It might not be the Heat that Kills, it might be the changes

Four Billion Years of Stored Carbon Fuels Have Been Used in one Hundred Years of Industry

 

What we Observe

The debate about whether there is global warming or not has raged now for over a decade and has not ceased nor is there any sign that it is going to become a passing trend buried by habit or the wavering attention of the masses. The issue of whether we have the ability to alter our climate is not going to be forgotten any time soon. Our climate has obviously undergone some changes. There is a very significant melting in the Northern Hemisphere especially and there is noticeable change in the world’s largest glaciers. More and more there is every indication that some kind of warming has in fact taken place over the past twenty years. The concern is that if this warming should continue our existence may well be in jeopardy.

However, the peak of the warming occurred in 1994. This is critical. It will of necessity  make some doubt the longevity of this warming process and with that doubt the issue of whether we should change the kind of fuel we use to power our world’s industries. If global warming does not continue, then perhaps the theory of man-made global warming due to carbon fuel pollution is wrong. Perhaps human industry had nothing to do with global warming. So why spend trillions of dollars trying to change to a far less efficient form of energy such as the so called green fuels, which are indeed renewable, but are far less useful in that they require large amounts of energy to produce and thus yield far less net energy?

Simply put, to change our fundamental energy source could require the assumption of several hundred trillion dollars of credit globally over a time span of two hundred years.  That cannot be good for the economy. So any motive to deviate from the course will be taken by those who see a clear clean profit to the use of oil and gas instead of an alternative.

But the truth is far from definitive either way. Indeed there has been a drop in temperature over the past ten years. It seems as if the weather is coming back to “normal” or at least is not as hot as it used to be. Certainly we are not seeing those constant highs that we saw in the nineties. But is that really significant?

Though we have not seen temperatures continue to  rise unabated, we have still witnessed glaciers melting at a high rate and moreover have seen dramatic changes in climate around the world. Areas that were once considered lush and wet, are now turning dry, and vice versa. Areas once considered dry are now turning wet.

However, the most extreme changes are seen in the extreme nature of storms that we have witnessed. The Earth may be cooling, but it is doing so by creating some fearsome storms. And that is as would be expected. Indeed, that is exactly what global warming would create : large powerful storms that would scatter the Earth’s equatorial heat to the poles. Certainly a category three hurricane hitting New York has managed to convince many in the media that there is indeed something notable in the weather. Moreover the monsoon like climate experienced by the American people in particular has left many with the impression that something has changed in the climate.

So even if temperatures have dropped, there is the predictable change in precipitation and the formation of storms which the Earth would use to cool the climate.  Thus there is indeed some kind of climate change to be sure. The temperature may have started to drop, but this is only because the Earth is creating powerful storms to dissipate the heat and this is exactly what we would expect of a homeostatic climatic system. Whether this is “normal” or accidental, or part of a general process is unknown. Whether this change is temporary, or will be with us for decades, or centuries or thousands of years we do not know. But there is some kind of change. This we do know. We are also beginning to see that this change can be quite destructive.

 What we don’t know

Does this change have anything to do with the use of Carbon Fuels? This again we do not know conclusively. No matter what many claim, the definitive proof is not there. The reason is really quite simple. In plain truth we do not really have a great understanding of climate. We really don’t know why the Earth’s climate is as it is. Listening to the Media you might be tempted to think we know the workings of the most distant object in the Universe, the truth however, is we don’t even know how our own climate works. Knowledge has never come easy. Humbling this may be, but in the end living with a knowledge of our limitations can mean the difference between life and death.

We know the Earth is heated by the Sun’s rays on the surface. However, the Earth is also the container of gigantic amounts of geologic energy. The Earth is hot. Moreover we really don’t know why it is hot. We have always assumed that the Earth would be hot from its birth. The going theatrical theory  is that the Earth formed due to the collision of left over solar material which coalesced into the planets we now see. However, this is little more than a computer simulation. Bode’s law, and the newly discovered exoplanets orbiting around distant stars would indicate that the process by which planets formed may well be more complex than a simple random collision of left over solar disk material. In the end, we do not  know enough about it, as we said above, we don’t even know how our own local climate works.

The Earth is hot. This we do know. What we don’t know is why it is hot or how it actually maintains its heat. We were,  a few decades ago convinced that the Earth’s interior must be cooling. But having witnessed the moons around Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus we can now be certain that something more than left over primordial heat is causing their heating. Our own theory here at HCE is that the Moon’s pull on the Earth is causing differential rotation and is causing a friction like heating in the deep layers of the planet. We also believe that the tectonic plates are in fact moving because of the Moon’s differential pull on the surface and that instead of tectonic plate movement being solely the result of core heating and convection, are actually the cause of some this sub-surface  heating being that they are probably causing friction over the underlying magma layers as they move.

Others believe that at the core a type of plasma might exist or that elements become unstable and thus radioactive, or that naturally heavier radioactive materials would trend towards the Earth’s core and are generating the excess heat that we see. But there is little evidence of this in lava flows which aside from the elevated levels of iridium show no signs of being generated from radioactive materials. Why is the Earth’s Moon not showing signs of active volcanism though made of the same material as Earth?

All of these are theories but there is little certainty concerning the source of Earth’s core heat.  All we know is the Earth is hot and that’s basically it.  All the rest is theory, but far from proven.

But if we do not know the exact mechanism responsible for the Earth’s sub-surface heating then how can we possibly claim that we know anything about its climate which must to be affected by the sub-surface heat to some significant degree?

A very simple truth is this. What happens below the surface is very significant in determining the Earth’s climate. You need only go to San Francisco in the Summer to see the effect. There a cool ocean current  keeps San Francisco in the sixties even when the rest of California is in the nineties. Or perhaps you might visit London during winter, which by all rights should be a frozen wasteland but is instead a cool rainy temperate zone. In the South of England there are even palm trees! All this due to the ocean’s heat channeling abilities.

But the ocean is not alone. There is virtually no question but that if the Earth’s sub surface , or mantle temperature were to drop by a few degrees the Earth’s climate would be devastated by cold. The total heat of the planet determines in large part how hot or cold the surface is. This is not a leap of imagination, but very simple reasoning. This is especially true with the presence of a significant atmosphere, and even more significant with the presence of an ocean which two will tend to contain the sub-surface heat and channel it to the surface climate. Along with the Sun’s heating, the sub-surface heat mechanism will create the climate as we know and experience it on the surface.

But all of these gaps in our understanding preclude the possibility of knowing to any significant degree the cause of the temperature spike that took place in the nineteen nineties.

We do not even know enough about the Carbon Sink Cycle. That is to say we still do not know how the Earth deals with carbon dioxide as an element, how it creates  it, how it uses it, and how it stores it.  All models so far presented, as far as HCE knows have yet to prove that we fully understand where and how Carbon Dioxide is processed. There are seemingly large gaps in the amount of CO2 present and CO2 available. Thus even here there is a hole in our understanding of how the CO2 is processed by the Earth, and if we do not know how it is processed, how then do we know if there is too much or too little of it? We don’t know how much there should be in the first place!

 What we know

But are we therefore saying that spewing all this carbon dioxide out is healthy and good for our climate or our environment? Absolutely not! What we know is this : We have seen definite spikes in temperature and these have had a definite impact on our civilization. We have seen the definite melting of glaciers and this will have an impact on our society in that much of our water comes from those glaciers.  We have seen an increase in climate activity and severity of events and have sustained billions of dollars in damages because of those events.  We also know that the Earth stored all this carbon fuel from dead plant and animal life in a time span of some four billion years. Humanity has lit a match to all this material and burned it all up in 100 years releasing all the CO2 and other elements contained within it during the process! We took a resource that the Earth managed for four billion years and blew it all in 100 years!

Nor can anyone deny that Carbon Dioxide levels have risen dramatically over the past hundred years of human industrial activity. This is not open to question. We have seen levels rise at highly accelerated rates and yes we do know that in a test tube Carbon Dioxide will tend to trap heat. This we know for a fact.

Humanity has without a doubt disturbed the natural balance of Earth’s environment. We are at present witnessing a large mass extinction, and have seen our forests depleted to dangerous levels. We have seen pollution destroy large areas of our world, and only a few years ago our need for energy had seen the poisoning of both the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean due to the events of the BP oil leak and the Fukushima reactor breach- which is probably still not under control. These events cannot be doubted

Though we cannot know exactly what the impact of human industry will be, we can reasonably conclude that disturbing the basic order of the Earth’s climatic and environmental processes is going to have significant consequences on our environment. The complexity of the system, and its rather delicate balance guarantees this. If you throw a wrench into a complex  clockwork you can be sure something bad is going to happen, but of course you don’t know exactly what. But you know for certain that somewhere that wrench is going to hook into a gear, somewhere,  and the whole system is going to break down. This much you can pretty much be certain of. The Earth’s system is so complicated so delicate and so extensive that we don’t know exactly where all this will hit. But instead of expecting things to break down and stop working altogether it is within reason to presume instead that by disturbing the balance of the natural order we can expect to see an amplification of natural events and not simply a break down as you might expect in a non-organic mechanism like a clock.

The Earth’s system is a compensatory dynamic system rather than a direct mechanical system. Where one process breaks down another takes its place, for this reason it’s unlikely that we are going to see the cessation of a given set of processes but rather the end of one process and the start of another in its place. The excess amount of Carbon Dioxide is bound to amplify any normal natural event that has an accord with that element.

Plants use CO2 to breath and when they exhale they create Oxygen. More CO2 will probably mean more Oxygen for example. That might be a good thing or bad. More Oxygen may mean a cooler environment since Oxygen releases atmospheric heat. Thus while one process is enhanced, another process is also enhanced. Unfortunately they may not balance as in a laboratory. The Earth’s organic system is not simply going to take the average and give it to us in summation, it’s going to add up all the numbers one by one and we will experience each and every addition and subtraction.

During the Jurassic period it is believed that both Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide levels were far greater than they are today. This would make sense for as the Earth warmed and became more moist due to Ice cap melting the climate became conducive to the emergence of a richer plant life. Or so we would think in a laboratory. This reasoning might allow us to think that as plant life became more extensive so too would the presence of Oxygen since plants  exhale Oxygen as a by product of their life process. The excess Oxygen may have helped the Dinosaurs to grow to the size they did as they would of course require large amounts of Oxygen to power their giant bodies. But as you might see through this oversimplified reasoning, if true at all, is that perhaps the consequence of one process becoming more prevalent is that another is also accentuated. More Carbon Dioxide, led to more Oxygen, led to both more plant life, and more animal life. Like adding a steroid to the environment.

This might indicate that the present climate process is not simply going to break down and result in more heat being trapped and ever rising temperatures, the climate is going to probably become more dynamic, more changeable, more violent,  as the Earth compensates, or tries to for this excess in green house gasses. However, the more dynamic it becomes, the less stable it will be.

 What we should be concerned about

Therefore, if indeed the Earth does naturally expunge excess heat from its core occasionally, or very likely constantly if in fact there is a renewable source of heat in the core, as we believe there is, then at each of those occurrences there will be an amplification of effects. So if the temperature should rise three degrees naturally, it will likely rise much more due to the excess Carbon Dioxide created by our industry as more heat would be trapped by the excess CO2.

However, the reverse also may be in play. If the temperature would then drop down to normal  during a normal cooling process, it would instead drop to a much colder temperature because of manmade pollutants. The longer we leave the water boiling while making coffee in the morning for example,  the more heat is expunged. But once that heat is expunged, the less of it there will be left immediately available.  So continuing the metaphor, we would have to add more cold water from the sink, and heat it up from the beginning again if we want to have another cup of coffee, but this will take longer and more effort to prepare. This may well be what might take place with an Earthly processes. It may take the Earth longer to bring the warming process back to a state where it can impact the climate again simply because an excess of available heat was expunged during the first warming cycle.

In other words instead of thinking that the temperature is going to rise constantly, it may well be that we are going to see monstrous oscillations begin. The temperature may go from normal to very high, then back down to extremely cold weather all while storms and droughts become ever more extreme and damaging. Instead of seeing a constant rise or fall in temperature, we may instead see extreme oscillations in climate while the Earth attempts to restore a natural balance.

Is this to say that we should not then worry about a rise in temperature? Is it possible that the Earth will balance all this out with its compensatory system?  The rise in temperature may happen anyway. The next time the Earth is ready to expunge heat it may be in a position to release even more heat for all we know.  But just like the stock market, climate is not a constant vector in a constant direction. It oscillates up and down. The higher it goes, the further it falls, but the further it falls the higher it goes on the next swing up.

The Earth’s climate might become so dynamic that life on Earth may become untenable.  Remember that it is the constancy of climate that allowed for human society to develop in the first place. Changing that constancy may well result in our own disappearance. No one should question what a short lived ice age would do to our world. We fear the heat now, but tomorrow a little ice age can be just as devastating if not more! We would require far more fuel to run our world and this would only worsen the situation as amplification of natural events becomes ever more extreme. More storms, more droughts more extreme changes.

There are also additions to worry about. For example we have all heard of the possibility of methane gas deposits in the ocean deeps suddenly being released due to increasing water temperatures. This is an addition to the environment which may be in the works. If the Earth’s temperature oscillates enough we can see some very unstable conditions develop where either extreme can cause extreme counter reactions. A release of methane hydrates may indeed cause the temperature to rise, but right after the rise, there would be a giant drop in temperature as the Earth tries to compensate. We may find ourselves subjected to the kind of extremes that one might see on another planet. A Summer ten degrees above normal and a Winter nine degrees below normal. In trying to compensate for those extremes our civilization would reach the limits of its viability in a hurry. It should not be assumed that a wildly changing climate is better than a steadily rising temperature. In practice it may be far worse and present indications are that this is really what we’re facing here.

There may  even be a rise in geological activity, which as we know can be the most devastating. Is it really by coincidence that we have had two monstrous tsunami events in ten years? Is it a coincidence that we have had some of the most devastating earthquakes in years so close together?  We don’t know! Just as we do not at present know how our climate might reciprocate effects upon the geological activity. It has always been assumed that geology and meteorology are two different realms. This assumption may well have been wrong.

We may be witnessing the birth of an extremely dynamic unstable environment that will require much more flexibility to live with. Unfortunately, increased flexibility requires more energy, resource and effort and expending more energy may result in an even more unstable environment amplifying an already unstable dynamic. At some point the system breaks down, or more likely our civilization breaks down.

 Is it time for our Civilization to Change?

It is interesting to note that the Japanese have always maintained that man’s role is to live in harmony with nature. The traditional Japanese civilization esteems the society that manages to live with nature and does not disturb the balance of nature.

To a large degree this was also very true of the Ancient Greek civilization. The Greeks too were very aware of the need to maintain a balance with nature and that imbalances can be quite destructive when created. These civilizations knew that attaining this balance was no small feat. They knew that their citizenry had to be disciplined and some degree of self sufficiency, and limitation was needed. These were civilizations that knew self-control and understood that nature is complex and that only a fine and extensive knowledge of her ways could lead to a successful existence. These civilizations revered nature and her rich complexity and over time developed a sacred respect for her ways. In finding and cultivating those principles they managed to build austere but noteworthy admirable societies for which they are remembered and admired even today.

Perhaps it is no accident that both cultures, themselves separated by both distance and time, having limited resources, lived in geologically unstable regions by the sea. Maybe it’s time for all of us to pay some attention to an ancient wisdom that managed to survive and prosper,  for we too must learn to live with nature, quite possibly even as she becomes more dynamic and difficult. If we manage,  maybe we too can be remembered for our reverence for natural order and our ability to live in harmony with the natural order of the world. If we don’t find a way to live with nature however, there may well be no one left to remember us.

Both Promise and Admonition for our Cosmic Hopes for Universal Life

For a number of years now we have had spectacular advances in our quest to understand the prospects for life beyond our own beautiful planet. We have seen much success in being able to use computers and powerful telescopes to precisely measure the fluctuation of light from very distant star system.

By plotting the course of a star as it wobbles through the galaxy, along with measuring its light output we have been able to see all kinds of variations which would indicate a very complex morphology of particular orbital phenomena of individual stars. That is to say we have been able to determine that there are dynamic structures to the orbital data.  At first this was evident in Binary and Ternary systems of stars, but eventually came to a precision of observation that was able to rule out the influence of large stars on what is called the proper motion of an individual star(that is its course through space) and led to the startling hypothesis that planets, probably large planets were influencing the proper motion of very small, red dwarf stars.

This is not a new hypothesis, but has been known for decades. For more than forty years astronomers have known that stars will wobble if there happens to be a significant body next to them other than a large star. The first such application of theory was of course Barnard’s star where it was seen to wobble significantly and large stars were not seen to be near it. It was theorized back then that indeed there might be a planet very near to the star, but it could not of course be confirmed.  The technology was simply not good enough at the time.

However, years later, with the advent of microchips and the launching of Hubble and other extremely sensitive telescopes it became clear that small star’s orbits were being perturbed by something other than star sized objects. Thus slowly we came to the conclusion that these perturbations of proper motion must be due to smaller bodies.

Eventually, it became safe to say that these bodies were planet sized objects. At least so it would seem. As both computer analysis, simulation, and sensitivity to light output developed rapidly it became quite safe to hypothesize that these perturbations were being caused by planets. As our ability to analyze the fluctuation in movements, and light output increased further, and analytical and programmatic developments evolved further still we came to the point where we could strongly theorize very fine precedents, or antecedents to the observed phenomena. In other words, we could assume that there were planets of all sizes orbiting these stars in various ways and our ability to project, or deduce the formal nature of these orbits became ever more probable.

At this point in time we have reached a point where we can with some degree of certainty say that there are strong probabilities that we are observing different sized planets orbiting various stars. Today a number of satellites especially committed to this study in particular have left us with a huge list of potential planets of all sizes habiting various sections of the object stars. We are today at a point where just yesterday it was announced that an earth sized planet, with probable density equal to the Earth is orbiting a small red dwarf around the so called habitable zone which is defined as that area around a star’s orbit that life is most expected to be found. At least human like, water based, carbon based life forms. The habitable zone is that zone where the temperature would be just right to allow the formation of water, or liquid oceans of water presumed to be critical to the formation of carbon based life forms.

Yet for all the enthusiasm, and all the gratitude we feel at being alive during such a time some measure of care is still needed. There is both greater promise for finding life, but also greater uncertainty when we consider some of the details being left out of the headlines.

Limitations

One of the greatest limitations that we have not really heard much about in the headlines is that indeed these fluctuations of both light and proper stellar motion are very small. We see these motions, we see these fluctuations of light but we cannot know exactly what is causing them.  True, there are some theories favorable to the conclusion that what we see are planets perturbing the motions of small dwarf stars. But we cannot really be sure. The reality is that a Brown Dwarf star can easily distort both the light and the motion of a small star. This is not to say that this possibility negates these findings, it does not do that. But it does add a caution. We cannot really be certain what exactly is causing these fluctuations in light and motion that we are observing at these almost unthinkable distances. A number of small planets, or a few Brown Drawrf Stars could easily account for a single observed phenomenon.

Another caution which must be added is that we do not really know the true dynamic nature of these stars that we are here observing. True, they may be stable stars that move the way our sun moves, or quite frankly they may well have various internal oscillations that we do not understand as yet. What I am saying is that the fluctuation of light and motion may be due not to a set of planets orbiting a star, but to the internal motion of the star itself. A star may be wobbling of its own accord. This is a very critical caution. Though not as romantic, nor as desired as the conclusion that we are seeing planets orbit small stars, the possibility still exists that we are seeing only an inherent wobble within a star, complemented by what would of course be expected to be a noticeable variation in light output.

Gravity

Another needed caution before we go on is that in fact we do not have a very good understanding of gravity. For all that we are fond of saying and thinking it has become painfully clear that when looking at large galactic regions our present theory of Gravity simply is not accurate. This is a very disturbing statement, I know this, but let’s face facts here. We are today calling up theories which have no direct confirmation in order to explain our observations of large galactic regions. The Galactic Filaments we see today, and their empty regions, that is the area between them  which is devoid of stars has no current explanation with our understanding of gravity. We are calling up “dark matter” and “dark energy” but in point of fact, have no idea what the real problem is.

Now there will be arguments that this does not apply to small stars and planets, yet, there are other abnormalities which have been observed. Including the motion of some space craft whose dynamic motion cannot at present be explained with our theory of gravity. All this must add caution to these findings. Whether we like it or not, we cannot conclude anything. There is still the very real possibility that we as yet do not know what we are observing when we see those oscillations in motion.

Thus not only do we not know the internal potential oscillation of stars, since we are not there to observe them close up, nor can live two or three billion years to see how they actually behave, but we in fact do not as yet have a definite theory of gravity able to explain some of the phenomena we are now seeing. Our theory of gravity is simply not certain when observing phenomena so very far away, and so different from our everyday experience.

But with these cautions in mind we can proceed to add a more optimistic possibility.

Main Point

The reality is that it is quite possible that there are even greater possibilities for life if we understand things reasonably well. That is if our present theories are to a high degree intact concerning this phenomenon. It just so happens, that planets that are outside the habitable zone may actually create enough of their own heat to sustain life after all. The Habitable Zone as it is defined may well be too small!. You see any planet that has moons, or a large moon will likely generate its own internal heat. This is a very notable possibility. We can see clearly that even small bodies, like many of the moons orbiting around our own Solar neighborhood have indeed shown signs of having internal heat due, as we have pointed out here at Hotcoreearth to the layered revolution caused by orbiting moons.  Thus any exo planet that has a moon, or number of moons will have internal heat being generated and thus its own climate will be modified. Thus even if a planet is far away from the parent star it will in fact generate enough heat internally to modify the climate. This certainly would add to the potential existence of life.

Another very distinct possibility which is so far being ignored is that planets orbiting close to a  star may not necessarily be tidally locked. We have very real proof right in our own star system. Mercury is a relatively tiny planet that should have been tidally locked with the Sun. But it’s not! In fact Mercury has a night and day. The reason is probably that the planets beyond Mercury will cause the planet to revolve as they tug on it each time it passes by them Therefore if there are larger planets beyond a small planet orbiting close to a red dwarf star for example, they will probably tug on the planet and cause it to have a diurnal revolution after all. No matter how close a planet may be, there is always the possibility that it can turn around its parent star if there are large planets tugging on it from behind.

These two possibilities add to the possible habitable zone and to the possibility of life.

A third possibility which has not been sufficiently mined is that many planets near the parent star may actually burn off their atmospheres. But this may serve to protect the planet for a sufficient period of time, long enough for life to develop. It is known that Red Dwarfs are very unstable in the beginning of their lives. They tend to blow off huge sunspots and prominence which may adversely affect life on a planet orbiting close enough. But the good news is that a planet, in its infancy may have a much greater atmosphere to bargain with. As the star evolves, it slowly burns off the planet’s atmosphere, until such time as the star quiets down and allows the remaining atmosphere to create a habitable environment.

Does an Exo-Planet have a Moon?

However, for all that has been said and theorized, there is a very strong indication that the most important factor of all may be whether a planet has a moon or not. Having a moon may well be the difference between life and death. A planet with a moon has a number of advantages. The first is that it is geologically alive! A closely orbiting moon is going to cause differential rotation, and this is going to cause the creation of internal heat. This is crucial to life for planets further than the habitable zone.

More importantly however, a moon may cause a planet to develop a significant electro-magnetic field and this may mean the ultimate difference between life and death. A planet with an electro-magnetic field adds enormous protection to developing life and this can most easily be facilitated by an orbiting moon.

Future Prospects

Thus it is true that if we have an exo-planet that revolves around a tame small red dwarf, there is the possibility that life may exist after all even if the planet lies far beyond the so called habitable zone. If the planet has a moon that may help its core to generate heat there is more than likely enough internal heat to increase the climatic temperature. This is especially true if there is a thick atmosphere able to keep the heat generated from the core around the planet’s surface.

Moreover having a moon will generate a magnetic field due not so much to an iron core as is suspected for earth but because there is a differential rotation which will cause the flow of electrons from the core, especially as the core begins to develop some plasma like characteristics due to the internal heat and pressure. Thus there will be a tendency in such a case for electrons to flow and thus will create an electromagnetic field which would protect the planet from any degeneration to its atmosphere.

Lastly, if there are large gaseous planets outside a rocky candidate they will almost certainly help to prevent the planet from becoming tidally locked with its host, even if the planet is very close to the parent star. If Mercury is not tidally locked with the Sun, then there is a very good chance that a planet orbiting very close to a red dwarf will also not be tidally locked with its parent star.

All these possible outcomes bode well for exo-biology. But there are cautions as we have mentioned. We do not as yet have an absolutely reliable understanding of gravity, and we cannot as yet be certain we know how to read the various waves generated by distant planets as they orbit their host stars. In due time however, these problems will be solved.

Advanced Inter-Stellar Civilizations Very Rare

All in all the prospects are very good for the existence of simple life on other distant star systems. However, they are not so good for advanced life sadly. It is very likely that advanced life must reach billions of years in age to become able to develop the level of intelligence we see in human society.  It is also quite likely that contrary to our expectations of longevity for advanced civilizations, there is a very great probability that the more advanced a civilization becomes, the more sensitive it will be to geological, and climatic changes. As we can see today, we are quite possibly facing our demise should the global warming phenomenon become serious enough. We are quite sensitive to changes of our planet and any extremes may well push us towards catastrophic wars from which we might not be able to recover at this stage. The same would apply to any other civilization on an exoplanet. This would be true especially in an advanced civilization’s early nascent stage where it is just forming as a fully developed technocracy as we are ourselves experiencing. Indeed, there may well be hidden consequences for becoming  technologically advanced. For example our advancement has perhaps brought global warming upon us. Perhaps this is a process that follows naturally from the appearance of advanced civilizations in general. Therefore as a civilization becomes more technologically advanced it tends to disturb the natural rhythms of its host planet and possibly faces a potentially dangerous situation in all or most cases.  If so, then advanced civilizations could very well be short lived at best. This would give any such civilization a very small window of opportunity to communicate with another such civilization thousands of light years away. So its quite possible that advanced civilizations are quite rare, even if it is likely that they do exist.

If inter-stellar civilizations are rare , and far apart in time and space, communication between any two may well be an extremely rare occurrence. Yet, when and if it ever happens the whole universe evolves upon the establishment of such communication between advanced inter-stellar  civilizations.

Unless, there is one small other possibility which should be mentioned, though not at all probable. If there were a highly advanced civilization already established in the cosmos they might not make contact with us because we are still so primitive. Our wars, our tendency towards brutal violence would certainly dissuade any highly advanced civilization from sharing its knowledge with a race as primitive as ours. What little knowledge we have, we have managed to turn it to great violence so horrendous that there would be no justification for a highly advanced civilization to trust a people like ours with a technology that might well be used against them. There is thus a tiny one billion to one chance that we are too uncivilized to join a cosmic civilization. Something to be kept in the back of our collective mind, just in case.

Consumers are all we have been designated to be. Our politics, our Media, our industry seem to have all conspired to make us pan-consumers.  A people whose sole measure of self-worth is in some way or other based on their actual or potential level of  consumption.

We are conditioned to consume everything. In some ways, even each other.

But in the meantime Earth is being gouged with open wounds, and scoured mercilessly in our unrelenting  search for resources.

Over the past two hundred years humanity has managed to consume enormous volumes of resources. We have systematically transformed our human existence to a pan-consumerism which in theory allows for each and every free person in a democracy to consume as much as they can, and/or facilitate the consumption by others to the highest possible degree as providers of product or service.  That is we are either programmed to be relentless consumers, or relentless providers of consumption for others.

We have now a Global economy, quite able to consume just about anything in its path,  but hardly able to conserve anything at all. The very idea of conservation has seemingly disappeared from the mainstream media. Conservation seems to be treated today  like a dirty word used to be treated yesterday. This is because open investments have an open interest in continued expansion  Yet, there is absolutely no reasonable alternative to conservation. But we have now a world whose sole purpose is to expand, even if that expansion is catastrophic, or even impossible to achieve

When in fact our economy tells us in no uncertain terms that we must begin to conserve or face dire economic consequences simply because the inefficiency built up within our all-consuming economy can no longer be sustained, we simply ask our Federal Reserve Chairman to increase the money supply and go on. That is we borrow against the future, and indeed borrow from our own children so that we can not only maintain our present level of consumption, but increase it!

For most of human time excess was frowned upon for it was innately understood that unreasonable expenditure would eventually lead to destruction.   Even the world’s major religions-fundamentally aligned to the notion of an infinite boundless God or Universe(as in the case of the Buddhists) have repeatedly frowned on the glutton, and have all set down the example of conservation and care when expending resources in the human realm. Yet here we are in the twenty first century being conditioned both psychologically and spiritually to become all consuming entities whose sole measure of value or worth is how much we consume, or how much we can consume in the future!

We can see that as a civilization we have borrowed immensely and recklessly from nature.  Not only do we have enormous monetary debt which demonstrates quite clearly our overall failure as an economic entity but we also have the enormous damage  to the natural world that proves clearly that we have not been prudent with the expenditure of our natural resources thus far. We have thus far burned four billion years of stored hydro carbons in one hundred fifty years of industrial evolution! This expenditure cannot be insignificant. This hugely disproportionate return of hydro-carbons cannot simply be dismissed. There will almost certainly be consequences as the Earth is made to adjust to this sudden release of billions of years of stored heat, carbon dioxide, and methane.

 

What Can We Do?

In order to turn the corner and at last say that we have stabilized our existence with Nature,  we must as a civilization begin to come to an understanding  on both the individual and state level, that consumption must be limited! Consumption must be regulated and that of course would also imply a regulation of expenditure as well.  Thus we must at last begin to admit to ourselves both publically and privately that in order to exist on the Earth as a Global community, we must begin to program our economies towards the most efficient path of growth, consumption and expenditure. No doubt this will include qualitative changes as well. In other words it is not simply a matter of measuring how much we consume, but what and how, and why we consume what we consume and why we make certain expenditures and not others.  The quality of our total existence must change.  A new idealism may well be needed.

Many will say that’s too much to ask, but the reality is that there is no other choice.  If we continue on our present course, we will firstly go bankrupt for our currencies will collapse followed immediately by our economies, and secondly we may well do permanent damage to the Earth’s cyclical rhythms which concern the Carbon Cycle for example.  Should anything like that happen, not only is our survival very doubtful, but quite possibly the survival of life on Earth as a whole may be endangered. Since it is generally accepted that we are now  in the midst of a major mass extinction, it would be good for honest, well meaning, religious people who have a strong conscience and care for those around them to admit that there is very great danger here even if we don’t quite know what the precise nature of that danger may be, and the time has come to begin asking how we may live conservatively with nature so as to preserve the viability of our own children’s society.

Conservation  has long been the cornerstone of many great civilizations in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas.  While care for efficiency was taken most ancient civilizations grew and blossomed, but when this care was lost, failure was sure to occur, so we have precedents and all we need do as individuals is to look at prior civilizations and see how they  managed growth and decay to see some measure of our own solution.

There will be those who will deny all this, but they are simply denying what is quite obvious to anyone looking honestly.  We have used far too much of our world’s resources without commensurate care needed to prevent an unexpected consequence. Too many political parties will fight to preserve their own strength often denying what is true for the purpose of temporarily gaining the upper hand politically. We can no longer afford these maneuvers merely for political gain and it is time for those who really do understand what is happening here to take a separate stand. It is time to invade all political parties for the purpose of making it clear to all members of our civilization that our status with Earth is dire trouble.

We must come to a general understanding that both individual consumption and global consumption is to be decreased generally if we are to survive as a whole.  However this can be done with very little outward change. By increasing efficiency, both individually and globally we can pretty much avoid most nasty consequences.

This is not an attack on Capitalism. Be careful. Capitalism is much more than just mindless consumption and inordinate expenditure of resources. Capitalism in its essence is simply a system of private ownership which is not at all undermined by the ideas of conservation. Capitalism allows for the free action and assumption of personal responsibility of risk concerning economic ventures. This has nothing by itself to do with conservation and care for our resources. Yes there will be some changes and some adjustment for the markets will have to take place. But for the most part I think markets have today become useless and falsely overinflated and for the most part out of the reach of the mainstream citizenry even if so many technical advancements have made it child’s play to actually invest in the  capital markets. In reality no one trusts the markets because they have become the plaything of the few and so have become essentially useless to our society.  By beginning a long turn towards conservation, markets may actually become useful again. They may actually serve the original purpose that they were designed for in that their primary function was to determine value and the feasibility of distribution these being the ultimate requirements of any attempts towards efficiency and conservation. Thus markets may actually begin to function as they were intended once we begin this change towards real conservation as they will once again be relied on to truthfully represent the availability of resources, while today they do nothing of the sort, actually going up or down in price not based on their inherent value but only on the nature of the Federal Reserve’s monetary actions.

However, if those who would call themselves capitalists will make the claim that no bounds to the accumulation of personal wealth should ever exist, even if these over extensions wind up destroying our harmonic existence with the Earth itself, then it is time for some regulation and a sharpened redefinition of economic bounds and overall economic objectives will have to be reviewed.

In essence, we must live within our resources both as far as the Earth is concerned, and as far as our own economies are concerned. Creating unnecessary jobs is  not a sustainable solution to our unemployment problems for example. We need to find real, efficient ways to exist, and expand economically if we are to survive as a species.  Spending too much on any kind of consumption is going to throw the system out of balance, anyone can see this.  Our economic actions must be in complete harmony with our Earthly resources. Any mistakes, and we’re gonners! This is not an idle threat, but an ever growing one as we can see by the increase of both climatic heat and oceanic heat which could very well be due to our use of Four billion years of fuel in less than two hundred years.

We would be lucky to escape our fate as is, but whatever we do, we must adjust our understanding of basic human existence. The time for open ended consumerism, is dead! It is time for a new revelation that each and every one of us must experience personally. We must learn to live efficiently. We must learn to Conserve.