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.
There is a strange increase in the reactions of people – the more their cherished beliefs or desires are shown to be at variance with facts – the more fanatical they become.
Applies to:
Trump
Brexit
Global Warming – or at least the idea that carbon dioxide is the sole driver of climate change despite ever more evidence that it has little, if any, effect on the planet’s climate.
–
The world is Topsy Turvy and I wish to be buried upside down, so that I will be the right way up when the world has sorted itself out.
Don’t forget Covid!
“People who make the rules made a rule which said nobody – not even they themselves – could break the rule so that means the rule was not broken because they said so, so there.”
If nothing makes sense, it’s usually money wot did it.
Eugyppius has some substantial reservations regarding Hersh’s article too.
Why is it so difficult to believe an underwater device could survive 3 months? Flight data recorders carry on transmiitting underwater for 90 days. An explosive device would need only enough power to pick up the detonation signal and to detonate the charge.
The legal argument is predicated on the assumption that those involved are honest and honourable, and as we know politicians and those in the security services are the epitomy of honour and honesty. It seems a bit like defending a criminal on the grounds that he knows crime is illegal so why would he commit one?
If the start assumption is that the people in power will violate the rules, anyway, the whole maneuvering to avoid doing so described in the Hersh-article could have been avoided by simply violating the rules.
Why did the US try to get a resolution passed in the UN to invade Iraq if they were going to do it anyway?
Why is it so difficult to believe an underwater device could survive 3 months?
Indeed. In fact such a device would be very simple to design and construct. There may even be off-the-shelf versions available.
“The legal argument is predicated on the assumption that those involved are honest and honourable”
The C1984 was authorised despite every law and rule in the damned world being broken.
“Rule of law?”
Give me a break – Jeez!
I seem to remember that the West has instituted a “rules based order” because the “international law based order” doesn’t get us what we want. But it’s still useful to wave the law flag bacause Joe Public has not been told about the new rules.
That sums it up.
Agreed. The Baltic at this site is not particularly cold or deep. 67m give or take a few metres. and bottom temperatures in June will be about +3degC. Thermoclines capable of accoustically masking a submarine are improbable in these shallow depths.
Presumably it would be a fairly straightforward technical matter, given US resources, to get an AUV (autonomous underwater vehicle) to do the job, which could be launched from many miles away.
I spoke to a merchant navy guy who does underwater engineering/maintenance stuff, and he said yes they’d use an ROV. But I’m not sure. For one thing, Russia has sonar sensors on those pipes (but I suppose there could be stealthy ROVs). Another thing is that Sweden has said these were larger, non-precision bombs that were placed near the pipes, not on them, so they could have been dropped from a ship (or perhaps a sub). In fact, the pipes are so vulnerable that anyone with some explosives and a small boat (no transponder) could have done it and probably got away with it. There’s an NYT article with a few more details. Maybe we’ll never know for sure who did it.
I think an AUV would be more likely than an ROV (which would be tethered to the mother vessel and have very limited range, thus necessitating the mother vessel to loiter over the site while the explosives were being laid. I agree with RichardTechnik that a submarine, at least a full-size submarine, would be an unlikely platform to use for this task.
If the explosives were indeed large, non-precision bombs then perhaps (as alluded to in the NYT article) the best way to lay them would be off the back of a motor vessel, tracking along the top of the pipelines (which could be visible on a multibeam sonar). On a second run over the target the multibeam could be used to check the explosives were sufficiently close to the pipelines to do the deed. No doubt such an exercise would have be practised to perfection in some secret location.
Detonate some time later, perhaps months later, at a moment of choice. The technology would be similar to that of an acoustic mine, adapted to fire in response to a given acoustic transmission rather than a ship passing overhead.
The technology isn’t difficult, but given the extent to which most Western navies have been run down, their independent technology bases hollowed out by spending cuts over decades now, my guess for the culprit would be the one nation that has more or less kept up to speed – the US.
I agree almost anyone could have done it, via a small boat and divers for example, but if the explosives were large this rules out divers. And getting away with it – absolutely vital in the circumstances – would be another matter.
I do wonder how effective the protective sonar sensors would be, in that whether there were enough of them to detect if something untoward was going on – simple dumping of explosive packages from above for example.
An oft-stated reason Putin did not go for the Donbas in 2014 was to keep the gas flowing through Ukrainian pipelines which Nordstream would eventually replace. Thus the Trump administration under legislation proposed by Senator Ted Cruz applied sanctions to Nordstream 2 which – the very next day – halted the construction process. In an act of almost childish stupidity, Biden lifted those sanctions – with 100pc Democrat backing – simply because they were a Trump policy, and despite warnings, and the pleading of Zelensky that such a move would be a green light to Putin to move on Donbas. And so it proved. No wonder Biden blurted out that Nordstream could be taken out…You look a fool to deny otherwise.
The Russians doing it doesn’t add up either. It would be quite easy to dismantle the case that the Russians did it.
So where does that leave us?
The fog of war, people believing what they want to believe, chaos..
Cui bono?
A bit like the origins of covid, it may remain a mystery for a long time/forever. Also a bit like the origins of covid, it seems important to know so you’d expect those that govern us to be pulling out all the stops to find out the truth. Funny that doesn’t seem to be happening in either case. I’m sure it’s just a cock-up though. They did manage to fully investigate the Salisbury poisonings and established beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Russia wot dun it, same with US election interference, Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory. All completely believable.
and the excess deaths – due to eating too many eggs.
Cui bono?
The Yanks.
Therefore they did it.
Exactly. No need to overthink this.
So in addition to being a military specialist, Rons is also an expert in the interpretation of US law. Very impressive.
Further to Ian Rons’ well-researched points about the Hersh article,
A) Basing an entire journalistic investigation and its conclusions on revelations from ‘an unnamed source’ has exactly the same credibility as ‘it all came to me in a dream’.
It is perfectly possible that an individual did approach Seymour Hersh and present him with all the ‘information’ contained within this piece.
But without verifiable bona fides and corroborative evidence – of the sort that Mr Hersh would presumably have presented if available – the likelihood is that he was having a chat with a member of the FSB masquerading under the cunning guise of ‘Senior Agent Matt ‘The Rock’ Reacher, Deputy Sub-Director CIA Clandestine Section 14XJ, Undermine the Russian Federation With Extreme and If Necessary Illegal Prejudice’.
B) Even if it does turn out to have been a conglomeration of Western liberal democratic countries which were responsible for the destruction of this pipeline as Mr Hersh alleges, the intention was clearly to hamper the totalitarian Russian Federation’s neo-fascist project of mass destruction, murder and annexation / conquest in an independent and democratic member of the United Nations.
To put this moral and practical point in another way, how many genuinely life-preserving gas pipelines (to individual properties for central heating, hot water, cooking etc) have Russian Federation ‘liberation’ forces destroyed in Ukraine since the completely unprovoked invasion of February 2022;
And as a corollary of all this pipeline destruction (via aerial and artillery bombardment etc) –
How many lives?
Yes, there’s no indication Hersh ever tried to verify this source’s status in any way. And he clearly hasn’t asked experts (legal, military, engineering, etc.) about the key claims. There’s a reason he doesn’t write for the New York Times or the New Yorker any more, and it doesn’t look as though the NYT has even mentioned his claims this time, despite the fact that he was an excellent investigative reporter.
As to whodunnit, I’m very uncertain about all that (there are several possible culprits), but if it was the U.S. then I’d applaud them for having the audacity, and two fingers to Putin.
The ‘as to whodunnit’ cop-out implies you simply can’t be bothered to put together an argument that Russia destroyed their own pipeline because that would be ridiculous. And yet you refuse to jeopardise your own stated narrative by admitting all the evidence points to the Biden White House, not least of all its track record in disaster.
https://youtu.be/IAiZvKouZRw
P J Watson’s view.
Four minutes.
I’ve been reading this week about the Mỹ Lai massacre because I’m visiting the area this weekend. Hersh played such an important role in shedding light on that atrocity and subsequent events that I find it hard, not insulting to dismiss him as ‘gullible’.
It’s not a secret that the US has worked hard to make LNG from Qatar the primary source of Europe’s gas. So we have motive, something we don’t have in the case of Russia. For balance, maybe Rons should scrutinise the claims that it was Russia. Except he won’t, because he’s partisan.
Compared to what US strategic air warfare, ie undirected bombing of everything which could seen from the air, culminating in just unspecifically bombing the countryside after all of that had been eradicated, did to the people in SE Asia, the so-called Mỹ Lai massacre is a historical footnote. It’s also not really more gruesome than what invading Russian soldiers did to villagers in Eastern Prussia 1945. That’s just a lot less popular because they targetted The Right Kind of Victims[tm], ie, Germans.
Similar scenes have always occurred (and will likely keep reoccuring) whenever regular forces have to handle guerilla warriors, ie, enemies who dress up as non-combatants and prefer ambushes. When every supposed civilian could suddenly pull out a gun and start shooting at you, at lot of probably innocent civilians will end up being killed, either because they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or in retaliatory actions.
Another outstanding article from Mr Rons.
There are, in fact, only two countries that stood to benefit from the Nordstream destruction:
Russia: a ‘false flag’ operation to sow discord within NATO.
Ukraine: to remove the leverage Nordstream afforded Putin.
These are also the only two ‘hot’ protagonists engaged in this European war.
Take your pick.
But in the event, only the US economy has benefited from increased sales as well as German de-industrialisation, NATO members have murmured about US involvement but daren’t say it out loud, Ukraine has been largely destroyed, and Russia’s massive investment in the pipeline is lost. Pretty duff planning on both fronts – US false flags never cost them that much.
Still, it’s a relief to know that there are no other participants in the war, and that the stated US intentions for regime change in Russia and the breakup of the federation are just whistling in the wind and trusting Zelensky to deliver. The weapons, advisers, trainers, technical input and intelligence, “deserters” serving on the front, visiting leaders etc, are just to keep us informed.
Did you see Zelensky entering Westminster Hall with pretty much all 650 of our sycophant pretend MP,s clapping cheering & whistling in support of the Hero in a green tracksuit . There’s nothing else to say , we are living in cartoon world !
Those barstewards in Westminster do NOT speak for me – Andrew Bridgen excepted. Bloody cowards.
one of the most shameful sights in the history of this nation.
Yes – the hero who is now conscripting 16 year olds for the meat grinder. When it happens in Uganda it’s a war-crime.
Yes, indeed. Startling prescience, strategic grasp and administrative grip from a President who can barely tie up his own shoelaces……
Controls are for those following the flowchart of decision making. Bearing in mind how the Biden administration has treated the US, I can see how they might bypass all the controls to make this happen. I can also see, on the technical issues of getting devices planted on the pipeline and detonated. The idea that they would need some super leading edge prototype device to achieve the detonations, and then discount that as a possibility because they didn’t have time to make them or to a quality that would permit them to work is absurd. I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if you couldn’t just go to a storage room somewhere in the US Military, pick two, and heve them FedEx’ed to your mini-sub the following day.
I remain sceptical of everyone, but there is a strong smell of USA around this whole incident. It is really surprising to me how little has been made of it politically, diplomatically, and of course in the obedient media. I would be fuming if it was my pipeline and I’d want answers.
How can anyone doubt that lying Biden sabotaged NordStream 2?
When he officially promised that he would do it!
That it was a criminal act of sabotage, eco-terrorism and war is indisputable.
Few nations have the ability to pull off a stunt like this – so which ones profited from it?
Certainly not Russia, Europe or China – but America did, both financially and politically.
Why on earth would Putin sabotage a recent multi-million dollar investment that gave him huge political and financial sway over Europe? His “special op” practically depended on just that.
Why does Putin do anything? Why did his army not wear uniform when taking over Crimea? Why did he invade a country when he already occupied (uncontested, internationally accepted) a significant part of it?
Why did Russia do any of these things:
1921-6 Operation Trust, creating the pseudo-“Monarchist Union of Central Russia” (MUCR) in order to help the OGPU identify real monarchists and anti-Bolsheviks.
1939 False flag shelling Mainila before invading Finland
1968 Operation Progress, deployment of 20 KGB illegals to Czeckoslovakia
1999 Apartment buildings in Moscow, Buinaksk, and Volgodonsk were bombed by FSB, killing hundreds of Russian civilians, blamed on Chechens.
2014 Little green men, in fact Russian soldiers pose as freedom fighters in Eastern Ukraine
2017, Russia used footage from video game as evidence of the United States colluding with the Islamic State.
2022 Two explosions destroyed two radio antennas in the disputed Moldovan region of Transnistria.
Sorry but you lost me at “The most glaring issue is a legal one.” The Biden administration (and others before him) don’t care about the rule of law and most of Congress doesn’t either. Even if they were caught breaking the law, there would be no consequences. It’s laughable to think that “breaking the law” would stop them from doing it. Also, enforcing the law in this case would mean proving that the US did it and Biden covered it up. No one responsible for enforcing the law is going to do that.
Like the other commentator who brought this up, you’re missing the point: The Hersh-article goes to great lengths handling this legal issue. Hence, pointing out that the text doesn’t really make sense is a valid criticism of the article. Whether or not US politicians break the laws supposed to regulate their actions is unrelated to that,.
As RW said, that’s not really the issue, Walrus. The issue is that Hersh’s source is lying (and obviously so), because there’s no such exception to the Covert Action Statute of the sort he claims, never mind whether Biden would be prepared to break that law or not — although Hersh’s source implies he wouldn’t have been prepared to break it, so perhaps he’s being naive?
Ian Rons the globalist apologist strikes again…..is this just to wind up the (awake) non woke on this site.
It’s odd that someone this naive works at the daily sceptic.