Humanity, Unrealistic Life?

Humanity is the unrealistic product of life.

A sweeping statement to start a post without a doubt, so why write it? Lamo had a thought about the constant question, “Is there intelligent life out there?” Humanity constantly thinks any life will be representative of us, humans, well let me pose you the following thought to digest as to why this may be a false hope.


Science confirms as fact life emerged on planet earth around 3000 Million years ago during what has been labelled as the Archean era. Which slowly evolved its way through the Protozoic and other interesting named eras until about 443 Million years ago when this planets life forms suffered the very first major extinction level event. Life lost around 86% of the species who had worked so hard to evolve to this point. (Believed to be due to a short yet very severe ice age).

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately for us depending on how you view this event, it was not a unique one. There have been five so far in this planets history. The 5 Extinction Events

It is stupidly presumptuous to think that humans would have been the result of evolution from this very early life on Earth. Graptolites, like most Ordovician life, were sea creatures. They were filter-feeding animals and colony builders. Plus the conditions of the actual planet back then, atmospheric content, climate would have had a huge impact on the type of life that would evolve. It would likely be very different to the ancestral type life and climate we would  need to have existed for us come in to being. Lamo thinks it is unlikely that what lived at this time would spawn humanity?

Following this event, life was forced to reset itself, starting to evolve again until along comes a second pesky major extinction level around 375 million years in the past. Perhaps compared to the first it might be considered lesser yet it still wiped out 75% of all life! This would again nudge the majority of life in another evolutionary direction of which perhaps humanity would likely not have been a result either?

At 251 Million years in this planets chequered past we reach what is considered the most prolific extinction event ever in the long history of life on Earth. Wiping out 95% of all life that had evolved to this point. Believed to be a  cataclysmic eruption near Siberia which blasted CO2 into the atmosphere. Methanogenic bacteria responded by belching out methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Global temperatures surged while oceans acidified and stagnated, belching out poisonous hydrogen sulphide. (Sounds horrific).

Despite this over the next 50 million years we have our early Dinosaurs along with very small, controlled mammals come onto the life scene. Obviously there were many other forms of life, but we are talking about that which we humans might have evolved from. In this environment would it have not been more likely those early mammal types would have evolved as non human versions today?

200 Million years in the past comes extinction event number four taking out 80% of all planet life. The cause for this one has not yet been identified although mammals, Dinosaurs did survive in some form. These creatures which dominated the planet were still going strong after 140 million years. Who knows if they would not still be the dominant form of life had a bowling ball from space not intervened?

This then leads us up to the one which every educated human on Earth knows, which is when a very large rock from space puts pay to the dominant Dinosaur form of life. All told this one wiped away 76% of what was living at that time, minding their own business, getting on with living.

It is only after the Dinosaurs are removed mammals finally run free to develop unopposed, slowly but surely evolving into humanity as part of that family. Would mammals have had that freedom to evolve that way if they were not the dominant species on the planet? Or would that natural development have been held back or more likely driven in a completely different direction? In truth we will never know because the fact is the extinction event happened. Those burrowing mammals able to survive rose to the surface to take over as king of the planet, so to speak.

Slowly but surely it was this life that eventually gave birth to human beings.

Lamo’s thought here is if these catastrophic extinction events had not occurred then it is, in his opinion, unlikely humans would ever have evolved as an actual life form on this Planet. Only because of these five events so far, were we given the chance to evolve to be here now, today. Without them is it not much more likely life would look a whole lot different to that which exists today, including us?

Also remember that each of these extinction events were both caused by and created massive climatic changes across the Globe. Had they not then the planets atmosphere may well have remained inhabitable for mammals such as us humans.


Lets take a moment to think about what the clever science folks say about the existence of life out there in the Universe.

Yes, there are some 100 Billion galaxies in the Universe, each with around a 100 Thousand Million stars. Many of these likely have a planet or two within that special life zone in their system where it becomes a Goldilocks place for life. Not to hot, not too cold but just right for it to evolve and thrive. There even exists the Drake Equation which is supposed to show the proliferation of, “active, communicative extra-terrestrial civilisations”, in our own Milky Way.

Yet Lamo believes this magic equation, which daunts humans into absolute belief there is other similar life out there, has not considered the thought of just how much of a fluke we humans actually are. Has life developed out there, of course, it is almost beyond doubt due to the shear hugeness of stars and planets. But Lamo thinks if we stop to think about how circumstance came to produce us, it will not be communicative in a way allowing interaction between them and us.

We have to consider life on other planets would, in all probability, be a continuation of the same kind that formed in the early days of the Earth? (Our friends the Graptolites.) Developing into non human forms with a natural bond to their own planets natural environment, along with the other life forms on it. Even if intelligence is a natural development of life, which must also be questionable, why would it find discontent on its planet to even look to the stars?

All those life forms which existed on Earth for long periods, lets take Dinosaurs, what level of intelligence did they develop? They were on this earth, until the big rock took then out, for 140 million years. Look at the intelligence level they reached over that period, it was not anything like we as humans have. Not even close to a basic comparison, over all that time of evolution. Why do we assume that intelligence is actually a natural development of a species evolution? Dinosaurs may have lived for 1000 Million years never developing to start wondering, “Why am I here?” yet alone ever looking for life outside of their local area to the vastness of space.

Certainly any other planetary life, its communication mechanism is also going to be far more alien to our own. How would we or they ever distinguish each others in the first place to even start any kind of interaction? Lamo thinks we would no sooner be able to communicate with most life in the Universe than we can have a conversation with a tree here on Earth.

We all assume human form type life must exist out there yet we ONLY truly exist through five complete flukes of natural selection extinction events that took place on our individual planet. Each changed the atmospheric and climate across the entire globe to. Think hard about this but what are the chances that these happened exactly the same way, in the same order on similar planets, to the composition of the Earth, to produce intelligent life that would even remotely resemble human?

Hence Lamo’s original quote;

Humanity is the unrealistic product of life.

(c) 2019 Harlin & Lamo The Lion


To Colonise Mars, don’t we first need Humans?

Our post today came about after Lamo watched a documentary on the planned Orion mission to Mars. In order to give you context around our thoughts we give you an extract from a paper that claims Space Exploration benefits mankind.

There is no activity on Earth that matches the unique challenges of space exploration. The first fifty years of space activity have generated benefits for people around the globe. This past record gives strong reason for confidence that renewed investments in space exploration will have similarly positive impacts for future generations.

We take issue with this in that if this is true then how come in the last 50 years we have not made an impact on world famine, third world poverty, climate change. In fact most, if not all, of these have these have gotten worse in the last five decades!

Orion, the manned mission to Mars is going to cost around $217.4 billion (£172,927m). Correct me if we are wrong but this one single space program could fund scientific research into food production in starving third world countries rather than how to enable eight people to fly across the solar system to, well to do what exactly? The money alone eats at our very being in this supposed great innovation platform that betters the world for us.

Booster Test for Space Launch System Rocket
How much Energy wasted?

Whilst watching the documentary on the Orion mission they were making a huge thing about how immensely powerful the rockets to get this frankly wasteful payload into space are. As Lamo watched this long cylindrical engine blowing out some number of millions of pounds of thrust in flame, he had the following thought. He wondered how much electricity that could generate if used in a country that has none? We mean just look at the energy doing absolutely nothing but moving some dial on a loading meter somewhere saying, “Hey I can get 100 tonnes and eight humans into space.

We say, how much electricity could you generate in places that need water purifiers, or powered medical facilities etc. to save the children that charities are constantly showing us on TV? Now that’s a true benefit!

Also it struck us there is huge waste of the elements Oxygen and Hydrogen, around 730,000 gallons of super cooled liquid versions. This is just the one core booster. If you think about all the other US space programs, all doing the same testing, all using these limited resources up. Then multiply that by all the other countries around the world with their space programs, that’s got to add up to a lot of rich beneficial breathable O2 we no longer have here?

It isn’t as though we are not wasting the rather valuable Oxygen already by us poisoning the seas, deforestation and other harmful activities and yet we burn it in these tests! Then more in launching this ship to achieve what exactly? Ok we must be fair and say these two elements being burnt produce only water vapour as a waste product. (Well apart from all that smoke).

Here is yet another benefit they claim is due to space exploration.

Maintaining the health of astronauts as they explore beyond Low Earth Orbit and conduct missions of many months or years will require increasingly sophisticated methods. Telemedicine provides medical care to patients who may be located far away from medical providers.

Let us take this supposed innovation. It is true that in May 1965 NASA did propose their IMBLMS (Integrated Medical Behavioral Laboratory Measurement System) program. But it was originally ten year earlier, in 1955, that the University of Nebraska in conjunction with Ron Dutton who were the first to use closed circuit television and radio transmitted records for treating psychiatric patients. (Telemedicine). It was not an innovation of NASA, I don’t argue that their program developed it much further from the mid sixties onwards.

Yet with the technology development pace in the last fifty years and in no small part, the Internet, these advances in remote diagnostics for medical care would have developed to where they are today anyway I believe.

Second they talk about caring for people in a micro gravity environment. Correct me if we are wrong but don’t nearly 8 billion other people all live within the pull of the Earths gravity?

Clean Air Technology?

Now here is another thing, air recycling solutions that keep the astronauts alive during their two year journey or what ever it is. Very advanced, keep their life giving breathable air clean so they arrive all fresh faced on Mars. If space exploration were to give one thing back, then why have these not been scaled up to scrub the polluted air of major cities? That would be giving back something of high benefit to us would it not?

Why are we using space exploration as an excuse to say it is needed to drive innovation? Are there not enough serious issues on our planet that need solving first with this huge amount of resource that is being given over to going to a dead planet? Is not the survival of the human race even more of a driver for these innovations? To me we have our priorities completely with the wrong focus here!

It boggles our minds when they say that the missions help us understand the development of the Solar system, we give you this quote, from the same paper;

In recent years, a number of agencies have conducted robotic space missions that have uncovered new knowledge about the solar system’s past and present and are providing clues to help humankind understand how life began on Earth.

All very nice but it does not solve the problem with the way life is dwindling on this planet right now does it? How does it solve famine, disease, poverty, over population, someone please explain this to me? (No didn’t think you could!).

They have developed high protein food sachets that keep astronauts fed during these missions. Why have these not been mass produced to send out to the third world countries where children are starving to death? Why are these kept to the domain of expensive space travel?

Again they can recycle the air and water within a space craft, where in the world this this is actually desperately needed has it been deployed to the benefit of the human race? How about cleaning the air in and around our major metropolitan areas first, help seriously reduce those harmful greenhouse gases that are destroying this world?

We do not need the space exploration excuse to drive these desperately needed technologies, we can look at our own home, the Earth, for this. The world is dying, is this not enough to drive all the innovative organisations, not just NASA to develop technologies that actually do benefit the human race?

Regardless of the last fifty years, lets go back to the original, “Space Race” between the then two super powers of the US and Russia. This was not about the benefit of the human race, it was about dominating the cold war. The ability to be able to get a nuclear arsenal payload to the others cities, no more no less. It was from this that the ability to explore space was actually born, think about that!

Oops there goes another $2.1 Billion!

Yes, maybe today’s space exploration will show us that we could eventually colonise Mars but don’t we need a human race that can survive on Earth first to do this.

We think this should be aptly renamed, “The Space Waste”.

Here’s a thought, using all the money and resources poured into Space Exploration, why don’t we use this to first save our own species along with planet Earth from destruction before we have no one left to actually go to colonise Mars?

(c) Harlin & Lamo The Lion

Further Reading

The Paper on Beneifts Of Space Exploration – This one is by NASA themselves!