Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit iqbal.latif's column >>

IQBAL.LATIF

Searching the purpose of our existence and where do we end up?
Articles Posted: 379  Links Seeded: 57
Member Since: 3/2007  Last Seen: 5/17/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

We Humans are insignificant players; 'Universe' exists only for those who think and acclimatize! Otherwise it is virtual

Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:01 AM EST
world-news, universe, nothing-to-nothing
By iqbal.latif
Advertise | AdChoices

‘Pure souls, didn't I tell you not to be seduced by this colourful world for I am the Ultimate Painter.’  Rumi

We humans give ourselves too much credit, like we are causing the next mass extinction - the sixth in the history of life on Earth - this is nothing but fiction. We are not the centrestage, never were, never shall be. Nature has its own path to create balance and ensure survival of the fittest. The only reason Universe exists is because we as sentient beings see it and decipher it; without consciousness there is no space-time bubble to worry about. I have never seen a very smart chimp with 100 words vocabulary or a very smart Dolphin worrying about quantum mechanics and general relativity. Our desire and recent ability to decipher the universe makes it to happen. A few billion less neural connections and synapses and we would be like chimps, least worried about Hubble, James Watt or frustratingly trying to glimpse through the opacity of our first 300 million years from where we come and where we will be in 100 trillion years. We started with singularity, after the furies of birth; the mature cosmos now evolves more slowly, as our Sun becomes a white dwarf in a few billion years, stars will continue to form for as long as another 100 trillion years (about 10,000 times the present age of the universe), every atom in our body is going be a part of this expansion over 100 trillion years and the eventual collapse to nothingness.  Maybe a new beginning from the ‘nothingness’ of the black hole awaits us beyond that time. A new Big bang?

Some 99.9 percent of all species that ever lived on earth are now extinct. A study by researchers at Stanford University estimated that the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000, before numbers began to expand again in early Stone Age. Nature has its own cruel way of ensure evolution - we were reduced to a mere 2000 individuals as recently as 70,000 years BC as a result of climatic changes; the same picky and cruel nature has now ensured 6.6 billion people to live on this earth without droughts and major famines. I like what Carl Sagan said, "I don't want to believe, I want to know."

Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection. My simple thesis is that life would not flourish to this high level of diversity and richness of mind if we were in disagreement with nature; natural selection would eliminate it. Cyanobacteria, about two and one-half billion years ago, nearly destroyed all life. Nature does what it has to do. The very reason we are 6.6 billion is a great sign of our agreement with nature; nature is rewarding our intelligence and cooperation. Nature is the sum total of all physical forces and these physical forces should be in sync for life to flourish. Natural selection has become a strong argument for rebuking the clergy on the insanity of 6,000 years old universe but is put on a back-burner when it comes to the issues of growth and population. It is Natural Selection that continues to ensure our survival. It seems God was quite busy with extinction between 200 million to 65 million years ago; these were the years of massive change as life forms evolved one after the other and gave way to better life forms as a part of natural selection of genes. God was not unhappy with the reptiles living then nor was deity punishing a Tyrannosaurus Rex for ripping the neck of a Diplodocus Carnegiei.

In its 4.6 billion year history, Earth has undergone massive geologic and climatic changes and provided habitat to an ever-changing cast of life forms. In recent years, the origin and early evolution of life has seen an unprecedented development. The Earth provides the requisite conditions of liquid water, an environment where complex organic molecules can assemble. (1) In this 4.6 billion year history, we are relatively new entrants on the life scene, and inspite of it, have survived against massive odds. According to a report published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, the new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa which appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago.

The researchers, led by Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel and Saharon Rosset of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and Tel Aviv University, concluded that humans separated into small populations prior to Stone Age, when they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.

Human beings' brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, after an extensive genetic study, reduced the human population to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought. It only reinforces one opinion that extinctions and eliminations, death and rebirth, construction and destruction are integral part of evolutionary processes of nature. (Mass extinctions are ecological disasters (1)) Yet they also create evolutionary opportunities by removing once-dominant groups. Some biologists conclude that humans owe our present dominance to mass extinction -- the K/T event that saw the end of dinosaurs and cleared the way for mammals to diversify into all the many ecological roles they now occupy.

A collision in the asteroid belt sent debris tumbling into the inner solar system, hitting the earth, the moon and possibly Mars and Venus. This is the source of the K/T extinction event which is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs. If the meteor had missed and the dinosaurs were still around now, would we? "Was humanity inevitable? Or is humanity just something that happened to arise because of this sequence of events that took place. Also, it should be kept in mind that mass extinctions probably account for the disappearance of only five percent of extinct species, the remainder having disappeared through the constant winnowing of natural selection and other continuous processes.

One can perhaps argue that conditions must be really ideal today for us to see population and growth happening. If we were exploiting nature the way Mr. Gore presents, nature would destroy us; our longevity and our better standards are one indication of improving life on this big blue planet of ours. It's a question of a glass half full or half empty; it is about how one looks at things. Naysayers can complain, but the world is consistently getting better off.  Human population was 210m in around 100 AD and until 1000 AD increased to 270m, from 1000 AD to 1800 AD the population increased to 900 m, but after that in 200 years we are nearly 7 billion and much better off.

To evaluate if the life on earth is getting better or worse, the only sign of that improvement or decline would be how good or bad our average longevity is faring? (Life expectancy is one of the factors in measuring the Human Development Index (HDI) of each nation, along with adult literacy, education, and standard of living).  By the looks of it, we as humans with all these sham hypochondriac permutations of disasters have done exceptionally well.  Imagine improving averages with exponential growth of the population because of the higher life expectancy and lower infantile deaths. If things were wrong and global weather and environmental conditions were declining this indicator should have logically been the first victim. When environment was not conducive to dinosaurs they disappeared, we are multiplying; something is right about our surroundings. We have millions of years of conscious life ahead of us even by most pessimist projections. Since post renaissance free minds have achieved so much there is no reason to believe that free minds will not exponentially continue to explore new ideas with equal new enthusiasm and challenge.

Genetics is proving that we and our environs are extremely robust and whatever we have achieved so far is sustainable. Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups which developed independently. Today our world has conquered famine, has conquered lethal disease leading to a longer life expectancy and have led humans to think far and beyond. We are no longer gazing into the skies like aimless chimps. We are at the verge of defining our origin, our moment of birth, the Big Bang; we will see it happening from the eyes of the next generation of the Hubble Telescope (2). In the next few years, global warming and global climatic changes will happen but we play a very little part in that. We need to redefine our role in nature as very peripheral. We don´t damage anything; our span of life on this planet is indicative of our agreement with nature to live in peace - a ‘human-nature contract’ that has not been violated.

Palaeontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, commented: "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction." And here we are, 70,000 years later, growing in numbers, thriving, flourishing and prospering testament to man intrinsic constructive nature. The biggest challenge for us now is to transfer this continuing growth and prosperity to the lowest strata of society. In the name of ‘environment preservation’ let’s not deplete and waste Mother Earth's precious resources in producing bio fuels and deprive the poor of nature’s wealth. Nature does what it does, and will do it again. If we have to go into extinction, it will be because of forces beyond our control; we will see the Katrinas and the tsunamis and will deal with whatever lies in our destiny. Such is the nature of things.

Let’s not play God. Interestingly this DNA-based Genetic study put a spanner in the work of 'answersingenesis.org' as it inadvertently concludes that there was no global flood hence the 'Noah Ark, was it big enough for dinosaurs is a question that I will now have to struggle to answer.'

The religions need someone to insert elements of Moore's Law and economies of scale to change their naive approach. It is not a 'manufacturing defect' but rather the antiquated viruses of software that have totally corrupted the 'hardware.' The hardware created by the ' software dogma' based on the Holy Scriptures is unable to operate in modern times. The demands of Modern age have moved on, we cannot run a K computer at 8.16 peta FLOPS, the fastest in the world on "the 4000 family chip."  

We humans of today are like K computer 'absorption of knowledge like sponge' is our new wiring structure of brains. A modern day man has knowledge far superior than the man of the last decade, it is like a current model quad-core Xeon workstation running at 2.66 GHz will outperform a multimillion dollar Cray C90 supercomputer used in the early 1990s; most workloads requiring such a supercomputer in the 1990s can be done on workstations costing less than 4,000 US dollars as of 2010.

Our processors should be ever shifting and ever responding to the changing trends of time like those of super computers, processor configuration of today's top supercomputers rely on ASCI Red 9,472 Intel Pentium II, ASCI Blue Pacific 5,856 IBM PowerPC 604E ASCI White 8,192 IBM Power3-II NEC Earth Simulator 5,104 NEC vector processors. Religious dogma and creed will be eradicated; learn from Intel.

From nothing to nothing! As we expand, the galaxies will become undetectable, and all the energy all information will be lost from the cosmos. The universe will revert to nothingness, we started with nothingness of a black hole we will end right there in 100 trillion years or so.  Man is fresh out of caves. 10,000 years of known civilization, starting from Jericho, is only a fraction of time of our one billion year plausible and likely stay here until the sun implodes and busts us. The Prophets and Gods we have created in this cave age era of ours will all be forgotten as small footnote of our pagan humble beginnings.

One thing will continue i.e. the ideas perpetrated by the likes of Carl Sagan: ''For small creatures such as us the vastness is bearable only through love.'' Future recorder of events will treat us a 'the knowledgeable creatures of this age of information' as 'upper cave age' limited mortals due to our predominant addiction and mental enslavement on set of beliefs originated from hearsay, scriptural myths and legends. 4 billion of practicing faithful are oblivious to the fact that mankind is at the cusp of a new era of information that shall last million of millenniums.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • iqbal.latif's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Arab World, ConsumerVine, Free Market, Free Thinkers, Ideas for World Peace, Islamic Scholars, ObamaVine, Open Minded, Political Analysis, Singularitarians, Successful Solutions, Welcomevine
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (22)
The "warrior" of islam

The purpose of life is the investigation of the Sun, the Moon, and the heavens.

Anaxagoras, 459 BCE.

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:31 AM EST
The "warrior" of islam

This is Universe 101. This is story of Universe written for dummies. My wealth in understanding of our existence has developed exponentially by reading such great articles, this thoroughly researched article is an extraordinary gift, truly treasured it.

We are not the centre stage, never were, never shall be. Nature has its own path to create balance and ensure survival of the fittest. The only reason Universe exist is because we as a sentient being sees it and decipher it, without consciousness there is no space-time bubble to worry about. I have never seen a very smart chimp with 100 words vocabulary or a very smart Dolphin worrying about quantum mechanics and general relativity. Our desire and recent ability to decipher the universe makes it to happen. A few billion less neural connections and synapses and we would be like Chimps least worried about Hubble, James Watt or frustratingly trying to observe glimpses through the opacity of our first 300 million years from where we come from and where we will be in 100 trillion years.

    #1.1 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:40 AM EST
    Reply
    sam6566

    Wonderful article...so educational. Thank you for being a voice of reason amidst all the "sky is falling" histrionics on the imminent end of our planet accelerated by man.

    Nature does what it does, and will do it again. If we have to go into extinction, it will be because of forces beyond our control; we will see the Katrinas and the tsunamis and will deal with whatever lies in our destiny. Such is the nature of things.

    Absolutely. Beautiful.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#2 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:20 AM EST
    Emilios

    God was not unhappy with the reptiles living then nor was deity punishing a Tyrannosaurus Rex for ripping the neck of a Diplodocus Carnegiei.

    Brilliant point, Universe as we observe exists only for concious beings; there was no 'Universe' for the Tyrannosaurus Rexes and Diplodocus Carnegiei. There was no time, no space. Ike has raised a very pertinent point, time and space has a thrid dimnesion i.e. Conciosuness.

    Our desire and recent ability to decipher the universe makes it to happen. A few billion less neural connections and synapses and we would be like chimps, least worried about Hubble, James Watt or frustratingly trying to glimpse through the opacity of our first 300 million years from where we come and where we will be in 100 trillion years.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#3 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:47 AM EST
    Dave 49

    You just helped proved that God does not exsist and climate change does and as for the latter(Time will tell)and the universe has lots of time and we may not

      Reply#4 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:39 AM EST
      coloradoan-1141358

      Funny, I just got the exact opposite out of it. Great article!

      • 3 votes
      #4.1 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:10 AM EST
      Reply
      Radical_Centrist

      Genetics is proving that we and our environs are extremely robust and whatever we have achieved so far is sustainable.

      Genetics (actually technology)= robust??? Ocean fisheries are being depleted of fish = sustainable? Crops being produced at necessary levels ONLY because of the use of petroleum based fertilizers = sustainable? Moving food and water from local sources to population centers using petroleum = sustainable?

      The biggest challenge for us now is to transfer this continuing growth and prosperity to the lowest strata of society.

      Uhmmmm....riiiiiiiiiiight. Because continuing growth and it's associated prosperity which depends on that growth, will continue forever within a closed system...

      nature would destroy us; our longevity and our better standards are one indication of improving life on this big blue planet of ours.

      Nature is trying, one recent thing is called "HIV." In response to higher temperatures, nature is trying to establish a new global equilibrium in this closed system. Which once is all said and done, may not be so "improving" for many of us. LOL!

      It's a question of a glass half full or half empty; it is about how one looks at things. Naysayers can complain, but the world is consistently getting better off.

      If by better off, the author means people living longer while being surrounded by increasingly larger piles of technological junk, then yes, we're better off. If by "world," you mean the closed system called planet Earth getting better off, then not so much.

      If we have to go into extinction, it will be because of forces beyond our control

      Or more than likely, very much for a reason well within our control.

        Reply#5 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:04 AM EST
        blue wolf

        More than likely because of forces out of control, released by our ignorance and short-sightedness.

        Forces WE unleashed.

          #5.1 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:48 AM EST
          iqbal.latif

          @ Genetics (actually technology)= robust??? Ocean fisheries are being depleted of fish = sustainable? Crops being produced at necessary levels ONLY because of the use of petroleum based fertilizers = sustainable? Moving food and water from local sources to population centers using petroleum = sustainable?

          We are at a cusp of unparalleled sustainable course in my humble opinion.

          I was asked a question today from a friend who had read a discussion on civilisations somewhere. Why did not mankind discover electricity, lights, gas, and create complex communication equipment say 100,000 years ago? If a "techno-boom" is the inevitable goal for the human population, why didn't a creator give it to us from the start? Why did technology have to evolve? Paradigm shift will continue to become progressively more widespread, it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history.


          Sustainable what you define; and how I read it are two diverse approaches. Exponential growth and life before Newton! A brief history 4000 BC to 2200 AD.

          "We won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century—it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The cusp of next big thrust will be when we will conquer the scarcity of energy. Mankind is poor due opt its inability to capture easy source of Energy. Formula P=E×T, rules advance of civilisation, where P measures the advancement of the culture, E is a measure of energy consumed, and T is the measure of efficiency of technical factors utilizing the energy.

          Are we prepared to answer these questions? Our future generation would be facing in next 100 years a new revolutionary spurt of growth in knowledge! Civilization has advanced from a primitive state to incredible achievements in just a little over 100 years. You visit any site where discussion on our origins are a hot subject and you find these questions going unanswered. Civilization has advanced from a primitive state to incredible achievements in just a little over 100 years. Why did not mankind discover electricity, lights, gas, and create complex communication equipment say 100,000 years ago?

          Our social systems are determined by technological systems. We have advanced from (1) hunters and gatherers, (2) simple agricultural, (3) advanced agricultural, (4) industrial (5) special (like fishing societies). Culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased. This advancement was based on harnessing of energy. The primary function of culture" is to "harness and control energy."

          For White, "the primary function of culture" is to "harness and control energy." White differentiates between five stages of human development: the five stages of human development are characteristic: In the first, people use energy of their own muscles. In the second, they use energy of domesticated animals. In the third, they use the energy of plants (agricultural revolution). In the fourth, they learn to use the energy of natural resources: coal, oil, gas. In the fifth, they harness nuclear energy.

          All Homo Sapiens before Sir Isaac Newton could be regarded as primitive forms. Perhaps they would have produced transitional fossils if you were able to look at the knowledge content of their brains in that way. The ability of man to think freely helped Newton in Cambridge to write 'Principia Mathematica' (The Principia states Newton's laws of motion, forming the foundation of classical mechanics, also Newton's law of universal gravitation, and a derivation of Kepler's laws of planetary motion which Kepler first obtained empirically. The Principia is "justly regarded as one of the most important works in the history of science”). There is a huge connection between mathematical methods that included in the field of calculus and design of design internal combustion engines.

          How science helps progress the freedom of mind! Thinkers and scientists like Galileo and Newton are fathers of Enlightenment.

          Once calculus (in formulating his physical theories, Newton developed and used mathematical methods now included in the field of calculus. But the language of calculus as we know it was largely absent from the Principia; Newton gave many of his proofs in a geometric form of infinitesimal calculus, based on limits of ratios of vanishing small geometric quantities) was properly defined, we were able to design internal combustion engines, the harnessing of forces of nature in designed environment through our intelligence produced the productivity boost that helped human population and productivity stagnated since last two millennia to jump exponentially. (Human population was 210m in around 100 AD and until 1000 AD increased to 270m from 1000 AD to 1800 AD the population increased to 900 m but after that in 200 years we are 7 billion and much better off).

          It was Galileo's and Newton's conception of the Universe based upon Natural and rationally understandable laws that became one of the seeds for Enlightenment ideology. Locke and Voltaire applied concepts of Natural Law to political systems advocating intrinsic rights; the physiocrats and Adam Smith applied Natural conceptions of psychology and self-interest to economic systems.

          Philosophers and several Enlightenment figures whose works and ideas influenced important thinkers of both the American and French Revolutions. The 'academic origins' of the French revolution was provided by likes of : John Locke, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, François-Marie Arouet. They in turn were inspired by Galileo's and Newton's conception of the Universe based upon Natural and rationally understandable laws that became one of the seeds for Enlightenment ideology. Locke and Voltaire applied concepts of Natural Law to political systems advocating intrinsic rights; the physiocrats and Adam Smith applied Natural conceptions of psychology and self-interest to economic systems.

          Revolutions are inspired by these prophets of 'Enlightenment.' Until Iranian/Arab enlightened philosophers are brought ahead of the sacred writings no 'revolt' is possible. Revolutions only succeed when a society is able to embrace new realities. If society chooses to live in space of decadence and old thought, any revolution will only be a tool to accelerate its descent to ignominy and disasters.

          "Your race hasn't even reached Type 1 on the Kardashev scale. It doesn't control the resources of this one planet, let alone a solar system or a galaxy. The Time Lords were the Type 4 civilization. We had no equals. We controlled the fundamental forces of the entire universe. Nothing could communicate with us on our level. Most races pray to lesser beings than the Time Lords."

          — Time Lord Marnal, Doctor Who: The Gallifrey Chronicles

          Many sociologists and anthropologists have created social theories dealing with social and cultural evolution. Some, like Lewis H. Morgan, Leslie White, and Gerhard Lenski, declare technological progress to be the primary factor driving the development of human civilization.

          Morgan's concept of three major stages of social evolution (savagery, barbarism, and civilization) can be divided by technological milestones, like fire, the bow, and pottery in the savage era, domestication of animals, agriculture, and metalworking in the barbarian era and the alphabet and writing in the civilization era. Our next natural destination is leading us towards a 'Technological singularity' refers to the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human intelligence through technological means, very probably resulting in explosive super intelligence. Juergen Schmidhuber calls the Singularity Omega, referring to Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point (1916). For Omega = 2040, he says the series Omega - 2n human lifetimes (n < 10; one lifetime = 80 years) roughly matches the most important events in human history. Omega Point is a term coined by the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) to describe a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving. n 1971, John David Garcia expanded on Teilhard's Omega Point idea. In particular, he stressed that even more than the increase of intelligence, the constant increase of ethics is essential for humankind to reach the Omega Point. He applied the term creativity to the combination of intelligence and ethics and announced that increasing creativity is the correct and proper goal of human life. He specifically rejected increasing happiness as a proper ultimate goal: when faced with a choice between increasing creativity and increasing happiness, a person ought to choose creativity, he wrote. But the two are exclusively connected to where human kind is always finding creative ways to be happy. Kurzweil illustrated his beliefs in several graphs concerning his justification for his Law of Accelerating Returns.

          A scheme for classifying advanced technological civilizations proposed by Nikolai Kardashev1 in 1964. He identified three possible types and distinguished between them in terms of the power they could muster for the purposes of interstellar communications.

          A Type I civilization would be able to marshal energy resources for communications on a planet-wide scale, equivalent to the entire present power consumption of the human race, or about 1016watts. A Type II civilization would surpass this by a factor of approximately ten billion, making available 1026 watts, by exploiting the total energy output of its central star. Freeman Dyson, for example, has shown in general terms how this might be done with a Dyson sphere. Finally, a Type III civilization would have evolved far enough to tap the energy resources of an entire galaxy. This would give a further increase by at least a factor of 10 billion to about 1036 watts.

          Presently the whole Earth, with a cross section of127,400,000 km2, the total energy rate is 174 petawatts (1.740×1017 W), plus or minus 3.5%. This value is the total rate of solar energy received by the planet; about half, 89 PW, reaches the Earth's surface. The estimates of remaining non-renewable worldwide energy resources vary, with the remaining fossil fuels totalling an estimated 0.4 YJ (1 YJ = 1024J) and the available nuclear fuel such as uranium exceeding 2.5 YJ. Fossil fuels range from 0.6 to 3 YJ if estimates of reserves of methane clathrates are accurate and become technically extractable. The total energy flux from the sun is 3.8 YJ/yr, dwarfing all non-renewable resources.

          The global economy consumes approximately 30 billion barrels of oil (1.2 trillion U.S. gallons or 4.8×109 m3) each year. Numbers of this magnitude are difficult to conceive by most educated people. Crane felt that a cubic mile would be an easier concept for the general public than a trillion gallons. The volume occupied by one trillion U.S. gallons is about one cubic mile. Proved oil reserves are those that can be extracted with reasonable certainty under existing conditions using existing technology. Global proved oil reserves are estimated at approximately 1,300 billion barrels (210×109 m3). This corresponds to roughly 43 cubic miles, or 43 CMO. At the current rate of use, this would last about 40 years. Technological advances, new discoveries, and political changes may lead to additional proved oil reserves in the future.

          Michio Kaku suggested that humans may attain Type I status in about 100–200 years, Type II status in a few thousand years, and Type III status in about 100,000 to a million years.
          Type I: "technological level close to the level presently [1964] attained on earth, with energy consumption at ≈4×1019 erg/sec. Guillermo A. Lemarchand stated this as "a level "near" contemporary terrestrial civilization with an energy capability equivalent to the solar insolation on Earth, between 10 to the 16 power and 10 to the 17 power Watts."

          Type II: "a civilization capable of harnessing the energy radiated by its own star (for example, the stage of successful construction of a "Dyson sphere"); energy consumption at ≈4×1033 erg/sec. Lemarchand stated this as "a civilization capable of utilizing and channelling the entire radiation output of its star. The energy utilization would then be comparable to the luminosity of our Sun, about 4 x 10 to the 26 power Watts."

          Type III: "a civilization in possession of energy on the scale of its own galaxy, with energy consumption at≈4×1044 erg/sec." Lemarchand stated this as "a civilization with access to the power comparable to the luminosity of the entire Milky Way galaxy, about 4 x 10 to the 37 power Watts."

          Carl Sagan pointed out that the energy gaps between Kardashev's three types were so enormous that a finer gradation was needed to make the scheme more useful. A Type 1.1 civilization, for example, would be able to expend a maximum of 1017watts on communications, a Type 2.3 could utilize 1029 watts, and so on. He estimated that, on this more discriminating scale, the human race would presently qualify as roughly a Type 0.7.

          Kardashev, N. S. "Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial Civilizations," Soviet Astronomy, 8, 217 (1964).

          • 2 votes
          #5.2 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:52 AM EST
          Reply
          blue wolf

          Lifespan says nothing about whether things are better or not.

            Reply#6 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:57 AM EST
            oldfogey

            Much food for thought. Much thanks.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#7 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:18 PM EST
            digcreation

            a whole lot of data supporting a false premise.

            the idea that there so many of us we must be in sync with nature or else it would have killed us by now, is not supported by any type of evidence. A virus will flourish in the body before it kills the host and therefore itself. Which is not proof we are doing that. Its just a scientific truth which at first gglance appears similar to our situation, like the many the author lists.

            the idea that because past climate change was not caused by man means the next climate change is not caused by man, is not a logical conclusion. one does not prove the other. It is just a list of scientific and historic facts, which do not correlate to his conclusion.

            we know what greenhouses gases do, we know have made a lot more in a short time, and we see the effects correlating to models.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#8 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:18 PM EST
            iqbal.latif

            @ the idea that there so many of us we must be in sync with nature or else it would have killed us by now, is not supported by any type of evidence. A virus will flourish in the body before it kills the host and therefore itself

            Humans are not viruses, they are on the verge of deciphering Universe, that is the premise of the article. Universe is virtual for those who do not have the capacity to understand the enigma of the Universe , where we started and where we are heading. Viruses have goals that are specific to the task they need to carry out, we conscience beings are different, we change course, we dabble into unknown and try to find logical answers to problems requiring our attention. We don't grunt we talk, we write, we design ande we try to see through invisible bands of infra red.

            the idea that because past climate change was not caused by man means the next climate change is not caused by man, is not a logical conclusion. one does not prove the other. It is just a list of scientific and historic facts, which do not correlate to his conclusion.

            "Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 276 pages, $24.95) assembles physical and historical evidence of the natural climate cycle that ranges from ancient records in Rome, Egypt, and China; to 12,000 antique paintings in museums; to Vikings' tooth enamel in Greenland cemeteries; and to high-tech analyses of ice cores, seabed sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites. "The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today's warming is not unprecedented." "We have lots of physical evidence for the 1,500-year cycle," says Singer. "Yet we don't have physical evidence that human-emitted CO2 is adding significantly to the natural cycle. The current warming started in 1850, too early to be blamed on industries and autos."

            • 1 vote
            #8.1 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:36 AM EST
            iqbal.latif

            we know what greenhouses gases do, we know have made a lot more in a short time, and we see the effects correlating to models.

            The hundredth monkey effect is a supposed phenomenon in which a learned behaviour spreads instantaneously from one group of monkeys to all related monkeys once a critical number is reached.

            The bandwagon effect is a well documented form of groupthink in behavioural science and has many applications. The general rule is that conduct or beliefs spread among people, as fads and trends clearly do, with "the probability of any individual adopting it increasing with the proportion who have already done so". As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.

            Given that there is no scientific proof that CO2 is causing climate change, which is a natural and ever-present process, and given that man-made CO2 is less than 3% of total global CO2 production (from NASA), and given that the world has been cooling for the last eight or nine years - not predicted by any of the scare-mongering global warming models, which are thereby invalidated - there is no need for CCS.  If too much CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, plant growth will slow and food production will fall, driving more and more people into starvation.  CO2 is not pollution, it is a part of the cycle of life, and has rarely been at as low a level in the atmosphere as it is currently.  The major driver of climate change on earth is the Sun, and if there are no sunspots soon, it's going to get rather cool over the next few years!  Introduce CCS, which will do nothing for the climate, and some people will become very rich, while the poor will get ever poorer.  That's often how revolutions get started.
              #8.2 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:42 AM EST
              blue wolf

              Anything in sufficient quantity is a pollutant.

              Reality is that there is not even a peer reviewed accepted study showing that ONE aspect of the AGW theory is false.

              Not ONE study!

              The world has not been cooling the last 8 or 9 years.

              BULLCRAP

              CO2 hasn't been this high in MILLIONS of years.

              You can't bring ONE peer reviewed and accepted study to back up any of your bogus claims.

              If you can, BRING IT

              • 1 vote
              #8.3 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:11 PM EST
              iqbal.latif

              As a species, H. Sapiens has only been around for somewhere in the range 70,000-200,000 years; the surface formed roughly 4.6 billion years ago. And we can expect the Earth to persist for about another 3-5 billion years, until the sun leaves the main sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and becomes a red giant, presumably swallowing the Earth.

              http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/how_habitable_is_the_earth.html

              Of the 4.6 billion years of Earth's known history, there's only been enough oxygen in the atmosphere for us to survive for about 500m years. Homo sapiens on the Earth's surface had something like a 15% chance of finding it survivable. A random sampling over the historical epoch would return a survivability probability of around 1%. 7 billion of us live on this less 50% of this 15% habitable surface of earth that isn't lethal without life support equipment.

              We don't know when life got started on Earth. However, we do know that the early history of life relied on anaerobic processes for a surprisingly long time. It wasn't until roughly 580 million years ago (at the end of the Proterozoic era) that free oxygen came to dominate our planet's atmospheric chemistry.

              Prokaryotes show up 3.8 billion years ago. Oxygen doesn't build up in the atmosphere until about 580 million years ago. That's 3.2 billion years that life was around in a reducing atmosphere, free to evolve into multicellular life if the energy conditions would support it, whether by taking appropriate organelle-precursors hostage or by other methods. 580-500 million years ago photosynthetic bacteria's oxygen production finally overwhelms the ability of dissolved iron to precipitate it out as rust in the banded iron formations. This is also when the first complex multicellular life appears--and the latter part of it coincides with the Cambrian Explosion.

              And, not incidentally, this is about when life starts scuttling and growing out onto land. 580 million years ago oxygen starts to build up in the atmosphere. Multicellular life shows up a fairly short time (by geological standards, granted) later.

              Even the most chemically capable life bacteria/archaea, on this world needs two things--a carbon source to replenish its substance and an electron acceptor, for energy. Prokaryotes can use a lot of different things as electron acceptors. Multicellular life uses oxygen. Oxygen is a great choice because hanging electrons on it gets you lots of energy, and because there's lots of it (now) in the atmosphere. The Pre-GOE atmosphere was what they call "reducing' which is a way of saying there wasn't anything that, like oxygen, gives you lots of energy when you hand it electrons.

              We know the sun is steadily brightening by about 6% per billion year. It's postulated that within a couple of billion year, solar output is going to have some unpleasant effects. Ultraviolet radiation can split the covalent bonds that hold water molecules together, high in the atmosphere: and hydrogen ions (or, more likely, hydrogen molecules) can be blasted right out of the ionosphere by the same mechanism. The slow, steady loss of Earth's water is a one-way process, but exacerbated by warming (more water vapour in the upper atmosphere means more hydrogen is lost). As hydrogen loss proceeds, we end up with a carbon-dioxide dominated atmosphere and a runaway greenhouse effect like that of Venus.

              There are other mechanisms that might render the Earth uninhabitable by our kind of life. Over geological time, the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere has risen. With more solar energy inputs, it may be that oxygen levels continue to soar. Above about 28%, even waterlogged biomass will burn handily: and there are indications that atmospheric oxygen (currently down around 16%) has been well over 20% in the past. If oceanic photoautotrophs pump out too much of the stuff, the continents may well be burned back to bedrock by the resulting lightning-triggered fires.

              http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/how_habitable_is_the_earth.html

              All of this leaves aside the prospects for either an anthropogenic catastrophe, or the evolution (or creation) of new types of chemoautotrophs that have a drastic effect on the Earth's atmospheric chemistry. Or something else. Phase of the moon, perhaps.

              The upshot is, we may well be most of the way through the Earth's inhabitable epoch. In which case, of the 4 billion years remaining, we may have 300 million - 1 billion years to go with an oxygen-dominated atmosphere and water close to its triple point — the minimum necessary criteria for human survival on a planetary surface.

              When we question just how accurately that they can measure the levels of a CO2 gas that was in the atmosphere in 1750 and Who decided that was a "danger point" and why? we are termed as madman!

              There is no rational answer. 380 ppm CO2 level is the average low level that most humans would ever have seen.The CO2 levels of the earth in geologic times were much, much higher and there was not run away global warming. Why is it different today? We daily put ourselves in indoor environments with drastically higher levels of CO2. The indication for "sufficient" ventilation is 1000 ppm. The OSHA limit is 5000 ppm for prolonged periods, and 35,000 ppm for short duration.

              The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2levels were about 260–280 ppm immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppm.

              Mostly organisms on the planet aren't that susceptible to distinctly elevated levels of CO2 plants will thrive on it. Over that short 580 million year history of "livable times" on Earth, the CO2 levels were usually well over 1000 ppm. The current "high" 380 ppm is near the low end of what's been seen on the planet for most of that time. Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

              • 1 vote
              #8.4 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:07 PM EST
              blue wolf

              I asked for a peer reviewed, widely accepted scientific study, not a wikipedia article.

              Now, can you bring one or not?

              ONE peer reviewed and accepted scientific study that disproves or even attempts to disprove co2 buildup as the PRIMARY DRIVER of the warming trend.

                #8.5 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:29 PM EST
                iqbal.latif

                I will not be presenting a 'Peer review' of a huge hoax and a big fraud:

                Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

                In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

                As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:

                “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

                “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

                “One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

                “Poverty is a death sentence.”

                “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
                greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

                Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
                hiding the decline.

                FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you're going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you're going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you're going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

                • 2 votes
                #8.6 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:12 PM EST
                digcreation

                We humans give ourselves too much credit...The only reason Universe exists is because we as sentient beings see it and decipher it

                first, the irony is beautiful.

                second, the universe doesn't exist because we think it does. We exist because the universe thinks we do.

                • 2 votes
                #8.7 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:35 PM EST
                iqbal.latif

                second, the universe doesn't exist because we think it does. We exist because the universe thinks we do.

                This romance of ours with Universe and ‘mind of man’ is the most vulgar, productive and complicated romance; Vulgar in the mythical sense that we want to tear all shrouds of our beloved, to know here secrets. This road is paved with haziness and uncertainty. Universe our darling like our real darling is not ready to waltz and tango with us easy; she does not let her secrets unveil to us unless we show our total allegiance and perseverance to the cause.

                Our longest era of change was not over 14 billion years from ‘The Big Bang’ but as small as 0-10-43 seconds. Our ability to define and search for Higgs boson the Gods particle within that 0-10-43 seconds makes me to say that Universe exists since we are able to define our moment of birth. No other creature so far can appreciate life if within their life span they cannot see how they came into existence from nothingness. Even 0-10-43 seconds knowledge of the beloved whereabouts is a journey as long and tricky as an perpetuity.

                The Universe lends itself to be understood by man by hides behind a veil; this is purdah from the lover, Universe flirts with our mind, Universe wants every mind to grow up and act like that of Einstein’s. Einstein said it, “one of the most incomprehensible things about the Universe is that it is comprehensible.

                In just two past centuries, we have figured out what are the four fundamental forces of nature, which are:

                • Gravitation
                • Electromagnetic Force
                • Strong Force
                • Weak Force

                The Planck Era: 0 to 10-43 seconds After the Big Bang

                The period from big bang to about 10-43 seconds after it, is called the Planck Era. In this period, the curvature, the energy and the density was so high that all laws of physics, the general theory of relativity or relativistic quantum mechanics fail.

                Grand Unification Era: Between 10-43 seconds to 10-36 seconds After the Big Bang

                During the Grand Unification Era, the temperature of the universe must have been of the order of 1027 K! This corresponds to energy greater than 1019GeV, which is the threshold for grand unified theories. Grand unified theories are as of now hypothetical theories that propound that at very high energies, the four forces of nature are combined into one supreme force. According to this theory, during this phase, gravity separated from the rest of the unified forces, due to symmetry breaking. The universe was dominated by gravity and a unified force (Strong and Electroweak force combined into one!), dominated it. The Higgs boson (It is as yet a hypothetical particle which is responsible for particles gaining mass! The Higgs field pervades all of space and time and particles acquire mass due to their interaction with Higgs particle.) is supposed to be the only particle that exists at this point.

                What happened during this era, is unverified as yet, because terrestrial particle accelerators haven't advanced enough to create energies beyond 1019 GeV.

                The Inflationary - Electroweak Era: 10-36seconds to 10-12 seconds After Big Bang

                The story of what happened in this phase is also unverified because particle accelerators have not been able to recreate an energy scale of this order. So what follows is a hypothesis. During this period, the temperature dropped below 1028 K, the symmetry that was holding the strong force and electroweak force together was broken and they were separated, becoming two distinct forces.

                Quark Era: 10-12 to 10-6 seconds After Big Bang

                After the end of the electroweak era, the Quark Era began. In this phase, all the four forces had begun operating in an independent form. The universe was filled with a quark gluon soup, (plasma) in which quarks actually existed in free state.

                Hadron Era: 10-6 seconds to 1 seconds After the Big Bang

                In this period of fraction of a second, the universe had cooled just enough for quarks and their antiparticles to fuse together and form the first hadrons and anti-hadrons (Protons, Neutrons etc)

                Lepton Era: 1 second to 10 seconds after the Big Bang


                A mere span of 10 seconds seems hardly enough to be called an era! However, due to the immense importance of what happened during these first few moments, it deserves to be called an era!

                Photon Era: Begins 10 seconds after the Big Bang

                At the end of the Lepton Era, photons dominated energy content of the universe for up to 300,000 years. Electromagnetic radiation was however coupled to all the charged hadrons and leptons.

                Nucleosynthesis: 3 minutes to 20 minutes after the Big Bang

                Three minutes after the big bang, universe had cooled down enough for the protons and neutrons to bind together to form the first nuclei in the universe! Through the process of nuclear fusion, protons and neutrons which bumped into each other, fused together to form the very first nuclei.

                In a matter of 17 minutes, all the nuclei in the universe were created. The heavier elements were synthesized from these first light elements, long afterwards through nuclear fusion in stars! The elements that were created in the process were as follows:

                • Deuterium (H-2 An isotope of Hydrogen with one proton and one neutron in the nucleus)
                • Two isotopes of Helium (He-3, He-4)
                • Lithium isotopes (Li-6, Li-7)
                • Radioactive isotopes like Tritium (H-3), Beryllium (Be-7, Be-8)(However they decayed into stable elements)
                • 2 votes
                #8.8 - Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:26 AM EST
                Reply
                FreeThinkingOne

                Beyond my comprehension......but makes sense, if we can agree that measuring "infinite spirituality"

                is beyond science as we know it.... So maybe, "grand orderly design or good orderly direction

                or goodness over darkness" will still be very relevant to us antiquated high-order beings, at least

                for a another couple thousand years or until eternity.... great article, thanks.

                  Reply#9 - Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:33 AM EST
                  Aviella Ross

                  This is very interesting information

                    Reply#10 - Mon Apr 2, 2012 10:04 PM EDT
                    Leave a Comment:
                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                    FUN STUFF:
                    • Leaderboard |
                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                    • Top of the Vine |
                    • Newsvine Live |
                    • Newsvine Archives |
                    • The Greenhouse |
                    COMPANY STUFF:
                    • Code of Honor |
                    • Company Info |
                    • Contact Us |
                    • Jobs |
                    • User Agreement |
                    • Privacy Policy |
                    • About our ads
                    LEGAL STUFF:
                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com