Researcher links mass extinctions to 'Planet X' | Hacker News Reader

Researcher links mass extinctions to 'Planet X'

phys.org

78 pointsdnetesn62 comments

Comet showers wouldn't explain things like orogeny, vulcanism, and the slow processes which also precede mass extinctions. If the super continent cycle is linked to Planet X, or merely correlated rather unfortunately in time, that would be quite astonishing but I suppose possible.

It seems like a variant of the Nemesis theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28hypothetical_star%2... which according to Adrain Mellott and Richard Bambach the regularity of the mass extinctions cannot be due to a dark star or brown dwarf or other large mass as it's orbit would have been perturbed by close encounters with other stars long ago. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419809/the-death-of-nemes...

Yes: with a completely different (much closer) orbit, Planet X doesn't have that problem.

It would be interesting to know where we are currently on this theoretical mass extinction cycle. Hopefully we have a few million years left.

If certain science fiction is to believed, there is a pan-dimensional super-intelligence that feeds on all sentience once they cross a certain technological level, so it's all futile anyway.

This sounds like a fun read. What particular story are you thinking about?

I was thinking of Star Control, an old game series which was the inspiration for Mass Effect apparently. There's a few other stories like that I'm sure.

SPOILERS AHEAD

In SC, there's a race of beings that wakes up once in a while whenever technology levels in the galaxy reach saturation, and basically eats up all sentient species. One highly-advanced species manages to escape the last cycle by devolving themselves into dumber creatures like cattle. Of course they get stuck in that state and it's up to the next generation of spacefaring civilizations (including us) to collect their relics and revive them and learn how to survive the next cycle.

Awesome game series! Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Control_II#The_Ur-Quan_...

Not sure which book the parent was referring to, but that's the premise of Charles Stross' Laundry Files series: too many humans and too many computers doing too much complex mathematics attract tentacled horrors from beyond space-time. Edit: I also like how in it, mathematics is the language of sorcery, and computing devices of any form - the implements.

In my opinion it's much more likely that sentient beings apathy themselves into extinction.

Humans already show a tendency towards addiction to technology that exploits dopamine triggers, as social networks like Facebook do.

Now imagine a world in which matrix style neural implants give you all the dopamine fulfillment that you want with no need for any effort. And combine this neural implant replacement for reality with extensive automation and AI that replaces the need for physical and mental effort. With an ever decreasing amount of stuff to do in the real world more people start hooking up to the matrix.

It's quite likely a massive portion of the population will dream itself to death without accomplishing anything or giving birth to a new generation of offspring because work, invention, and sex in the real world could never compete with the feeling of something that is tied directly into your brain making you feel like you just solved the world's hardest scientific problem, or ate the best meal ever, or had the best sex ever.

It seems probable that such neural implant tech and automation could be created long before a practical interstellar travel solution is created, which would also be a depressing, but realistic explanation for the Fermi paradox.

> It seems probable that such neural implant tech and automation could be created long before a practical interstellar travel solution is created, which would also be a depressing, but realistic explanation for the Fermi paradox.

So everyone out there is basically sleeping in their beds? :)

That'd be my guess. The tech wouldn't even have to be that sophisticated to be the most addictive thing ever, unfortunately.

Your brain already has the ability to hallucinate worlds very vividly (in fact it does so every night when you sleep). All you need is a device that keeps you sleeping and dreaming, while periodically triggering your brain to dump a bunch of dopamine.

Maybe I'm just too nihilistic, but the way I see the only thing that truly motivates people is that dopamine reward loop in the brain. All the things people enjoy: work and invention, eating, sex, art, even religion are only enjoyable because our brain rewards us by releasing some chemicals in our brains when we participate in them.

Now imagine a neural implant that makes you feel like you simultaneously ate a great meal, had the best orgasm of your life, and did the best work of your life. And you can get this basically free without any real work. There would probably be 100% addiction rate on this thing. Anyone who tried it would be forever ruined on reality.

"Now imagine a neural implant that makes you feel like you simultaneously ate a great meal, had the best orgasm of your life, and did the best work of your life"

It's called acid, and other psychedelics. Sure, people get addicted to it, but not a huge number percentage wise.

> Sure, people get addicted to it, but not a huge number percentage wise.

Is that because they don't get addicted, or because they don't try it?

No, their rotting corpse is laying there, and there are no children or grandchildren there to mourn them (or carry on the existence of the species) because they never had any offspring. As Cubano said, I don't think this is too likely. Some people would see what's happening and simply never hook up.

So in the end, you envision addiction destroying humanity.

It's an interesting insight but I can't really see it happening the way you describe.

There are already many substances (opiates, crack, meth to name a few), some that have been around for centuries, that give intense dopamine-release rushes.

Yet, only a small percentage of people, around 5-10%, seem to have the addictive personality required to completely disengage from reality and destroy their lives with these substances.

The human species has millions of years of evolutionary programming to survive the nuerodystopia you predict.

People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug.

On the other hand people who lack things that give them the natural dopamine trigger tend to get highly addicted to chemicals that trigger the dopamine release artificially.

I'll admit I'm a highly pessimistic person but from what I see we are trending more and more towards automation and AI that will remove the need and even the possibility of having many of those natural dopamine triggers.

Imagine a world where its impossible to invent or create anything new because an AI more capable than you has already created it, and what's more the frontier of what the AI is capable of is expanding faster than your mind can physically catch up with so you will never be able to match it, ever.

And in this world when it comes to work or art there is always an AI/robot that can do it astronomically better than you can. Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding.

My nihilistic prediction is that our evolutionary programming won't be able to keep up with technology past a certain point, and instead we'll just be held back by our animal programming.

A less pessimistic view on the future would be not a divergence of humans and AI/computers but a co-development. If we can merge we might be able to keep up.

>People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug.

That sounds like something you should back up with unambiguous evidence.

I urge you to look up that evidence for yourself, it is easily found. There is both empirical evidence, from e.g. rats, and sociological experiments, from rehab centers.

Also, I reject your use of "unambiguous". Ambiguity is a given, we're not discussing a mathematical proof here.

The research I've seen suggests that rats and other creatures will give up everything you listed for another hit of the right drug.

Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

I seem to remember a study that attributed this behavior to the captive environment of the subjects (rats), and once the environment was changed, they weaned off on their own. Can't find it right now, but will keep looking.

Edit: sibling post found it, apparently its results couldn't be replicated :/

Rat park was a replication, it was inspired by disregarded evidence of soldiers returning from war.

Most Soldiers who were using 'addictive' drugs simply gave them up when returning home.

A small but constant percentage didn't ~3-5% - Alexander postulated that these types will become addicted to something and it was genotype & circumstance that led to addictive behaviours not the drugs themselves being chemically addictive.

Bruce Alexander has stated that this evidence led him to try to confirm it with his Rat Park experiment.

He plainly showed it was the inhuman conditions that led rats to kill themselves with drugs, well performed, proper controls.

Flew in the face of the prevailing orthodoxy and the political capital of the drug war boogeyman - so no funding for replication. Career suicide to replicate it back then.

It is pretty obviously true, there is hardly a human activity without an associated -oholicism.

I know a lot of people who hate or are ambivalant their jobs, have bad or no relationships/sex, and are not drug addicts or even recreational users.

Well written answer but there's a contradiction in what you're saying. You say: "Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding."

And your conclusion is that the result of this will be that people will get addicted on drugs rather than seeking relationships with other people. But you just said that most people will have relationships with instances of AI instead. So people will not get addicted on drugs, they will just have amazingly happy relationships with uber social AI instances.

We now face the danger, which in the past has been the most destructive to the humans: Success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure. No dynamic people has ever survived these dangers.

- John Steinbeck [1]

[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/559551-we-now-face-the-dang...

They are "dangers" only when your neighbors don't have them. When the whole world has success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure, there's little reason for anyone to become agitated and attack someone.

At least until we run into an agitated alien species with better toys than us.

"There are already many substances (opiates, crack, meth to name a few), some that have been around for centuries, that give intense dopamine-release rushes."

Yeah, but consider something that directly stimulates the brain - the best first hit of heroin anyone has ever experienced, under the best conditions, would be nothing by comparison. We can't even imagine the results of that kind of hit.

Your definition of "sentient being" seems too anthropocentric to me. Why should anyone but humans happen to have evolved something like a brain with dopamine centers and the capacity for pleasure or addiction?

His position doesn't really change if you accept the use of "dopamine center" as a metaphor. For as far as we know, reward/punishment are essential triggers for adaptive neural networks. I don't think it's anthropocentric to presuppose that any advanced lifeform can artificially stimulate its own reward mechanisms.

I've wondered before if one "great filter" might not be utopia. Species achieve a very pleasant steady state, adopt some form of epicurean philosophy, and then sit there until they fade away or something kills them.

The filter would be whether an intelligence, having achieved a very satisfying "utopian" local maximum, chooses "irrationally" to continue striving.

It's really not so irrational though if you understand what a local maximum is and the implications. But it might feel that way.

This is basically the plot and core idea of goethe's Faust. The deal he makes with the devil is that the devil will give him knowledge and power but can take his soul the moment he becomes content.

I was just explaining why whoever came up with that schene shouldve got an award or something. Particularly due to fact that they use pre-mastered tech, geography, and transport they control to force evolution to develop in a way that poses littke risk to them. Might actually work.

This is what I came to ask. We won't have an exact year but I wonder how accurate of a range we could get.

Within the next ~100-200 years?

Don't hold your breath, the margin of error on these things is about 1 million years.

This paper ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.0437v1.pdf ) estimates 11 million years into a 27 million year cycle. So a typical mid-point position (yey!).

We're currently the primary cause of an on-going mass extinction. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

That's fine. We still have a thousand years or two. We should be off this planet by then.

It's weird how we seem to understand exponential growth of technology but have a hard time grasping the exponential build-up of excess greenhouse gases due to the exponential growth of human population and economy.

I wonder how these thousand years might look if currently there have been temperature difference of extremes by 20 degrees, with average already raised by 2.

For example, mass extinction of oceanic ecosystems is due to somewhere around 2050s. Whole oceans will get empty very quickly. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787

Collateral victim count of ~3 trillion yearly deaths of oceanic animals is a big contributor.

We'll see how the world will cope when main oxygen producers disappear.

Presuming, we don`t have some AI that bio-upgrades whole ecosystems via DNA-update. Your seahshell of 2050 might be made of carbonfibre. Still its a race..

Not by 2050. Maybe 2500.

It's even harder to believe that in the face of thousands of years of human progress and overcoming of the doomsday scenario of each decade and century that we still continue to fear tomorow.

Well, it's good that the problem solvers of the world are not as optimistic and wish to solve the problems.

Otherwise we'd all be like "good, in a thousand years everything's going to be ok, 'cos science".

The idea that humans can colonize other planets is plausible. You send a thousand smart people to Mars with the right supplies and equipment and they could use it to build a self-sustaining infrastructure that then grows into a community of millions.

The idea that ten billion humans are going to take off in spaceships and abandon the Earth is utterly preposterous. The last human on Earth will die on Earth, not leave it for some other place.

Humans are dangerous!

Would it be possible to see this planet X with optical telescopes if we knew where to look at? (Assuming the figures given in article, mass 10 times earth, distance from sun 1000 times earth's distance)

In short, if we could it would already have a name.

XKCD did a great chart to explain this potential 9th planet: https://xkcd.com/1633/

If its mass is 10 times Earth but it has similar density, its diameter would be 10^1/3 times Earth's, or 2.75 x 10^7 m. 1000 AU is 1.50 x 10^14 m. Their ratio is equal to the angular size in radians, since atan(x) = x to within our desired precision, giving 2.75e7/1.5e14/2pi36060*60 = 0.0378 arcseconds.

The Keck observatory has angular resolution of 0.04 arcseconds at best, according to Wikipedia. So, by this back of the envelope calculation, the answer is "theoretically, but probably not".

In your above calculation, you're assuming that an object needs to be resolved to be visible. To the contrary, telescopes are able to see un-resolved objects (objects whose angular size is below the angular resolution of the telescope) all the time -- they are called "stars". The relevant parameter here isn't angular size, but flux[0] (brightness).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux

You're absolutely right, I realized that right after I posted that.

They have been looking for Kuiper planet X on the cover of Scientic American last year. They ruled out a gas giant planet because it would have been bright enoungh in infra red from the heat of self gravitation to already have been seen.

The kuiper planet x modeling can only constraint to about a quarter of the sky, which is large search.

By Keplers Law a highly elliptical planet x orbit would spend most of its time far out when itbis dimmest and slowest. This planet x could be 40 times further away than pluto where it could a thousand times dimmer and a hundred times slower motion across thevsky than hard to see pluto.

The extinction planet x is even farther and slower.

That would depend on the body's albedo and where it's currently located in its orbit.

If it's the ninth planet, surely it should be "Planet IX"

The X refers to the planet being mysterious / unknown, not the Roman numeral for 10.

According to Chinese President Eleven Jinping, yes.

The term "Planet X" predates Pluto's demotion to dwarf planet.

"So you think there's a chance" - Niburu

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm

I really hope they name it Niburu.

Surely we can put our differences behind us, when it comes to create space lasers that protect us from a humanity-on-the-rocks scenario? Or at least send a probe out,which proves that vital defense can be used for offense and to solve the Fermi-Paradoxon.

Link to fulltext (paywalled): http://mnrasl.oxfordjournals.org/content/455/1/L114.full

Link to pdf (sci-hub): http://moscow.sci-hub.io/e21032770e31901836a9486eda028120/wh...

I have already joined the Apostles of the Flame...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com