Evolution, Dying Stars, and Creationism

[Balthazzar]

So, basically the common census is we'll be required to relocate to another planet, that this earth will be too hot to harbor life, and that the sun will or may consume this planet as it red giants. Creationism, on the other hand, or professing Christian creationists wait and hope for life after death in heaven. Evolution, adaptation, and survival of the fittest would suggest that we will evolve into a form able to endure the upcoming changes to take place in the next 5 billion years or so.

Concerning faith, reason, and what we currently understand about life on earth, which position seems most reasonable, and which would require ample faith to keep the views held?

Evolution or Creationism

Fight, Flight, or Freeze ...

I choose to fight through and to endure the upcoming changes, but then I'm 51, and at the moment life is more easily burdened than most anticipate to be in upcoming years.

How about you?

Stick around and endure in hope that evolutionary processes will prevail, flee to another planet to relocate, or freeze and do little in hope of gaining life after death through belief, as opposed to gaining further insight into our potential ongoing evolution?

 

[Suave]

So, basically the common census is we'll be required to relocate to another planet, that this earth will be too hot to harbor life, and that the sun will or may consume this planet as it red giants. Creationism, on the other hand, or professing Christian creationists wait and hope for life after death in heaven. Evolution, adaptation, and survival of the fittest would suggest that we will evolve into a form able to endure the upcoming changes to take place in the next 5 billion years or so.

Concerning faith, reason, and what we currently understand about life on earth, which position seems most reasonable, and which would require ample faith to keep the views held?

Evolution or Creationism

Fight, Flight, or Freeze ...

I choose to fight through and to endure the upcoming changes, but then I'm 51, and at the moment life is more easily burdened than most anticipate to be in upcoming years.

How about you?

Stick around and endure in hope that evolutionary processes will prevail, flee to another planet to relocate, or freeze and do little in hope of gaining life after death through belief, as opposed to gaining further insight into our potential ongoing evolution?

Please let us consider the human colonization of Mars as being a transitory solution for eluding any existential threat of global warming around Earth.

I favor having Sulfur Hexafluoride sent away to Mars where this super greenhouse gas would transform Mars into a way more comfortable place for sustaining life from Earth. Sulfur Hexafluoride could simply be transported via the Space X interplanetary transport system from Earth to Mars.

Scientists have proposed the ionization of particles emitted by the Martian moon of Phobos and accelerating the flow of these ionized particles in order to generate a magnetic field shielding the Martian atmosphere from being stripped away by solar radiation, Such a Martian magnetosphere would require roughly 100.000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy, which is comparable to the total amount of electricity consumed by everybody on Earth last year.

How to create an artificial magnetosphere for Mars - ScienceDirect

How to create an artificial magnetosphere for Mars
lR.A.BamfordaB.J.KellettaJ.L.GreenbC.DongcV.AirapetiandR.Bingham

A magnetic field enabling Martian atmospheric retention might very well be the first step towards forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere. This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

A few billion Tonnes of Sulfur Hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by well over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

The forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars (terra-forming) would create many high tech jobs, and save humanity from the existential threat of the Earth's atmospheric and terrestrial global warming . This project ( terraforming ) to make Mars a better place for human colonization there could be dubbed the "Green New Deal for humanity on Mars". Please let us agree to favor the "Green New Deal for humanity on Mars" I figure the cost of terraforming Mars would be just a few trillion dollars per year, which amounts to only a few hundred dollars annually per person.

This annual cost of a few hundred dollars per person would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with an average surface temperature of 270 degrees Kelvin based on the planet Mars orbiting around the Sun with its solar surface temperature at 5,800 Kelvin.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, basically the common census is we'll be required to relocate to another planet, that this earth will be too hot to harbor life, and that the sun will or may consume this planet as it red giants. Creationism, on the other hand, or professing Christian creationists wait and hope for life after death in heaven. Evolution, adaptation, and survival of the fittest would suggest that we will evolve into a form able to endure the upcoming changes to take place in the next 5 billion years or so.

Concerning faith, reason, and what we currently understand about life on earth, which position seems most reasonable, and which would require ample faith to keep the views held?

Evolution or Creationism

Fight, Flight, or Freeze ...

I choose to fight through and to endure the upcoming changes, but then I'm 51, and at the moment life is more easily burdened than most anticipate to be in upcoming years.

How about you?

Stick around and endure in hope that evolutionary processes will prevail, flee to another planet to relocate, or freeze and do little in hope of gaining life after death through belief, as opposed to gaining further insight into our potential ongoing evolution?

Human extinction is more likely than not. Long before the Sun balloons, other natural disasters are much more likely to kill all of us. There is another side, equally true. We will strive to live, and we have a good chance of innovating our way through any extinction-level events. I give us a 90% + chance of surviving as a species through any extinction-level event. Some people will probably survive.

We can send people to other planets, but planets have strong gravity wells which makes leaving them very expensive. Earth is almost inescapable. Some intrepid people may leave here to seed another planet, but there is no escaping from Earth should something go wrong. We are here. Also whoever leaves to live on another planet is unlikely ever to leave it, and their evolutionary path will diverge increasingly from our own. The two planets can communicate, but they cannot frequently exchange citizens. Its too expensive.

 

[Suave]

Human extinction is more likely than not. Long before the Sun balloons, other natural disasters are much more likely to kill all of us. There is another side, equally true. We will strive to live, and we have a good chance of innovating our way through any extinction-level events. I give us a 90% + chance of surviving as a species through any extinction-level event. Some people will probably survive.

We can send people to other planets, but planets have strong gravity wells which makes leaving them very expensive. Earth is almost inescapable. Some intrepid people may leave here to seed another planet, but there is no escaping from Earth should something go wrong. We are here. Also whoever leaves to live on another planet is unlikely ever to leave it, and their evolutionary path will diverge increasingly from our own. The two planets can communicate, but they cannot frequently exchange citizens. Its too expensive.

Mars or bust!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Mars or bust!

Have you signed up, yet?

By the way they need to update their page: SpaceX

 

[Suave]

Have you signed up, yet?

I am hopeful Elon Musk will notice my Twitter profile prompting him signing me up to be among the earliest crew travelling to Mars,

 

[Balthazzar]

Please let us consider the human colonization of Mars as being a transitory solution for eluding any existential threat of global warming around Earth.

I favor having Sulfur Hexafluoride sent away to Mars where this super greenhouse gas would transform Mars into a way more comfortable place for sustaining life from Earth. Sulfur Hexafluoride could simply be transported via the Space X interplanetary transport system from Earth to Mars.

Scientists have proposed the ionization of particles emitted by the Martian moon of Phobos and accelerating the flow of these ionized particles in order to generate a magnetic field shielding the Martian atmosphere from being stripped away by solar radiation, Such a Martian magnetosphere would require roughly 100.000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy, which is comparable to the total amount of electricity consumed by everybody on Earth last year.

How to create an artificial magnetosphere for Mars - ScienceDirect

How to create an artificial magnetosphere for Mars
lR.A.BamfordaB.J.KellettaJ.L.GreenbC.DongcV.AirapetiandR.Bingham

A magnetic field enabling Martian atmospheric retention might very well be the first step towards forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere. This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

A few billion Tonnes of Sulfur Hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by well over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

The forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars (terra-forming) would create many high tech jobs, and save humanity from the existential threat of the Earth's atmospheric and terrestrial global warming . This project ( terraforming ) to make Mars a better place for human colonization there could be dubbed the "Green New Deal for humanity on Mars". Please let us agree to favor the "Green New Deal for humanity on Mars" I figure the cost of terraforming Mars would be just a few trillion dollars per year, which amounts to only a few hundred dollars annually per person.

This annual cost of a few hundred dollars per person would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with an average surface temperature of 270 degrees Kelvin based on the planet Mars orbiting around the Sun with its solar surface temperature at 5,800 Kelvin.

I think it's a worthwhile contingency and possibly, if what you stated is true about helping the earth's atmosphere in effort to limit the affects of global warming, worthwhile for that reason also. Either way, and I'm sure many are on board with the colonization of Mars, we who are left on will continue the race of endurance as we are. The colonists will have their own set of unique problems similar to our own, if problems at all and not simply adaptation realities. Here, there, or wherever the next move may be ... environments change us both physically and emotionally, and also mentally as we learn from our experiences.

A few millennia after the fact, and I'm fairly certain the physical attributes of our original voyaging colonists will be far different than those current residents who were not only born and raised there, but who's great great great great grandparents were some of the first to make Mars a place of residence. Similar changes, I'm sure, will likewise be seen here, given we have enough adaptive qualities to endure the coming changes. Time, it would seem, is a concern ... will we have enough to adapt, or will we have enough resolve to fight through the difficulties ahead. Will we survive ourselves as our resources become more and more limited? I'm not in favor of depleting resources, nor of sitting idle, nor would I personally desire to colonize another planet.

Fighting chances and choices ... in a world growing warmer as she runs out of fuel and a compromised atmosphere, or so we're told that holds the keys to our survival.

 

[Balthazzar]

Human extinction is more likely than not. Long before the Sun balloons, other natural disasters are much more likely to kill all of us. There is another side, equally true. We will strive to live, and we have a good chance of innovating our way through any extinction-level events. I give us a 90% + chance of surviving as a species through any extinction-level event. Some people will probably survive.

We can send people to other planets, but planets have strong gravity wells which makes leaving them very expensive. Earth is almost inescapable. Some intrepid people may leave here to seed another planet, but there is no escaping from Earth should something go wrong. We are here. Also whoever leaves to live on another planet is unlikely ever to leave it, and their evolutionary path will diverge increasingly from our own. The two planets can communicate, but they cannot frequently exchange citizens. Its too expensive.

So, from our Cro-Magnon beginings, to homo sapien sapiens to whatever comes next in our evolutionary progress. Humans, as we exist today, much like neanderthal man in terms of Cro-Magnon, will become an extinct chapter in human evolution? I'm asking based on your first statement that suggested as much.

 

[Heyo]

Stick around and endure in hope that evolutionary processes will prevail, flee to another planet to relocate, or freeze and do little in hope of gaining life after death through belief, as opposed to gaining further insight into our potential ongoing evolution?

The options you are thinking about seriously lack phantasy.

1. Like @Brickjectivity said, planets are gravity wells best avoided. The future is on (movable) space stations built from material mined on easy to escape asteroids and small moons.
2. Evolution is a very slow process we have outrun a long time ago. We have built civilizations, culture, technology and, lately, the ability to change our genetic code at will.
3. We have doubled life expectancy in the last 100 years. Who needs a weak promise of life after death when we can have potential eternal life in the flesh or uploaded into a computer?

If we can manage to not kill ourselves by global warming or a nuclear war, the future will be stranger than you can imagine.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, from our Cro-Magnon beginings, to homo sapien sapiens to whatever comes next in our evolutionary progress. Humans, as we exist today, much like neanderthal man in terms of Cro-Magnon, will become an extinct chapter in human evolution? I'm asking based on your first statement that suggested as much.

By 'Extinct' I mean it is probably that none of us will survive, but I temper that by saying we are survivors and will probably survive. Its true both ways. Currently there is one race of humans. If we grow into space where the distances are limitless, we will probably fork into multiple races.

Based upon those assumptions we will need to broaden the definition of human, perhaps broaden who can be baptized, and human mustn't become merely a license but must imply inalienable rights as it does now, today. It also mustn't be a meaningless word like 'Being', but it must include everyone that can be human. Unless we keep the candle lit, humanity will disappear. Unless we retain our passions and struggles the galaxy will become passionless and an automatic system. It will be no different from a planet of bacteria and insects. No one will appreciate it, no matter how beautiful or advanced it may be. It must not become meaningless. Let nirvana have itself, and let it not take the galaxy.

 

[Balthazzar]

By 'Extinct' I mean it is probably that none of us will survive, but I temper that by saying we are survivors and will probably survive. Its true both ways. Currently there is one race of humans. If we grow into space where the distances are limitless, we will probably fork into multiple races.

Based upon those assumptions we will need to broaden the definition of human, perhaps broaden who can be baptized, and human mustn't become merely a license but must imply inalienable rights as it does now, today. It also mustn't be a meaningless word like 'Being', but it must include everyone that can be human. Unless we keep the candle lit, humanity will disappear. Unless we retain our passions and struggles the galaxy will become passionless and an automatic system. It will be no different from a planet of bacteria and insects. No one will appreciate it, no matter how beautiful or advanced it may be. It must not become meaningless. Let nirvana have itself, and let it not take the galaxy.

I'm curious about the black hole portal and the other side. Is it true the sun orbits around the milky way and the centered black hole apparently pulling us in? Neanderthal man are our origins, Cro-Magnon the origin of modern humans, and I'm pretty sure in 5 billion years we will have gone through even more fundamental changes and adaptations. Extinction would seem inevitable, given our current abilities, and environment, but it's not an absolute. Mass, movement, and space provide gravity for grounding, so the mass and movement of planets help in that way, and become a nice egg on which, and in which to develop. Human? It's a generic term for our characteristics and features, which hasn't proven, at least in times past, to be much a thing to desire, aside from our abilities to create, learn, and adapt. Between power struggles and what seems to be an insatiable need for more ... power, money, control, etc. we have proved ourselves more of a nuisance than not to co-habituates who share our growing spaces, but then life struggle and need spur what is needed for appropriate adaptation as we move forward. Groups, cultures, and varying types of communities tend to separate and flock together in accordance to the values held, and out of necessity at times if only to coexist peacefully to help ensure survival rates.

In any case, I'm less concerned about leaving earth and more so about how our evolutionary development will take place and through what channels it will occur? Humanoid seems to be a term growing in popularity in just the last 100 or so years to my understanding. What might we look like another billion years down the road?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, basically the common census is we'll be required to relocate to another planet, that this earth will be too hot to harbor life, and that the sun will or may consume this planet as it red giants. Creationism, on the other hand, or professing Christian creationists wait and hope for life after death in heaven. Evolution, adaptation, and survival of the fittest would suggest that we will evolve into a form able to endure the upcoming changes to take place in the next 5 billion years or so.

Concerning faith, reason, and what we currently understand about life on earth, which position seems most reasonable, and which would require ample faith to keep the views held?

Evolution or Creationism

Fight, Flight, or Freeze ...

I choose to fight through and to endure the upcoming changes, but then I'm 51, and at the moment life is more easily burdened than most anticipate to be in upcoming years.

How about you?

Stick around and endure in hope that evolutionary processes will prevail, flee to another planet to relocate, or freeze and do little in hope of gaining life after death through belief, as opposed to gaining further insight into our potential ongoing evolution?

None of the above. The rumors of the Earth's impending demise are hyped.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm curious about the black hole portal and the other side. Is it true the sun orbits around the milky way and the centered black hole apparently pulling us in?

I am curious, too; but I think black holes are destructive once you get too close. The high mass causes part of you to speed up faster that the other parts and to turn towards the black hole center faster than the other parts. Your atoms and molecules probably separate or possibly your are shredded.

There are some unknowns. The galaxy does revolve around a center, however the outlying systems do not travel at the predicted rate. They move too quickly, and currently there are multiple people trying to explain why and how that is. I'm sure that its become one of the big new questions.

Equations indicate that time speeds up (a lot) for you if you take a ship into orbit close to a black hole, which is a little bit like going into a portal but not the same idea. Masses bend your path in time towards themselves. If you are traveling relative to any mass you will begin to turn towards it. This effect is called gravity. When I was in grade school they said that Gravity was considered to be a force. Now it is considered to be an effect of the bending of time towards mass and not actually a force, not a fundamental force. Gravity is one effect of this bending of your time towards the mass. Another effect is that orbiting a mass speeds up your passage of time relative to other locations. This is detectable on supersonic planes going round the Earth but is barely measurable. It should be very detectable near to a black hole with its very high mass. Living in orbit around a black hole it is like traveling to another place; because it separates you into a different speed of time until you leave orbit and get away from the black hole, again. It does not, however, transport you anywhere.

 

[Heyo]

I'm curious about the black hole portal and the other side. Is it true the sun orbits around the milky way

Yes.

and the centered black hole apparently pulling us in?

No.
Black Holes are just another massive body. You can orbit them just like a star or planet. Only when you get really close the orbit becomes unstable and you will ultimately land within the hole.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, basically the common census is we'll be required to relocate to another planet, that this earth will be too hot to harbor life, and that the sun will or may consume this planet as it red giants.

Homo Sapiens as a species will be long gone by then.
The sun going red giant won't happen for another 5 billion years. The earth's life isn't even half way.
It's quite safe to say that Homo Sapiens won't be around in 5 billion years.

Evolution, adaptation, and survival of the fittest would suggest that we will evolve into a form able to endure the upcoming changes to take place in the next 5 billion years or so.

Not really. There are physical limitations to what is possible. Conditions will get progressively harder to survive and there will come a point where life (in general - including so-called "extremophiles") will simply no longer be able to cope.

Concerning faith, reason, and what we currently understand about life on earth, which position seems most reasonable, and which would require ample faith to keep the views held?

The migration to other planets and the colonization of space is possible in principle. But I don't think it would be practical. We evolved for the earthly environment. Our biology requires the earthly conditions. Including the microbial eco-system. So wherever we go, we're going to have to recreate that environment in order to live.

Wherever we end up, that would put us at serious risk. Imagine if we would colonize mars. By necessity, we'ld have to create some type of biodome within which we recreate the earth's environment. This would require enormous amounts of energy to be sustainable. Another option would be terraforming but that would take ridiculous amounts of time and ridiculous amounts of resources.

So many things could go wrong in a bio-dome. Many of them would be fatal for all inhabitants.
And the cost (both in labor and in resources) would be mindblowingly gigantic.

So, while technically feasible, the technological challenges would be GINORMOUS.
It also remains to be seen what the effect would be on our biology. Because even with recreating the earth's environment - many things couldn't be recreated. Like the gravitational pull for example.

It would severely impact our bone density. I wonder how the body would react to such. Calcium plays a big role there. Will our body have a big surplus of calcium? Or would we have a shortage? In both cases, that would have big impact on other processes in our bodies which depend on a delicate balance of calcium levels. It remains to be seen what it means to human development and life for a human to be born and grow up on a planet like Mars, even in a biodome.

Nobody really knows because we have no precedents. But I don't expect it to go very well.

How about you?

Stick around and endure in hope that evolutionary processes will prevail

How about we think about the shorter term of the next few centuries / millenia instead of worrying about the next 5 billion years? The earth TODAY is in great danger what with global warming, pollution with micro-plastics etc. Those are MUCH MORE URGENT problems.

What will happen in 5 billion years is of no concern. No humans will be around by then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, from our Cro-Magnon beginings, to homo sapien sapiens to whatever comes next in our evolutionary progress. Humans, as we exist today, much like neanderthal man in terms of Cro-Magnon, will become an extinct chapter in human evolution? I'm asking based on your first statement that suggested as much.

I consider that pretty much inevitable.