Observations on the article “To live or to go extinct”
My LinkedIn post of 2/4/2021, informing about the article “To live or to go extinct” which I had written about the glacial earth’s knowledgebase, was read by 150 people. Only four followed the post’s suggestion to read the article. None of the four followed the article’s suggestion of becoming active in teaching the glacial-interglacial cycle from the perspective of the ancient populations that directly experienced the glacial earth. The logic of the suggestions was based on the significance of the glacial-interglacial cycle for humankind’s existence. Not preparing to live in the glacial earth, and comfortable with just living in the interglacial earth—today’s earth—would be the same as accepting humankind’s extinction when the glacial earth arrives.
Ironically, zero percent committing to teaching the glacial-interglacial cycle and only less than 3 percent choosing to have a look at the article is NORMAL human behavior when facing a challenge posed by any extinction-level event. The same behavior and similar percentages would have been observed if instead of the glacial-interglacial cycle the post and article were about the gaseous wastes that are currently dumped into the atmosphere to produce the “global warming” that could radically alter the earth climate, or the “nuclear arsenals,” devices of purposeful human extinction, created and maintained in the name of humankind’s security. Compared to the glacial-interglacial cycle and global warming, the nuclear arsenals are profoundly extinction-specific through vaporizing humankind. Yet, no one is interested in teaching that nuclear arsenals are really bad for human existence because, as a human-made thing, they come with the guaranteed humankind extinction. That behavior—that glaring lack of interest—is “normal.” Thus the conclusion that, by design, humans are incapable of recognizing and responding to extinction-level events.
In my research on ancient populations I am always impressed with the wisdom they exhibit. People that tens of thousands of years ago lived under the most difficult conditions of the glacial earth were nonetheless committed to informing today’s humans about what they would be experiencing when the glacial earth arrives. In this exceptional transfer of knowledge I am also fascinated by the fact that the ancients knew about human behavior in relation to extinction-level events. They knew about the type of behavior that would be exhibited toward my post and article about the glacial-interglacial cycle. Given the significance of the glacial-interglacial cycle, they must have transmitted multiple messages about the hazards of such behavior, but at present I am aware of only two that have reached us to warn humans about the outcome of ignoring the glacial-interglacial transition and the extinction of the unprepared humankind when the glacial earth arrives. The two messages are:
1. The millennial message – of all humankind only 144,000 will survive after the initial stage of arrival of the glacial earth .
2. The Noah message – among humankind, those surviving the glacial earth’s arrival would number the occupants of a ship .
Both messages exhibit the optimism that when unprepared humankind faces the glacial earth, a small group will survive to become the seed for bringing humankind back. I don’t share the same optimism because even if humankind is brought back, its behavior toward extinction-level events will not change. The small seed would grow to repeat the millennial/Noah extinction-level event. The seed, however, does not come with the guarantee that each time it will bring back humankind. This process will eventually face the situation where the seed itself will die out and humankind will become extinct, forever. No doubt about that.
 Gallagher E. V. (2011). Millennialism, scripture, and tradition. In The Oxford Handbook on Millennialism. Wessinger, C. (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 133-149.
 Chen Y. S. (2014). The Primeval Flood Catastrophe: Origins and Early Development in Mesopotamian Traditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.