The future evolution of life in the universe

Via decrement of mass of planets, we can send the entire planets to far space orbital allocations. We can convert physical matter into energy, it can either get irradiated to outer space, get transmitted back to Earth's potential energy, get used as a self-propellant, or it can get used in a complex model of these systems; it decreases the mass of the planet. By conversion of the matter to energy, Earth will lose some mass that decreases the gravitational fields for Earth; the formulas of the current research are deduced to control the movements of the planets. Celestial bodies, like any other mechanical systems which follow, and are based on, the physical laws of mechanics and dynamical systems, follow these laws. So since the celestial object “A” exerts the “F” force on the celestial object “B”, the celestial object “B” exerts an interactive force “F” on the celestial object “A” also. All celestial objects exert gravitational influences on each other. Scientists believe, once upon a time, the Sun would be much hotter than what it is today. By that point, this high temperature leads to extinction of the entire existence of life on Earth. When the gravitational force changes, a space particle may either get departed from the other particle or come closer to the other particle.

For many astronomers, the progressive development of life has been seen as a natural occurrence given proper environmental conditions on a planet: even though such beings would not be identical to humans, there would be significant parallels. A striking contrast is seen in writings of nonphysical scientists, who have held more widely differing views. But within this diversity, reasons for differences become more apparent when we see how views about extraterrestrials can be related to the differential emphasis placed on modern evolutionary theory by scientists of various disciplines. One clue to understanding the differences between the biologists, paleontologists, and anthropologists who speculated on extraterrestrials is suggested by noting who wrote on the subject. Given the relatively small number of commentators on the topic, it seems more than coincidental that four of the major contributors to the evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s are among them. Upon closer examination it is evident that the exobiological arguments of Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Gaylord Simpson and, less directly, of H. J. Muller and Ernst Mayr are all related to their earlier work in formulating synthetic evolution. By examining the variety of views held by nonphysical scientists, we can see that there were significant disagreements between them about evolution into the 1960s. By the mid-1980s, many believed that “higher” life, particularly intelligent life, probably occurs quite infrequently in the universe; nevertheless, some held out the possibility that convergence of intelligence could occur across worlds. Regardless of the final conclusions these scientists reached about the likely prevalence of extraterrestrial intelligence, the use of evolutionary arguments to support their positions became increasingly common.

"Designing interstellar starships for human migration to exoplanets requires establishing the starship population, which factors into many variables including closed-ecosystem design,
architecture, mass and propulsion. I review the central issues of population genetics (effects of mutation, migration, selection and drift) for human populations on such voyages, specifically
referencing a roughly 5-generation (c.150-year) voyage currently in the realm of thought among Icarus Interstellar's Project Hyperion research group. I present several formulae and concrete numbers that can be used to help determine populations that could survive such journeys in good health. I find that
previously-proposed such populations, on the order of a few hundred individuals, are significantly too low to consider based on current understanding of vertebrate (including human) genetics and population dynamics. Population genetics theory, calculations and computer modeling determine that a properly-screened and age- and sex-structured total founding population (Nc) of anywhere from roughly 14,000 to 44,000 people would be sufficient to survive such journeys in good health. A safe and
well-considered Nc figure is 40,000, an Interstellar Migrant Population (IMP) composed of an effective population [Ne] of 23,400 reproductive males and females, the rest being pre- or post-reproductive individuals. This number would maintain good health over five generations despite (a)  increased inbreeding resulting from a relatively small human population, (b) depressed genetic diversity due to the founder effect, (c) demographic change through time and (d) expectation of at least one severe population catastrophe over the 5-generation voyage."

Humanity is on the threshold of recognizing the fundamental error in its view of life and death. Both death as well as active life is necessary to the vital formation of a larger, more essential whole. In this paper, I apply the sociology of knowledge and change as it pertains to death and focus on ways in which we can step outside its traditional frameworks and limitations. I also discuss topics related to death such as birth, aging, sickness, and war, and examine cultural differences in attitudes toward death. I offer varying perspectives including the Buddhist view and from these draw implications and conclusions. I apply the lenses of contemporary social scientists such as Edgar Morin, Kenneth Gergen, Edward Stewart, Milton Bennett, Mary Catherine Bateson, E. Doyle McCarthy, Philip Slater, and Piotr Sztompka. To these I add other relevant passages from the writings and speeches of key thinkers on the topic of death, in particular, Buddhist philosopher, peacebuilder, and educator, Daisaku Ikeda. To construct a more humanistic and sustainable view of life, it is first of all crucial to establish a culture which perceives death in its larger living context as but one cycle in the expansive eternity of life.

A major challenge for artificial life is to synthesize the evolutionary transitions that have repeatedly formed differentiated higher-level entities from cooperative organizations of lower-level entities, producing the nested hierarchical structure of living processes. This article identifies the key elements and relationships that must be incorporated or synthesized in an artificial life system if these transitions are to emerge. The processes currently included in artificial life systems are unable to provide an adequate basis for the emergence of the complex cooperative organization that is essential to the transitions. A new theory of the evolution of cooperative organization is developed that points to the additional processes that must be included in artificial life systems to underpin the emergence of the transitions.

The amounts of life that can be realized in any ecosystem are determined by the resources of materials and energy, the requirements of the biomass, the rates of usage or wastage, and the life span of the habitat. In the Solar System, carbonaceous asteroids and comets are accessible resources, and meteorite-based microcosms showed that these materials could support microbial and plant life. Based on the measured nutrients, bioavailable materials in the carbonaceous asteroids can yield a biomass of 1018 kg, and the total materials of
the comets can yield a biomass of 1025 kg. The total amount of life in a habitat of finite duration, such as the Solar System, may be measured in terms of time-integrated biomass. In these terms, the potential amount of future life about the Main Sequence Sun can be 1034 kg-years, largely exceeding the 1024 kg-years of past terrestrial life. Life about brown, red and white dwarf stars may be energy-limited and contribute 1046 kg-years
in the future. The upper limits of life would in the universe would be obtained by converting all baryonic matter to biomass, and gradually converting the biomass to supporting energy. These projections of cosmo-ecology allow an immense 1048 kg-years of time-integrated biomass in the galaxy and 1059 kg-years in the universe.