
Researcher links mass extinctions to 'Planet X' - dnetesn
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-links-mass-extinctions-planet.html
======
gatlin
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.

------
fsiefken
It seems like a variant of the Nemesis theory:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28hypothetical_star%2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28hypothetical_star%29)
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...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419809/the-death-of-nemesis-the-
suns-distant-dark-companion/)

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

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

~~~
Razengan
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.

~~~
NathanKP
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.

~~~
cubano
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.

~~~
NathanKP
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.

~~~
Retra
>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.

~~~
tremon
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.

~~~
CamperBob2
The research I've seen suggests that rats and other creatures will give up
everything you listed for another hit of the right drug.

~~~
kalmi10
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 :/

~~~
deepnet
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.

------
jpalomaki
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)

~~~
dietrichepp
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 2.75e7/1.5e14/2pi _360_ 60*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".

~~~
tomr_stargazer
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux)

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

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

~~~
labster
According to Chinese President Eleven Jinping, yes.

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

Ref:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm)

~~~
gnarbarian
I really hope they name it Niburu.

------
onetimePete
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.

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

~~~
cinquemb
Link to pdf (sci-hub): [http://moscow.sci-
hub.io/e21032770e31901836a9486eda028120/wh...](http://moscow.sci-
hub.io/e21032770e31901836a9486eda028120/whitmire2015.pdf)

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

