The famous ‘Fermi Paradox’ asks why, if life really is every bit as prevalent in the cosmos as some astrobiologists claim, with their equally famous ‘Drake Equation’ (which purports to show extraterrestrial life should be teeming just about everywhere in the universe), then where is it all?
One possible answer might be that, once all intelligent civilisations reach a certain point of advancement, they stumble across the so-called ‘Great Filter’, a developmental obstacle which simply can never be overcome, no matter what planet you are living on, which ultimately destroys the whole species in an irreversible Mass Extinction Event. This Great Filter was once often imagined to be nuclear war – now, it is increasingly deemed to be climate change, a phenomenon no cutting-edge industrial civilisation can supposedly ever escape from unscathed, on Earth or off it.
One leading advocate of this kind of doomsday thinking today is Adam Frank, a U.S. astrophysicist whose 2018 book Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth and many co-authored academic papers have attempted to delineate a so-called “Astrobiology of the Anthropocene”. The ‘Anthropocene’ is the proposed (and recently rejected) term many scientists want to give to the current geological era on Earth, which they say has been irrevocably impacted and influenced by mankind and his technology, namely nuclear bombs and fossil fuels.
The Misanthropocene Era
As the distinctly Malthusian Frank said in a promotional 2018 interview with Scientific American: “My argument is that Anthropocenes may be generic from an astrobiological perspective: what we’re experiencing now may be the sort of transition that everybody goes through, throughout the Universe.”
If Anthropocenes (or Alienthropocenes) are indeed “generic”, then doesn’t that mean they can potentially be modelled? Possibly so. According to Professor Frank (not to be confused with The Simpsons’ Professor Frink), “a civilisation, to some degree, is just a mechanism for transforming energy on a planetary surface”, a statement so utterly reductive in its nature it really ought to be the governing motto of the UN or EU these days.
Being something of a UFO buff myself, I have long been of the personal opinion that any actual aliens mankind should ever encounter will most likely turn out to be totally, well, alien in their nature, so much so we might not even be able to recognise them as being actual animate life-forms at all, a bit like most normal people feel when looking at Rachel Reeves. Professor Frank, though, disagrees, being apparently so in thrall to the currently dominant technocratic myth of Homo Statisticus (have you ever met anyone with 2.4 actual children?) that he feels it plausible to extend its basic pattern out across the entire Universe:
Well, just as we understand planetary climates pretty well, we can use the basic, fundamental tenets of life to guide us, too. Organisms are born, some of them reproduce, and they die. Living things consume energy and they excrete waste. That should be true even if they’re made of silicon or whatever. The next step is to incorporate principles of population biology, in which the idea of ‘carrying capacity’ — the number of organisms that can be sustainably supported by the local environment — is very important. This approach can also be mathematically applied to the state of a planet. So in our modelling work we’ve got an equation for how the planet is changing and an equation for how the population is changing. What ties them together is the predictable result that as environmental conditions on a planet get worse, the total carrying capacity goes down. A civilisation with a population of n will use the resources of its planet to increase n, but at the same time, by using those resources, it tends to degrade the planet’s environment.
But what if some aliens are incorporeal in nature, being made of gases, for instance? What if they therefore don’t actually need to eat or excrete at all? What if some of them are made from – or perhaps breathe – CO2? Or what if they are extremophiles (i.e., lovers of extreme climates) and therefore very high temperatures are actually good for some ETs’ health, not bad for it? Wouldn’t climate change akin to the kind Frank currently warns is taking place here on Earth make them thrive? Plus, what atmospheric gases will there even be to be boosted or dissipated by hypothetical industrial activity on other planets in the first place? Global warming may not even be chemically possible on Planet Fictional at all. These objections are all pretty obvious, and I do hope Professor Frank addresses them in his actual book (which I haven’t read), because if he hasn’t, it may be in danger of being interpreted by the ungenerous-minded as a work of mere sci-fi with numbers in it.
From Drake Equation to Fake Equation?
Speaking of numbers, as Frank and his co-researchers claim to have produced climate-models for generic other planets which do not even actually exist, where have they got the necessary data to fill them up with? It must be pretty detailed data because, look, Frank has somehow managed to create modelling graphs for the four presumed most likely scenarios for any planet’s long-term sustainability or civilisational collapse path, once intelligent life eventually appears on it:
Red line: co-evolving made-up trajectory of made-up planet’s made-up environmental state (a proxy for its made-up temperature, says Professor Frank)
The first model-graph, labelled ‘Die-Off’, is the one which currently appears to apply to doomed old Planet Earth, at least in the view of Frank. According to Commander Data, talking in another 2018 promotional interview with LiveScience:
In this scenario, the civilisation’s population skyrockets over a short period of time, and as the aliens guzzle energy and belch out greenhouse gases, the planet’s temperature spikes, too. (In this study, temperature was used to represent human-made impacts on the planet’s habitability via greenhouse gas pollution.) The population peaks, then suddenly plummets as rising temperatures make survival harder and harder. The population eventually levels off, but with a fraction of the people who were around before. Imagine if seven out of 10 people you knew died quickly. It’s not clear a complex technological civilisation could survive that kind of change.
It probably could if they were all just civil servants.
Chatting SHIT?
Elsewhere, I have developed an innovative but speculative data-based concept of my own that I sincerely hope one day takes off. It is known by the acronym SHIT – or Statistics Having Imaginary Truth, and I coined it to denote the way most economists appear to just make up their forecasts and predictions out of thin air, producing ‘authoritative’ figures from nowhere like fiscal rabbits from a monetary hat. I write this present piece in the days immediately following Jeremy Hunt’s latest budget, by the way.
Although I tend to accept Earth is getting somewhat warmer these days (albeit nowhere near enough to destroy all human life upon it, or whatever Al Gore is currently standing naked in the street and yelling out loud to gullible passersby), I am nonetheless becoming increasingly inclined to consider long-term climate forecasts for our planet as increasingly becoming a complete and utter shower of SHIT likewise. If so, then how much more SHITtier must data-based climate models for other planets – planets which, I here repeat once again, and in italics for extra emphasis this time, do not even exist – be?
A further question must also be asked: where precisely did Frank get the data for the models and graphs reproduced in his 2018 book and articles from, exactly? According to what he said in his interviews, it was from prior studies made of Easter Island/Rapa Nui, the now-lifeless barren ocean island where, once upon a time, or so the standard promulgated narrative goes, foolish humans lived sustainably and well until, in a short-sighted fit of greed, they stupidly chopped down all the place’s trees, causing a drought and then being left with neither wood for fuel nor tasty arboreal produce to eat any more, thus dying off en masse. But was this really true?
Easter Egg-stinction Event
According to Professor Frank and his colleagues:
Easter Island presents a particularly useful example for our own purposes since it is often taken as a lesson for global sustainability. Many studies indicate that Easter Island’s inhabitants depleted their resources, leading to starvation and termination of the island’s civilisation.
Except that, “many studies” of another kind say this isn’t what actually happened there at all; in the opinion of some revisionist modern scholars, the standard story of Easter Island’s downfall and depopulation is actually a modern-day green myth designed to promulgate a cautionary warning about what will happen to modern-day industrialised Western civilisations if, like the imprudent old Easter Islanders, we too are rash enough to use up all our resources, destroy our local environment or help bring about acts of needless climate change.
The key 2021 paper purporting to demonstrate that this now famous old popular narrative is indeed just a myth contains much data and many graphs of a technical nature which, as far as this mere layman knows, may one day turn out to be just so much SHIT too. However, if the Easter Island Extinction narrative really was just an overblown environmentalist fable created to groom Greta Thunberg into existence, it would appear that the primary data Professor Frank says he and his colleagues based his models of shared off-Earth exoplanetary collapse on in his 2018 book were pure SHIT themselves, were they not?
There Is No Planet B
If Frank’s book was just marketed as a fun hypothetical thought-exercise, then I would find it wholly unobjectionable – it’s good for scientists to be free-thinkers. But he appears to have been promoting it as a spur to persuading politicians to implement actual real-world ‘climate-friendly’ policy objectives, and then being treated seriously in this aim by the mainstream scientific press. Therefore, you do have to ask: are such pop-science studies as Frank’s 2018 book, being aimed primarily at a lay-audience who probably know no better, really intended to function more as green-friendly political agitprop than as genuine science as such?
To end his LiveScience interview, Professor Frank asks his readers a question, the answer to which is clearly supposed to be obvious:
Across cosmic space and time, you’re going to have winners — who managed to see what was going on [i.e., a self-inflicted climate crisis] and figure out a path through it — and losers, who just couldn’t get their act together and their civilisation fell by the wayside. The question is, which category do we want to be in?
The winners! The winners! I want to be on the side of the winners! Except that, if the West does indeed compliantly tear up its whole current dirty – yet conveniently cheap, reliable and efficient – energy infrastructure to save going the way of the supposed Easter Island idiots, who will the actual winners on our planet be? The Chinese, Russians and others, who will quite happily go on burning coal and oil while we shiver in abject poverty and they quite happily extend their autocratic tentacles across the globe, enabled to dominate us militarily, economically and industrially by piles and piles of dubious pseudo-scientific SHIT being promulgated by a caste of weird, West-ruling cultists who honestly expect to be taken seriously when they go around shouting mad things like “Climate change killed off all the imaginary aliens, so junk your gas-fires now or DIE IMMEDIATELY!!” to ostensibly reliable, august and disinfo-slaying outlets like Scientific American and LiveScience.
Perhaps a sinister race of non-human alien beings do indeed walk among us after all – they’re called the governing class.
Steven Tucker is a journalist and the author of over 10 books, the latest being Hitler’s & Stalin’s Misuse of Science: When Science Fiction Was Turned Into Science Fact by the Nazis and the Soviets (Pen & Sword/Frontline), which is out now.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’m afraid facts and arguments aren’t going to change the minds of Net Zero advocates.
What will change their minds is the sense that those who don’t want it are getting angry and might start going for Net Zero zealots in ways they might not like.
They need to feel the need to change position at an emotional level. And we all know fear works best.
Personally I make a point of ensuring that anyone who defends climate change policy perceives my anger and a certain sense of menace that I’m not standing for it.
That’s the sort of emotional response that gets people re-thinking, in my view.
Indeed. Righteous anger coupled with a couple of winters freezing in one’s home and – heaven forbid – being deprived of the internet and one’s dumb-down-the-owner ‘smart’ phone (due to power blackouts) and we will probably see some change in direction. Recent history shows how quickly zealots can change sides – 2 years ago there were millions standing in line for untested poison, now they can’t give it away. Reality bites big.
Yep everyone wants to “save the planet” till the penny eventually drops that the planet is fine and it was never about the planet in the first place.
We see the same tactics used against those who put rational arguments and science up against the loony climate change protagonists.
The loonies are not loony and those with rational arguments and science are the loonies.
All achieved using the same approach to so many other issues that are destroying our social values and structures and done using
useful idiotswhatever activists they can fund to implement this madness.The end justifies the means for those behind all this crap who see the destruction of social values and structures as the ends which justify the means.
DS is invaluable as a source of information and a forum to read what sensible people have to say against this backdrop of madness.
Or “never let a good crisis go to waste”, and parasite governments of both parties are certainly putting the manufactured climate crisis to good use to implement all the progressive policies they have long craved
No facts and reason……Just faith and emotion. Climate activists and those who glue themselves to things decided long ago what is true and there is no budging them. But we need to remember it is government and their phony climate models masquerading as science that brainwashed them all. —–Thos governments can hardly come down hard on their own useful idiots that do all their dirty work for them now can they?
Until the liberal mainstream media, and especially the BBC, do honest reporting over the utter folly of spending trillions on completely worthless and highly dangerous Net Zero madness nothing will change.
I would suggest that everyone complain to the BBC via. their Make A Complaint web portal. Find a climate change article on the BBC website, it’ll almost always state that greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate change, something that we all know is complete rubbish. They always make this dumb statement without any dissenting views allowed. That’s complaint-worthy in itself.
Do you really think complaining to the BBC achieves anything? It is impervious to complaints.
Hopefully one low level individual there might start to think for him/her self and light a spark. A long shot, I know.
At a stroke, we could cut the staggering 0.0016% of the atmosphere that is human-caused CO2 by wiping out most of the world’s population by toxic medical interventions, geoengineering, gmo food and electrosmog. Unless some people have already thought of that.
Just as a matter of interest – have any of the Net Zero zealots ever clarified what’s the target internal winter temperature people are expected to maintain in this brave new world of theirs, or hasn’t that sort of practical reality crossed their tiny minds? I see the WHO, NHS and others currently recommend 18-21C, and building ‘sperts recommend above 16C to stop condensation and mould. Are those numbers likely to drop, I wonder? (My place regularly drops well below those already; wonder if that means I get extra brownie points?!)
Off topic, but who cares..
So.. 2.30 pm tomorrow Andrew Bridgen after 20 refusals and the pressure of constitutants harassing their MPs there will be a debate (1 hr slot) about excess deaths.
Its the first parliamentary debate in the world… You couldn’t make this up in your widest of dreams..
https://youtu.be/uWP6mGiDveI?si=sYVcJHZC-SLCDsYQ
More off topic…. Was all this about provoking Iran..
Brand talking sense… Yet again (don’t believe the narrative about him, it’s an attempted matrix takedown)
https://youtu.be/jWO-mtt4_lU?si=vUDuZ1TDB4O-iFMW
”Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you’re the one
That can do what’s never been done
That can win what’s never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you,”
This is a momentous nightmare social experiment, the current technology cannot deliver, the current resources are inadequate. As this nonsense progresses and it becomes increasingly obvious that our current population cannot go ‘net-zero’ and live at anything like present living standards, what is going to happen? Are people meekly going to accept immiseration and a degeneration of living standards back to medieval times? If we do go down this route the UK will become a weird basket case like the mad uncle you keep in the attic while the rest of the world gets on with life. This is a recipe for huge social upheaval and turmoil, the end result of which is hard to predict?
Something similar to North Korea, I expect. Only without the abundant luxuries…
‘Saving the planet’ is worth any cost in some eyes. Even if you can’t afford it, and it wouldn’t save the planet anyway, (primarily because it doesn’t need saving from CO2).
Useless people trying to give themselves a sense of destiny.
The NIC should be closed down and sent back to school while we find some adults to carry on the essential work.
The can will need to be continually kicked down the road because what the parasite political class are trying to do is not just impossible, it is unaffordable, but the pain and suffering inflicted will be a severe blow to hard pressed taxpayers suffering the fallout from the malady infecting all of parliament called PSPS (Pretend to Save the Planet Syndrome)