Sneak Peek at Singularity – My Submission for #Nanowriwee

The Tale of the Unseen Hand

Where there is chaos, you will find us.

When there is chaos, we thrive.

For countless millennia, we have been watching your Kind.

They will say that I am the villain of the piece. We have grown quite adept at being the villain of the piece and I don’t mind really, it is a label that has always suited my ends well.

I think it’s important that you love your job. Chances are you’re going to spend a lot of time working, so it’s wise to try and make the best of it. I certainly love my job, which often surprises people when I tell them, partly because no one recalls a time when there wasn’t The Archivist reigning over the Monastic Order of Telepaths and partly because no one really understands the work that I do and the few that do see it as something sinister or in some way distasteful. My job is both sinister and distasteful at times, sometimes things have to be done that are not pleasant, but still must be done. The Archivist exists to perform those tasks and perform them rather well, if I do say so myself.

The Archivist has not always been my name. I trace my lineage back to the days of Earth. I was young in the days before the fall, before that infernal Coming Darkness descended on the planet that was to be ours. In those times, before the Darkness Came, and the times before that, I was known by a good many names, but most frequently by that of Kezef. Some of the oldest books to have survived from Earth tell the various stories of Kezef at great length, but they are seldom read by anyone these days, their power over Humanity has been lost. We had to react to these changes, to maintain our position in the universe.

The fall of Mankind and the death of Earth changed everything for our organisation. 26^th March, 2125, that single day when 14 billion humans along with all other life perished. We had failed, with all our power, all our money and all our influence, we had failed. We were expected to see the future, the past and the present, all at once; it is the gift that the universe has bestowed upon us. Such compelling power and yet not one of our Order saw the Coming of Darkness approach. So many of us were lost on that day. I should have perished too…

Read more here: Singularity

Do you want to live forever? (Or Genetics, Medical Science, Ethics and Stuff)

If you are reading this and are relatively content and happy in your existence and I said ‘Hey what if you could stay like this forever?’ there is no one of sound mind who would not take me up on that offer.

I want to live forever, there seems more that I want to do than a single lifetime would allow, I’d love not to age.

I’d also love to see an end to diseases: Cancer: Gone; AIDS: Gone; Dementia: Gone; everything, every last one, a blight on our species no more. I think we can all agree on that, right?

But

At what cost?

It is predicted that ageing could be effectively halted and even reversed within less than a hundred years and advancements in immunological science are predicted along similar timescales. We are going to be living longer and possibly indefinitely, if one avoids serious physical injury. But, again I ask: At what cost?

Let me be clear, You will be disappointed if you are expecting an argument based on defying ageing and disease being ‘against God’  or humanity ‘playing God’, I have little interest in either concept, and this is not a post critical of science’s unrelenting quest for answers either. Science and scientists should be applauded for seeking to address the problems of ageing and disease, I would certainly never seek to discourage this quest for understanding, but there are ethical questions arising from human immortality that, when given thought, make what superficially seems like a positive advancement look far less so. If I get something wrong please shout out and let me know.

Let’s imagine today we have cured ageing and all diseases; our children can be born without any risk of ageing or disease and existing humans can be genetically manipulated to enjoy the same. What now?

Who gets the cure?

It would be very easy to say every single person on the planet should be given access to the cure. You might think, and it’s hard to argue against, that if some can enjoy eternal youth and life, well then everyone should enjoy the same right. Ignoring the logistics of this endevour, there are some pretty big ethical problems.

Today, millions upon millions of people are living in total poverty and suffering starvation. If these peoples are given the cure, they will not age or suffer disease, but they will starve to death just as they would have done before and, those that don’t, will enjoy an eternity of poverty. So, you might think that we could withhold the cure until they can be helped to catch-up. We would enjoy our immortality while they continue to die in their masses until we are satisfied they have reached the correct level of social and infrastructural development to be given access to the technology. For your immortality, is that a call you would be happy to make?

Okay, how about this

Let’s forget poverty, let’s pretend everyone on earth is at the same level of societal development, such as that, at least in the aspirational sense. enjoyed by most Western Countries.  Let’s cure everyone on earth of ageing and disease. That’s right, all 7 billion of us can live forever and have children who will also live for ever. The 7 billion of us who are currently alive, along with the billions who have gone before, have done a pretty top-notch job of buggering this little Planet of ours. Heavy industry, resource stripping, reliance on unclean means of energy production and mass consumerism have all taken their toll on our Planet’s essential systems. We vastly over-capacity based on current practices, so it’s hard to advocate allowing a situation where natural wastage through death no longer occurs. The numbers just don’t work, more people only ever means more environmental impact and makes it less likely we’ll ever develop the means, as a species, to venture into the stars in any meaningful sense. No, if we all want immortality then we make some difficult choices.

As I see it, the necessary cost of immortality for all would have to be a Planet-wide ban on procreation. If we all live forever, no one would ever be allowed to raise children. You might think that’s a reasonable price to pay for your eternal life on earth, but look wider. Future generations have often sought to solve the problems of past generations, it’s one of the main reasons we move nearer to this technology. Sometimes problems have been solved due solely to the unique vision of particular individuals. Whatever area you look at, be it social history, technology, medicine, the arts, you will find these unique visionaries who changed things for the better or took things in new directions. The consequences of immortality could stop this happening, humanity would be at risk of stagnation. If we stopped procreation, the knowledge base would be stuck at it’s current levels. Often it is not what is known, the core information, but the way it is put together by the individual and we are (and are not) unique. We would be accepting adding no more uniqueness to our pool. It can only be guessed at what this would mean over the long term.

Terrible but necessary

In my opinion, the possible ramifications for the use of such technology are terrible, I see little hope that it will be in the best interest of much of the population of the Planet, but nonetheless it may be in the best interests of the human species as a whole. If we don’t want to die here on earth and want to explore the stars, even the nearest ones, then I do believe the technology to remove the burden of ageing and to cure all diseases must play a part in a much wider landscape of difficult questions and ethical debates.

So, now you know some of the potential costs, it’s back to my first question, dear reader: Do you want to live forever?

Next time

My next post will look at exactly what we might need to do to leave this planet and it gets a lot more morally and ethically ambivalent than this.

Other Posts and Further Reading

Me: We’re all Going to Die Here

Me: Extra-Terrestrial Life: Chicken or Pork

Senescene: Should we cure Ageing

BBC News: We will be able to live to 1000

The ethical debate of life-extension therapies (Video)

If you don’t like these Thoughts, stick around, I’ve got plenty of others.

Are extraterrestrials visiting earth?

This post is the third in a series about space travel and life in the universe. In the first post I discussed the likelihood that humanity is doomed to die on earth (Paul’s Moments: We’re all going to die here!) and in the second I have a look at what extraterrestrial life might look like and what it’s motives towards humanity may be (Paul’s Moments: Extraterrestrial Life – Chicken or Pork). This post will look at the field of ufology (I stop short of referring to it as science) and whether it’s possible that Aliens are visiting Earth today.

UFOs were one of the first things I remember seriously researching, I’d have been about twelve I think and inspired by an article in The Fortean Times, a magazine I’ve read avidly every month since. I remember being sat in our local village library surrounded by every book I could find on the subject, my timing was good as the early 90’s saw a huge surge in UFO interest and a lot of books were released on the subject. I remember how excited I felt that day and that’s the moment my interest started and it has been an interest that has endured ever since.

Back then, and for quite some time after, I subscribed to the ‘Nuts and Bolts’ hypothesis of ufology (sometimes referred to as the Extraterrestrial hypothesis), which states that UFO represent forays by extraterrestrial craft into Earth airspace. It’s by far the most popular theory of ufology in terms of general sentiment, but it’s the most problematic in terms of science. I’m not going to re-tread old ground in explaining why the possibility of ET paying Earth a visit is statistically unlikely; I thought instead I’d look at the other theories that might be a better fit.

What this post is not claiming, and this is something I’d never claim, is that everyone who sees a UFO is either a liar or insane. I personally have seen lights in the sky that I would find difficult to explain and far more credible observers than me have seen the same or similar, but that does not make them extraterrestrial crafts, it makes them…erm…Unidentified Flying Objects.

Black Projects

One of the theories that can possibly explain a lot of sightings (including one of my own at RAF St Mawgan just outside Newquay, Cornwall) is the black project explanation. Black Projects are top-secret government-funded military projects to develop new aircraft. The US alone spends billions of dollars a year on the research and development of such craft. Many of these craft you will never hear about, many won’t progress beyond a concept on paper, but some do go on to become the mainstream, such as the F-117 Nighthawk and eventually, I presumes, The US Airforce’s worst kept secret: The Aurora.

If you’re wondering why this black funding of military technology goes on, well it’s very simple, tension between nations, even allies, never goes away and no poker player ever reveals their cards mid-game.

Some of the black budget craft rumoured to be in existance (by nature there is little official documentation) utilise advanced and exotic forms of propulsion and shielding technology which could account for some of the capabilities observed in UFO sightings…at this point I’ll point out that all technology used in Black Projects would not be able to contravene the standard model of physics. Previous studies of the UFO phenomena have noticed a high volume in the vacinity of military bases and installations, which the nuts-and-bolters point to as evidence ET is checking out our military capabilities, but isn’t the Black Project explanation more satisfying in accounting for this?

So, if Black Project aircraft can account for some UFO sightings, what about the rest?

Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena

The Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena theory explains the rest as either little-known, or totally unknown, forms of atmospheric effect. One such phenomena that we are aware of is ball lightning , rare balls of crackling electricity that have been observed to move as if under intelligent control before exploding, leaving behind only the strong odour of Sulphur.

Some researchers have spotted links between fault lines and/or coal seams and UFO sightings, suggesting there may be a link between plate techtonics and unexplained aerial phenomena. In my native South Yorkshire, rich in coal, there is an oral tradition of strange lights in the sky near coal seams.

There is a trend of time-slips, so-called loss of the observers ability to remember periods of time, associated with UFO sightings. UFO researcher Jenny Randles argues, in her book Time Storms, that this loss of time could be associated with some unexplained phenomena not associated with UFOs or Extraterrestrials. Randles suggests some naturally occurring form of temporal distortion. So far, there is no science that can explain this and only a handful of scientists who would entertain the notion, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or so the saying goes.

The problem of UFO sightings

People have been reporting UFOs since the late 30s (much earlier if you’re a fan of some more recent interpretations from researchers) so why are we not closer to a satisfactory explanation for them? There seem to be a number of reasons:

• Sightings are mostly made by lone observers and therefore unsupported by corroborative witnesses;
• There is little or no physical evidence following a sighting for science to test;
• All serious governmental and scientific studies have not been able to turn up anything that could be termed evidence;
• Only a small percentage of sightings are made by subjects with credibility in the successful  identifying aerial objects;
• Ufology is plagued by a ‘loony-fringe’ (Yes Nick Pope that’s you!) who inadvertently remove all credability from the subject making it unfortunately likely that serious researchers will give it a wide-berth for fear they get tarred with the same brush; and
• If it’s not the ‘loony fringe’ removing credibility, it’s the hoaxers and attention-seekers muddying the water with their deceptions.

Despite these very real problems, I remain convinced, as the 12 year old me was, that the study of UFOs is a valid area of research. I don’t pretend to have answers, but I do feel that something interesting is happening here.

Further Reading: Theories

I’ve presented my two favourite theories, but I’m just scratching the surface, there are plenty of others to pick from, from the sublime to the rediculous. Here’s a round-up provided by the Fortean Times: An A – Z of UFO Theories and Wiki has this on UFO Hypotheses

I leave you with this video:

What do you think dear reader?

Coming soon: my thoughts on alien abduction phenomena.

Extraterrestrial Life: Chicken or Pork?

Last week I learned something new about myself: if aliens visit Earth, I’ll almost certainly be considering eating one! I’m okay with this fact  but, rest assured, this is not a post about eating Aliens (it’s Chicken or Pork guys, the universal constant for exotic foodstuffs), this is a post about whether any visiting aliens are likely to fancy take-out human!

I posted about the likelihood of Humanity dying on planet Earth (we’re going to die here!) inspired by a post from @thinkingfox. This is my response to his most recent post on attempting to contact intelligent Alien life on the new exoplanets discovered by the Keplar Space Telescope, it’s well worth reading (Thinkingfox: Just because you could). Rob ends his post with a warning that just because we can send out these messages to other planets doesn’t necessarily mean that we should and wonders are we running the risk of attracting the unwanted attention of a spacefaring galactic bully intent on making Humanity their bitch. I’m not so sure and I’d like to explain why…

A lot of this post is going to run around reasonable speculation from the Drake equation, my favourite equation if I had to  pick one, which was developed by Frank Drake in 1961. If you have not come across this Equation before here it is:

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

It states that:

N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.

R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.

fp = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.

ne = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.

fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.

fi = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.

fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.

L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

(Source: SETI Institute HQ)

Put very simply, this means that there are a lot of potential for life in our galaxy, The Milky Way, and that’s before we start looking at the billions of other galaxies that make up the Universe. So ET is most likely out there and NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope is, every day, helping prove some elements of Drake’s Equation correct in terms of the planets it is finding orbiting parent stars in the life-important Goldilocks zone. Giving both sides of the argument, there are problems with the Drake Equation, there’s one huge and obvious problem immediately apparent: if drake is correct, our galaxy is teaming with life both intelligent and otherwise, the intelligent life should be leaving traces that we can detect with existing technology, but we haven’t. This problem is called the Fermi Paradox which states there is an apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

This is a fun area of science, you get to have an opinion that could conceivably be correct! Even the best scientific attempts at predicting what alien life looks like (or how it will behave) is little more than guesswork, extrapolations based on how evolution has worked for humanity on Earth. This obviously comes with the risk of assuming that that this is the only way for sentient life to evolve in the universe…it may not be. Anyway before I tell you what I think, here’s a round-up of the different theories.

Evil ET

One theory, popular in the public consciousness, that runs through science fiction and is supported by some scientists,  states that although ET may look slightly different to humans, it will be carbon-based, oxygen-breathing, bipedal and suffer from all the character flaws that we see in our own species. ET will be violent and destructive, covetous and driven by nothing more than a need for conquest. To ET, humanity will either be a threat to be destroyed, food to be eaten or slaves to be abducted. Earth will be nothing more than a source of valuable resources to be mercilessly stripped. The Guardian ran an article recently that carried the idea that ET might even look identical to us (Guardian: Scientists claim, aliens visiting earth will be just like us!)

Don’t judge me by your own low standards 

For some scientists extrapolations based on how humans have evolved are just not satisfying enough, the unique conditions on earth have created humanity but this doesn’t have to be the only conditions to successfully create sentient life. No one knows for sure if sentient life requires a carbon-based genetic make-up, could Silicon work just as well for complex lifeforms? It’s an open question, we just do not know for sure, but we do know some deep, hydrothermal-vent dwelling worms are silicon-based. It’s not just silicon either, there are a number of other elements that have been suggested as theoretically viable for producing complex biochemistries.

This article based on an interview with Professor Sasselov is a great read (BBC: Searching for the Origins of life and our future)

Technological life

We spend a lot of our time as a species pre-occupied with the notion of looking for organic extraterrestrial life, whether that looks like us or not, but space and more specifically traversing space is pretty lethal to organic life. In order to be able to achieve the feat of interstellar travel the flimsy, organic frame must be protected by some pretty advanced technology and, even with this protection the organic nature of pilots remain the weakest link in the whole operation. We know this for a fact and yet we still expect ET, when we find them, to be organic lifeforms. What if, like us, they have had more success building probes to send into space? What if they have mastered nano-robotics, capable of building ever more complex versions of themselves without reference to their human creators. Long after the organic, builder race had died out, their sentient technological legacy would have the galaxy as their playground. Shouldn’t the search for life be hunting for artificial intelligence near sources of resources such life would require? Some scientists think so: BBC: Alien Hunters should look for Artificial Intelligence

Space is pretty vast, but so is time

In my last post I reminded you how big space is and how its vast size is one of the reasons our species will die here on Earth. Space is massive, but so is time, here are some scary numbers:

• The best current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years old;
• In 2007, The Milky Way, our galaxy, was estimated to be about 13.2 billion years old;
• The Solar System is an estimated 4.6 billion years old;
• Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago;
• 50 years ago, Yuri Gagarin was the first member of the human species to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.

Think carefully on these numbers, for many these are the answer to the Fermi Paradox. It’s not a question of sentient life being unique to our Earth, there could have been life elsewhere at some point in the past, but as the saying goes: on a long enough timeline everything’s life expectancy becomes zero. For me, if you add the vastness of space to the vastness of time, our likelihood of detecting alien life approaches zero!

And finally…a unique earth, floating alone in space

This theory is not massively popular, but quite interesting. It suggests that the conditions on Earth are unique in allowing the evolution of sentient life. This theory is not predicted or answered by Drake and if is correct then the Fermi Paradox has its answer and we truly are alone in the universe: BBC: Life on earth – is our planet unique.

What I think

I’m not too worried about people broadcasting messages at planets identified by Kepler as having the potential for life-sustaining conditions. It’s not that I think there isn’t life in the galaxy, one of those targetted planets may hold an intelligent, organic species of extraterrestrials, but I’m just not worried about them invading.

As I said in my last post, our love of war is one of the major reasons why we’re stuck on earth; space travel costs a lot of money and resources and so do wars, it’s unlikely any civilisation would manage to maintain such an unhealthy love of war and still make it out of their cosmic backyard. Assume our theoretic aliens have ‘evolved’ beyond the need for war amongst themselves, would they would take it on themselves to wage war with any species they meet on their galactic jaunts? Okay I might be suggesting a higher level of societal evolution for my aliens, lets assume for a minute they do still celebrate periods of peace with a good old-fashioned war. Wars normally start for a reason, if a species is capable of traversing space it’s unlikely they would be threatened by a species incapable of launching manned-trips much beyond the confines of their own atmosphere.  So what about other reasons?

A need for resources or a new home is often cited as a potential for hostile acts against earth by extraterrestrials, but Drake’s Equation puts this theory in some doubt. Our theoretical aliens exist, therefore the Drake Equation is at least partially correct. If we track back a bit we can see that for every planet that produces intelligent life that can be detected there are vastly more planets, just in our galaxy that are capable of sustaining life but do not have any actual life present. You’re the captain of an Alien colony ship and you have two choices of planets: Planet 1 is suitable for your species and is entirely free of any other form of sentient life and Planet 2 is our planet the Earth with it’s current level of population and infrastructure. Which planet do you decide to settle or resource strip from? It’s simple really, maximum reward for minimum effort.

In my humble opinion, if ET comes, there is every likelihood that they will come in peace…of course I could be wrong and, hedging my bets somewhat, can I be the first to welcome our future, evil alien overlords and offer any help I can be with the PR drive to win the hearts and minds of the few remaining members of my species that they haven’t vaporised or eaten…

We’re all going to die here…

Take a look at this picture, beautiful isn’t it! This is our planet, the earth and we’re going to die here. I don’t just mean me and you; we’re definitely going to die here; or our children, they’ll die here too; and their children…it goes on and on, until eventually, and I see no reason for optimism of any other outcome, the whole of humanity will die on this rock we call home.

This is going to be one of two posts inspired by conversations I’ve had on Twitter the last two mornings with @thinkingfox, which were prompted by his two most recent blog posts on humans and space travel. The first post from yesterday was on Cryonics, Generation Ships and the future of Humanity and it’s well worth a read.

He rightly points out that unless we answer the questions around Faster-than-Light Travel or creating Warp Fields capable of bending space/time then huge Generation Ships or Cryonics are the only option we have, as a species, for visiting other worlds and potentially populating them.

It got me thinking about my own scepticisms about the likelihood of humanity ever physically leaving the solar system, which I’d thought I’d summarise in this post. Please note, I’m not a scientist (you’re shocked, right!?!) so the below is based on my love of reading science…up until the point of it needing an equation to explain it…if I’m wrong about any of this, please post me a comment and let me know.

Space is too damn big and we are too damn squishy!

Humans are squishy, really, really squishy. Space is really big and does not like squishy things and it tends to find new and interesting way to kill them. So space travel using conventional propulsion methods is a nightmare; it’s crawlingly slow (relatively speaking), it requires vast amounts of fuel and, perhaps most importantly, your life expectation over long voyages is not exactly high. It’s the reason we haven’t been to Mars, which floats in our cosmic backyard and the reason, by and large, that we abandoned jaunts to the moon.

As you would expect the bright people at NASA explain the issues best: Why interstellar travel is so difficult

We like war

One thing humanity is pretty adept at is the making of war, it’s what we do and we’re good at it, we’ve been doing it for 1000s of years! Wars are okay (Yes the Lefty just said wars were okay): they drive technological innovation, and always have done, as we search for new and interesting ways to commit huge acts of genocide. Unfortunately wars use a lot of three things: Humans, money and resources. Humans, money and resources are all things that if you want to become a space-faring species you need an abundance of. While ever there are wars on Earth it seems massively unlikely there will be the concerted effort to create a means to leave.

So, if you agree with these points, we’ve accepted for the time being that we’re going nowhere fast. What about the future? What about future technology? Well, here’s my understanding of the options and their pitfalls:

Faster-than-Light Travel

Well it’s now at least theoretically possible, thanks to pesky sub-atomic particles managing it (or appearing to). It’s a step in the right direction as previously it was thought impossible by physicists, but don’t get too excited: even if sub-atomic particles can do it, that doesn’t mean we can!

My favourite argument against this was explained to me by a friend: you’d need to know the area of space you plan to travel to very well to avoid re-appearing in normal space in the centre of a star or the like! The same issues exist for so-called Warp field technology, which create fields of infinite mass and as a result, bend space/time meaning a craft can avoid having to breach the light barrier

We can neither produce Warp Fields (despite what tin-hatters say) or travel Faster-than-light and we may never be able to. See the NASA Glenn Research Centre Site for a lowdown on the scientific liklihood of this, their current thinking categorises it as being ‘Speculation’ and therefore not backed by current scientific theory.

Cryonics

As Thinkingfox points out, the Woolly Bear Caterpillar, featured on Frozen Planet,  can freeze and die in the Winter, only to revive in the Spring and it can do this 13 times. Humans can’t do this, as far as we know, if you freeze a human (and most other complex organisms) what happens is ice crystals tear apart cell membranes, with existing technology, there is nothing we can do to repair the damage to every single cell in the human body, let alone bring people back to life!

If Cryonics worked, it would be a valid option, keeping the population of Earth 2.0 frozen while the ship, using improved but conventional propulsion, makes the long journey to a selected habitable world.

Generation Ships

This is one of the most interesting options as, once we solve the manufacturing issues of building a giant starship in space, it’s a feat that could be achieved in our Grandchildren’s lifetimes. It works like this: fertile and heterosexual couples with diverse and useful specialisms are chosen to be the ships first residents. Each couple must procreate, raise and train those children in their specialism, before submitting to euthanasia the moment they are no longer useful…this process continues, rinse and repeat until eventually, after hundreds of generations, the target planet is reached. Anyone spot any issues here?

For Generation Ships the biggest obstacle is ethics and not technology. The first generation of our ship have freewill, it is their choice to be there, but what about the second generation and those after? They will be born into a world without any choice at all. They will have no choice over their path through life, it’s predefined; no choice over falling in love or procreation, genetic diversity must be maintained at all costs; and no option but to submit to euthanasia once their purpose is served. Consider than Humanity is not too good at dealing with such restrictions on freedoms, so we may have to drug our Generation Shipmates lest Human emotion and resistance to perceived injustices take hold.  These are pretty big issues and that’s before you get onto the issue of only allowing heterosexual couples into the program in the first place!

Oh did I mention the cosmic radiation? No, okay it’s nasty in deep space so there’s a high likelihood everyone would be fried at some point.

You’re definitely going to die here

Life in the universe is precarious, its springing up at all is miraculous and there are then a multitude of natural ways that it can end: Asteroid impacts, viruses, volcanism…the list goes on, for further reading, the Wiki page of Extinction Level Events (ELE) is a must. Then there’s the numerous ways our species could destroy all life on Earth: nuclear warfare, a technological singularity etc. Assuming we avoid all these potential disasters then, eventually, in a around 7.6 billion years, our sun will either die out or become a red giant and entirely consume or make our little planet uninhabitable (accounts seem to vary). So there’s a timescale, we don’t have forever, and if we don’t find a way to leave then our species is definitely going to die here on this rock!

I’ll end with the words of Thinkingfox when I raised some of these issues while we were chatting: Humanity school report = Must try harder.

of course I could be wrong, maybe this is the future for Humanity, courtesy of Babylon 5:

Next time I’ll be discussing why I’m not too worried about a visit from ET (Alien Life: Chicken or Fish?)