During summer of 2006, on an online discussion forum relating to one of the early drafts of my original Seventh Earth site, someone raised the question ( in relation to my overall hypothesis of the existence of somewhere in the region of 600 billion human beings on six former Earths within this solar-system ) 'How can this 'exact sameness of people be achieved?' - a simple question in response to a concept which I had only so far formed in intuative, speculative terms and which I was not able to answer in any feasible scientific terms at the time. But it is a question, and concept, which obviously touches on issues of the 'selectiveness' of evolution and the perceived 'randomness' of activity on the Astronomical scale within our solar-system ( and others, if you regard ours as a basic model, which I do ). Here I would like to, if not answer, at least address some points in relation to this question and concept and the forming of such a hypothesis.

In his book 'Hegemony or Survival', Noam Chomsky opens with some reflections on the work of prominent biologist, Ernst Mayr. " ... on the likelihood of success in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ... ( Mayr ) considers the prospects very low. His reasoning" says Chomsky " ( has ) to do with the adaptive value of what we call "higher intelligence," meaning the particular human form of intellectual organization. Mayr estimated the number of species since the origin of life ( on this Earth ) at about fifty billion, only one of which "achieved the kind of intelligence needed to establish civilization." It did so very recently, perhaps 100,000 years ago. It is generally assumed that only one small breeding group survived, of which we are all descendants."

So it seems, and is a long held belief, that the emergence of life-forms like our own is quite rare, if not unique - an observation that seems overwhelmingly supported by simple geological, archaeological and anthropological data, and one which is ingrained in our modern scientific perception of humanity. But there are two points that I would like to make here;

1: This conclusion is largely formed on a 'bed of randomness', by which I mean that one of the foundations on which the interpretation of this data occurs is the assumption that the environment within which these things are happening is governed by random forces. There is no question that randomness is a significant force of nature, but one which appears to me to be often favoured in science, especially in the field of extra-solar observation, perhaps because it conveniently avoids the question of 'design' and meaning ( except in theoretical physics where it constantly rears its head, to the chagrin of many thinkers )

2: It is a conclusion made 'at very close quarters'; i.e: within the realm of our experience and intellectual capacity, which is limited to say the least.

But, before I proceed further, I should clarify what I, personally, mean by 'design', in contrast to how it is commonly and, I believe, erroneously used by the new wave of Creationists in arguing in favour of 'intelligent design' ( ID ).

'Design' can be defined as: purpose, planning or intention, that exists behind an action, fact, or material object. 'planning or intention' suggests consciousness or intelligence. I do not believe in 'Intelligent Design' in terms of the intervention of a higher creative intelligence, and I find the recent trend of Creationism versus Evolution as frighteningly naive as many people do, especially as randomness, although a key element of the environment within which evolution occurs, is not the essence of evolution, which is 'selective' - a selectiveness which produces apparent 'designs' that confuse the issue - and so, the argument is not that simple to begin with. I regard evolution as a process that is virtually as self apparent as erosion and our own growth and decay. However, the circumstances within which evolution happens, and within this I include solar-systems, can be regarded in themselves as a design, and it is these circumstances that I refer to as 'design', within which randomness, as I have noted, is an essential element. This sense of design does not automatically denote intelligence ( even in terms of the 19th Century Deist notion of " ... a hyper-engineer who set up the laws and constants of the universe ... " ( Dawkins), and then sat back to watch it all take care of itself - a notion which then raises the issue of 'infinite regression' ( i.e. who then created that engineer? ), which, I feel, lies outside the realm of studying our own evolution and which I will gladly leave to navel-gazers, as a potentially emotionally and philosophically rewarding excercise but a scientifically un-productive one ).

A design can also evolve ( many of our own technological devices are based on systems that evolved in the natural world ), and so, in my present thinking, I do not, as most scientists correctly don't, connect design to intelligence, and I regard the apparent design of the natural world, including physical circumstances that lead to more abstract systems like weather, as an 'evolved' design, re-iterating that randomness ( which must exist before 'selection' ) is an essential element within it. ( 'Emergent' is a term often used to describe evolution in looser terms that apply equally to environmental conditions and behaviour as to physical form ). This is where I will distinguish between purpose, and planning or intention - in an evolved, or 'emergent' universe, purpose eventually becomes indistinguishable from effect and generates meaning, whether originally planned or not; i.e. the effect something has is the role it plays within the overall system, thus its meaning can also evolve, within the emergent ( this is why I hold on to the word 'design', when it would arguably be simpler to use another word altogether. I keep it because, in contrast to 'planning or intention', 'purpose' is the part of its definition which does not necessary mean conciousness but which does invoke 'relative' meaning ( relative to the system within which it emerged ), and it is precisely because of the subsequent connotations of intention that it adds weight to the concept of a slowly waking entity in the form of an emergent system ).

Richard Dawkins, in his book 'The God Delusion', advocates the view that " ... any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only at the end of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, ( note that he uses the plural ) being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it." Or as Darwin himself quite simply put it "... produced by laws acting around us."

My proposed 'cycle' of a planet's birth and death are the circumstances that I refer to as an 'evolved design', with an idea of 'self-generating' purpose and meaning not necessarily connected to original or external conscious intention. ( 'Self-organization' is also a prevalent concept in physics and chemistry, whereby the internal organization of a system increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically display emergent properties ( Wikipedia )).

My feeling about the particular human form of intellectual organization addressed by Mayr and Chomsky is that, in the way that precipitation is a crucial part of the water-cycle which occurs at a key point when the right circumstances are achieved, so human intelligence occurs at a key point in the life-cycle of an Earth. It is an integral part of the 'design', as a an evolved sequence, and although eventually achieved through the cumulative effect of random systems, as we see in the weather systems that influence precipitation, it does, like precipitation, have a unique and specific effect, and therefore purpose, within the overall sequence. To re-iterate; the effect something has is the role it plays within the overall system, thus meaning can also evolve, within the emergent.

And so, one of the premises of The Seventh Earth, that each successive Earth is populated with human beings like us when at this point in its cycle, is a premise based on regarding intelligence and civilization, like precipitation in the water-cycle, as a key part of the entire cycle, and its effect is its purpose.

Chomsky talks about the particular 'intellectual organization' that is unique to one in 50 billion species. But take a distanced look at the cycle I have proposed ( see:Timeline ), and that 'intellectual organization' appears to emerge at a key point, and, depending on your interpretation of our influence on, or responsibility for, global warming, it may be regarded as a key element in initiating a major transition in the planet's life-cycle. In other words, my model suggests that this 'intelligence', although widely regarded as a 'natural phenomenon', actually initiates the environment's, and ultimately the planet's, decline. If that is the 'role' that humanity plays in the cycle, then that 'precipitation' must also have occurred on each of the previous Earths, at the corresponding turning point of their cycle ( and here , although I accept that this conclusion is a 'leap' made intuatively and not scientifically, I belive it is still an 'informed' leap ).

One of the things leading me to this 'informed leap' is the former ice age and global warming patterns of Mars, which, becoming clearer with the new information coming back from the recent batch of Mars landers, suggests that a similar environmental decline occurred there millions of years ago ( see 'Mars Mission' and 'Global Warming' ). Another aspect of contemporary research that holds me to my hypothsesis is the fact that the new found extra-solar 'Super-Earth' systems bear little resemblance to our current solar-system formation models ( see: 'The Super Earths' ), suggesting that we do not yet understand the life-cycle of a planet ( bearing in mind the 'bed of randomness' on which Astrophysics is still contemplated - i.e. it doesn't appear to me that a solar-system is yet regarded as an 'emergent' system ).

But in relation to this Earth, environmentalists talk about the 'tipping point', and, as anyone involved in conservation or even humanitarian work is only too aware, everything dies eventually. The idea that this Earth can sustain life indefinitely if we simply take care of it is an idea I find surprisingly naive in contemporary thinking. Particularly with the clear acceleration in our effects on this Earth, inextricably linked to the sharp increase in technology in the 20th century, which is, itself, inextricably linked to our 'intelligence'. And especially given that right beside us there is a dead Earth, in Mars.

Can the human form of 'Intelligent organization' be regarded as a crucial turning point in the life and death cycle of a planet? Is achieving this 'tipping point' our purpose ( in relation to my above thoughts on purpose and meaning within an emergent system? ), and would our energy and concerns be better focused on adapting to this curve, rather than resisting it?

Zoom back, and the steps appear simple;
Intelligence / Civilization / Technology / Environmental Change / Earth Decline.

It is true that there have been many periods of dramatic environmental change throughout the Earth's history, but we were never there at the time. There was never before, as far as we are aware, the presence of our form of 'intellectual organization' to influence the natural pendulum. The Permian extinction or the expiration of the dinoaurs are generally attributed to 'natural causes', not human intervention.

This idea of human civilization as one of the causes of the believed present Earth decline, and my subsequent idea of the 'role' of intelligence, and humanity, as a key element in an emergent system, of course start to touch on ideas of collective consciousness, and if you read 'Origins' you will see how this concept of regarding the planet's entire intellectual activity as a single, but previously non-instrumental, 'self-organizing' entity, is a concept that influenced my work on this site to date. Trying to form some kind of 'image' of this entity, by the mapping of the free networking of independent electronic musicians and film-makers in the 'World Indexes', influenced my work on this site to date and originated the concept of my utopian parallel Earth, 'Nun-Chaha' ( also influenced by the folklore of Native Americans - one of the peoples most at one with their Earth ).

I would like to expand on this topic of Collective Consciousness and Self-organization in future drafts and I hope you will return and read more then. But in the meantime, I am continuing to build the World Indexes.

However, to return to the original question; 'How can this 'exact sameness of people be achieved?' - within the overall idea of similar environmental circumstances on successive Earths leading to the emergence of a similar intelligence as an integral part of its sequence, this question of physical form is more specifically a zoological issue relating to the connection between our particular type of intellectual organization and bi-pedalism. It is a widely held belief amongst many scientific groups that the very extraterrestrial intelligent beings, which we seem so unlikely to ever encounter, would probably take the same form.

Thus we arrive at my motivation with the galleries and pictures on this website. Look at those people. Look at their faces, and their eyes. Look at their environments and their homes. Look at the baby's face over the shoulder of the woman in seal skin standing outside her tent. Look at Gaspra, and think of the air over the lake where she fished. Incidental though I may appear to be portraying our lives, and our unique form of intelligence itself - as a transient moment in a larger system - The Seventh Earth is still about that uniqueness of people, and the unique 'precipitation' that our lives brings. Within that precipitation, our lives, and intelligences, are carved from that bitter-sweetness that is inherent in transience, and as any artist will tell you, myself included, transience is often the essence of beauty ( and, for that matter, of randomness within an emergent system ). Our lives are, as Roy Batty observes in his final moments in Blade Runner; "... like tears in rain".

Thanks for reading, I hope to add more soon.

Alan Lambert
Haneda, Japan,
December 2006