There seems to be a future out there

Can we bear the responsibility needed to reach it?

Apocalyptic assumptions on Paris
Apocalyptic assumptions on Paris
7 JUN 2016

A cacophony of early electronic music, an oratorio as a series of random, shocking noises and poem recitals, was probably more than adequately illustrating both the danger and the misery of Dante's Divine Comedy's Purgatory and Inferno. But, appropriately situated in a Paris church, it was also reminding a handful of its devotee listeners of the cacophony of the thundery storms bringing the misery of floods to Paris and its surroundings, and, inevitably, of our own vulnerability to extreme climate shocks.

A historic vulnerability to climatic change shocks and risks has already brought some empires and civilisations down, that including both Maya and the Old Egyptian Kingdoms. An Old Testament biblical story, that of Joseph interpreting the Pharaoh's dream of seven fat cows followed by seven thin ones as a forecast of seven years of good followed by seven years of thin harvest, and advising food collecting and storing in good to avoid starving during the bad years, was probably one of the first records of long-term, counter-cyclical, forecast based central government economic policy advices aimed to maintaining economic stability and sustainability, this, at the time of the then New Egyptian Kingdom's economy, itself facing prospects of natural, climatic cycles (and possibly also based on the experiences of the disaster of the Old Kingdom).

Whilst another Old Testament creationist legend of the world's creation in just 7 days got its, relatively new, scientific re-interpretation and rationalisation within the theory of Big-Bang and its “creation” of the entire universe from a single spot in a matter of less than 7 seconds, so has the New Testament Doomsday prediction found its scientific rationalisation in several predictions, one being that of the inevitable collapse of the entire universe back into its singularity spot in just a few billions of years, the other being its inevitable slow dispersion into the big chill (possibly itself then followed by the collapse too).

And also, in a more short term, seeing and in some cases even expecting, the climatic change disasters, still here on Earth, as a scientific confirmation and prediction of the New Testament Doomsday prophecies, however disputed, seems rather wide-spread too [1].

Whatever the view, the biblical or the main-stream scientific, we seem to be doomed in either short or long term and, seemingly, nothing should or can be done to prevent it. This kind of doomsday culture and vision may have two sided effect on our decision-making, making us both more passive in terms of future (e.g. climate) disaster avoidance and also making, at least some of us, then take the best we can out of life while it lasts, in the short term.

And, such short-termist, sometimes near-hedonist and nihilist drives, at least among many of those less inclined to save their souls, may have then been one of the contributing factors for short-termism in both, the business economic and the every-day, home-planning decision-making too. This short-termist approach may be then in turn, simultaneously, increasingly breaking down the forecasts of the classical macro-economic models based on the notion of infinite households because the real-life collective behaviour of the economic agents seems to be increasingly departing from such long-term vision models.

However, a recent and still under-reported scientific, an astrophysics discovery, or, possibly better to say, a correction of the now old, Big-Bang – Big-Chill and/or Big-Collapse theories, may be changing such double-doomsday vision, well, at least on the part of those inclined to accept a more scientific views of future.

According to and their academic papers, the two physicists, Ali and Das [2], revisited and corrected Einstein's quantum model of general theory of relativity. In their new theoretical model, cosmic geodesics do not meet to create singularity points and therefore there are neither starting nor ending singularities.

Their discovery is probably the most important one for the start of the 21st century. It thus deserves far more attention than what it received so far, if not even sharing a Nobel prize too.

Some very important implications of such correction is that there are, at least theoretically, both infinite past and infinite future for the universe, and it thus, can have future without a necessity for its further expansion into the Big-Chill or its collapse into another singularity point. What this means in simple terms, without getting into the depth of the mathematics in their paper, is that the universe has been existing forever, and is expected to exist also forever. In turn, it may also mean that humans and/or other forms of intelligence on Earth, can have an expectation of prolonging their existence infinitely, thus, possibly beyond the life of planet Earth or even the Solar system itself. These later, of course, may be achievable only if that may become also technically possible and in time, before planet Earth become uninhabitable too.

In terms of science and culture, at least for those able to transcend the current scientific paradigm and, if needed, overcome their irrational, cognitive-dissonance against the new theory and accept the new one, it may bring a new view of life around a reasonable hope for nearly unlimited future for the humans as species. This new view in turn may balance-off, if not counter-off, the current, almost nihilist, decadent and/or hedonist, “le fin de siecle” culture of short-termism inspired by the end of the last century singularity theory.

It may however bring a problem or two. The big opportunities bring also big problems, namely those of our own responsibility for both, preserving habitability of Earth at least sufficiently long enough, and helping the existence and abilities of future generations to develop technology needed to transcend the life of the planet Earth, and all in a timely fashion too.

Such big problem and effort, however, requires a lot of investment into economic optimisation, scientific research and technical development, mostly beyond short term goals and rewards, and thus, only large sovereign units, and/or cooperative unions of smaller ones, may possibly develop capability and afford the costs to facilitate such research.

The origin of modern sovereign states may have been predominantly in forced, Ancient and Medieval protection rackets imposed by the then feudal warlords and their syndicates, but the modern sovereign state taxes we now and then again pay, continue to function in their great part as a future contingencies and the insurance premiums for our more or less stable and a long future-proof civilised life for our off-springs too.

Therefore, if for not other uncertain economic reasons, it is for these that it seems likely to be better for EU and UK to try to stick together and work on common long-term counter-cyclical and more sustainable economic policies and scientific R&D rather than letting UK to be lead by, what seems to me to be (though I could be wrong) a mixture of small-tax, liberal-economic interests and the apparent hubris of Brexit leaders. It looks to me they could be trying to make us believe that they can steer UK alone, as a kind of Noah's ark, away, to save its national democracy from both, the alleged dragons of European bureaucracy and the future floods affecting Europe by both climate and Middle-East political changes. What however appears to me is as if they are instead steering this “boat” probably towards stormy waters susceptible to Trans-Atlantic trade agreements, the cacophony of short-termist liberal-economic risks and shocks and the climate change agnosticism to say the least.

[1] “Saving the planet is not within our power or responsibility. Climate change may or may not be real, and may or may not be human-caused. “, quoted from How should a Christian view climate change?

[2] Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das. "Cosmology from quantum potential." Physics Letters B. Volume 741, 4 February 2015, Pages 276–279.

Also read of the same author: Why Nations Fail