Slashdot Mirror


Studies Say Earth Won't Die As Soon As Thought

sciencehabit writes "Take a deep breath—Earth is not going to die as soon as scientists believed. Two new modeling studies find that the gradually brightening sun won't vaporize our planet's water for at least another 1 billion to 1.5 billion years—hundreds of millions of years later than a slightly older model had forecast. The findings won't change your retirement plans but could imply that habitable, Earth-like alien worlds are more common than scientists thought."

155 comments

  1. Damn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wish you'd told me this yesterday.

    1. Re:Damn. by Barsteward · · Score: 0

      you're probably too butt ugly to even leave your mom's basement so you'll have to stick to the 5 knuckle shuffle or shagging your mom

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  2. That's a relief! by narcc · · Score: 4, Funny

    The older prediction had me worried.

    1. Re:That's a relief! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Funny

      Scene: a lecture theatre.

      Lecturer: .... and in 1 billion to 1.5 billion years the sun will vaporise all the oceans...
      Student: What!
      Lecturer: I said that in around 1 billion to 1.5 billion years...
      Student: Oh! That's a relief, I thought you said Million!

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:That's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. that is so funny man you should be a comedian.

    3. Re:That's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that the same student who suggested it would be safe to land on the sun if they did it at night?

    4. Re:That's a relief! by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      They should have kept this secret and stuck with the earlier prediction as a deadline for getting off this planet. Then, when it turns out we're not actually ready yet by that time, you can give us the relieving "ok, you've got another few hundreds of millions of years but that's final". Our species is notoriously bad at making deadlines.

    5. Re:That's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's the Zimbabwean space program.

    6. Re:That's a relief! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Was that the same student who suggested it would be safe to land on the sun if they did it at night?

      Or that lunar landings had better wait for a full moon so that they would have a bigger target.

    7. Re:That's a relief! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And of course, they have much more experience with our sun in Zimbabwe, so you should take them seriously!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:That's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is wrong, since it does not include plate tectonics. In 500 million years or less the Earth will form a new Pangaea that will result in runaway climate warming. During the last Pangaea, during the Permian Era, 96% of all marine life and about 70% of all terrestrial vertebrate died off. Usually when Pangaea form, there is a dramatic rise in volocanism. During the Permian era there was the Russian Traps volcanism which was continuous volcanism that lasted for hundreds of thousand of years to perhaps millions of years that released poisions into the atmosphere and cause global pollution. Its very unlikely that life will survive another pangaea cycle. Perhaps very basic life (simple mult-cell organisms) will survive, but the probability of higher life forms is close to zero.

    9. Re:That's a relief! by henddr · · Score: 1

      Should I be glad hearing that?

    10. Re:That's a relief! by the_arrow · · Score: 1

      You mean like North Korea just did?

      --
      / The Arrow
      "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    11. Re:That's a relief! by gpronger · · Score: 1

      Yes. You would be able to walk to Europe - no damn ocean in the way!

  3. harrumph by andyh · · Score: 2

    Pretty sure I'll still be working at the point of vapourisation given the never ending increases in retirement age and lifespan.

  4. Challenge accepted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Challenge accepted, bitches!

  5. In the words of Robin Williams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Well thanks for the f**king heads up!"

  6. terrible news by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is going to wreak havok with the GNU/Hurd development schedule.

    1. Re:terrible news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a good Duke Nukem Forever joke hiding somewhere in there, but it would now be as obsolete as the big drums of extra powerful sun tan lotion I left in my testament for my descendants. I might as well crack a "Does it run Crysis?" joke for all the good it would do.

      It's funny! Laugh!

    2. Re:terrible news by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      At least maybe we'll get to play Half Life 3.

    3. Re:terrible news by ccanucs · · Score: 3, Funny

      And the Perl 6 final release schedule :-)

    4. Re:terrible news by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      HL3 is a bit different thing as it has never even been announced by Valve. You cannot blame them for overhyping or missing deadlines as they never promised anything.

    5. Re:terrible news by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, the end of the last episode did seem to suggest a next episode was coming.

    6. Re:terrible news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need those boiling oceans to power the compilers.

  7. The pressure's off by govett · · Score: 1

    Whew! I was worried.

  8. Where is everybody? by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's an input to the Drake equation. That's worth looking at again. When Drake wrote it, most of the numbers were guesses, but we now know that exoplanets are not rare.

    I suspect the reason we haven't heard from anybody is that the lifetime of high-power technological civilizations is only a few hundred to a thousand years. We're only about 200 years into industrial society, and we've already burned through most of the easy to get natural resources.

    1. Re:Where is everybody? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Assuming you are looking for RF, rather than UFOs, even short lived civilizations should show up, just as some of the stars that are presently visible to us are in fact long dead; but very far away.

      This would be immensely frustrating, of course, since virtually any signal you receive would be from a civilization that is either already dead or will already be dead by the time your reply, if you wish to attempt one, reaches them; but it would still be distinguishable from silence.

    2. Re:Where is everybody? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, "easy" is relative. Replace "easy" with "cheaply" and you're closer to reality.

      Take oil for example. 50 years ago the prediction was that 20 years later (i.e. 30 years ago), crude oil is a thing of the past. Well, there still is some. There's oil sands for example, something nobody would have even considered interesting 50 years ago due to far cheaper deposits being available. Well, now that the barrel broke through the 100 bucks barrier, other sources, more expensive sources, become viable.

      It's the same with every other kind of resource. Resources rarely "vanish". They're just very hard and hence expensive to recycle sometimes. Just wait for the price to rise and you will find that someone will come up with a way to extract resources from other sources. More expensively, most likely, but if the cheap deposit is gone and we need that resource, we will have to pay the price.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Where is everybody? by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect the reason we haven't heard from anybody is that the lifetime of high-power technological civilizations is only a few hundred to a thousand years. We're only about 200 years into industrial society, and we've already burned through most of the easy to get natural resources.

      Not really. We're just too stupid to reprocess nuclear waste, or build breeder reactors, in the U.S.. France isn't that stupid.

    4. Re:Where is everybody? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Well, "easy" is relative. Replace "easy" with "cheaply" and you're closer to reality.

      Why replace? They mean the same thing.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:Where is everybody? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      but think of it as a circular wave that emanates from a planet, like a circular expanding donut [the inside=death of the planet or they've moved on]. what are the odds that that wave just happens to be passing by us now that we have the capability of possibly noticing it?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, "easy" is relative. Replace "easy" with "cheaply" and you're closer to reality.

      Take oil for example. 50 years ago the prediction was that 20 years later (i.e. 30 years ago), crude oil is a thing of the past. Well, there still is some. There's oil sands for example, something nobody would have even considered interesting 50 years ago due to far cheaper deposits being available. Well, now that the barrel broke through the 100 bucks barrier, other sources, more expensive sources, become viable.

      It's the same with every other kind of resource. Resources rarely "vanish". They're just very hard and hence expensive to recycle sometimes. Just wait for the price to rise and you will find that someone will come up with a way to extract resources from other sources. More expensively, most likely, but if the cheap deposit is gone and we need that resource, we will have to pay the price.

      Fantastic. So, when will society collapse to the point of using humans as fuel? Wonder what the price point is for that.

      I guess at that point we'll have no choice but to eat the rich. They'll be the only ones driving.

    7. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We haven't heard from anybody because everybody is fucking hiding. And if we're smart we'll hide too for as long as we can.

    8. Re:Where is everybody? by aslashdotaccount · · Score: 1

      And out people are so obsessed with making money just to spend it on personal pleasure that we're not preparing for a future of mining for resources on distant planets and moons. How many big business people at Davos will be discussing this?

    9. Re:Where is everybody? by Njovich · · Score: 1

      A factor of 1.5 won't matter for the drake equation, hell, a factor of 1000 is inconsequential. The only relevant parts are fl and fi (chance of life, and chance of life evolving into intelligent life), and we will never find them out even in approximation.

    10. Re:Where is everybody? by rioki · · Score: 1

      It actually get's worse. The "why haven't we heard from them" paradox was based on the fact that in the 60s scientists could not imagine an advanced civilization without strong RF emissions. But we are already strongly dialing back the RF emissions by putting more onto wires, using more directed beams and lower power emissions. This overall means that in a couple of decades the earth will not emit any decipherable RF transition, either since most RF has died out or because you can not make out a signal from the noise. I dough that a satellite in LEO can pickup and decipher WiFi or mobile transmissions, so why should aliens be able to do so. All we will be is an anomaly strong RF source, but probably not of intelligent origin.

    11. Re:Where is everybody? by rioki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For example, I have seen a documentary where scientists are starting to consider digging up metals, such as copper from old garbage dumps. It the price for these resources makes this viable, it will be done. Same goes with all things "green", if the cost/benefit ratio makes it viable, it will be widely adapted.

    12. Re:Where is everybody? by TubeSteak · · Score: 0

      I suspect the reason we haven't heard from anybody is that the lifetime of high-power technological civilizations is only a few hundred to a thousand years.

      Alternatively, after multiple millennia of exo-christians predicting the end of the world, space Jesus raptured everyone just to get them to STFU and that's why we haven't heard from any alien civilizations yet.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    13. Re:Where is everybody? by sandertje · · Score: 2

      The chance of life parameter is very measurable. We can now find the spectrum of exoplanet atmospheres. A dead giveaway of life is free oyxgen; ever find free oxygen in the atmosphere of an exoplanet and it's sure to have a biosphere. Free oxygen reacts too quickly with just about everything to be caused by geologic processes. Sure, this approach won't find those planets with life that does not run on oxygen, but it will find those with a biochemistry somewhat similar to our own.

    14. Re:Where is everybody? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Isn't France dropping its nuclear power commitment by half?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    15. Re:Where is everybody? by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the brightest man-made electromagnetic sources are over-the-horizon radars. I think the use of them will drop off much slower than the use of RF for information. The signal will show a 24 hour cycle due to the rotation of the earth. That means that the detecting intelligent life on Earth will be possible for a longer time, though deciphering messages will not be possible.

    16. Re:Where is everybody? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      And give it another 100 years before anyone can 3D-print a nuclear bomb. We may not even get to exhaust our resources.

      Then again, some other species will probably rise from our ashes. Plenty of bacteria will be left over to evolve into something similar to us.

    17. Re:Where is everybody? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The drake equation does not take into consideration that most civilizations destroy themselves when they achieve the point of being able to communicate. We are at that point right now, we may simply wink out in a large war in the next 50 years. but if we make it past that 50 year point we will have the technology to much more, unless we create a new super weapon, then the cycle starts all over.

      Because as a species we are not very evolved. We gladly kill each other over really stupid shit.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:Where is everybody? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you think the uplinks to the Geostationary satellites are low power and dont spread out, you really dont understand RF or satellite comms. Some of the older TV birds up there are almost deaf, so we are BLASTING 100,000 watts of energy into a 25 to 30 db gain antenna to hit them. when the signal hits it, it is not 3 inches around and fits nicely in the receiving antenna, it's about 5 miles across, and will continue to spread.

      Here is the problem. Radio waves drop in strength Logarithmically. Which means even a 100,000 watt tightly beamed RF signal will be barely above the noise floor before it even get's 4X the diameter of our solar system away. When they talk to Voyager 1 or 2 they are using the largest dish antenna on the planet, and then they are blasting an ungodly amount of power to barely reach it. They also are using the 8GHZ band that has a very low noise floor and almost no interference within a lightyear.

      Voyager has a 23 watt transmitter, but a large gain antenna focusing it at earth, but it requires the massive 1000 foot dish or a huge array of smaller dishes to barely receive it. and not much longer, we will not have an antenna with enough gain on this planet to receive it's signal any longer. within the next 4-5 years we are expected to lose all contact with Voyager 1. And this thing is just in out back yard a few feet from the house.

      Even if an alien race knew where earth was exactly, and had a 1000 foot dish antenna with a 10Terawatt transmitter pointed right at us. If they were not within a 20 lightyear radius of the earth, their signal would not reach us at a strength that we could detect today.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Where is everybody? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Birds"? I know it's satellite parlance, but really? Most birds fly, and satellites are constantly falling. Why not just call them satellites?

    20. Re:Where is everybody? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Or place solar collectors/converters in space. Once you do that (and can manage scaling issues) no more concerns about energy for quite some time.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    21. Re:Where is everybody? by devent · · Score: 1

      That is assuming that intelligent life did evolve. We as human species were extremely lucky. There were at least 5 mass extinction in the pass, killing about 98% of all species every time. About 99% of all species existed went extinct on earth. Who knows how life would have evolve if the dinosaurs did not went extinct, giving way for small rodent-like mammals that evolved in primates and ultimately in us. Also if the land mass would be slightly different we couldn't have emigrated out of Africa, probably would went extinct in Africa. Even if we successful emigrate out of Africa the first time, maybe we wouldn't have the second time, thus the Neanderthals would probably still dominate Europe and Asia.

      Evolution does not have a goal. Homo sapien is on the same evolutionary level then every other living species. We just took a different path on adapting for survival then the other species. Also this universe is not fine tuned for life, it is extremely hostile to life. I mean, alone the slim band of temperature from -20 to +40 degrees Celsius for life shows that.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    22. Re:Where is everybody? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      "Birds"? I know it's satellite parlance, but really? Most birds fly, and satellites are constantly falling. Why not just call them satellites?

      You can't ask someone to change their "training" each technology has it's nomenclature, To me that was written by someone from Air Force,
      or not but an expected terminology.

    23. Re:Where is everybody? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      They keep calling F-35 "a fighter", but haven't seen it fight anything recently but problems.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    24. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guy's watched too many movies; thinks it makes him sound cool and in-the-know,.

    25. Re:Where is everybody? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The situation that just infuriates me is the disposal of so-called 'nuclear waste' - if the government and greenies didn't have their collective heads up their butts we'd be burning that 'waste' in reactors that can extract the remaining 99% of the energy that was present in the original fuel. Instead we're going to vitrify it and bury it away.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    26. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) A printer doesn't magically create Uranium
      2) If you are counting on bacteria evolving into intelligent life, you'll find that it took 3 Billion years last time and the Sun doesn't have that kind of productive lifetime left.

    27. Re:Where is everybody? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      Actually it does... it is the last variable "L", the length of time that civilizations release detectible signals into space. By your theory, this L is very low.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    28. Re:Where is everybody? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      The drake equation does not take into consideration that most civilizations destroy themselves when they achieve the point of being able to communicate

      One other point... we have a data set of less than one to work with, ourselves. I do not think that we can extrapolate based on our experience. Can we say with any kind of certainty that other species would follow a similar evolutionary path as ours? Would a smaller planet result in a slower evolutionary process and less global conflict once intelligence does arise? I don't know the answer to that or the thousands of other questions about how intelligent life arises. Regardless, one data point is worthless in trying to extrapolate to a whole universe.

      And the reason why I say we have LESS than one example... our data point is still in progress. Perhaps the last few centuries were growing pains and we will finally mature... perhaps you are right and we destroy ourselves.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    29. Re:Where is everybody? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      1) A printer doesn't magically create Uranium

      Not yet. What technology did we have a hundred years ago? Who knows what's possible a hundred years further ahead.

      2) If you are counting on bacteria evolving into intelligent life, you'll find that it took 3 Billion years last time and the Sun doesn't have that kind of productive lifetime left.

      OK, I stand corrected. How about some insects or small mammals surviving? That should cut down the required amount of evolution a fair bit.

    30. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We haven't heard from anybody because everybody is fucking hiding. And if we're smart we'll hide too for as long as we can.

      Why? If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, right? :-)

      Thinking again, that of course means we do have reason to hide ... very, very well!

    31. Re:Where is everybody? by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      They keep calling F-35 "a fighter", but haven't seen it fight anything recently but problems.

      I see people fight over it all the time.

    32. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse? As in someone who writes get's? Get is? Get was? Something belongs to a get?

    33. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like technical folk who can rattle off obscure trivia down to three digits of precision from memory, but can't tell its from it's? Like that?

    34. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Rare Earth hypothesis is much more scientific.

    35. Re:Where is everybody? by rve · · Score: 1

      Even if an alien race knew where earth was exactly, and had a 1000 foot dish antenna with a 10Terawatt transmitter pointed right at us. If they were not within a 20 lightyear radius of the earth, their signal would not reach us at a strength that we could detect today.

      Never mind just 'today'. I vaguely recall someone publishing a proof that beyond a certain disappointingly small radius, any RF signal originating from earth is mathematically impossible to distinguish from background noise.

    36. Re:Where is everybody? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Even if there weren't mass extinctions to worry about, the odds are still stacked against intelligent life. Out of all the species on Earth there are only a handful with opposable thumbs and the intelligence to use tools alive today. There were even less than that at any time that were intelligent enough for language and to make tools from more than one material, much less any kind of advanced technology. Only one remains. So out of all the millions of species on the planet we have a few dozen that aren't "dumb as rocks" in the grander scheme of things and 1 that is "intelligent."

      I think the chance of life is very high - I'd be really surprised if there isn't alien life in our solar system right now. But it seems that the chance of intelligent life is quite low.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    37. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh! Micro meteors and Solar Storms. Plus the cost of at least $1000 per pound to reach LEO. Currently the cost is $10K per pound. Orbital Solar plants were determined has pure unobtainium in the 1980s

    38. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Except that it doesn't work, but that's just a trivial little detail for sci-fi armchair engineers.

      http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...

      But by all means, tell me about how we should spend more time and energy building a boondoggle than the energy we'll get out of it. Space-based solar power is one of those hard-to-kill ideas that are part of the category : "if we had the energy and resources to do it, we wouldn't need to."

      Hey, remember Solaren? Weren't they supposed to have something by now? Hmm? Where is it?

      Space-based wealth redistribution from taxpayers to scam artists, more like.

    39. Re: Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ok.

      A century ago people like you were talking about steam engine driven rockets to the moon.

    40. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe they are military trained. We still call them birds when we are attempting to get a lock.

    41. Re:Where is everybody? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The documentary was old that is already being done. There is also a recycler here that advertises they will come out and pick up refrigerators and other items for free that the city charges extra to dispose of.

    42. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows what's possible a hundred years further ahead.

      If you had the technology to create uranium, building an atomic bomb would be a waste of resources. You'd be able to create much more destruction by applying that technology directly to your target.

    43. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you do that (and can manage scaling issues) no more concerns about energy for quite some time.

      I remember when they said that about nuclear reactors... And now fusion... And solar... We are always "just one step away" from "no more concerns about energy". Problem is 2 fold
          (1) scientists ALMOST ALWAYS overstate what a future technology can do, and understate the caveats (this is a sales pitch so they can keep getting funding by starry eyed rich folks)
          (2) we scale up our energy usage based on whats available. Kind of like how faster CPU's make developers put more code in their program ( MS Word on my quad core, uber-speed, sata-3 drive, gobs of memory computer takes just as long to start as MS Word on Win95 took ).

    44. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry that you are uneducated and do not understand him. Most anyone that has any education at all in telecommunications calls them birds.
      Let me guess you bitch when your puter guy talks all techy at you?

    45. Re:Where is everybody? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Unless we invent some serious technology to dig that signal out of the noise, you are 100% correct. Even insane gain levels on the antennas have a diminishing return. At a certain point, you end up amplifying the noise and making it all worse.

      This is the scientific reason why SETI is a waste of time, Only someone cruising by below the speed of light within that very small radius even have a chance at hearing us.

      If anything deliberate broadcasts from EARTH are simply "come eat us" beacons.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    46. Re:Where is everybody? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      All the species on this planet are hell bent on destruction and killing. Trees choke out competing trees, animals eat each other, Humans are evil horrible creatures that care only about themselves and their own goals....

      In fact we have no species at all on this planet that is 100% benevolent. All of them are violent and destructive in their own way.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    47. Re: Where is everybody? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, a hydrogen rocket produces steam, doesn't it?

    48. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are they not... up in the air?

    49. Re:Where is everybody? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, if we want to get noticed, we have to start blowing up stars. in a large arrow shape, with Sol as the tip. I suggest blowing up Sol last.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    50. Re:Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lifetime of all civilizations ("technological" or not) is roughly a thousand years give or take about 25% (W.M. Flinders Petrie, 1911, Revolutions of Civilisation). "We" (i.e. Europeans, and, by cultural transfer, Americans) are in reality near the end of our civilisation - it has maybe a couple of hundred years left if one uses Petrie's frame of reference. "Industrial society" is merely a phase of it, not the totality. The only critical question is what will replace this civilisation. In the past, armed conquest by a more vigorous (and, incidentally, culturally more primitive) invader has been the vehicle of renewal, but that has changed (hence the famous poem by Cavafy Waiting for the Barbarians), primarily as a result of globalisation. The vehicle of renewal is now much more likely to be economic than military, but due to the spread of the attitudes and mores of the decaying civilisation by its mass media swamping erstwhile cultural variation, the successor is not easy to predict.

    51. Re:Where is everybody? by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      ...

      I suspect the reason we haven't heard from anybody is that the lifetime of high-power technological civilizations is only a few hundred to a thousand years. We're only about 200 years into industrial society, and we've already burned through most of the easy to get natural resources.

      And when we manage to blow ourselves back to the stone age, we'll never be able to leave it without 'external' help - for the same basic reason, all the easy to access resources that made advances possible are gone.

      Wood and fire is about all that will be left.

      We've destroyed the natural water sources, removed biodiversity from plants. Are there any naturally occurring grains anymore?

    52. Re: Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmm....bacon

    53. Re: Where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On all my boxes, vi starts instantly.

    54. Re:Where is everybody? by devent · · Score: 1

      That is true. For example Dolphins are quite intelligent and have a complicated language. But the simple fact that they life under water already limit their ability to become truly intelligent. For starters, like you said, they have fins and no fingers. To evolve fingers requite them to be put at a severe disadvantage for swimming and hunting fish. Also under water there is no chance ever to invent fire. So although dolphins maybe have the brains to be intelligent, they will probable never have an advance civilization.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    55. Re:Where is everybody? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The only relevant parts are fl and fi (chance of life, and chance of life evolving into intelligent life), and we will never find them out even in approximation.

      You use the word "never" in a thread about events on a geological and/ or astronomical timescale? The only way you could be serious about using that word could be if you expect our species to become extinct before we get an answer to the question "is there other intelligent life in this galaxy". Which I guess is possible, but pretty pessimistic.

      As "sandertje" says, we're already capable of measuring the composition of (some) exoplanet atmospheres. When we find one that is significantly out of equilibrium (suggesting the presence of life, and possibly indicating it's chemistry), we'll have our first estimate for fl. And I'm pretty sure that eventually we'll find an indicator for fi too, whether by radio, laser, maser, or anal probe.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    56. Re:Where is everybody? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      And when we manage to blow ourselves back to the stone age, we'll never be able to leave it without 'external' help - for the same basic reason, all the easy to access resources that made advances possible are gone.

      I agree that the using up of resources would be a problem for a re-emerging civilisation, but I don't think that it's quite as bad as you make out. what tends to happen is that early-established mines (oilfields, etc) tend to be exploited as technology has been expanding, but then are abandoned as newer, more easily exploited or larger resources are found. Specific examples : the Romans started mining lead in the Peak District of England in about 60AD (in the process leaving lead pollution traces detectable in the Greenland ice sheet) and it continued until the early years of last century before being rendered uneconomic by discoveries in the New World. But the mines are still there, and still have ore in them. Not a lot, but it is still there. Example #2 : I was just researching the natural nuclear reactors at the Oklo mine in Gabon (equatorial Africa) and discovered that the mine was actually being shut down because it's unable to compete with other larger mines. But it's still got ore in and is workable.

      Civilisation collapse isn't a nice prospect, but it's not a total dead end.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    57. Re:Where is everybody? by rve · · Score: 1

      What alien race wouldn't want to get in touch with a species that likes to blow up stars?

  9. Climate change by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is the sort of thing that gives ammunition to climate change deniers.

    How can congress formulate national policies to deal with impending issues like this when the timeframes keep changing?

    At least now they won't have to rush things. Another 100 million years or so of inaction shouldn't make much difference.

    1. Re:Climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever. Jesus is about to come on u—come get us and take us to heaven for 1,000 years, after which he'll destroy and recreate the earth and we'll all eat plants and not animals and nobody will poop or die (ignore the plants). It says so right here in my interpretation of this one edition of my group's preferred translation of the bible.

      See?
      4000 bc: Creation
      2000 bc: Teh Floood
      0: Gezus frees us
      ad 2000: Return of the Jesi
      ad 3000: A New Earth

  10. Only the foolish take these megapredictions srsly by rolfwind · · Score: 0

    We can't even replace someone's arm or liver (yet), or predict weather out farther than a week or two (and not even that super reliably), and have a probe barely out of our single solar system and yet people take these megapredictions so srsly.

    I find the work on how the universe was in the past or will be in the future fascinating, but would laugh at anybody trying to stake a serious claim on it being ultimately true. Sure, it may be possibly true, as well as all the predictions predicated on the big bang or explaining what went on the first thousands of years on it, but the grain of salt I'm taking it with ought to be the size of the moon.

    Whatever happens, let's hope the species evolved into some higher form (regression is possible) and some get off this rock before bad shit happens. I'm far more worried about a huge asteroid hit or a mega volcano under yellow stone ushering a global iceage than the eventual death of the planet by being boiled by an expanding sun.

  11. Woah... dude. Thought's gonna die? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Studies say Earth won't die as soon as Thought

    Judging from the way some people act on this planet, Thought died a long time ago. That's right, I said it!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Woah... dude. Thought's gonna die? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Studies say Earth won't die as soon as Thought

      Judging from the way some people act on this planet, Thought died a long time ago. That's right, I said it!

      Yup, you said it. But you misspelled most.

    2. Re:Woah... dude. Thought's gonna die? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Man, it's easy to get modded Insightful round here.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Woah... dude. Thought's gonna die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me pay homage to Thought with a few thoughts of my own:

      1. Thought was a great thought. Although I didnt think about Thought (or even think about having a thought) often enough,the times that I did think about Thought I realized that I was already having a Thought so there really wasnt much to think about.

      2. The Thought process greatly revolutionized the way we think about thinking thoughts.If I didnt have a thought process to think about thoughts, well, it would be much harder to think about the thoughts i was already thinking about.

      Thanks Thought!

    4. Re:Woah... dude. Thought's gonna die? by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even this meta-comment of mine, which is not even related to the discussion and does not say anything, is modded Insightful. Geeze!

    5. Re:Woah... dude. Thought's gonna die? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Beautiful. Have an internets!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  12. Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First the Mayans were wrong and now this? How hard can it be to predict the end of the world??? Geez...

    1. Re:Damn... by Sique · · Score: 3, Funny

      We don't have many successful end-of-world-predictions to draw conclusions from.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      predicting the end of the world is like talking about suicide. If they were really serious about it they'd just make it happen, all the drama is just pleading for attention.

  13. Re:Only the foolish take these megapredictions srs by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    Doesn't take large-scale long-term forecasts seriously. Is worried about Yellowstone caldera and global ice age, hopes we evolve into superbeings.

    In all seriousness the physics involved in the forecast in the article are probably simpler than the physics involved in predicting Yellowstone's changes of eruption.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  14. Re:Only the foolish take these megapredictions srs by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    I find the work on how the universe was in the past or will be in the future fascinating, but would laugh at anybody trying to stake a serious claim on it being ultimately true.

    Well, it's a good thing that no scientists resemble your straw man. The scientists come up with an educated guess and test it, refining it as they go. Newton's laws still work great for lots of things, despite Einsteins curved space-time being a more accurate (but still wrong) formulation of reality. The very foundation of science itself is the notion that everything we know is not the ultimate truth.

  15. Human conditions by aslashdotaccount · · Score: 1

    The real question is how long conditions within human tolerance limits would last. The Mayans were wrong about 2012 (provided people who interpreted their writings weren't duped by a bunch of Mayan 'pot'-heads), but we can't deny the climate changes that have been unfolding the past few centuries, even if we factor in the effects of human industry. Has anyone done a study on just what period of Earth's existence sustained biological life? Is that important in understanding the possibilities of colonizing other worlds?

    1. Re:Human conditions by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "The Mayans were wrong about 2012"

      There's a surprise. Standard issue end-of-the-world religious prediction turns out to be incorrect. Who'd have thought eh?

      "Has anyone done a study on just what period of Earth's existence sustained biological life?"

      Yes, but the jury is still out on that one because most rock strata that were around billions of years ago have long since been subducted or eroded away taking any evidence of early life with them. Plus single cell organisms don't fossilize well.

    2. Re:Human conditions by aslashdotaccount · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't be impossible to graphically estimate the onset of life from its expansion from the earliest recorded fossils. Given that Earth's been around 4.5 billion years and now is projected to be around for another billion, an error of a million or so years wouldn't be an issue. BUT, the remainder of a billion years in it's existence, only a fourth of how long it has already been around, does beg the question as to what the life-sustaining window is.

    3. Re:Human conditions by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "The Mayans were wrong about 2012"

      There's a surprise. Standard issue end-of-the-world religious prediction turns out to be incorrect. Who'd have thought eh?

      Except that they weren't wrong.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re:Human conditions by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      Really? I don't remember anything particularly cataclysmic happening at the end of 2012. But perhaps the world did end and this is all a dream.

      Or perhaps you should leave off smoking weed for a few days.

    5. Re:Human conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should read the fucking link. The Mayans never predicted that it was the end.

  16. Did he account for continental drift? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    If his model is based on where continents and oceans are now it could well fail to predict what might happen in a billion years time. If there's more ocean around the equator in the future it could drastically increase how much heat earth absorbs, similarly if another giant continent such as Pangea forms there could be a huge desert in the centre reflecting back heat. Of course that also means less plant life so possibly less CO2 being absorbed etc.

    Its an interesting intellectual exercise but I think at best any of these models should be taken with a whole cellar of salt when predicting that far into the future.

  17. Subject to change by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

    In the next computer run with different variables.

    1. Re:Subject to change by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Yes, I'm sure that the computational physics that performed the research must have overlooked one of the simplest principles of numerical modelling in performing the research. I'd love to hear your insights into the Rosetta mission. "That's not a comet, that's clearly just a smudge on the lens. They obviously forgot to clean the probe after they made it."

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Subject to change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the data supporting the report? Or for the simulation we live in?

    3. Re:Subject to change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the good old FDIV bug strikes again!

    4. Re:Subject to change by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure that the computational physics that performed the research must have overlooked one of the simplest principles of numerical modelling in performing the research. I'd love to hear your insights into the Rosetta mission. "That's not a comet, that's clearly just a smudge on the lens. They obviously forgot to clean the probe after they made it."

      I LOL, there's a difference between adjusting for the present than predicting something millions of years from now when solar dynamics are being updated regularly.

    5. Re:Subject to change by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and out of all the things that could possibly go wrong, you decided to suggest the most blindingly obvious thing that anyone involved in their kind of work would have been testing for since day one.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:Subject to change by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and out of all the things that could possibly go wrong, you decided to suggest the most blindingly obvious thing that anyone involved in their kind of work would have been testing for since day one.

      Your not making sense, this is an article about the Sun and your talking space craft.

  18. Other limiting factors by shrewdsheep · · Score: 1

    There are other limiting factors eventually causing life to go extinct. One important is CO2 which is absorbed into the oceans and recirculated by volcanic activity driven by radioactivity. Radioactivity will cease in about 500 mio yrs, IIRC, which is when life will end due to scarcity of CO2.

    1. Re:Other limiting factors by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Life will find a way!

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:Other limiting factors by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      We should produce more CO2 while we still can, then!

  19. Re:Only the foolish take these megapredictions srs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually no they aren't. They are missing vast swags of data to call these anything but wild guesses based on extremely incomplete (and likely inaccurate) data, external influences that will affect the earth such as asteroids and distant stars are unkowne, not to mention they still are struggling to understand the sun, hell the last 12 months of low solar activity still has them stumped and yet you think they have enough of an understanding to work out a good model for what will happen in a billions years time?

  20. Re:Only the foolish take these megapredictions srs by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    Is worried about...

    No, read what I wrote again. More worried != worried, in the same way a isdn is faster than dialup, but neither are fast.

    Just a few short decades ago, black holes weren't thought to exist and if they did, be rare things, now they are at the center of every galaxy playing a huge part in galactic formation. There is a lot of hand waving going on with dark matter and dark energy, which is code for "we don't know wtf is going on", so excuse my skepticism on the "simple physics" of it all.

  21. Even in the old timeframe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming we don't kill ourselves, in hundreds of millions of years space engineering would be so advanced that a partial shield against a warming Sun would be a likely defense. Our problems seem to be on dealing with somewhat shorter range threats, like centuries or millenia (i.e., dealing with global warming, an eventual comet or big asteroid hit, a supervulcano going havoc, a third world war) than on millions years range, when technology would probably be mature enough to enable us to survive.

    Heck, in a 5 billions years range, if a species descendent from us still populates the Earth, saving the Sun from becoming a red giant someway or fleeing the planet might be just a matter of economic, and not scientific, debate.

  22. Re:Fuck your 10 post limit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meet random free proxy.
    I had something to say, but forgot it due to being blocked.
    No wonder people write bots to spam this shit with goatse links and misheard lyrics.

    Never hit that limit, and I don't think there's a person on /. that isn't aware or have a free proxy at their disposal.
    10 message limit... think of the spam you could launch if not for the limit.

    So concerned about finding away to access /. you forgot what you wanted to say.

  23. Re:Only the foolish take these megapredictions srs by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    No offense intended, my bad.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  24. Thought will die soon by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    Thought will die in the next twenty years or so.
    Earth will die in a billion years or so.
    Earth won't die as soon as thought.

    That's not news.

  25. Thank God by zakeria · · Score: 0

    Now I can sleep better tonight!

  26. thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thanks for sharing game friv

  27. Re:Fuck your 10 post limit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A proxy, what type of Coward, eh, I mean anonymity connoisseur, doesn't post through the TOR network using a Yagi aimed at the free wifi down the str... Um, never mind.

    Also it's hard to aim a Yagi through the basement window. Especially, when mom says that HOA won't allow the antenna to stick outside.

  28. here for a good long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we should make better use of our resources? http://news.yahoo.com/company-west-virginia-spill-failed-disclose-second-chemical-013146604--sector.html

    & our heros// world's local hero http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=scott%20olsen&sm=3

    lmprove our 'accounting' pf ourselves http://rt.com/business/us-unemployment-economy-crisis-assistance-006/ as crooked little finger pointing is obsolete

    never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to each other, & our centerpeace momkind's new clear options.. see you there

    'weather' permitting http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

  29. Re:Fuck your 10 post limit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10 post limit is for people that are turds, Wastes of human feces that float in the water....

    Us normals never have the problem.

  30. if we stop spewing carbon combustibles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the real weather will return in about 3 years guaranteed

    meanwhile!@#$ http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561 most of us won't be here?

  31. pssshhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humanity will either self-destruct, or destroy the Earth long before 1 billion years.

    I give humanity less than 10,000 years. Then it's back to singled celled organisms.

    1. Re:pssshhhhh by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      We'd have a hard time destroying the earth past the point of all habitability. About the worst we could do is cause a nasty mass extinction and knock ourselves back to the stone age.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  32. Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better repent before it's too late.

  33. Were meteors added into the simulations ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were meteors added into the simulations ?

    What are the chances of a wipe out if they include meteor impacts ?

  34. Remember Anthropogenic Climate Change? by E++99 · · Score: 1

    All this assumes that humans with hundreds of millions of years worth of technological development will not be able to figure out a way to reflect away excess sunlight.

    1. Re:Remember Anthropogenic Climate Change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this assumes that humans with hundreds of millions of years worth of technological development will not be able to figure out a way to reflect away excess sunlight.

      If the muzzies get their way we will be back living in the dark ages

    2. Re:Remember Anthropogenic Climate Change? by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Even the most dire predictions don't forecast climate change ending all life on Earth. Here's a sample worst-case scenario. It's bad, not as bad as the effects of a widespread nuclear war or an impact from a moderately sized asteroid, but bad enough to warrant spending a few percent of our GDP to avoid the worst scenarios of global warming.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  35. Life can still exist without the surface water by InterGuru · · Score: 1

    A Princeton-led research group has discovered an isolated community of bacteria nearly two miles underground that derives all of its energy from the decay of radioactive rocks rather than from sunlight. According to members of the team, the finding suggests life might exist in similarly extreme conditions even on other worlds.

  36. vapourising all the planet's water by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    vapourising all the planet's water ... that's just taking the piss!

  37. mixed martial arts Brooklyn by Renzogracieacademy · · Score: 0

    Mixed Martial Arts Brooklyn is a MMA academy which provides the skills of kickboxing, wrestling, and fighting to the people of every age with their own experience and help to improve their physical fitness and health standards up to larger extent.

  38. great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...still plenty of time to try to get laid

  39. Not the only thing to worry about by Alien54 · · Score: 1

    from wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    In 600 million years

    The Sun's increasing luminosity begins to disrupt the carbonate–silicate cycle; higher luminosity increases weathering of surface rocks, which traps carbon dioxide in the ground as carbonate. As water evaporates from the Earth's surface, rocks harden, causing plate tectonics to slow and eventually stop. Without volcanoes to recycle carbon into the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels begin to fall.[30] By this time, they will fall to the point at which C3 photosynthesis is no longer possible. All plants that utilize C3 photosynthesis (~99 percent of present-day species) will die.[31]

    in 800 Million years

    Carbon dioxide levels fall to the point at which C4 photosynthesis is no longer possible.[31] Multicellular life dies out.[32]

    I not that this would be rather inconvenient

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Not the only thing to worry about by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that what they're talking about relates to this. A lot of estimates that have been made in the last few years said that our volatiles would burn off in 500 million years. This is just a new estimate.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Not the only thing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That of course assumes that life will not adapt to the new conditions.

      I expect that as carbon dioxide gets lower, plants will evolve new methods to get to the necessary carbon. Some probably will evolve the ability to extract carbon bound in rock. I can also imagine new symbioses where plants live directly on animals, extracting their CO2 directly from the lungs, so it doesn't enter the atmosphere where it could be captured by rock (of course the actual reason will be that CO2 concentration in the lungs is much higher than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and therefore in a CO2-starved world, it is a big evolutionary advantage for a plant if it can tap that resource), and in return give the produced O2 back to the animal.

      Yes, it will be a very different world than the one we know today. But I see absolutely no reason why life, including multi-celled life, should not cope with it. After all, 600 million years are already evolutionary time scales.

      As long as the temperature doesn't rise too high and the energy supply doesn't go away, I'm pretty sure life will go on. Including multi-celled life.

  40. Earth != Humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, just because Earth will have liquid water for another billion years won't put a damper on our ability to fuck up our climate and end civilization as we know it. We're still right on schedule.

  41. low CO2 crisis easiest to fix by intelligent life by peter303 · · Score: 1

    CO2 is gradually being absorbed into limestone by biological processes. It has fallen from 90% 4 GY ago to 1% 1/2 GY ago to .03% just before the industrial age. Photosynthesis and multicellar life terminates at .01%.

    Burning limestone, i.e. done in cement manufacture, would return ample CO2 to the atmosphere. Cement manufacture accounts for about 10% current CO production. I am asssuming that hydrocarbon energy combustion is a transient phenomena, unlikely to continue more than a few more centuries after most of the easiliy mined coal, petroleum and natural gas is exhausted. 99.9% of the Earths carbon is in limestone.

  42. Rats by TheCrig · · Score: 1

    I was hoping it would be before my mortgage is paid off.

    --
    -- Jim Crigler In 1937, I began, like Lazarus, the impossible return. -- Whittaker Chambers
  43. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose the gradually brightening sun won't cause a temperature increase either, because everyone knows that the sun does NOT heat the Earth at all... it's my inefficient lawn mower that I use once a week, during the summer.

  44. Boiling terrans evade doom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As planet scale geo-engineering problems go this one is relatively simple to solve. All it takes is perturbing the paths of a few asteroids every few hundred years such that in aggregate they push the earth out into higher orbits. Totally doable with todays technology.

    Other problems such as disappearance of planet magnetic field can be solved with a series of superconducting rings at various latitudes around the planet the power requirements for each ring is about the same as a large commercial nuclear reactor.

    1. Re:Boiling terrans evade doom by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Can we similarly tweak with Mars to make it more habitable, or will moving its orbit too close to Earth mess up Earth's orbit? What about a carefully-timed angled orbit such that it's never near Earth?

      Fix up Venus too!

  45. LHC will kill us all first!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, the "Death Star under Switzerland" will kill us first. Just you wait, it's going to happen..... And it will be too late for anyone to stop it when they realize what they have done.

    1. Re:LHC will kill us all first!! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      If I were you, I'd keep an eye on it.

  46. What's up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the past week, i seen the N-word used in comments on /. more i have the entire 7 years i've been coming here. what's up with that? seems fishy to me. /. runs a lot of anti-gov stuff. wonder if the NSA has found a new tactic...

    flood a site with racist comments so that public backlash forces the site to close...