Latest / Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History / What If We’re Not the First? – The Silurian Hypothesis Explained

Transcript

What If We’re Not the First? – The Silurian Hypothesis Explained · Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History

0:21
Hello and welcome back.
0:23
Today we are going to discuss the Silurian
0:25
hypothesis based on a request from one of
0:28
the patrons.
0:29
So let's talk about it.
0:33
To keep it very simple, the Silurian hypothesis
0:36
is not a statement that in the past
0:40
that there has been an advanced civilization on
0:43
earth, but is a scientific thought experiment that
0:47
asks.
0:50
If there has been an industrial civilization millions
0:54
of years before us, would it be able
0:57
to detect it today?
1:02
For the scientists behind the article, Smith and
1:06
Frank, is the hypothesis about the detection problem.
1:11
It's not about existence.
1:16
The main problem, or should we say the
1:17
main thesis in the hypothesis, is that an
1:22
industrial civilization is one that uses energy in
1:25
large scale as we do today.
1:28
So the question Gavin, sorry, Smith and Frank
1:34
raised is what traces will civilization leave in
1:43
the geology and will these traces survive millions
1:47
of years?
1:50
Adam Frank says in an interview, we did
1:54
not say that there was a civilization.
1:56
We asked, how would we know?
1:59
The hypothesis has a key problem, that is
2:02
that the surface of the earth is reset.
2:10
Tectonic is reusing the earth over millions of
2:15
years.
2:16
Everything older than a few million years is
2:19
often melted, buried deep, or is eroded away.
2:25
So that means that what we have today
2:27
in some forms of cities, of roads, and
2:30
artifacts, etc.
2:31
will not survive.
2:37
Furthermore, it's only a fraction of the organism
2:40
that's actually going to be fossilized.
2:42
So that means if we look at dinosaurs
2:45
who live for millions of years, we only
2:47
have a few found.
2:49
I think it's about 1,500, I say
2:51
again, 1,500 species that we have found.
2:57
The rest is gone.
2:59
So that means that a civilization that lasted,
3:03
I don't know, 10,000, 20,000, perhaps
3:05
100,000 years, will probably not leave any
3:10
kind of fossils.
3:13
So the hypothesis has a theory, that is
3:18
that we should look for indirect geological fingerprints.
3:23
So if we look in our own time,
3:27
we will ask, what do we leave?
3:30
And that is chemical signatures, that could be
3:34
changes in carbon dioxide, it could be disturbances
3:39
in sediments, etc.
3:44
Also, the climate has some issues here.
3:49
We are discussing fast global heating, we are
3:54
discussing changes in oxygen, in temperature, and in
3:58
the chemistry of the oceans.
4:00
So the assumption is that an industrial civilization
4:04
will almost certainly change the climate.
4:09
Furthermore, we have pollution in terms of heavy
4:16
metal, plastic, artificial chemicals, radioactive isotopes, etc.
4:24
These kind of things can survive a very
4:27
long time in terms of geological things.
4:33
Furthermore, we have changes in the biosphere.
4:36
We have mass extinctions, we have sudden spreading
4:40
of certain species, and so on.
4:46
But the thing is with this, that is
4:50
common nature things, they can actually do the
4:53
same signals.
4:54
For instance, if a volcano erupts, we have
4:59
a major impact, or we have natural climate
5:02
changes.
5:04
So even if we see a temperature rise,
5:06
we see changes in the isotopic things, and
5:10
we see changes in the biosphere, it can
5:16
still be absolutely normal.
5:20
So what does it actually say?
5:22
What is the contribution of this hypothesis?
5:26
It's important, because it actually sets our own
5:29
civilization in perspective, because our fingerprint might be
5:35
only a few centimeters thick in terms of
5:39
geology.
5:41
But it helps astrobiology, because if we are
5:44
looking for life on other planets, perhaps we
5:48
should know what kind of traces that we
5:50
are leaving.
5:52
And it also raises some questions, because how
5:56
often does technological civilization actually occur, and how
6:01
long do they last?
6:04
So if we look in our own past,
6:09
we actually see something.
6:12
And here I apologize in front of my
6:14
pronunciations of these things, but the first and
6:18
most important thing is the Paleocene-Eneocene Thermal
6:23
Maximum, called PETM, and that was about 56
6:28
million years ago.
6:31
At that time, we have a rapid rise
6:34
in the temperature between 5 and 8 degrees
6:37
Celsius.
6:38
We have a large rise in the carbon
6:44
dioxide in the atmosphere, and then we have
6:49
a rapid change in the isotopes related to
6:56
the carbon dioxide.
7:02
So why does it look like a civilization
7:05
signature?
7:07
The thing is that when we have a
7:09
rise in this carbon dioxide, we have a
7:12
climate shock, we have changes in the ocean
7:15
chemistry, then it's exactly the type of signal
7:19
that industrial civilization would leave.
7:23
But the thing is that if you look
7:27
at it, that is the timeline.
7:32
It's slower than our current heating of the
7:36
global heating, and the most likely reason is
7:41
actually volcanoes and the release of methane from
7:46
the ocean floor.
7:48
So the point here is that even that
7:51
we have something that looks like us, it
7:54
could be entirely natural.
7:57
If we look at the 120 million years
8:00
ago, we have the ocean anoxic event called
8:04
OAE, and what happened was basically the oceans
8:08
were losing oxygen, so large areas of the
8:13
ocean become dead zones.
8:17
We have black organic sediments that were created
8:24
as sediment.
8:26
If we ask ourselves how does that look
8:29
like something that's created by humans, because today
8:32
we are creating dead zones, and that is
8:35
primarily due to pollution, of course, but also
8:38
because of farming.
8:43
So bottom line is that we have the
8:45
same mechanism as, should we say, modern environmental
8:49
effects.
8:52
But yet again, we can have a natural
8:54
explanation that could be volcanoes erupting, it could
8:58
be changes in the circulation of the oceans.
9:02
Furthermore, we also have mass extinctions.
9:05
For instance, for 66 million years ago, we
9:08
had a very certain, what do you call
9:14
it, a very substantial fall in biodiversity, you
9:17
know, basically mass extinction.
9:20
And we have a very thin layer in
9:23
the geology with unusual chemistry, for instance, iridium.
9:29
It's relevant because an industrial civilization could also
9:34
extinct species, but it could also change the
9:38
ecosystems dramatically.
9:40
And to be bluntly, if we look around,
9:43
we are doing exactly the same, but it
9:46
could also be because of a meteor impact.
9:50
It could be because of super volcanoes and
9:53
things like that.
9:58
So the point in the Silurian hypothesis is
10:01
that we can find layers with sediment where
10:09
we can see that there are changes in
10:11
the climate, we can see chemistry anomalies, and
10:14
we can see changes in the biosphere.
10:19
But we cannot say if it's natural or
10:21
technological.
10:24
But the thing is that the hypothesis is
10:28
actually having a quite wild conclusion, and that
10:33
is that even if an advanced civilization has
10:37
existed for, say, 100 million years ago, it's
10:41
not certain that we could prove it today.
10:44
Not because it does not exist, but because
10:48
our methods have limitations.
10:54
So when scientists today are comparing our, should
10:58
we say, current fingerprints with previous geological events,
11:05
some events like PETM, OAE, or mass extinctions,
11:08
they look very much like what we are
11:12
doing today, but they could all have natural
11:16
explanations.
11:18
And that shows, and that is why the
11:21
hypothesis shows how hard it is to separate
11:26
technology from natural explanations.
11:32
So if I sum it up, one of
11:35
the key problems is that the Earth is
11:40
resetting its own history, in the same way
11:43
as if you take a USB drive, put
11:46
it in a computer, and then do formatting.
11:49
So because of plate tectonic, because of erosion,
11:54
because of other kinds of degradation, over millions
12:00
of years will all physical remains of a
12:04
civilization simply be destroyed.
12:07
Cities will be eroded, metal, concrete, etc.
12:14
will all be gone.
12:18
Artifacts, everything will be gone.
12:22
So that means that we cannot find direct
12:24
traces, we need to look for indirect traces,
12:28
we need to look for fingerprints, we need
12:31
to look in the geochemistry tracks, if you
12:36
say so, we have to look for isotopic
12:38
changes, we have to look for changes in
12:41
carbon dioxide, and we have to look after
12:45
artificial, or should we say rare, minerals.
12:54
So if you say something like, on this
12:56
basis you could argue that we do not
13:00
know if an advanced civilization has existed before.
13:04
The short answer is that that is not
13:06
entirely true.
13:09
I mean, it's wrong to say we do
13:12
not know it, because the correct answer is
13:16
a little more complicated.
13:20
We could say, on basis of this theory,
13:24
that we have no proof for previous industrial
13:30
civilizations, but on the other hand we cannot
13:33
rule out it with absolute certainty.
13:38
If we look for Frank and Smith, they
13:42
do not rule out with certainty that no
13:48
civilization has existed in the past, but they
13:51
say something like that we have no fossils,
13:54
we have no artifacts, we have no geochemistry
13:58
signals, so that means that they have strong
14:02
doubts that previous civilizations have existed, but they
14:06
cannot rule it out with certainty.
14:10
According to science, Homo sapiens has existed for
14:14
about 300,000 years, and the Earth is
14:17
about 4.5 billion years.
14:21
And since no land is older than, say,
14:24
150, perhaps 200 million years, then we have
14:29
a lot of, should we say, age to
14:34
explain.
14:40
If you look at the ocean floor, that
14:42
is typically less than 200 million years old,
14:46
and if you look at the surface of
14:49
the Earth, then it's constantly changed and, should
14:52
we say, reset.
14:55
A centimeter or perhaps half a centimeter a
14:59
year might not sound as much, but if
15:04
we take millions of years, then the entire
15:07
surface of the Earth is reused, and that
15:12
means that in reality we cannot use it
15:17
as an archive, because what we have today
15:19
will probably, in millions of years, say 50
15:22
or 100 million years, it will probably be
15:27
bottom of the ocean or something like that.
15:30
And that is actually quite important, because that
15:33
means that if we have to look, say,
15:34
50 million years back, 100 million years back,
15:38
we don't need, we don't should look at
15:41
the surface, we should look at the bottom
15:44
of the surface, but not only that, because
15:48
it might be below the ocean floor.
15:56
So, if we look at the 4.5
16:01
billion years, then the first 500 million years,
16:05
then Earth is created.
16:07
There was probably heavy volcanoes and meteor impact
16:11
and so on, and there was probably no
16:14
stable surface, there was no life, that was
16:19
very chaotic.
16:20
So, for the first 3 billion years, then
16:23
we have life starts, but it's only be
16:27
simple organism, it will be bacterias and so
16:31
on.
16:33
If you look at the, should we say,
16:35
more complex life, then we look probably at
16:38
the last 600 million years, where we can
16:42
see that the animals is developing, and we
16:46
see plants and land and so on.
16:48
If we look at the dinosaur area, that
16:50
is about 230 million years until 66 million
16:56
years ago, where we have meteor impact.
16:59
There we have complex animals, we see millions
17:03
of years with evolution, and we see no
17:05
technology.
17:07
So, you could ask, why is there no
17:10
civilization in this?
17:12
If we go further from 66 million years
17:16
until today, then we see after the extension
17:20
of the dinosaurs, we can see mammals is
17:24
developing, and eventually that homosapiens is developing.
17:31
And if you look at the homosapiens, that
17:33
is for the past 300,000 years.
17:37
And if we look at the farming, we
17:39
are discussing the past 10,000 years, and
17:42
if we are discussing industrial scale, it's for
17:45
the past 200, perhaps 300 years.
17:50
So, what we call civilization is actually a
17:53
very tiny fraction of 4.5 billion years.
17:58
If we are discussing industrial 300 year versus
18:02
4.5 billion years, that is a very
18:05
tiny fraction.
18:07
It's like, if you look at an hour,
18:09
it's not only a second.
18:12
But if we look at that, it's so
18:17
much time.
18:18
So, I think that the question is, is
18:22
it possible that inside, say, the last 100
18:25
million years, that a civilization could have been
18:30
created and disappeared again?
18:35
And here I'm only talking about the last
18:37
100 million years, not about the 4.4
18:41
billion years that goes before that.
18:49
If you ask a scientist, he will probably
18:51
say that this is a rare coincidence when
18:53
human has developed this industrial scale civilization.
18:58
My question is that if it happened once,
19:02
why not multiple times during 4.5 billion
19:06
years?
19:10
I think it's actually absurd that there should
19:13
be no more, should we say, tries.
19:20
But the science would say something like that
19:24
a technological civilization would require an extreme combination
19:30
of intelligence, of hands, it will require language,
19:38
it will require culture, it will require access
19:41
to energy and stable environments.
19:45
So, it's not just a matter of intelligence,
19:47
it's a very specific package.
19:50
And furthermore, an important point here is that
19:54
they would say that timing is actually crucial,
20:00
because we are living in a time on
20:06
Earth where we have fossil fuel, we have
20:10
a stable climate, and we have, should we
20:14
say, a high degree of biodiversity.
20:19
And it's not certain that all these factors
20:23
have been available in the past.
20:27
So, they would say something like that, even
20:29
if you have the time, that is not
20:31
the same as the development of an industrial
20:34
civilization has happened several times.
20:41
If we look back at my argument, and
20:43
we're only looking at the last 100 million
20:46
years, that is, I would say, quite some
20:49
time.
20:51
And if we look at 300,000 years,
20:53
which is for the development of the Homo
20:56
sapiens, that is only not even 3%, it's
21:00
0.3% of 100 million years.
21:04
So, in reality, I would say that in
21:08
the past, it is possible, for the past
21:11
100 million years, that all the factors required
21:16
for development of not only life, but also
21:19
for the factors for an industrial civilization, they
21:24
could be created, and they could be lost,
21:26
simply because we cannot detect them.
21:31
We have seen that surfaces is changed, that
21:34
sediments is buried, and ocean floor is reused,
21:38
it is reset.
21:39
So, after millions of years, you know, cities
21:42
are gone, artifacts are gone, and very few
21:45
fossils actually existing.
21:50
One of the key things is here, scientists
21:54
would argue against my, they would say, industrial
21:58
civilizations, they will leave global traces.
22:03
If a civilization reaches our level, it will
22:08
change carbon dioxide, it will change climate, it
22:13
will change different things, and it will spread
22:17
metals and chemicals.
22:20
And that will happen on the entire planet,
22:22
not only local.
22:24
Here, I would say something like, you don't
22:27
know that for certain, because technology can be
22:30
different.
22:31
You assume that what you're looking for is
22:34
our technology, and not something else.
22:36
And I will return to this argument later
22:38
on.
22:45
So, the point is, if you ask me,
22:49
is that we will see traces, but we
22:54
cannot know for certain if it was a
22:56
civilization.
22:57
And because of that, we cannot rule it
22:58
out.
23:03
It could have happened, and it could be
23:05
gone without traces.
23:07
That is my point.
23:15
You could put it down to, like, these
23:18
two phrases.
23:20
It's not that we will not see it,
23:22
it is what we see that we might
23:25
not be able to recognize it.
23:33
And one of the key thing is here,
23:34
that if something is supposed to be natural,
23:38
then it can always explain something technological.
23:43
Because the assumption is that it's natural, and
23:49
that's why we will always return to that.
24:01
So, that means that even if you find
24:03
something technological in the past, we can always
24:10
explain that this is pure natural.
24:14
And then the hypothesis about the previous civilization
24:18
is impossible to confirm.
24:23
In science theory, this is a problem that
24:29
is not possible to prove this.
24:36
So, if you have same, should we say,
24:39
signal in the geology, but you have multiple
24:42
explanations, then I do agree that the nature
24:47
can mimic technology.
24:50
But the thing is that if you have
24:51
multiple explanations, it might be, should we say,
24:57
not the correct answer that you choose, just
25:01
because it's the easy one.
25:06
And that is actually one of the key
25:08
problems, if you ask me about science.
25:12
Because they always go with the simple explanation.
25:16
The simple explanation is natural, it's well documented,
25:22
and civilizations before us, now we have no
25:24
evidence of that.
25:26
So, let's go with the simple solution.
25:30
It's not enough something can't be true, it
25:33
has to be even more true.
25:42
So, the key problem here is actually that
25:45
the Silurian hypothesis is not just about the
25:50
past, it's about how do we know something
25:56
at all.
26:00
So, let me take an example.
26:03
The Oklu reactor in Africa, that
26:14
is an area in Gabon, the country Gabon
26:17
in Africa, that is for about two billion
26:19
years ago, then there's happening, how should we
26:23
say, a self-sustaining nuclear reactor.
26:32
So, in my view, it sounds like something
26:35
that is being built by somebody.
26:40
Because an atomic reactor to work, it requires
26:45
urine, it requires a moderator, in this case
26:50
water, and then it requires certain circumstances.
26:58
So, when we design nowadays in an atomic
27:02
power plant, then we do the same, should
27:07
we say, design criteria.
27:16
But science says this is natural.
27:20
So, that means that for thousands of years
27:24
in Gabon, you had water that goes in,
27:30
then it heats up, vaporize, and then the
27:36
reactor restart.
27:37
And that happens for thousands of years in
27:39
a stable process.
27:41
So, that means that, to put it bluntly,
27:44
that the urine was about three percent in,
27:49
should we say, purity, whereas today it's about
27:53
0.7 percent.
27:55
So, that means it was much higher at
27:58
that time, for two billion years ago.
28:01
And that is actually the reason why science
28:05
says that this is natural, because it could
28:07
happen naturally.
28:09
And the geology was actually perfect, because the
28:16
urine was in layers where the water could
28:22
pass.
28:23
So, when the water passes through, it works
28:26
as a moderator, and when it becomes too
28:28
hot, then the water will vaporize and the
28:31
reaction will stop.
28:33
And then it will turn on and off
28:35
automatically with the water flow.
28:39
And the thing is that if you look
28:41
at the isotopic signature, that is precisely as
28:45
natural fission.
28:48
So, that matches the reaction.
28:51
And the science says, actually, that this is
28:56
not created by humans.
28:58
It is not something that looks like it's
29:00
purely natural.
29:04
And we can explain what happened.
29:05
It's not unnatural, but it requires a rare
29:11
combination of urine 235.
29:16
It requires a certain geological structure, and it
29:19
requires water flow.
29:20
It's extremely rare, but it's not mythical, they
29:24
would say.
29:25
My point here is that if something is
29:27
natural, perhaps we should see it elsewhere.
29:35
Listeners of this channel know that I'm a
29:40
big fan of Darwin.
29:42
And actually, Darwin, he was actually very scientific.
29:49
In his theory, survival of the fittest, he
29:52
was asking himself the crucial question.
29:55
He said, if I am right, and the
29:59
survival of the fittest is a correct theory,
30:04
where is all the losers?
30:06
And that was actually his key problem.
30:09
He says, where is the losers?
30:12
And that is exactly my point here.
30:15
If this is natural, we should find this
30:17
concept elsewhere in the world.
30:19
It might not become a full-blown reactor,
30:23
but we should find something.
30:26
A part of being, should we say, a
30:28
natural explanation is also that you actually see
30:31
it more than once.
30:35
And furthermore, if we assume that science is
30:40
right, this is natural, then this looks exactly
30:44
like technology.
30:46
How would we know the difference?
30:58
Personally, I think that the Auckland reactor is
31:01
actually a quite extreme statement.
31:06
Because if an atomic reactor is actually created
31:11
natural, and it can run for thousands of
31:14
years, I think that requires an extraordinary proof.
31:20
It's not enough to say that because we
31:24
can explain the physics, then it's natural.
31:29
You should see tracks of other atomic reactors.
31:34
I mean, if you look at where you
31:37
have urine around the world, then it's not
31:43
uncommon that it's found in the mountain areas.
31:47
It's not uncommon that there's water.
31:50
Something here should happen.
31:52
And if you go back in time, two
31:54
billion years in this case, then you have
31:58
a much higher enrichment of the urine.
32:01
But also because of that, that should lead
32:06
to more, should we say, failed reactors.
32:10
And where are they?
32:12
And simply because, that is my point, because
32:15
we only have one reactor, you should provide
32:20
an extraordinary case for this.
32:26
So my bottom line here is actually that
32:28
that proves that science is not objective, at
32:34
least not 100%.
32:35
Because bottom line is that this is a
32:39
subject judgment.
32:42
So if two scientists look at the same
32:45
data, and we can see the same results,
32:50
then they basically can choose different explanations.
32:59
And if you have a scientific explanation that
33:02
says this is natural, then it becomes, you
33:05
know, the default explanation.
33:07
So why, you know, talk about atomic reactors,
33:13
when we can say that we know what
33:15
happens because of this.
33:17
But what you explain is actually what is
33:20
happening.
33:20
You do not explain how it is created.
33:33
To put it bluntly, if you say this
33:37
was technology, then you suddenly have to explain,
33:42
hmm, who created it?
33:44
It has to be an unknown civilization.
33:47
There has to be, you know, some kind
33:49
of mining.
33:51
It has to be, I mean, who designed
33:53
the reactor and this kind of things.
33:55
I realize that is a heavy explanation.
33:58
So it's a lot easier to say, hmm,
34:00
this is natural.
34:01
We know the principles and so on.
34:03
So I don't want to discuss it's artificial.
34:09
We simply just say that this is unnatural.
34:13
So then you suddenly would say something like
34:16
that just because it's rare is not the
34:19
same as unnatural.
34:27
And the thing is here that what is
34:29
actually proof is that science does not choose
34:32
the truth.
34:35
They are choosing, should we say, the best
34:37
explanations without complicating stuff.
34:44
And that process is not objective.
34:47
It's entirely subjective.
34:54
One of the key problems here is actually,
34:56
if we go back to the Silurian hypothesis,
34:58
is that we have the assumption that a
35:01
technology, technological advanced civilization in the past is
35:06
following the same development as we do today.
35:09
So because we have developed plastic, then they
35:14
are also, you know, okay, they need plastic.
35:18
And so on it goes.
35:20
And that is actually one of my key
35:23
problems here.
35:25
Imagine that you have a civilization that is
35:30
actually, you know, not created about burning fuel
35:40
like oil and so on, but is more
35:43
environmental.
35:45
That, I don't know, they're using windmill or
35:48
something else.
35:49
The thing is that the energy consumption is
35:53
not the same profile as we do today.
35:56
They might use less energy.
35:58
I mean, one of the key thing is
36:00
that transportation.
36:02
For instance, nowadays, everything is transported.
36:07
So if you have vegetables and so on,
36:09
they can easily, if you live in US,
36:11
they can easily come from Canada or Mexico,
36:13
or perhaps even further away.
36:16
That kind of things requires burning of fossil
36:19
fuels.
36:20
But the thing is that what if you
36:22
choose to create the vegetables locally?
36:26
Do your own gardening, for instance.
36:28
That is an entire different profile, but it's
36:31
also something that you will not find in
36:37
the fossil layers.
36:38
The thing is that they will probably be
36:42
a stealth civilization in terms of what we
36:46
are looking for, because we are looking for
36:48
a civilization in the past that is doing
36:51
the same as we are doing.
36:53
They are not recognizing that things could be
36:58
different.
36:59
We could have a different development path.
37:03
One of the key thing is that if
37:05
you look in the past, when the Soviet
37:07
Union was existing, a lot of the fighters
37:10
that they were using was actually based on
37:13
different technologies that the West was using.
37:17
In the West, we were using a lot
37:18
of transistors, electronics, etc., where the Soviet Union
37:23
was using different technologies based on old analog
37:26
technology.
37:30
That is not the same as it's not
37:32
efficient.
37:32
It's just a different path.
37:37
So in the West, we were using the
37:40
microchips, etc., and in the past, they were
37:43
using a technology based on old technology stuff
37:47
with this radio based analog stuff
37:57
and so on, but it was working, and
37:59
it was efficient.
38:01
That is the key thing.
38:03
It might not be the same as we're
38:05
doing, but if it fulfills the requirement, then
38:09
it's actually quite good.
38:11
Furthermore, this kind of thing is next to
38:16
impossible to hack.
38:18
And if it's running, it will run forever,
38:22
where if you have electronics nowadays, they are
38:24
a lot more fragile.
38:27
So what I'm saying here is actually just
38:29
because our civilization is based on carbon, it's
38:34
based on burning of fossil energy, and it's
38:39
heavy in terms of materials, especially rare materials
38:43
and pollution, etc., but that's not the only
38:49
way.
38:49
There could be other ways, and because of
38:52
that, you're going to have stealth civilizations, simply
38:56
because it's using a different, should we say,
39:04
profile.
39:05
We are looking for our own profile.
39:07
We do not recognize that it could be
39:09
different.
39:11
So my point here is that advanced does
39:15
not mean visible.
39:19
So we assume that the more advanced it
39:23
is, the larger the fingerprint will be in
39:26
terms of our fingerprints, but it could be
39:32
a more sustainable civilization.
39:36
Imagine that in the US you have the
39:39
Indians.
39:43
If their way of living was the victory,
39:49
then perhaps we will have an entirely different
39:52
civilization today.
39:54
It will probably be more, should we say,
39:59
sustainable and all these kinds of things.
40:02
The bottom line is that after 50 million
40:04
years or more, they will probably have a
40:08
different, should we say, layer in the sediment
40:10
than the one we have today.
40:15
The assumption of the scientists is, because we
40:17
have a global civilization, they must use the
40:21
energy in large scale, and they must do
40:26
all kinds of pollutions, etc., and so on.
40:30
So the global signature will be the same
40:34
as ours.
40:37
So my point here is that we do
40:40
not know what we don't know, and therefore
40:44
we cannot be certain that we will recognize
40:46
a previous civilization, even if its tracks is
40:51
there.
40:57
So my point is that you will never
40:59
find a smoking gun.
41:02
So because of that, it's not certain that
41:06
you will detect a previous civilization.
41:14
The assumption is today that an advanced civilization
41:17
will control energy, and energy will always have
41:22
a physical consequence.
41:28
And that I'm not sure about.
41:32
Thank you for listening.