The run-away greenhouse is impossible
Andrew Usher
which produced the conditions we see on Venus today, is that
the evaporation of water vapor caused the temperature to rise so
high that the atmosphere became unbound.
I have seen a journal article that says the temperature would reach
'several thousand degrees' until the surface could 'radiate in the
visible'.
This is absurd and impossible. In fact I am sure the temperature on
Venus has never been significantly hotter than today.
First of all, even if the surface did reach such temperatures, it
could
not 'radiate in the visible' to space, as the H2O atmosphere would
be completely opaque at all wavelengths. Even if there were no clouds,
it would be nearly opaque in the visible due to Rayleigh scattering.
Second, where does the heat come from? No sunlight will reach the
surface, so the only source of surface heating is internal heat. On
Earth today internal heating of the surface is roughly 1/5,000 of
solar
heating; on Venus it must be much closer. But regardless of the heat
source, convection limits the surface temperature to a value that
increases only logarithmically with pressure, and is proportional to
the adiabatic lapse rate. In an atmosphere saturated with H2O at
high temperatures (> 100 C), the lapse rate is very small; therefore,
even though the atmosphere is think, the temperature will surely
remain below the critical point of water as long as the atmosphere
is mostly water.
When, however, the planet has lost most of its water to
photo-dissociation, the base of the cloud layer will lift off the
ground and the surface temperature rise because of the increase
in the lapse rate (the amount of sunlight getting through is
irrelevant
as long as the atmosphere is in convective equilibrium). This
results in the conditions observed on Venus. What happens when
the last of the water is lost? The cloud layer then disappears, but
the surface temperature won't decrease unless the amount it can
now radiate to space exceeds solar input, which seems unlikely
unless the CO2 atmosphere is so thick as to be opaque in the
visible from Rayleigh scattering (several times Venus).
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
My point (I didn't quite finish) was that there can be no such
thing as a true 'run-away greenhouse', that there can be no
abrupt tipping point but only a gradual change. It is
nonetheless irreversible, though.
Also, this has no effect on projections of man-made global
warming, as it can't occur unless solar input is considerably
higher than today.
Andrew Usher
Yousuf Khan
And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.
Yousuf Khan
Robert J. Kolker
>
> And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
> to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
> greenhouse effects.
The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.
Bob Kolker
Benj
And the way you know this for such a certainty is? Oh that's right.
FAITH!
I love faith-based science, don't you?
I especially love those who have such unquestioned authority that they
can simply answer all questions with unshakable assertion that is
obviously so authoritative that none dare question it! Love, ya,
Bob!
Mike Dworetsky
news:32bbd8a1-40ee-4bb1...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Well, unless you know of some life form that can survive without liquid
water and can breath "live" steam, I'd say that Bob is right.
The runaway greenhouse predicted for Earth would be the result of solar
luminosity increase giving rise to extra CO2 and water vapour, hence
greenhouse feedback into yet higher temperatures.
By the way, the Gaia Hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, or conjecture,
proposed as an explanation of certain observations in the fossil record. It
hasn't reached the status of a theory, yet.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
hhc...@yahoo.com
Well, faith based science has its merits by avoiding the brain strain
that comes as a reult of serious thinking!
Hence, without the brain strain, empty headed believers in faith based
science tend live longer than those that actually contribute to the
physical sciences, but fortunatly for the human race, don't reproduce
very often.
This is why we see so many 80 year old Bible thumpers, but not very
many historically productive sceintist over the age of roughly 70.
Harry C.
p.s., On a more serious note, during their college years, most
physical science majors burn the midnight oil studying, sometimes
pulling all-nighters simply to stay ahead, and in other cases, to pay
for their education. I've noticed that this takes years off of one's
lifespan. I'm 70, and a vast majority of my physics classmates are
already dead. Still, the business and theology majors are still going
strong! I have to tell you this: Classical and Theoretical Mechanics
courses are the real killers, having seen several physics majors taken
away the those nice men in the white lab coats, while still muttering
bable about Euler's equations and the nunation and precession of a
gyroscope. (I only use Euler as as example, because an equal level of
brain strain can result when one thinks about the physical
implications of any transform, and it is clearly better for your
health to simply accept that these devices work on face value alone.
Not ponder them. and why they work. This is how faith simplies life.)
Harry C.
Uncle Al
>
> The conventional explanation of the run-away greenhouse effect,
> which produced the conditions we see on Venus today, is that
> the evaporation of water vapor caused the temperature to rise so
> high that the atmosphere became unbound.
>
> I have seen a journal article that says the temperature would reach
> 'several thousand degrees' until the surface could 'radiate in the
> visible'.
> This is absurd and impossible. In fact I am sure the temperature on
> Venus has never been significantly hotter than today.
The following sends the wrong message, doesn't it? It's factual.
Sunspots and such,
Graphics
========
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png>
The most recent minimum, to the right, has averaged about 10
sunspots/month.
<http://www.dxlc.com/solar/images/solar.gif>
local solar flux is dropping
<http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_composite.gif>
local solar flux is dropping
<http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif>
local solar flux is dropping to 10-year lows
<http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif>
projected sunspot number. All we need do is wait and see. The
third unmentioned red curve would be more interesting - stays flat.
COMMENTARY
==========
Global Cooling is nothing new. Click on graphics to enlarge.
<http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2006/09/global_warming_.html>
<http://www.newrivervalleynews.com/content/view/12742/261/>
<http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=1>
<http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html>
layman reference
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040602061025.htm>
slightly better
<http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm>
data
Weather is always extreme compared to climate. One can play the
GLOBAL WARNING game with anything, earthquakes to
<http://thepoorman.net/2008/06/18/gregg-easterbrook-is-wait-for-it-an-idiot/>
Proximity is not causality. More hurricanes than any other time in
history were predicted post-Katrina! What does the highly anomalous
*absence* of Caribbean hurricanes portend? Extreme hurricane
disasters! Eventually a pulse will appear. So?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Puppet_Sock
>
> > > And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
> > > to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
> > > greenhouse effects.
>
> > The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.
>
> And the way you know this for such a certainty is? Oh that's right.
> FAITH!
Science does not deal in "know this for such a certainty." Science
deals in valid theories that make predictions and can be falsified.
The "Gaia hypothesis" isn't such a thing. The "Gaia hypothesis"
is bad poetry.
We know that the planet isn't alive because we go out and observe it
and it does not have any of the properties of a living thing.
> I love faith-based science, don't you?
No, I don't. And the "Gaia hypothesis" is one such chunk of trash
that we really would be better off putting in the dustbin. It can keep
company with alchemy and phlogisten.
> I especially love those who have such unquestioned authority that they
> can simply answer all questions with unshakable assertion that is
> obviously so authoritative that none dare question it! Love, ya,
> Bob!
Um. Where do you see these unshakable assertions? Other than
in the pronouncements of the Gaia enthusiasts that is.
Socks
tadchem
Not that he said that...
I read Yousef's comment as discussing the effect of "life on Earth"
collectively. not that the earth itself is alive, nor that he
personally endorses the Gaia 'Hypothesis' (really a New-Age neo-
religion).
The consequence of non-equilibrium thermodynamics (see Prigogene, for
example) is that 'dissipative systems' (such as 'organic life') that
absorb absorb energy and reduce entropy are almost inevitable wherever
a system has a net energy influx, a solvent which can affect the
constituents of the system, and a potential for a phase transition in
the solvent. The temperature and phase changes will differentiate and
segregate the constituents,
producing 'organized' structures and reducing entropy locally.
> Bob Kolker
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Yousuf Khan
Okay, and so what's this got to do with whether or not "life on Earth"
will evolve to rectify the climate?
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> On Jun 22, 9:42 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.
>
> Not that he said that...
>
> I read Yousef's comment as discussing the effect of "life on Earth"
> collectively. not that the earth itself is alive, nor that he
> personally endorses the Gaia 'Hypothesis' (really a New-Age neo-
> religion).
Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. I was talking about life on Earth,
not the Earth itself as a living thing.
Anyways, the Gaia Hypothesis segments into "Weak" and "Strong" versions.
The Weak Gaia Theories are completely provable and actually undeniable,
as models they fit the planet Earth like nylon. But the Weak Theories
are only advocating that which is blatantly obvious: the advent of life
on Earth has affected its environment. The Strong Gaia Theories go
further and model the Earth like an organism itself. The Strong Gaia
Theory may not be provable for a very long time, and it may only be
provable through hindsight through history.
Regarding the theory as a neo-religion, it was proposed by Dr. James
Lovelock, a NASA consultant, with a background in chemistry and
medicine. He was studying tests for finding life on Mars at the time.
The poetic nature of the theory's name, Gaia, was proposed by Lovelock's
friend, novelist William Golding. Although the theory has been taken up
by environmentalists, it hasn't taken on religious proportions. It's
unfortunate the name turns off so many people, many who haven't even
read it, automatically assume things just based on the name alone.
Yousuf Khan
z
well, if you look at it objectively, the climate on earth has for most
of its existence been hotter, moister, and much more carbon dioxidey;
life, in the form of plants, has altered this by sucking up a lot of
CO2 during the carboniferous era and burying the carbon, creating an
anomalous situation of higher potential energy; humanity and/or human
civiliation is just the particular manifestation of the inevitable
result of a high potential energy situation, which is that some
mechanism eventually emerges to restore the lower energy state. the
rock eventually rolls down the hill. unfortunately, for us, once that
potential energy is gone, the mechanism which it drove generally dies
off. so, once the earth is restored to 1500 ppm of co2 in the air,
high humidity, and temps 10 degrees higher than today, we will be
redundant and obsolete.
but the good news is that there's no real reason to expect that the
"runaway greenhouse" will continue to make the earth a lake of melted
solder, given that the closest thing to a stable state the climate
has shown is that 10 degrees warmer. might be some overshoot, of
course, for a few million years or so.
Fred Kasner
It would have to have life develop into a very different set of species
than we now have. Most or intolerant of high temperatures as this tends
to cause proteins to degenerate. And protein specificity and moderate
temperatures allows this. With very high temperatures there might
continue to be unicellular life forms that can tolerate such but not
multicellular and highly specialized life forms. Besides such radical
evolutionary changes would take tens if not hundreds of millions of
years. By then higher life forms might very well have succumbed to more
quickly destructive catastrophes.
FK
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Look, we're only talking about an average temp increase of 10 degC.
There's more than that between equatorial and mid lattitudes.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London
Darwin123
> Andrew Usher wrote:
> And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
> to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
> greenhouse effects.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Yes, and it won't include human beings. The extremophile bacteria
will have the run of the place.
I mean, you as an individual have white blood cells. Do you care
it they all die? As long as you don't get an infection, you are happy.
You have no concern over the life and well being of individual cells
in your body. They could be suffering the agonies of hell, but as long
as your brain is happy you will not be concerned.
The same for this supposed Gaia (which I don't really believe
exists). An organism doesn't pay attention to its own components. If
Gaia can remain healthy with just a few unintelligent, extremophile
bacteria, she will be happy. Without human beings, she may be even
happier.
I don't think Gaia is a useful hypothesis for anything. In
effect, it merely says that some organisms will survive no matter
what. And that they will probably affect the geology of the earth
somewhere down the line. Most of us are concerned with only with human
beings, or maybe with the inclusion of a few animal relatives. I
definitely would like to see dolphins and chimpanzees survive with us.
But most cultures can't even see other human beings as worth the skin.
I will not trust any deity, least of all Gaia, to protect our
interests.
All and all, I think it would be best if we reduce our carbon
footprint. Let the deities take care of themselves. If we can't
control ourselves, then maybe human beings would be better off extinct.
Yousuf Khan
> It would have to have life develop into a very different set of species
> than we now have. Most or intolerant of high temperatures as this tends
> to cause proteins to degenerate. And protein specificity and moderate
> temperatures allows this. With very high temperatures there might
> continue to be unicellular life forms that can tolerate such but not
> multicellular and highly specialized life forms. Besides such radical
> evolutionary changes would take tens if not hundreds of millions of
> years. By then higher life forms might very well have succumbed to more
> quickly destructive catastrophes.
Hardly! Most of the species needed to rectify the climate probably
already exist now. Really, if you look at the history of evolution, it's
not a matter of developing new species to take advantage of a new
condition. The species already existed at the time of the change in
condition, and something that was just getting along before, will all of
a sudden shoot to prominence in the new regime.
So that's what's going to happen now too. Some species will go extinct,
while others will begin to flourish.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> Yes, and it won't include human beings. The extremophile bacteria
> will have the run of the place.
> I mean, you as an individual have white blood cells. Do you care
> it they all die? As long as you don't get an infection, you are happy.
> You have no concern over the life and well being of individual cells
> in your body. They could be suffering the agonies of hell, but as long
> as your brain is happy you will not be concerned.
Yeah, of course I would care if all of my white blood cells died, so
would you, because that would mean that you have some kind of
immunological disease such as AIDS, and you're gonna die. I wouldn't
care about individual white blood cells, but as long as there were
enough of them around to keep me functioning, I'd be happy. Same goes
for my heart cells, and lung cells, etc., etc. Our bodies maintain an
average temperature of 37蚓 (98.6蚌), not for the sake of our comfort,
but for the sake of keeping our individual cells alive.
If one group of my cells died, then chances are that other groups of my
cells would die too, if they depended on them. And then my whole body
would die. A dead body would initially look the same as a living body,
but not for long, and eventually it'll just be a skeleton. A skeleton is
an immensely less desirable state for a body to be in, than a living one.
> The same for this supposed Gaia (which I don't really believe
> exists). An organism doesn't pay attention to its own components. If
> Gaia can remain healthy with just a few unintelligent, extremophile
> bacteria, she will be happy. Without human beings, she may be even
> happier.
You're subscribing to the same self-loathing philosophy that most
environmentalists have lifetime memberships in. As far as the
environmentalists are concerned, all of the ills of the world are caused
by humans, and only the humans. All species extinctions are always man's
fault; if they could blame us for the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs
65 million years before man even existed, then they would. And of
course, global warming can't be a natural thing, it must always be man's
fault.
If Gaia is alive, then how do you know that man isn't exactly the
evolution that Gaia needs to go through to keep living? Everything was
leading upto this point where a type of cell evolved that could leave
Gaia and inhabit other planets (much like plant spores) and take Gaia's
legacy with it. The "unintelligent extremophile bacteria" can't take
Gaia into space.
> I don't think Gaia is a useful hypothesis for anything. In
> effect, it merely says that some organisms will survive no matter
> what. And that they will probably affect the geology of the earth
> somewhere down the line. Most of us are concerned with only with human
> beings, or maybe with the inclusion of a few animal relatives. I
> definitely would like to see dolphins and chimpanzees survive with us.
> But most cultures can't even see other human beings as worth the skin.
> I will not trust any deity, least of all Gaia, to protect our
> interests.
> All and all, I think it would be best if we reduce our carbon
> footprint. Let the deities take care of themselves. If we can't
> control ourselves, then maybe human beings would be better off extinct.
Depends on which version of the Gaia Theory you subscribe to. The Weak
Gaia Theories simply state that organisms have changed the environment
of the planet they inhabit. Pretty undeniable stuff, but not very useful.
Strong Gaia Theories, which are the hardest to prove, believe the Earth
itself is the ultimate living organism on Earth. All of the biota and
the abiota living inside it were just the individual cells of this
organism. The Strongest of the Gaia Theories even believe that Earth is
just one of many Gaias in the Universe, and that the entire Universe is
just a giant hive of evolving organisms.
Yousuf Khan
Paul Schlyter
>If one group of my cells died, then chances are that other groups of my
>cells would die too, if they depended on them. And then my whole body
>would die.
Not necessarily. Cells die in your body all the time. Your hair, which grows
all the time, consists mostly of dead cells. The very outermost part of
your skin also consists of dead cells, which protects the living cells
inside the skin and your body. As a matter of fact, almost all of your
body is renewed (= the cells are replaced by other cells) every 5 to 7
years or so (the figure varies depending on which part of the body).
As long as this is in equilibrium, your organism remains healthy. But if
your body would start to generate new cells in an uncontrolled way, you'll
get cancer. And if your body would generate too few new cells, you'll get
sick and die too - the latter often happens to old people.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
z
>
> Not necessarily. Cells die in your body all the time. Your hair, which grows
> all the time, consists mostly of dead cells. The very outermost part of
> your skin also consists of dead cells, which protects the living cells
> inside the skin and your body. As a matter of fact, almost all of your
> body is renewed (= the cells are replaced by other cells) every 5 to 7
> years or so (the figure varies depending on which part of the body).
and i have little funerals for all of them. it's only right.
Yousuf Khan
> In article <4861df66$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If one group of my cells died, then chances are that other groups of my
>> cells would die too, if they depended on them. And then my whole body
>> would die.
>
> Not necessarily. Cells die in your body all the time. Your hair, which grows
> all the time, consists mostly of dead cells. The very outermost part of
> your skin also consists of dead cells, which protects the living cells
> inside the skin and your body. As a matter of fact, almost all of your
> body is renewed (= the cells are replaced by other cells) every 5 to 7
> years or so (the figure varies depending on which part of the body).
> As long as this is in equilibrium, your organism remains healthy. But if
> your body would start to generate new cells in an uncontrolled way, you'll
> get cancer. And if your body would generate too few new cells, you'll get
> sick and die too - the latter often happens to old people.
>
Yes, I agree with that, I just didn't say it in so many words.
Yousuf Khan
z
well, it's always an error to think that evolution is purpose driven.
mutations are random, and wherever there's a niche, presumably one of
those random mutations will be such that it can exploit that niche.
that's one trouble with "intelligent design" theories; intelligence is
limited, compared to randomness.
Yousuf Khan
>> Okay, and so what's this got to do with whether or not "life on Earth"
>> will evolve to rectify the climate?
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> well, it's always an error to think that evolution is purpose driven.
> mutations are random, and wherever there's a niche, presumably one of
> those random mutations will be such that it can exploit that niche.
> that's one trouble with "intelligent design" theories; intelligence is
> limited, compared to randomness.
"Intelligent Design" is another word for Creationism, isn't it? They
don't believe in any kind of evolution. Everything on Earth was put
there fully formed by one major intelligence up in the sky or something?
Hasn't got anything to do with organisms evolving to rectify the
climate. One of the misconceptions of evolution is that something has to
evolve after a change in the climate or whatever. But in actual fact
what's really happening is that these organisms have already existed
prior to the change, and the change makes them far more successful than
they were before. So if the environment changes, the organisms that will
re-regulate the environment will already exist, and now will simply be
more successful.
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:486536ec$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
|z wrote:
| >> Okay, and so what's this got to do with whether or not "life on Earth"
| >> will evolve to rectify the climate?
| >>
| >> Yousuf Khan
| >
| > well, it's always an error to think that evolution is purpose driven.
| > mutations are random, and wherever there's a niche, presumably one of
| > those random mutations will be such that it can exploit that niche.
| > that's one trouble with "intelligent design" theories; intelligence is
| > limited, compared to randomness.
|
| "Intelligent Design" is another word for Creationism, isn't it?
"Design" implies planning. Only idiots attach "intelligent" to it,
if a god created us it is a pretty dumb god to run a toxic waste pipe
through a recreational area.
| They
| don't believe in any kind of evolution. Everything on Earth was put
| there fully formed by one major intelligence up in the sky or something?
|
That's the general idea.
| Hasn't got anything to do with organisms evolving to rectify the
| climate. One of the misconceptions of evolution is that something has to
| evolve after a change in the climate or whatever. But in actual fact
| what's really happening is that these organisms have already existed
| prior to the change, and the change makes them far more successful than
| they were before. So if the environment changes, the organisms that will
| re-regulate the environment will already exist, and now will simply be
| more successful.
|
| Yousuf Khan
Actually you've given an optimistic bias to the situation. All species
survive until killed, success has nothing to do with it.
It is not survival of the fittest but destruction of the weakest that
drives evolution. That's also called "luck".
Fred Kasner
What about the non-poikiothermic life forms. They would find their
chemical reaction rates approximately doubled with such an increase in
temperature.
FK
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Emigrate.
Yousuf Khan
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:486536ec$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
> | climate. One of the misconceptions of evolution is that something has to
> | evolve after a change in the climate or whatever. But in actual fact
> | what's really happening is that these organisms have already existed
> | prior to the change, and the change makes them far more successful than
> | they were before. So if the environment changes, the organisms that will
> | re-regulate the environment will already exist, and now will simply be
> | more successful.
> |
> | Yousuf Khan
>
> Actually you've given an optimistic bias to the situation. All species
> survive until killed, success has nothing to do with it.
> It is not survival of the fittest but destruction of the weakest that
> drives evolution. That's also called "luck".
Whatever, works out to the same effect.
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
This is not so. "Survival of the fittest" evolution means that
individuals within the species compete with each other - for
example the antelope chased by a lion escapes and passes on
it genes at the expense of the slower antelope that is caught.
That didn't help the dodo, they were all wiped out by man.
The effects are very different, on the optimistic side the
species improves itself gradually, on the pessimistic side
the species becomes extinct. An extinct species cannot
have one individual more fit than another when neither exist.
G. L. Bradford
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:PEeak.77741$7m7....@newsfe30.ams2...
There are... what... about a trillion or more different species of life on
and in this world at any one time? Many of those species just now popped
into existence as beginning life (as if with them, life is just now in its
beginning upon the Earth). And many of those just now popped out
existence....gone extinct (reminds me of flash occurrences in a particle
accelerator). Now evolutionary, or revolutionary, variations in a specific
species, that has been around for a while, pop into existence all the
time...and just as often as not, really more often that not, pop out of
existence, gone extinct, just about as quickly as they (variation) came.
Then there are the frozen seed spores of life -- very, very, hard to
kill -- that arrive upon the Earth from anywhere and everywhere in the
universe at large. No matter how hard to kill, many of these immigrants do
not survive the trip or the environment of space. But there are so many of
them at all times, neverendingly arriving.
Now to go back to "beginning life." For some reason it comes into
existence wisely fully equipped immediately to eat, divide, and fight
savagely for species' multiplication / prosperity...thus species' survival.
Even a base building block creature of life [just now] coming seemingly from
up out of nowhere is fully a world, even a universe, of life all in itself
since it knows so much of what it needs to know so instantaneously with its
appearance. It may even know it [previous] to its appearance here...or its
coalescence or spark here. It is a frontier, a frontiering, creature: a
Space Age [life-chance] like the others; something the Dark Age Utopian (the
not any longer to multiply, prosper, or survive, walking extinct) so [flatly
/ equally] obviously is not.
GLB