Where do species go when they die, do they go anywhere, or do we just decompose back into atoms and molecules?
The latter seems so obvious that even those who believe in an afterlife do not tend to try to dispute it, but those scientists who allow the question of any afterlife into their ears tend to be dismissive of the subject.
What those who believe in an afterlife do say, however, is that we are not composed completely of biological material, instead there is a metaphysical component that continues upon the occasion of our biological death.
The gist of that metaphysical assertion is that we take on a new format to thereby continue on to an existence independent of biological necessities.
Here again we find that some scientists and religionists agree, in a sense, on some aspects of this issue, that is, some scientists teach that the human species will evolve into sentient super robots then spread out into space independent of the need of a biologically habitable planet.
Ecocosmology does not deal with the subject, except to say that our biological species is compelled to live on habitable planets near central stars, from where we must periodically migrate when the star goes into demise (thereby destroying the planets orbiting them, together with any life forms inhabiting those planets).
That is, unless species on those planets orbiting those sure-to-die stars evolve into a species that does not require habitable planets orbiting stars for their survival.
If we evolve into sentient robots, as the scientists urge, or live in a form that does not require a habitable, biological planet, as the mystics urge, then the ubi sunt question has been dealt with looking forward.
That leaves us looking backwards in order to deal with the question of what happened to all those who did not evolve into sentient robots or super beings.
Did they simply vanish?
That is the essence of ubi sunt, it is not a rock band, but it is a popular consideration generating a lot of literary works:
(Newsweek). The simplicity of Ecocosmology is perfectly scientific (see Occam's Razor).
And if that's not enough to convince you, D'Souza provides a checklist of benefits from believing in life after death: it keeps us honest, gives our lives "a sense of hope and purpose"—and "surveys show" that believers have better sex. It provides "a mechanism to teach our children right from wrong"—a mechanism that those who have been subjected to it tend to describe as a neurotic lifelong fear of going to Hell. And if your smart-alecky kid, full of all that Galileo stuff they get in school nowadays, should ask just where this Judgment business takes place, D'Souza provides you with a response. It happens in the multiverse, the infinitely multiplying complex of worlds predicted by some versions of quantum theory. In the multiverse, physical laws can take on different values, and matter itself may have a different form, so "there is nothing in physics to contradict the idea that we can live beyond death in other realms with bodies that are unlike the bodies we now possess."
Admittedly, the multiverse, although a perfectly respectable concept in theoretical physics, is supported by no more empirical evidence than the soul itself.
It simply says that if we stay too long on any biological, habitable planet we will cease to exist, because the star providing life for a limited time eventually also provides utter destruction, as it phases out.
That reality urges biologically bound species to get cracking to find another habitable world, while taking care of the current one they inhabit, so as to survive long enough to develop competent space travel.
The tenets of Ecocosmology are very scientifically based.
Ecocosmology is also is not dismissive of mystical ideas about a more durable species, or the scientific notion of durable robot species, but instead asserts that if we do not become durable we must be cosmic nomads "looking for a home" ad infinitum.