith, who founded the BBC. And Oppenheimer did them in 1953, I think it is, 53 or 54.

And they were considered a failure because no one understood what he was talking about. But in there, he was concerned with the fact, of course, that he felt he delivered the means by which we would destroy ourselves. And he felt our technology, our scientific know-how, exceeded our wisdom and our political skill, which is arguably true.

And they were considered a failure because no one understood what he was talking about. But in there, he was concerned with the fact, of course, that he felt he delivered the means by which we would destroy ourselves. And he felt our technology, our scientific know-how, exceeded our wisdom and our political skill, which is arguably true.

And they were considered a failure because no one understood what he was talking about. But in there, he was concerned with the fact, of course, that he felt he delivered the means by which we would destroy ourselves. And he felt our technology, our scientific know-how, exceeded our wisdom and our political skill, which is arguably true.

So he thought in the 50s, he couldn't see how we'd avoid destroying ourselves. But he thought about it a lot, feeling partly personally responsible for it. And he describes this, how if there's any lessons that science teaches us, the exploration of nature teaches us, that we could move into other fields, that we could transfer into politics, for example.

So he thought in the 50s, he couldn't see how we'd avoid destroying ourselves. But he thought about it a lot, feeling partly personally responsible for it. And he describes this, how if there's any lessons that science teaches us, the exploration of nature teaches us, that we could move into other fields, that we could transfer into politics, for example.

So he thought in the 50s, he couldn't see how we'd avoid destroying ourselves. But he thought about it a lot, feeling partly personally responsible for it. And he describes this, how if there's any lessons that science teaches us, the exploration of nature teaches us, that we could move into other fields, that we could transfer into politics, for example.

And one of them is this picture that complex systems are complicated. So he's talking about looking at quantum mechanics, for example, and it gets complicated. And you say, what is an electron? It's this thing. It's a particle-like, point-like thing or a big extended wavy thing. What is it? It behaves in all these strange ways.

And one of them is this picture that complex systems are complicated. So he's talking about looking at quantum mechanics, for example, and it gets complicated. And you say, what is an electron? It's this thing. It's a particle-like, point-like thing or a big extended wavy thing. What is it? It behaves in all these strange ways.

And one of them is this picture that complex systems are complicated. So he's talking about looking at quantum mechanics, for example, and it gets complicated. And you say, what is an electron? It's this thing. It's a particle-like, point-like thing or a big extended wavy thing. What is it? It behaves in all these strange ways.

We don't really have the language or the mental capacity to picture it. And so he said any attempt to say this thing is this or it is that, it is like this thing, it is doomed. What you have to understand is that you have to develop this rather complex and nuanced picture of the way that nature works. And quantum mechanics is a good example. But he said so it is with human societies.

We don't really have the language or the mental capacity to picture it. And so he said any attempt to say this thing is this or it is that, it is like this thing, it is doomed. What you have to understand is that you have to develop this rather complex and nuanced picture of the way that nature works. And quantum mechanics is a good example. But he said so it is with human societies.

We don't really have the language or the mental capacity to picture it. And so he said any attempt to say this thing is this or it is that, it is like this thing, it is doomed. What you have to understand is that you have to develop this rather complex and nuanced picture of the way that nature works. And quantum mechanics is a good example. But he said so it is with human societies.

So in a society... And what is it? It is at one level a load of individuals, like little particles. And they have their own needs and desires and they have their views and strongly held views. And so should they, by the way. There's a great quote from, I think, early 60s from Oppenheimer, where he says that to be a person of substance, you need an anchor.

So in a society... And what is it? It is at one level a load of individuals, like little particles. And they have their own needs and desires and they have their views and strongly held views. And so should they, by the way. There's a great quote from, I think, early 60s from Oppenheimer, where he says that to be a person of substance, you need an anchor.

So in a society... And what is it? It is at one level a load of individuals, like little particles. And they have their own needs and desires and they have their views and strongly held views. And so should they, by the way. There's a great quote from, I think, early 60s from Oppenheimer, where he says that to be a person of substance, you need an anchor.

So you need to believe things and you need to argue for things. You need to take positions. You have to have a morality. You have to have a politics, right, basically. Otherwise, you're not a person of substance. But he says at the same time, of course, you have to recognize there's a society. So there are lots of people with anchors.

So you need to believe things and you need to argue for things. You need to take positions. You have to have a morality. You have to have a politics, right, basically. Otherwise, you're not a person of substance. But he says at the same time, of course, you have to recognize there's a society. So there are lots of people with anchors.