>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> richard haass is here. he is the president in the council of foreign relations.

he was director of policy of planning at the u.s. state 43artment for president bush and was a close advisor to secretary of state colin powell. his latest piece is called the unraveling. how to respond to a disordered world. i am pleased to have him back at this table. the world is going what? in your characterization? >> there is so much attention being paid to the financial market. we have lost 10% of the value. there is a share of stock called world order inc.. it is not worthless but clearly the value is not where it was. >> is this one of those times where henry kissinger or you talk about where the world is reassessing relationships or relationships are changing? >> absolutely. we are complex. it is often changing depending on the issue or the day of the week. power spreading around the

world. it is going to many hands in many forms. decision-making is centralized. we have moved a long way. that month is a 25th anniversary of the end of the cold war. moved from, we have a world tightly controlled by two superpowers to world that is not tightly controlled in which many people are making consequential decisions. and afterhe cold war the collapse of the soviet union, did the united states miss an opportunity to act as a catalyst for a new world order that would have had more sustainability? >> i think the answer is yes. i wrote a book -- do not sell a very well -- called the opportunity. there was a moment when the united states which had unprecedented power. >> the sole superpower. >> an uncharacteristic moment. could we have done more to

integrate more countries? i think the answer is yes particularly after 9/11. had manyd states opportunities and we pushed countries away. what it have been peace and harmony for all time? no. could we accreted more of a world order? the short answer is yes. to 9/11, first afghanistan and then the decision was made to go into iraq and that was the crucial mistake? >> it helps set into motion some of the events we are seeing in the middle east. it is not solely responsible but partly responsible. and weaken the appeal of the united states and made americans more weary about continuing global leadership. for lots of reason, i think the decision to go into war in 2003 we picked apart. >> everyone knows radical islam and jihadist groups who many say are kidnapping the religion are an agent of change today. what are the eight -- other

agents of change? >> it is a destructive agent. you can say there are other militias, pirate organizations, drug cartels -- nonstate actors. you can say it is a larger number of states. corporations, media organizations, large multinational corporations -- the catholic church is an agent of change. the gates foundation. the conversation about health issues. of change and a reflection of change -- the fact that so many more of the world's wealth is concentrated there. so many people are conjugated there -- concentrated there. >> the ministry and made a public declaration of a pivot to asia. is that a mistake? >> in some ways it was the framing idea of this administration's first term in -- in foreign policy to dial down what the united states is

doing in the greater middle east and dial-up to asia because that was recognized as the part of the world more likely to shape 21st century history. >> the president wanted to -- wanted to dial down the wars. >> the problem with the pivot is not the idea, it is the implementation. wheezed to argue that 90% of life is execution. pivot is a good idea. it reflects the fact that china is a big challenge. we have important alliance obligations. military powers rising, nationalism is rising. we are not doing it. we not increasing our naval presence. we are spending less time in asia during the second term of the obama administration than the first. >> weaver pulled away by events? >> the part of having a difficult form policy is not allowing the urgent to drive off some of the strategically important. i don't see signs the president is preparing congress and the american people to approve a major transpacific treaty

agreement. that will take an awful lockup -- an awful lot of political work. >> i don't understand why you can't do things at the same time. deal with the crisis in the middle east, a trade agreement, a relationship with our natural allies in asia. chiefone of the lieutenants was sitting here, that is what they would say they are doing. the balance is off. the priorities are not exactly right. i don't see us doing nearly enough in asia. what we seem to be doing more is going a bit to -- from crisis to crisis. some of the areas we have chosen to investment -- secretary kerry's investment in the israeli-palestinian investment. you would say that was an odd choice. do not look particularly right. >> if it was successful, it would have had a huge impact. >> i don't think so. we have reached a moment in history where that crisis matters a lot to israelis and palestinians, but i don't think

it would have affected the dynamic in syria iand iraq. the whole dynamic of the larger middle east. >> with that respect -- it seems to me, if you could remove that. it is not that those problems would not be there standing alone. would people pay lip service to them? it is on everybody's agenda in the region. if you can take that off the table as an issue of conflict, you could make more progress on these other areas. >> i am not so sure anymore. i think the answer -- >> they will say it is true. every leader over there. no single leader in the middle east who does not believe or at least say do something about the israeli-palestinian conflict. >> if you had a two state solution, it would involve compromises. the same people that are driving a lot of the dynamics are

opposed to this. they don't want to have two states in the middle east because one of them would be israel. aree are not arguing they happy with the circumstances? >> it is not the principal dynamic that is driving events. would it be a positive? of course. i don't think it is nearly as central as a lot of people argue. >> that is the israeli point of view as well. if iran says that if the conflict is an issue here, it is not. iran's ambitions is the issue and their place. >> i disagree with the israeli government and i think their analysis is essentially right, but because israel and the palestinians have a lot of stake in the outcome, it is still both in their interest to have progress regardless of what the consequences might be. >> is there some great theory of how to fix everything? is there some magic formula that can bring world order, that can

bring a new age? if so, tell me. >> [laughter] at the risk of reinforcing my reputation as debbie downer -- i don't think so. i think it is a little more of a situation. >> if there are some powerful idea we are missing? >> it is the idea of trying to integrate other actors in the major states to get them signed up to certain rules and enter into certain agreements whether it is for trade, climate change, what to do about infectious -- >> every one of those issues we are trying. they are trying. cuba is trying. to >> that tells you something. the fact we are trying and it is not working. we have very different agendas, different stages of development. summit is like china might say you are right on principle on climate change but we still have 500 million people that are living in world poverty. we don't have that luxury. >> it took you a while to get there as well and you want us to

play by the rules that you want to play by having already become a major industrial state. >> you have the big outliers -- north korea and irans and others. even china, india, japan, europe -- they had different ideas of what they want to have happen or in some cases, they are not prepared to put a much in the way of resources or calories to bring it about. even in our country, we have domestic politics that limit what we can do. we have never signed up, ratified the law of the sea treaty which is one form of arernational -- people worried about anything -- some people are worried about anything that seems to a bridge or compromise full american sovereignty. i was a somewhat ideological argument. >> is europe signed up? >> yes. yes, sir. you have people who would say we

cannot sign up for that trade agreement. it would disadvantage of this american worker or environmental issues. there people that disagree about how to govern the internet. every single issue you can think of in the united states you have a debate and then you haven't even that's even bigger debate between the u.s. and others. it is the absence of that consensus explains the fact we cannot structure the world and a highly organized way. >> what you think the ambitions of the chinese are? >> i think they are in a contradiction. >> you have this story called china's imperial present -- president. china still needs a stable external environment so they can focus on their internal economic and political -- >> so they can have peace and prosperity for them. >> the chinese economic growth slows, you are beginning to see them crackdown at home but you are also beginning to see greater signs of chinese nationalism and activism in the neighborhood.

china is actually living out a contradiction between its more traditional foreign policy restraint of the last few decades and now a more activist foreign policy. >> wouldn't they say to you or me that if you would become the world's most economic power, with that power would be a current sense of how do we exercise that power in the world? it is inevitable. that is nationalism. >> partially psychology. china still thinks it is a so-called developing country. when we say to them, hey, you have to belly up to the bar and share with us some of the obligations and responsibilities in making this world work in ways that are good for you. the chinese say they are not ready. >> of a view to the last 200 years as an aberration from history. they were great nation and always have been a great nation and what has happened in the past 200 years, leading them to say they are developing nation

-- >> they are a great nation. they develop in extraordinary ways and they have reached the point where in some ways their own for policies do not serve their interests. how is it served by having a reckless north korea that they are subsidizing to the extent they are? regionalterest of order, the need to grow economically and do more to rein in north korea. look at their chinese environment. if any societies vulnerable to climate change, uf is a china is high in that list. >> if you talk to chinese leadership, they are focused on two things. one is climate and corruption. >> penny to work it out in the way the maintaining political water. cathere is tensions and trade-offs. one of the real questions for china's how they will deal with these tensions and trade-offs. my hunch in the next 30 years for china will be much more difficult in the last 30 years. coming back to the conversation we are having -- what it means

to me is the alternative to this world we have had where the u.s. has been donative -- dominant , that is the classic model of history. i don't think it is working out that way. i think if we reached a world where the united states does less and i think that is a world we are in, we will have a world where nobody steps up to take our place. >> you are sounding exactly like barack obama. that is exactly what he would say. >> [laughter] or wrong?ight >> it is not the analysis, it is the prescription. in some ways, think the president analysis is spot on and i think some of their prescriptions are spot on like doing more in asia. >> why are we doing more with partnerships? that is what you worked on during the time of the first gulf war. >> that was a real coalition. the problem now is the coalition -- there is not much substance.

you cannot get anybody to put in ground forces. we cannot get them to adopt a set of goals that many are replicating -- >> does this say something about how -- does that say something about the power we have as a nation or the power this president has as a persuader? >> i think it reflects the fact the u.s. share of world power is less. a think the rest of the road looks at us through somewhat more jaundiced eyes. they are not impressed by our domestic example. government shutdowns, near default has not impressed the world. the iraqi war clearly did not impress. i think this president paid enormous price for what happened in syria. we are seeing the wavering first by not helping the opposition than the red lines and not acting on them. i think that was consequential be on the middle east even in asia and elsewhere. people looked at us and said can we count on the united states ?

the answer they made is no. >> because it is the new reality of the way the world works? >> it is a little less deferral to the united states, little less reliance. that makes for a messier world. >> this china want to be a stakeholder? >> they are not there yet. their priorities now particular for the next eight years while he is still president is still very much focused on managing the security of reduced economic growth, retaining the political primacy of the arparty. doing something about the environment and corruption. i don't think china thinks they can d have the luxury. >> where you put a vladimir putin and russia as a disruptive force in the new world order? >> it is something of a spoiler. russia has decided for one reason or another its future does not rely heavily on european integration.

basically haveto a smaller campus rather than play on the global. >> the possibilities of pandemics is something with no respect to national borders. >> it is globalization at its most violent. it again shows you the inadequacy in the space of the world have -- world health organization. we were not up to the challenge. we are largely uncoordinated national responses. it shows you this gap between were the world is and where it needs to be. meantime, we are vulnerable to the disease but also the consequences. sierra leone or liberia becomes a failed state because of this? it is another place where terrorists set up shop. they are security consequences. >> back to one specific thing -- turkey and isis and the threat to the city on their border.

i wouuld like for the president to go and i assume he has done this multiple times. say, ok, what is the problem here? stop thate do to fierce even do the right thing here? >> i know we have had so many conversations with the turks. i heard the president has talked to the president. the concerns go beyond that. when turkey hears talk about kurdish nationalism and independence, they look at basically the dissolution of modern turkey. it is distributed among four countries. the turks worry both about terrorism and the pkk. they're worried about sending in the motion a political dynamic that threatens the territory and unity of turkey itself. could the united states persuade them?

i know the arguments but i am not sure they're listening. we can say we support kurdish independence in iraq or syria. kurds see more concern about resisting any nationalism and getting assad out of power. they may technically be in the coalition. but, they are not. >> i always wonder the nature of the conversation. i don't sit here at this table and think why are they doing this and not assuming that perhaps they have tried to. and for some reason they were not successful. the people surrounding the president are bright and experienced. >> in this case, this turkish leadership is clearly moving the country in a different direction. they have a different image of turkey's future. domestically, it is a very big

difference from the model. he sees himself as a counterpoise. he sees himself just as critical to the creation of modern turkey. >> not necessarily having the same sense of -- >> coming up with a new compact of the role of islam in turkish society. it is very different for policy. the articulated this idea of no problems with any neighbors and now it has not worked and they don't have any neighbor with whom they don't have a problem. through question is whether the turks do a stock taking about her own difficulties in the region and so far, i have not seen it. it is not so much an american foreign-policy play. i don't put this at the president's door. it is another example of how american power does not necessarily translate into american influence and this is one of the reasons why the world is not in the shape we want to see. >> at the same time, you hear for countries come to this table

-- prime ministers and presidents saying what we want from the united states is leadership. i don't know how to connect those two things. the power is less and at the same time they want america to step forward and lead. >> most people want us to lead. all things being equal, that is the world they are familiar with. he has a different agenda and turkey has followed it. he is a slightly different case. we are seeing different countries nationalism in japan. we are seeing greater assertiveness. i do think countries are unnerved by our domestic inability for congress and the executive branch to work. it creates new questions about american liability. i think this administration with all of its talk about limiting america's involvement in the middle east, withdrawals first iraq and what we are doing in afghanistan. >> or whether we will never use

ground troops. >> it is too much of the emphasis of what we will not do. they read the polls. to read the polls about americans turning away from the world. they are beginning to build a narrative. that is the narrative they are beginning to build that the united states cannot be counted on to be there quite as much as the past. this is a self if filling dynamic. one of the things the president and his successor will have to do was change that dynamic. >> there is always a question about foreign policy. foreign power and economic weapons or using eight and elements like that. of a steep power decline in oil prices in terms of a disruptive agent in the world order? >> it is largely pretty good. going downason it is besides lower economic growth rate is american production. the extra 2 million barrels a day we are putting on the market.

has made is much less vulnerable to energy supply companies -- cut off and price changes. it is bad for countries like russia, iran. it is much more powerful than the sanctions we have put on place -- lower oil prices. it is going down to the low 80's. we can probably change some are export policies, change the petroleum reserve. the basic direction -- we cannot have engineered anything better. >> what would it do to iran if in fact oil prices went down to 60? >> for countries like iran and a, it puts them in extremists. the budget is based on oil being over $105 a barrel. i'm not sure the irani one. and makes them extraordinarily vulnerable and make the sanctions that much more --

>> they are more likely to agree to a nuclear deal? >> absolutely. >> what we do to drop the price? >> it is happening. >> it is at 80. >> they have by not reducing production. what is interesting about opec it is not have acted how cartels should work. the fact that oil has gone down as the saudis and others are willing to swallow in order to see countries like iran pay a price. >> you conclude your peace with this.. thought. the question of not whether the world will continue to unravel but how fast and how far. if we don't -- this is your argument -- if we don't get our domestic house in order, is unraveling inevitable?

>> it is inevitable. it is simply in the structure of things. the rise of others. not the decline of the united states, but the problems in translating our power into influence. questions about us. again, to some extent, it is inevitable but a lot of history is about degrees. even if this gradually client of role order, decline in american influence -- the question is what is the slope and what do we put in its place? it is a different if america's role goes down and we put something good or better in its place, i don't see that. >> and we develop new relationships as it is declining. >> we have a situation which is frightening. the future starts getting messier and messier and that is bad for us and everybody. the problem is i don't see who the partners are anymore. europe is unwilling to step up. chinese are not ready. japan has its own concerns.

americans are saying we don't want to pray the -- pay the price. what worries me is i don't see where the partners come. >> if you at the council of foreign relations or if you were running this table were to convene a group of people to figure out how do we find a way to stop this? who would you convene? i am assuming you start with henry kissinger. who else? got athis country, you number of people who think hard about foreign-policy from henry some people who know the economic side of. the larry summers and others. people understand the domestic economics as well as the foreign policy. you also want to get internationalize the conversation. people from germany, france,

russia. you don't want to start excluding people. the whole idea of integration, to admit together a world where people sign up to some of the same rules and build some relations. by definition, involves bringing in others. in some cases, compromising. we may have to make some difficult decisions. where we are willing to dilute or compromise some of the things we want in order to get others to play ball. we cannot just set the rules and say you have to sign up. it has to be a real consultation about what are going to be the rules. we also have to give them a chance to play if they are going to pay. a responsible be stakeholder, china or anyone else, it is not going to be a stakeholder in an american designed system. we have been be willing to sit down and say ok, what are your preferences? >> and what are your

definitions? >> it has to be a bit of a give and take. >> i think you just are doing that. >> [laughter] >> consider a theory for the future. >> duly noted. >> back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

>> e.o. wilson is here. he is one of the world's most biologists and naturalists. his new book grapples with some of life's most fundamental questions. it is called "the meaning of human existence." i am pleased to have e.o. wilson back at this table. you're how old now? >> 85, and beginning to slow down, but i don't quite feel that way yet. >> here is why i asked. it seems like you were just here not long ago with another book and you said to me, three in two years, and i said, there is a sense of urgency that you have important toit's

say now. more years.e 10 i'm not counting on. i just want to make sure if i have anything worth saying that i get it out. >> tell me how you came to the meaning of human existence. >> over a long route. i started my career as an biologist.y i actually invented that term. that also makes for an interesting story. in the course of studying every the biology of ants, i became interested in the broad theect of social behavior, origins of social behavior. i wrote a book called sociobiology and other related books. >> that became a bit controversial. >> it did. in the 1970's. now it is not controversial.

after all, we are social animals. eventually, it just seemed logical, where i found myself positioned, to think about some of these big questions that even religiousd scholars have largely abandoned, which are where do we come from? where are we? and where are we going? >> and what does it mean to be human? >> correct. from the point of view of combines science and eumenides, i think we are approaching a where the appropriate disciplines of science have learned enough and are moving enough in the right direction so that they can connect with the best of humanities to create a much better picture of who we are and where we came from. in fact, i would like to refer

to it as the new enlightenment. a new alignment. >> i think we are ready now. >> define what it might be. >> the original enlightenment was from the late 17th bend throughout the 18th century in which philosophers and scientists -- they didn't call the mad at that time, but those who were called natural philosophers -- call them that at that time, but those who were called natural philosophers were in agreement that in short order we would be able to combine all of our knowledge and understand ofanity in the light knowledge we could acquire ourselves. time to step back and say what have we learned and what do we make of it? what happened is the old enlightenment faded away because of two developments. one was the romantic era of

literature that came to dominate a lot of the english language, but also, science could not deliver in the early 1800s. the promise of actually contributing something fundamental to the question of what is the meaning of human , and wee frittered away had to wait two centuries. i think we are ready to ask those questions again. andcience has roared ahead challenged traditional definitions of what it means to be human. >> that's exactly right. let me just say about this, too, it isn't just science that holds the promise of connecting humanity in renewing the quest. i think we are close to finding , but not just through

science. you are not going to get anywhere if you ask a natural physicist or in astronomy a -- or an astronomer, a chemist or even molecular biologist, they whereo far removed about humans came from and where we fit as a species that evolved from something prehuman into our present self glorified form. so, where do we find the answers? >> let me list five disciplines thee we are finding meande answers. we are finding them in evolutionary biology, which is advancing with the help of and other disciplines. advancing very quickly. is next one that

contributing and will contribute big time is brain science. that is now the subject of immense interest and intense research. the third one is, as anyone would want to list, paleontology. archaeology. segueing into each other. the two surprises. artificial intelligence and robotics. these are the branches of science and technology which are attempting actually to understand how the human brain what and thereby just evolution has produced. >> i know a little bit about this because we have conferences that i asked people to donecipate in and we have

to complete years of conversations about the brain. but when you get to artificial intelligence, there are some people, very wise people, who are scared about the consequences. does it bother you? >> not in the least. i can tell you about meeting with six of the key figures in artificial intelligence and robotics. we arranged for a roundtable present statushe of those subjects. in my case, we were bringing in dialogical diversity. how was this going to affect the living environment of the world when we started building robots and changing our consumption patterns? >> and the answer is --? is areancillary subject the robots going to take over.

that's a great story of hollywood loves a great story, so they tell that story over and over again. the short answer is no. >> because? >> because we have control. we are not going to allow even advanced humanoid robots. >> you are saying we will control it because we will not allow it to cut as we will understand the danger and --refore put >> a barrier. we have an even begun really to understand the emotional centers -- haven't even begun really to understand the emotional centers that are the core of human nature. >> there has been rapid progress. >> rapid progress, but we are just beginning to find out where all those centers are and how imagery andto the

the white-hot intense area we call the conscious mind. we are not likely to be able to duplicate or try to duplicate that in robots, but if we were to try to duplicate it, we are certainly not going to give robots the chance to evolve. if we could, we are not going to give it to them. here is the question with that. that is nice to say, but there probably somebody who says i do not particularly want to 's definitionilson of where we let the robots evolve too. i want to see how far we can take it. >> that is the mantra of the techno-scientific age. there will be no halting of any scientific investigation or potentially useful technology

because it is our human nature to want to explore and keep exploring always, but there is a big difference between a mad inventing a neutron bomb on his own in a laboratory and the teams of scientists needed to produce the ability of robots or artificial intelligence of any kind to communicate and to go through natural selection. i think those who make up the good stories for us in hollywood don't appreciate exactly what selection is, natural selection and artificial selection. you listed evolutionary biology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence and robotics, paleontology.

is that one or two? >> they segue into one another. when you get far enough back, you're not dealing with the artifacts of culture so much as you're with anatomy and physiology. >> when i picked up this book, before i read it, i thought, here we go. hasrevered e.o. wilson decided to say we are creating human life into many ways. human trying to design life and that is not a good idea. somehow molecular biology and the capacity to do all the things we have learned about gene therapy and the capacity to haser with human evolution

put real power to change what it means to be human in the hands of people with certain skills. i thought you were going to say. >> i didn't. >> that's not an issue for you. >> i am glad you brought this up because this raises the importance of the humanities which you might have noticed, readers might notice, i touch on in a chapter called the all importance of the humanities. ,he reason i do that is because consider that rational abilities therational process and engineering and the technology that emerges from that of atheless is not human fundamental human quality. the capacity is unique to humans but what is fundamental to human quality, what makes us a distinctive species, what gives humanity to us, may i use even

the word metaphorically, but our soul is in our emotions, and we are not going to tinker with those. that is the core we are trying , and we are dealing with all the technology -- >> can we avoid tinkering with that? is it impossible, the idea of the soul? >> i am saying if we finally settle down before we wreck this planet, we are going to come to understand that it is the conglomerate and complex interaction of our emotional process that makes us core ofive and is the our humanity. >> our emotional process. >> yes. >> and what it advances are we making in terms of that emotional process? >> just studying. landmark teams.

>> neurobiologist, you can't really tell where they are one month to the next because they are moving so rapidly, but right now they have succeeded in locating quite a few centers for emotion as well as centers for sub conscious incision making. the idea is to learn about this as thoroughly -- subconscious decision-making. the idea is to learn about this as thoroughly as possible as was evidenced by the nobel prize given for judging and quick learning centers and where that is. center, linkage by linkage, we are beginning to get a map of the mind, and then we will be able to map the emotions and move through the next phase in -- well, there is a nice term being used, and that is whole grain emulation. emulate the human brain but don't try exactly to do ok but.

-- to duplicate it. >> what is the difference? we emulate we go if it and do not duplicate it? good question. the emulating means the computing that depends upon decision-making has emotion like of thents to it is one goals to artificial intelligence. there is a kind of technology that isbeing developed secondary in importance to difficult -- to digital models and that is called narrow more fixed. that's computers that actually design to be analog and work a bit like the brain.

i suspect that in time narrow more effect -- that is analog neuro-morphic,uro more that is analog computers, will be smart enough to perform complex tasks in the service of wars or the middle of volcanoes. but we also want them to make judgments that are appropriate for human need, so that is about wantr as i think we would to take it. >> did you ever know michael creighton? >> yes, i got to know him but he well. >> yes, that's what i thought. know him pretty well.

>> that's what i thought. >> i thought for once you might let me escape. dinner with michael cried in and i thought of an experiment i could perform right then and there. ants, an entire colony, in amber. i probably could have extract extracted nor its -- turpinoids and extracted the alarm substance they would alert thee-mail to danger was coming. i said to michael creighton, would this satisfy you if i did and cooked the chemical signal from 15-20,000,000 years ago.

if i delivered that to the alarm to my lab and them? and he liked that. >> i bet he did. >> he said, could you do it? and i said no. that would not be science. that would just be a circus trick. >> how do you know all o that follow all of these spheres of knowledge? you just let your mind take you where you are interested? early, orbrought up maybe i did, i am getting old enough now that i am worrying about the time i have left, but basically i feel young. i have the same excitement over

science and discovery as i did when i was a kid. >> to we appreciate science more today? >> more but not nearly enough. i wonder how many real scientists you interview here. probably not many compared to leaders in other branches. >> i will make two points on that. i don't do enough, but i do more than anybody else. >> you do. if it weren't for you, i wouldn't be sitting anywhere being interviewed about this. >> let's assume you were thinking of doomsday. , ast more likely to come you have talked about often, because of what we do to the planet, or are we going to unleash something beyond our comprehension which will have a velocity of change that we never imagined? >> both. it's a race among doomsday's as

come first.l in other words, now we are about critical level in the concentration of the planet change components in the atmosphere. who are experts on the subject, real scientists, wonder and worry if there is some kind of turning point -- >> a tipping point -- >> a tipping point that could be catastrophic in nature. and there are night mare scenarios they can concur. -- that can occur. we are allowing the central cause of that to go on and on, so we should eat careful about -- be careful about climate change because that could create a catastrophe. but the other way is by the means of a whimper.

and that is when i am beginning all my energies on, and that is conservation of lettingphere, not species slip away and become extinct as they are 1000 times faster than before humans came because we don't know what would happen with the biosphere as we destroy it. it could mean that we are just lying down to a less controllable, less interesting, less productive lannett and that would just be a dark age we could never emerge from -- planet, and that would just be a dark age we could never emerge from. >> if you are coming out of college today, what field would you go into? >> i named that field in my autobiography. that i thought was toward the in of my career and life

1996. i said if i had to do it all work onin i would microbes. we are microorganisms by nature. we know that a single gram of billions ofe in the bacteria and as many as 5000 unknown tost all science. here is a virgin area, biology. i would love to do that if i could start at the beginning because that is a major area that is going to open up. but i do wonder if i started there, would i end up thinking about humans? maybe not. would i be thinking about i can't wait to get those samples back from the aqueous layer of mars, drilling through your rope

and getting the first off. that is what i would be -- drilling through europa and getting the first stuff. that is what i would be thinking. they deal with all sorts of things from dealing with ebola to figuring out how life got guarded spontaneously. >> it is a pleasure and great to see you. thank you for joining us. see you next time.

>> i am mark halperin. >> i'm john heilemann. with all due respect, we are the ones tossing the shutout tonight. sports fans in the lineup tonight. mitch mcconnell breaks the fourth wall. the giants haven't broken the royals spirits, looks like they're breaking their backs. but first it is one week until election day. we will be up all night.