Thursday, September 24, 2009

The Tenets of Ecocosmology

The fundamental Tenets of Ecocosmology make up the structure of the ecocosmology hypothesis.

These four tenets have been developed by careful extrapolation from known principles developed within the scientific disciplines of astronomy, cosmology, ecology, and biology.

The four tenets are:
1) The stars like our Sun, at the center of all solar systems, will support life forms for an amount of time, but will then destroy life on the planets near them at an unknown time during each solar system's developmental life cycle.
a) For stars that are late K thru M, such as dwarfs, this applies to the deadly outbursts, that come short of physical destruction, of the planets orbiting close to that type star.
2) That final catastrophic event (destruction of life on inner planets), and all events leading up to it, comprise "The Test" (This test is composed of all the preliminary and final evolutionary requirements for the life forms on all planets near central stars. The Test works as a wall, moat, or barrier, to divide those species who may continue to live in the physical universe from those who may not).

3) To pass The Test, intelligent life forms inhabiting any planet will be required to:
a) first learn to live and work together within, and in accord with, their planet's ecosystem, and to substantially coexist with all the other species on that planet, while overcoming any toxins of power that are contrary to social harmony;

b) develop technology that produces space vehicles able to substantially meet or exceed the speed of light;

c) find another solar system with a habitable planet which contains a central star still having enough time left in its stellar life cycle for them to colonize a habitable planet in that solar system (since it is unknown whether the toxins of power are to be found on all planets, as they are found on Earth, that possibility should be taken into consideration when selecting any new planet or moon as a home world); Note: since white dwarfs and red dwarfs (main sequence) are the most stable and most abundant stars, they should be favored over Sun-like stars. If biotic evolution in a solar system takes place on a dwarf star, the cosmic nomadic behavior may not be a factor of "The Test" (see On the Origin of the Genes of Viruses - 8 at "III. The Consequences of Premature Biotic Evolution");

d) colonize that habitable planet, and then improve ecocosmological skills as needed;

e) then repeat the entire process ad infinitum;

f) or, experience a morph into another "species" free from that type of solar/planetary cosmic dependence.
4) The seeds of intelligence (genetic and memetic clues) required to successfully perform The Test are distributed into all species, races, religions, sciences, creeds, and genders. Thus, all individuals should be respected as carriers of some quanta of the seed of intelligence required to pass The Test, lest a fundamental quantum of necessary intelligence be lost.
These Four Tenets define the basics of Ecocosmology, and are designed to provide a platform from which more details can be expanded upon in the days, weeks, months, and years before us.

(Last updated 7/18/2014)


Larry Glover said...

I'm glad to have discovered the Ecocosmology blog. You are certainly exploring the 'wild resiliency' of the human species, and with a vision of depth. Thanks.

Dredd said...


I am very glad you found Ecocosmology Blog too. The love and respect for nature is much appreciated here.

I took a look at your blog and appreciated one statement very much:

"We are hungry for nature, and rightly so, not only because we too easily live Aspen Afirelives isolated from it, not only because we love beauty … but also because we too are nature."

We must learn that invaluable lesson and take it to heart if we are to survive in this cosmos.

Ta'verens said...

Wow. This web site is one of the most influential collections of information that I have ever come across. My whole life I have been looking for a goal to work towards. While I have found pieces of this puzzle in sociology, pychology and other disiplines; never have I encountered such a connection between them all and a clear view of the purpose of my interest in all of them until now. Thank you very much for sharing this as you have.

Dredd said...


Our goal is cosmic, difficult, exciting, and bigger than all of us.

Please share the information you like with others.

As you see, there are no commercials here ... just sincere people like you working for these good causes.

LK said...

I agree that we should pursue harmony with each other and with the ecosystem of which we are a part. However, I'm confused about why there is a need for our species to colonize other planets. Does it really matter that we - like everything else - will eventually be extinguished? Is it necessarily negative? I'm not afraid to die and I certainly don't feel the universe has anything to lose if the human species died out. Merely part of the life-death cycle, right?

Dredd said...


"I'm confused about why there is a need for our species to colonize other planets."

Many species migrate in order to survive. It is natural.

Science tells us that the Sun will destroy this planet, so if we stay here we will become extinct.

Some may want to stay to let their potential descendants die out, which is their choice.

But if others wish to perpetuate the human species The Test will have to be passed.

It is not a matter of good and bad, it is a matter of the nature of the cosmos we live in.

Randy said...


"I'm confused about why there is a need for our species to colonize other planets."

Imagine millions of children burning to death or otherwise suffering a catastrophic death when the Sun expands out to the orbit of Mars.

We are not talking normal here in the sense of growing old and passing away.

The cosmic reality is an "R" rated movie, for adult mentality only.

nonzero said...

I'm with it so far, but how does 'ecocosmology' differ from transhumanism, singularitarianism, order of cosmic engineers, or any of the other groups inspired by similar visions of the future? Do we need yet another 'ism' or 'ology' discussing the same themes?

Dredd said...


"I'm with it so far, but how does 'ecocosmology' differ from transhumanism, singularitarianism, order of cosmic engineers, or any of the other groups inspired by similar visions of the future? Do we need yet another 'ism' or 'ology' discussing the same themes?"

How does ecocosmology differ? There is no intention to differ or to not differ. So long as tenet one is a valid scientific premise, and it is, then the other tenets follow the logic to a logical conclusion.

You list a mixed bag of "isms" for ecocosmology to be compared to. There is no intention to compare or to not compare.

Cosmic engineers, Some denominations of Christian Faith, Transhumanism, and Singularitarianism, like the hypothesis of humans evolving into sentient robots, are ways people have envisioned for dealing with the obvious factor mentioned in tenet 3(f), and as a way of avoiding endless migration from planet to planet mentioned in tenet 3(e).

Endless migration each time a star begins to fail is another way, a scientific way, of dealing with the issue of stellar death while avoiding extinction of the human species.

Ecocosmology as expressed in the Four Tenets is simply a roadmap of eventualities we must experience as a species due to the nature of the cosmos around us.

These eventualities govern us, not because of any choices we can or have made, but because that is the physical nature of our solar system and the cosmos.

We did not create the nature of stars mentioned in tenet one, we did not create the nature of our planet, we did not create the nature of our own ecosystem on the earth, nor did we create our species.

We exist in a dynamic cosmic format with a distinct nature which the Four Tenets simply map out.

The tenets are environment friendly, human friendly, science friendly, and religion friendly.

Everyone will choose their own way to take part in the process of extinction or of survival in this cosmos.

LindaRu said...

It has long been known that Gaia (the spirit name for the living being of our Earth) has been unhappy with us as a people.

It was foretold that great species of animals would leave the Earth in preparation for the coming polar shift (not like the world is going to suddenly tip on its side but rather going into another phase as our galaxy moves positions).

We are already seeing great numbers of humans leaving (dying), but must remember that we are energy beings. I believe that before we can begin to take care of our planet, we must learn the lessons in the physical, ascend to the energy, and then perhaps be given another chance at the physical (reincarnation).

It is sad that we are coming to learn these lessons at such a late time in our Earth's life span. I can only hope that our enlightenment may make the coming events to be post-poned and give us more time to prepare, and make peace with Gaia and each other.


Dredd said...


I don't know the mysterious names you mention, but I too see the earth as part organism in the sense that a cyborg is part organism, or in the sense that humans are cyborgs.

Cyborgs in the popular theatre are part biotic and part non-biotic. We don't think of ourselves that way, but we are composed at the lowest level of atoms and molecules that are not biotic, they are machine.

The energy level you mention is a nice way to fuse it all together like Einstein did, e=mc\2, meaning we can represent everything as energy if we want to see it that way.

As you see the tenets of ecocosmology do not bother with having enemies, only complying with the obvious nature of the cosmos from the perspective of the nature of stars as depicted by astronomers and cosmologists.

Good luck to all of us, including you folks, in our difficult journey.

Kelvin said...

The outward migration of the human race or our descendants is a popular notion in sci-fi writings. All good sci-fi has a basis in reality, otherwise it wouldn't be plausible. But, I'm not sure our species is capable of embracing a purpose that goes so far into the future as you propose. Seems we have enough trouble making plans for a year at a time. I'm not saying we shouldn't look that far ahead. I doubt that we can do so. History shows we are very short-sighted.

Dredd said...


Unfortunately, you have stated a good case.

The tenets are nothing more than a road map into the cosmos, a road we must take.

Seems like we are lost, not because of the map, but because we refuse to use the map.

Note that in the map (4 tenets) there is a provision for "religious" or "mystical" lanes on the road (tenet 3(f)), and hopefully one explanation of that tenet will bring people together rather than apart.

Some of the better known believers of ancient history were incredibly far ahead of their time in one sense.

Ryan said...

Why does Tenet 1 suggest 'at an unknown time' - Don't stars have lifespans of different lengths? Don't we have a general idea of how much time we have? The tenet appears to suggest that we have no idea when stars die.

Dredd said...


Excellent question and observation. It gets to the heart of the matter doesn't it?

It is because stars have lifespans of different lengths, even if they are about the same size and type, that their demise is "at an unknown time" to us.

We have a general idea which we work with.

Cosmic timeframes see 10,000 years as nothing, while we see it as well beyond our experience.

Recent studies, which have been mentioned on this blog, have discovered that our models are imperfect.

Some stars are a billion years off, or I should say our models are a billion years off, in some cases.

If we were to suddenly come to our cosmic senses and realize the actual cosmos we live in, then get globally serious about taking care of this home world together, while we build the tecnology to find another world together, there is a possibility we can do it.

In our current configuration where we are aligned against one another, surely destroying our home world's ability to sustain us, while not working on cosmic technology, we are scheduled to become extinct.

Anonymous said...

If 3f is possible, why bother chasing technologies for 3e? Samsara or Nirvana?

Dredd said...


There are scientists who say 3(f) is possible by humans evolving into robots (see posts); there are religionists who say a morph takes place (going to heaven, becoming immortal, etc); and others say we just die and that is it.

The path for the entire human species, from a government standpoint, is to proceed on those things that can be agreed to by a consensus.

Environmental protection is at the same time species protection, so that should be agreeable by consensus.

Improved technology, such as renewable energy, should likewise fit the bill.

But personal beliefs concerning 3(f), at the personal level is very different.

That is where freedom of religion and the like comes into play, so it is each to her or his own.

The wise thing for us to do at this juncture of human history is to learn to live together here on earth in harmony with the earth and each other.

That would be a major accomplishment that would get the entire human species ready for the future.

You could say that we are at 3(a)-(b), and will stay there otherwise.

Randy said...

Dr. Stephen Hawking supports colonization of space as a means of human survival: "Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain lurking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space."

Dredd said...

Hawking recently repeated his statement that is in accord with these tenets of ecocosmology (Stephen Hawking Warns That Aggression Could 'Destroy Us All').

He did so on a visit to a museum.