zzzz2

And who shall separate the dust
Which later we shall be?
Whose keen discerning eye will scan
And solve the mystery?

The high, the low, the rich, the poor,
The black, the white, the red,
And all the chromatic in between,
Of whom shall it be said:

Here lies the dust of Africa,
Here are the sons of Rome,
Here lies the one unlabeled,
The world at large his home.

When one can one then separate the dust,
Will mankind lie apart.
When life has settled down again
The same as from the start.

Georgia Douglas Johnson (1880-1966)

There is an old Latin proverb "Est deus in nobis." Literally, "A god is in us" but a better translation is that there is something god-like about humankind that seems to separate us from the rest of creation. For example, so far as we can tell we are the only animals on Earth who sense we absolutely must die. Some animals may have some vague knowledge and fear of death, but we alone feel it is inevitable.

Before we look closer at where we are going, let's take a peek at where we came from. Lately you have probably been hearing frequently that we are made of stardust. That's not a new idea but it seems to be catching on with social media memes and geeky witticisms that fit nicely on a t-shirt. It certainly has a romantic ring to it. But why do astronomers say it? How do they know it? What is the real nature of stardust and how could it come to be us? The story of life and death is the story of dust.

stargirl
Dust appears to be a relative newcomer to the Universe. Mostly it joined the gases only after the very first stars had matured and their more over-bloated members exploded. It was these “supernovae” that seeded the interstellar medium with heavier elements of which dust, by definition, is composed. Along with the introduction of dust came larger assemblies of dust, which are the asteroids, moons, and rocky earth-like planets. But a lot of the dust still swirls and eddies along with gases in great big clouds called nebulae. Large collections of these nebulae orbit along with associated stars around common central points. These collectives are of course, the galaxies.

saganThe oldest stars still living in our galaxy contain much less of the heavy elements than our Sun. That's because these original beacons of the Big Bang were born before heavy stuff was invented. Over the eons since the beginning, moderately sized stars have manufactured the medium sized atoms, like carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. These are great for forming organic molecules. But we also need metals and other elements in our bodies to survive, and to make a big rocky planet on which to live. It was only after some of the most massive stars exploded that the heavy atoms such as iron and nickel and gold were introduced into the space between the stars.




motherearthHere is the hypothetical scenario. About five billion years ago, a massive star near the end of its life crushed its core under its own weight. Under that irresistible pressure the core suddenly converted its contents into heavy elements, while releasing enough energy to blow the star apart (a supernova) thus sending much of its material into the surrounding space. The shock wave caused a nearby cloud to collapse into a cluster of stars. Meanwhile gravity collected some of the heavier elements into rocky planets and moons etc. One of those stars was our Sun, and one of the planets was Earth. Our planet eventually went on to give rise to life, which is composed in large part of the tiny particles that were forged in that ancient explosion. We are the dusty remnant of stellar evolution.

moonnapper
So the death of one star and the birth of another brings the "story of us" more or less up to date. Meanwhile we seem like so much more than just highly organized and conditioned aggregates of matter. And perhaps we are. We come from dust and to dust we return but it's the returning part we fret about.

And yet death is not entirely a bad thing. Death is why we are not all just microorganisms, or worse. Without death there is no reason for a species to adapt, no 'survival of the fittest' and no mechanism for advancement of the gene pool. In fact without death the opposite would be true, disadvantaged mutants would thrive until life was nothing but deviant strains of sub-cellular strands of protein. Death is the most brilliant part of life, the pressure that makes evolution work. It is the very reason "Est deus in nobis."

evolved2
As for life and its repeated, temporary, localized reversals of entropy, it is the how the Universe is able to appreciate itself. Allowing that we are not truly separate from the Universe but part and parcel of it, then life is a strange loop, where the Universe gains self awareness. When you look through a telescope the Universe is saying "Whoa, hey, check me out." On the other hand if compelled to compartmentalize individual life forms into genus and species, then different forms of life have differing levels of appreciation. My dog would howl at the moon, but humans went there and brought back rocks and said, "Holy crap, rocks from the goddamn moon!"
onthemoon
Personally I have little doubt there are life forms out there with an even higher level of awareness of nature than we, all thanks to evolution, which in turn is thanks to death. But in my humble opinion, life and death are not about me and some personal relationship I might have with eternity. It's not even about survival of our species. It's about the overall progress of large groups of species working together over the eons.

Humans can simply not exist without billions of other organisms, tiny ones and larger ones, within us and around us. And although we each contribute some detail to a story, the bigger story is about the Earth and quite possibly other planets full of life that formed from the same original pile of particles as we did. Together all the life in the cosmos provides an increasing level of self awareness and appreciation for the universe itself to engage in as a whole.

naptime
Someday it will be the Sun's turn to supply raw material for the forging of the next generation of stars and planets. As the Sun's outer layers peel off into the void, they will pass over the Earth, disintegrating and removing our atmosphere, oceans, trees, cities, and everything we have built on the surface. Every single artifact of humanity that we haven't already purposely sent escaping into the cosmos will be delivered back to the cosmos anyway as a cloud… of dust.
turtlegod

Carpe Noctem
Skywise Unlimited

Views: 438

Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on December 31, 2014 at 5:02pm

Gratias tibi valde. Volentes vobis novus annus.

Another great post Brad. While I don’t have a stardust t-shirt I did manage to get this done :-)

Comment by Dale Headley on January 2, 2015 at 2:57pm

No one know of course, if there’s life elsewhere in the universe.  However, the pro-life argument seems to rest on assumptions that are flawed, such as the extremely biased and contrived “Drake Equation” that disingenuously purports to provide a statistical probability of life that is all but irrefutable.  But it IS scientifically refutable; it’s just that most scientists are reluctant to refute it without refuting Carl Sagan, whom we all revere.      

Pick up a rock and look at it.  Is there another rock exactly like it in the universe?  Of course not.  Look at that cloud passing overhead; there’s not not another exactly like it that has ever existed.  What I am getting at is that there is no scientifically defensible reason for ASSUMING that life itself is not just as unique as that rock you hold in your hand or that constantly changing cloud above you. The rock will eventually disintegrate.  The cloud will eventually dissipate.  What makes us think that life is any more immortal than rocks or clouds? I may be wrong, but I suspect that life is a unique universal artifact, no more special or repeatable than a specific rock.  I am in the minority, I know, and I may very well be wrong.  There may in fact be some attribute possessed by atoms that inevitably leads to molecules, amino acids, and evolving life in all corners of the cosmos.  But there may not be.  We just don’t know, and we should admit we don’t know, yet, although we should never stop looking for it.  That’s what science is, after all.  It follows the evidence; it doesn't ASSUME the result.

To argue that evolution presupposes the development of extraterrestrial life forms we would recognize is based mostly on our anthropocentric need to view life, and especialy intelligent life, as some kind of existential goal of the universe - a measure of perfection, US!  That is wishful thinking no more valid than any other religion.

That being said, it would be cool if we DID discover life as we know it on Mars, wouldn’t it?  I’m just not holding my breath.

Comment by Belle Rose on January 2, 2015 at 3:29pm
I always LOVE your posts Professor :) I'm proud to be a Western grad! Your work is inspiring!!!
Comment by Davis Goodman on January 2, 2015 at 3:51pm

I doubt many scientists assume that there is life on another planet (or moon or asteroid or space...). That would be like assuming there is a god or assuming string theory is fact or assuming there is a 1,000 metre tall fronkey on a moon orbiting a planet made out of bowling balls. What the drake equation gives is an extremely vague and watery equation with figures picked out of nowhere using very large numbers to show that, even if the likelihood of each factor being met was very high, and then compounded would give an extremely tiny ratio of planets being able to support life and lucky enough to foster life, there would still be tons of planets that would have life on it. What I like about the equation is that if we then multiplied each factor by a thousand (which is really a lot) to make the likelihood of each factor being met exponentially lower (and then compounded together giving a super mega tiny ratio) we would still end up with a lot of planets with life on it. In theory using wildly speculative figures of course.

I dont think there is anyone who says that this remotely guarantees that there is life on another planet.

However in terms of taking the possibility seriously, I don’t think there is any reason not to. The proposition and the figures given aren’t preposterously far fetched to the point that we should ignore it and laugh it away.

Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on January 2, 2015 at 4:30pm

One of my favorite articles of 2014 was on the Fermi Paradox.

Comment by Belle Rose on January 2, 2015 at 5:22pm
I was recently at the top of the Sandia Mountains on a clear night,....I have missed seeing the stars like that....and it was a moment I wished I could freeze frame forever...I tried to memorize it as to always think of it....there is nothing more beautiful. and to see that "red dot" example that it is SO tiny in comparison of the vastness of the universe....really puts it in perspective. Suddenly the things you may have thought are important.....aren't.
Comment by Belle Rose on January 2, 2015 at 5:23pm
Thanks for sharing that (again) Reg
Comment by _Robert_ on January 2, 2015 at 9:26pm

It is possible that other forms of life could exist that bear no similar physical properties nor use any of the mechanisms, building blocks, or processes associated with Earth life. Fusion powered beings perhaps ;)

Comment by Ed on January 3, 2015 at 8:54am

Chemistry is not exclusive to our earth. Our feeble present day attempts to scan the vast reaches of the universe leave a lot to be desired. The statistical probability that our life-form rich rock is one in a trillion seems rather low. The fact that we just don't know adds to the excitement of discovery.

Comment by James Cox on January 5, 2015 at 6:11pm

Last night, over a nice dinner, following a Town hall with our local senator, six of us got together to share pot-luck food. One of us was a retired priest, that had a refreshing attitude towards our common 'questions', I a still unsettled philosopher and others with degrees of settled or unsettled commitments. 

The priest still used the term 'god' when referencing his understandings about the universe, but also made it clear that his worldly experiences had made his concept of 'god' as a deformed and enlarged source for 'order'.

I mentioned that we are always just trying to 'catch up' with the universe, and while the concept of 'god' can be useful, it hardly covers our growing perceptions of complexity and 'order. I found that this dear Priest agreed, and his life experiences, as seen through his eyes and self report, exceeded any conception of god that he grew up with and studied.   

  

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service