Sci Fight: Science/Comedy Debates

Sci fight is a quarterly Science Comedy Debate where scientists and comedians debate serious issues in a ridiculous manner.

This round's topic: The Internet Can Be Saved

It might just be weapons-grade millennial nostalgia, but the internet really did seem better when all we needed was a profile song, an aggressively customised wallpaper, and a place to post cryptic song lyrics after a breakup. No matter how bad your day was, you still had a friend and that friend was Tom from Myspace.

The youths will never know the thrill of illegally downloading Kiss from a Rose by Seal on Napster and accidentally giving the family computer seventeen new diseases. They’ll never know the sense of decadence of asking Jeeves a question, or the exhilaration of logging into chatRoulette to ask a Brazilian teenager what the weather is like there.

Now the internet infested with link rot, digital decay and website obsolescence; enshitification driven by recursively nested AIs; swallowing and regurgitating their own content like a bloated Ouroborous, phishing scams, and AI videos you need a masters in digital forensics to distinguish from real content. It’s home to new and interesting ways for people to be awful, such as assassination markets, deep fakes and fibre-maxxers. Data centres are drinking rivers dry like some sort of cursed ancient demon awoken by some commerce graduate committing the sin of trying to jazz up a cover letter. The dark web is only getting darker, and everyone and by everyone i mean Australia fucking Post needs you to download an app. Australia Post What is the Point of You.

Is it too late to save the internet? Is there a way to regulate or amputate the good from the bad? Or should we take this as our cue to finally log off and, as the philosopher formerly known as Twitter likes to say, go touch grass.

Come get digital at Howler with some top ranked comedians and scientists fiddle while Chrome Burns.

At Sci Fight Science Comedy Debate, scientists and comedians come together to debate serious issues in a ridiculous manner.

This round's topic: Psychology is a Freud

Featuring award winning comedian Jude Perl, Martin Dunlop, magician and doctor Vyom Sharma, psychologist Kathryn Kallady, neuroscientist Elyas Arvell, and writer/editor extraordinaire Elizabeth Flux, and hosted by Alanta Colley, this is sure to be a fantastic evening.

Is psychology a science? An art? Or an ink blot of your parents fighting? If you ask a psychologist if psychology is a science, they pause, peer over their glasses, and ask you if you feel like it's a science or not. The only other science that involves this much deflection are satellite dishes. In a sea of Myers Briggs tests, brain biohackers, self-help gurus and buzz feed quizzes to discover 'what is your inner potato?’(I’m a tater tot) it can sometimes be hard to spot legitimate psychology amongst the charlatans.

After all, the history of psychology is littered with lobotomies, medically sanctioned orgasms, psychedelics, electrocution, and prison simulations that we can confidently point to as the reason we now have ethics committees. Not to mention making us all pretty uncomfortable with implications about wanting to sleep with our Dad. From this progeny of perverted renegades, could we possibly expect a legitimate science to be born?

But that was the past. Psychology now employs clinical trials, neuroscience, and a full suite of empirical data. We now have the tools to take us closer than we’ve ever been to understanding our inner being (My MRI scan confirmed I’m a tater tot).

Sci fight is a quarterly Science Comedy Debate where scientists and comedians come together to debate serious issues in a ridiculous manner.

This round's topic: Neuralink will bring us closer together

Elon Musk recently announced the first results from an in-human clinical trial of Neuralink; a brain-computer interface that decodes brain waves allowing humans to control anything from a computer, prosthetic limb, to an errant robot vacuum cleaner.

Which journal did he publish this in, I hear you ask? Twitter? No, I'm not familiar with that peer reviewed science journal.

The technology is an incredible opportunity for people with paralysis to communicate and interact at a greater level with the world around them. This is very cool.

But where is this technology heading?

What access to our thoughts will this give Musk in the future? I’ve tried to block him on Twitter, and yet, he’s always in my feed. Organic intrusive thoughts are bad enough; how does one block a pop up from inside your head? What happens if governments can see your thoughts? Are we heading for a police mental-state?

What would it be like living in a world where our insecurities, nasty thoughts and desires are on display? Would it herald the collapse of society as we know it? Or would the end of the final frontier in privacy invoke a new era of universal understanding and empathy? Would discovering your shameful secret of writing erotic parliamentary fanfic isn’t that unique after all?

Come and get neurological with Melbourne’s best scientists and comics at the brilliant Howler.

Sci fight is a quarterly Science Comedy Debate where scientists and comedians come together to debate serious issues in a ridiculous manner.

This round's topic: Natural Selection is over.

Biotechnology and genetic research are barrelling ahead 100 miles an hour. It may soon be possible to produce babies from just one person, or six, or more. Scientists speak of a future where babies may be brought to term in artificial wombs, with the capacity to screen embryos for genetic abnormalities, disease, or even physical traits.

Are we as a species at the end of evolution? Are we now turning to Mother Nature and saying; ‘thanks for the ride lady; we’ve got it from here’? Could future humans be a curated, disease-free, race of super-humans? Will mankind be manufactured? Will baby building become a commodity?

Or are these the hubristic hallucinations of a bunch of self-assured monkeys in white coats? Are the powers of evolution and natural selection far more complex and powerful than we understand? For a species that can’t even wean itself off fossil fuels, is this a future state not even worth entertaining? Does nature always find a way?

Come to Howler for some fermented fruit juice while 6 scientists and comedians entertain this existential quandary.

Sci fight is a quarterly Science Comedy Debate where scientists and comedians come together to debate serious issues in a ridiculous manner.

This round's topic: We are living in a simulation

Simulation theory posits the notion that if humanity doesn’t wipe itself out shortly, humans of the future will have massive computers. This seems legit. But if they have massive computers; several annoying commentators argue; they will no doubt run ancestor simulations; for fun, for education, or to figure out just why 21st century humans were just really into Crossfit. If they do this, every copy of every simulation will far exceed the numbers of us biological humans, ergo, we are FAR MORE LIKELY to be a simulation than a real human. Day. Ruined.

Being in a simulation might explain some of the odder parts of reality. Shortcomings in the code might account for why certain atomic particles seem to behave differently if we’re watching them, or why Kyle Sandilands still has a job. Or why I have no memory of last Thursday.

But there’s much more it doesn’t explain. Consciousness. The ever expanding levels of complexity we discover in our universe. What stamp duty is.

Does the notion this is a simulation cheapen our existence? Is our life worth less if it's digital? Does it free us from the laws of biology or society we assumed were innate? Can I punch a Nazi in the face? Is the red pill covered by the pharmaceutical benefits scheme?

Or is it a zero sum argument; with no consequence to our daily existence, a disprovable thought experiment thought up by a tech bro keen on getting an invitation to Musk’s prepper circle?

And where is the reset button?

Sci Fight Science Comedy Debate brings together comedians and scientists to debate serious issues in a ridiculous way.

Proceedings are loosely held together by your definitely qualified host, Alanta Colley [citation needed]. Sci Fight has been described as a nerdy, silly, and only occasionally litigious romp into what it even means to be alive.

This round, we debate: should we fear AI?

Just this year, AI chatbots have given people instructions on how to build a bomb, told users that they loved them, and instructed one user to leave their spouse and a child to stick nails into a live power socket. Before now you had to go to 4chan for that quality of abuse. Has Silicon Valley simply built a better troll?

Programmers are running behind ChatGPT and other AI trying to fix the problems as they arise and yet for every bit of foolproofing they achieve, humanity builds a better fool. Our one saving grace right now? It’s bad at Wordle. But this will surely not be the case for long.

Or is AI overhyped? Is our distrust of AI just our barely concealed sense of inadequacy, concern that a jacked-up two-bit calculator might prove a more sparkling conversationalist than we do?

Or is the real fear that the true flaw of AI is that it is built on data that humans made, and that all of its shortcomings were inherited from us? Do we simply fear ourselves?

Come and watch 6 very human scientists and comedians assess whether we’re on the brink of the AI-pocalypse or a Utop-AI.

Sci fight is a quarterly Science Comedy Debate where scientists and comedians come together to debate serious issues in a ridiculous manner.

This round's topic: We are living in a simulation

Simulation theory posits the notion that if humanity doesn’t wipe itself out shortly, humans of the future will have massive computers. This seems legit. But if they have massive computers; several annoying commentators argue; they will no doubt run ancestor simulations; for fun, for education, or to figure out just why 21st century humans were just really into Crossfit. If they do this, every copy of every simulation will far exceed the numbers of us biological humans, ergo, we are FAR MORE LIKELY to be a simulation than a real human. Day. Ruined.

Being in a simulation might explain some of the odder parts of reality. Shortcomings in the code might account for why certain atomic particles seem to behave differently if we’re watching them, or why Kyle Sandilands still has a job. Or why I have no memory of last Thursday.

But there’s much more it doesn’t explain. Consciousness. The ever expanding levels of complexity we discover in our universe. What stamp duty is.

Does the notion this is a simulation cheapen our existence? Is our life worth less if it's digital? Does it free us from the laws of biology or society we assumed were innate? Can I punch a Nazi in the face? Is the red pill covered by the pharmaceutical benefits scheme?

Or is it a zero sum argument; with no consequence to our daily existence, a disprovable thought experiment thought up by a tech bro keen on getting an invitation to Musk’s prepper circle?

And where is the reset button?

Sci Fight Science Comedy Debate brings together comedians and scientists to debate serious issues in a ridiculous way.

Proceedings are loosely held together by your definitely qualified host, Alanta Colley [citation needed]. Sci Fight has been described as a nerdy, silly, and only occasionally litigious romp into what it even means to be alive.

This round, we debate: should we fear AI?

Just this year, AI chatbots have given people instructions on how to build a bomb, told users that they loved them, and instructed one user to leave their spouse and a child to stick nails into a live power socket. Before now you had to go to 4chan for that quality of abuse. Has Silicon Valley simply built a better troll?

Programmers are running behind ChatGPT and other AI trying to fix the problems as they arise and yet for every bit of foolproofing they achieve, humanity builds a better fool. Our one saving grace right now? It’s bad at Wordle. But this will surely not be the case for long.

Or is AI overhyped? Is our distrust of AI just our barely concealed sense of inadequacy, concern that a jacked-up two-bit calculator might prove a more sparkling conversationalist than we do?

Or is the real fear that the true flaw of AI is that it is built on data that humans made, and that all of its shortcomings were inherited from us? Do we simply fear ourselves?

Come and watch 6 very human scientists and comedians assess whether we’re on the brink of the AI-pocalypse a UptopAI.

Sci fight is a quarterly Science Comedy Debate where scientists and comedians debate serious issues in a ridiculous manner.

Thrilled to celebrate National Science Week 2023 in partnership with the Science Gallery Melbourne!

This rounds’ topic: We should embrace our animal nature.

We are animals. We may have pulled ourselves out of the primordial muck by our bootstraps. We may have invented sophistications such as chess, quantum mechanics and the Nutbush. We may have gained consciousness, closely followed by curiosity, hope, and existential despair. But have we forgotten our roots?

Many of the things that bring us misery today are constructs we invented. Inflation. The 5 day work week. Brexit. You’ve never seen a bonobo stressing over whether their stock portfolio offers an adequate return on investment. Would we be better off if we shrugged off our fictional fetters and returned to a simpler, more primal existence?

There’s a lot to be said for the joys of an animal existence. Being with your pack; with all the meaning and purpose of playing a role in the social group. Using your energy only for that which enables your survival or brings you joy. And not having to fight your very natural animal urges, like sleeping in, eating the last slice of cake or farting during a meeting. Would we be less lonely? You never have to worry if a guinea pig is only being nice to you to get a promotion.

Why are we lying to ourselves about our animal nature? Is it guilt? It’s guilt, isn’t it. Separating ourselves from our fellow animal kith and kin definitely makes it easier to eat them, use them for production, and sleep while the orca uprising begins.

Or are we better off leaving our bestial identities behind? After all, there was a lot of murder. And disease. And falling off or into things. Is our happiness tied to our higher order human society? Have we too easily forgotten the horrors of our base selves, buried now under qualifications and underwear?

Is it even possible to truly leave our animal selves behind?

Join six human animal scientists and debaters wrestle with this existential question of who we are, and how we can be happy.

Sci fight is a quarterly Science Comedy Debate where scientists and comedians come together to debate serious issues in a ridiculous manner.

This round's topic: We should search for life out there.

Since humanity became conscious of a universe stretching out far beyond our own little turquoise home, we’ve repeatedly wondered, are we really alone? Or is there life out there? And; have we offended it?

Statistically speaking, after 13.5 billion years and with 200 billion trillion stars in the universe, it seems impossibly unlikely that life hasn’t evolved more than once.

So: in the famous words of Fermi, where are they?

Possibly in order to justify their ongoing tenure; SETI employees and astrophysicists have developed increasingly imaginative (read: desperate) theories as to why we haven’t been contacted by aliens just yet.

As if we’ve been ghosted on a dating app; hypotheses include that maybe we just missed them; having evolved after they fell into extinction, or we’re up before them; they just haven’t reached us yet, or perhaps they’ve evolved into post-biological entities and are in stasis until the approaching heat death of the universe makes it cool enough for them to run their super computers without their CPU processor overheating.

When you’re a busy alien it's hard to make the time for an intergalactic voyage. Maybe they’re just procrastinating. ‘Well I *would* make the trip but my spaceship isn’t insured for off-galaxy collision with cosmic dust’. Should we collectively accept that they’re just not that into us?

But why are we so obsessed with finding alien life? Are we so fed up with our own neighbours and our daily grind that we need the novelty of an entirely different life form to give us hope? Given we’ve dedicated the last several hundred years arguing over slightly different versions of the same God, what makes us think we would all get along? If the Bible had been edited with version control the Crusades could have been cancelled.

Is this just colonialism all over again? Have we just swapped the safari suit for a space suit? Why do we have this insatiable desire to expand? Are we simply distracting ourselves from the existential threats we face; hoping a cheerful alien will drop by a care-package of a hyper efficient energy source and an atmosphere repair kit?

And have we really properly considered what happens if we do actually find extraterrestrial life?

We may discover that the only thing scarier than being all alone in the universe is if we're not.

Come listen to 6 very earthly scientists and comedians unpack what is out there and whether we should care.