As others do, I also wonder out loud "where have all the visionaries gone", whose bodies and visionary work have now seemingly returned into the dust of the earth?
Are you wondering why I am getting all ubi sunt ("where have all the flowers gone") on you?
Within the tenets of Ecocosmology, because it is based on the hard core reality we can observe scientifically, ubi sunt is not considered directly.
That practice is the same for evolution and cosmology too, because so far as we can detect currently, such functional discourse is properly limited to the realm of metaphysics and/or philosophy.
In Ecocosmology, since we do not know where they have gone, from a scientific proof point of view, the notion of ubi sunt is only considered indirectly, because the tenets of Ecocosmology urge a merging of the best of science and the best of mysticism and "religion" (defined as essentially all non-scientific, but still truthful, endeavours) for the survival of the human species. It points out that the only way out of the star migrations is to:
... morph into a species free from that type of solar/planetary cosmic dependence.(Tenet 3(f)). Ok, lets imagine for the moment that the human species, a million years from now, is living in its second star system, after having traveled there in our own space vehicles.
That is, imagine humanity is living on a habitable planet 76 light years away from the earth, a planet which was originally discovered by the Kepler Mission in our time (21st Century).
The tenets of Ecocosmology say that this "new" star too will wear out and die, and then humanity will have to move on again to yet another star in order to continue to survive.
What breaks that cosmic nomadic cycle is a morph or evolution into a species that does not depend on stars, and by extension does not depend on "habitable planets", in the manner now required prior to that morph.
Ok, so a transcendent event well beyond the current concepts of science, yet often contemplated in various ways by the metaphysical ideologies, must take place according to that tenet of Ecocomsmology.
But even when that tenet and morph is articulated well, and fully contemplated, still that discourse will not solve the problem or notion of ubi sunt, because we do not know where everyone who has died has gone (from a scientific viewpoint).
We can still, even at that time in the far distant future, ask "what happened to all of those who went before us" and ache with remorse that they are no longer with us.
Is the universe so uncaring or unjust to forget those who will have made the survival of the human species possible?
Are the only human beings worth considering those presently alive at any given time and place?
There you have it, if that was the case, then that selfish notion would doom the human species then and there, because no one would be thinking of the future of humanity, and instead would think only of themselves and that moment in time.
Religion and/or philosophy has addressed the notion of a resurrection from the dead or some other return to life, reincarnation, endless life existing within us already, and other ways of dealing with the ubi sunt problem.
The thrust of Ecocosmology is to allow contemplation of all of this as we work together on our common denominator issues: keeping the earth healthy, helping each other at an international level, and developing technology that will allow migration to other habitable planets as needed.
That is a full plate that does not find it necessary to leave anyone out of the picture, whether they are "alive" or not.