Mozemo li preziviti kao vrsta na ovoj planeti?

[Sanjarko]

Sve sam uvjereniji da tesko mozemo i zbog raznih ELE-a da to nikako nemozemo, evo jedan jutrosnji rad pisan nakon nestanka struje na podrucju Zenice, a usnio sam ga prije tog nestanka struje.

ELE uzrokovan Solarnom bakljom
‎utorak, ‎18. ‎oktobar ‎2022
6:46:55

ELE uzrokovan Solarnom bakljom koja bi udarila u planetu nasu Zemlju i poremetila magnetno polje nase planete Zemlje stoljece ili vise ili koja bi samo udarom unistila elektro mrezu na njoj svoj ili samo djelomicno.

Zbog prestanka dotoka elektricne energije stoljece ili vise ili desetljece ili vise desio bi se ELE dogadzaj jer bi sve stalo s radom i zbog toga bi se desilo da nuklearne centrale stanu s radom i da se desi njihov fallout tj, nuklearne centrale da pocnu da ispustaju radijaciju i slicno pa cak reaktori da eksplodiraju.

I ostalo bi sve stalo s radom pa cak se i njima desile razne nesrece primjerice brane i hidrocentrale bi pukle ili pocele da plave nizvodno sve jer bi stale s radom i pocele da akumuliraju vodu.

Nuklearne bombe bi nekad poslije udara Solarne baklje eksplodirale zbog toga sto ne bi bilo nikoga da se brine o njima jer bi bilo svako za sebe itd, druge razne nesrece bi se desile tako da bi planeta bila skroz skoro unistena i niko ne bi bio siguran ni na selima, na planinama i drugdje, a planeta bi se oporavljala milionima mozda cak i milijardama godina ako bi se uspjela ikako i oporaviti, a zbog svega bi na planeti izumruo skoro sav zivot.

Neznam koliko je tacan ovaj rad tj, vise kao smjernica, tako nekako je smisljen.

[Dope_Man]

Obicni senzacionalizam, daleko od stvarnog stanja.

Npr. Nuklearke ne bi eksplodirale same od sebe jer im eto doslo od muke zato sto nema ljudi. I da se desi navedeno, i da stradaju nuklearne elektrane, i dalje ce prezivjeti i planeta i ljudi. Ne svi, ali prezivjece dovoljno da vrsta ide dalje.

[Sanjarko]

Most widely supported explanations

MacLeod (2001)[91] summarized the relationship between mass extinctions and events that are most often cited as causes of mass extinctions, using data from Courtillot, Jaeger & Yang et al. (1996),[92] Hallam (1992)[93] and Grieve & Pesonen (1992): [94]

Flood basalt events (giant volcanic eruptions): 11 occurrences, all associated with significant extinctions[d][e] But Wignall (2001) concluded that only five of the major extinctions coincided with flood basalt eruptions and that the main phase of extinctions started before the eruptions.[95]
Sea-level falls: 12, of which seven were associated with significant extinctions.[e]
Asteroid impacts: one large impact is associated with a mass extinction, that is, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event; there have been many smaller impacts but they are not associated with significant extinctions,[96] or cannot be dated precisely enough. The impact that created the Siljan Ring either was just before the Late Devonian Extinction or coincided with it.[97]

The most commonly suggested causes of mass extinctions are listed below.
Flood basalt events

The formation of large igneous provinces by flood basalt events could have:

produced dust and particulate aerosols, which inhibited photosynthesis and thus caused food chains to collapse both on land and at sea[98]
emitted sulfur oxides that were precipitated as acid rain and poisoned many organisms, contributing further to the collapse of food chains
emitted carbon dioxide and thus possibly causing sustained global warming once the dust and particulate aerosols dissipated.

Flood basalt events occur as pulses of activity punctuated by dormant periods. As a result, they are likely to cause the climate to oscillate between cooling and warming, but with an overall trend towards warming as the carbon dioxide they emit can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

It is speculated that massive volcanism caused or contributed to the End-Permian, End-Triassic and End-Cretaceous extinctions.[99] The correlation between gigantic volcanic events expressed in the large igneous provinces and mass extinctions was shown for the last 260 million years.[100][101] Recently such possible correlation was extended across the whole Phanerozoic Eon.[102]
Sea-level fall

These are often clearly marked by worldwide sequences of contemporaneous sediments that show all or part of a transition from sea-bed to tidal zone to beach to dry land – and where there is no evidence that the rocks in the relevant areas were raised by geological processes such as orogeny. Sea-level falls could reduce the continental shelf area (the most productive part of the oceans) sufficiently to cause a marine mass extinction, and could disrupt weather patterns enough to cause extinctions on land. But sea-level falls are very probably the result of other events, such as sustained global cooling or the sinking of the mid-ocean ridges.

Sea-level falls are associated with most of the mass extinctions, including all of the "Big Five"—End-Ordovician, Late Devonian, End-Permian, End-Triassic, and End-Cretaceous.

A 2008 study, published in the journal Nature, established a relationship between the speed of mass extinction events and changes in sea level and sediment.[103] The study suggests changes in ocean environments related to sea level exert a driving influence on rates of extinction, and generally determine the composition of life in the oceans.[104]
Extraterrestrial threats
Impact events
Meteoroid entering the atmosphere with fireball.
An artist's rendering of an asteroid a few kilometers across colliding with the Earth. Such an impact can release the equivalent energy of several million nuclear weapons detonating simultaneously.

The impact of a sufficiently large asteroid or comet could have caused food chains to collapse both on land and at sea by producing dust and particulate aerosols and thus inhibiting photosynthesis.[105] Impacts on sulfur-rich rocks could have emitted sulfur oxides precipitating as poisonous acid rain, contributing further to the collapse of food chains. Such impacts could also have caused megatsunamis and/or global forest fires.

Most paleontologists now agree that an asteroid did hit the Earth about 66 Ma, but there is lingering dispute whether the impact was the sole cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.[106][107]

Nonetheless, in October 2019, researchers reported that the Cretaceous Chicxulub asteroid impact that resulted in the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs 66 Ma, also rapidly acidified the oceans, producing ecological collapse and long-lasting effects on the climate, and was a key reason for end-Cretaceous mass extinction.[108][109]

According to the Shiva Hypothesis, the Earth is subject to increased asteroid impacts about once every 27 million years because of the Sun's passage through the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, thus causing extinction events at 27 million year intervals. Some evidence for this hypothesis has emerged in both marine and non-marine contexts.[110] Alternatively, the Sun's passage through the higher density spiral arms of the galaxy could coincide with mass extinction on Earth, perhaps due to increased impact events.[111] However, a reanalysis of the effects of the Sun's transit through the spiral structure based on maps of the spiral structure of the Milky Way in CO molecular line emission has failed to find a correlation.[112]
A nearby nova, supernova or gamma ray burst

A nearby gamma-ray burst (less than 6000 light-years away) would be powerful enough to destroy the Earth's ozone layer, leaving organisms vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation from the Sun.[113] Gamma ray bursts are fairly rare, occurring only a few times in a given galaxy per million years.[114] It has been suggested that a supernova or gamma ray burst caused the End-Ordovician extinction.[115]
Global cooling

Sustained and significant global cooling could kill many polar and temperate species and force others to migrate towards the equator; reduce the area available for tropical species; often make the Earth's climate more arid on average, mainly by locking up more of the planet's water in ice and snow. The glaciation cycles of the current ice age are believed to have had only a very mild impact on biodiversity, so the mere existence of a significant cooling is not sufficient on its own to explain a mass extinction.

It has been suggested that global cooling caused or contributed to the End-Ordovician, Permian–Triassic, Late Devonian extinctions, and possibly others. Sustained global cooling is distinguished from the temporary climatic effects of flood basalt events or impacts.
Global warming
Main article: Extinction risk from global warming

This would have the opposite effects: expand the area available for tropical species; kill temperate species or force them to migrate towards the poles; possibly cause severe extinctions of polar species; often make the Earth's climate wetter on average, mainly by melting ice and snow and thus increasing the volume of the water cycle. It might also cause anoxic events in the oceans (see below).

Global warming as a cause of mass extinction is supported by several recent studies.[116]

The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions. It has also been suggested to have caused the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event, during which 20% of all marine families became extinct. Furthermore, the Permian–Triassic extinction event has been suggested to have been caused by warming.[117][118][119]
Clathrate gun hypothesis
Main article: Clathrate gun hypothesis

Clathrates are composites in which a lattice of one substance forms a cage around another. Methane clathrates (in which water molecules are the cage) form on continental shelves. These clathrates are likely to break up rapidly and release the methane if the temperature rises quickly or the pressure on them drops quickly—for example in response to sudden global warming or a sudden drop in sea level or even earthquakes. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so a methane eruption ("clathrate gun") could cause rapid global warming or make it much more severe if the eruption was itself caused by global warming.

The most likely signature of such a methane eruption would be a sudden decrease in the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in sediments, since methane clathrates are low in carbon-13; but the change would have to be very large, as other events can also reduce the percentage of carbon-13.[120]

It has been suggested that "clathrate gun" methane eruptions were involved in the end-Permian extinction ("the Great Dying") and in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.
Anoxic events

Anoxic events are situations in which the middle and even the upper layers of the ocean become deficient or totally lacking in oxygen. Their causes are complex and controversial, but all known instances are associated with severe and sustained global warming, mostly caused by sustained massive volcanism.[121]

It has been suggested that anoxic events caused or contributed to the Ordovician–Silurian, late Devonian, Permian–Triassic and Triassic–Jurassic extinctions, as well as a number of lesser extinctions (such as the Ireviken, Mulde, Lau, Toarcian and Cenomanian–Turonian events). On the other hand, there are widespread black shale beds from the mid-Cretaceous that indicate anoxic events but are not associated with mass extinctions.

The bio-availability of essential trace elements (in particular selenium) to potentially lethal lows has been shown to coincide with, and likely have contributed to, at least three mass extinction events in the oceans, that is, at the end of the Ordovician, during the Middle and Late Devonian, and at the end of the Triassic. During periods of low oxygen concentrations very soluble selenate (Se6+) is converted into much less soluble selenide (Se2-), elemental Se and organo-selenium complexes. Bio-availability of selenium during these extinction events dropped to about 1% of the current oceanic concentration, a level that has been proven lethal to many extant organisms.[122]

British oceanologist and atmospheric scientist, Andrew Watson, explained that, while the Holocene epoch exhibits many processes reminiscent of those that have contributed to past anoxic events, full-scale ocean anoxia would take "thousands of years to develop".[123]
Hydrogen sulfide emissions from the seas

Kump, Pavlov and Arthur (2005) have proposed that during the Permian–Triassic extinction event the warming also upset the oceanic balance between photosynthesising plankton and deep-water sulfate-reducing bacteria, causing massive emissions of hydrogen sulfide, which poisoned life on both land and sea and severely weakened the ozone layer, exposing much of the life that still remained to fatal levels of UV radiation.[124][125][10]
Oceanic overturn

Oceanic overturn is a disruption of thermo-haline circulation that lets surface water (which is more saline than deep water because of evaporation) sink straight down, bringing anoxic deep water to the surface and therefore killing most of the oxygen-breathing organisms that inhabit the surface and middle depths. It may occur either at the beginning or the end of a glaciation, although an overturn at the start of a glaciation is more dangerous because the preceding warm period will have created a larger volume of anoxic water.[126]

Unlike other oceanic catastrophes such as regressions (sea-level falls) and anoxic events, overturns do not leave easily identified "signatures" in rocks and are theoretical consequences of researchers' conclusions about other climatic and marine events.

It has been suggested that oceanic overturn caused or contributed to the late Devonian and Permian–Triassic extinctions.
Geomagnetic reversal

One theory is that periods of increased geomagnetic reversals will weaken Earth's magnetic field long enough to expose the atmosphere to the solar winds, causing oxygen ions to escape the atmosphere in a rate increased by 3–4 orders, resulting in a disastrous decrease in oxygen.[127]
Plate tectonics

Movement of the continents into some configurations can cause or contribute to extinctions in several ways: by initiating or ending ice ages; by changing ocean and wind currents and thus altering climate; by opening seaways or land bridges that expose previously isolated species to competition for which they are poorly adapted (for example, the extinction of most of South America's native ungulates and all of its large metatherians after the creation of a land bridge between North and South America). Occasionally continental drift creates a super-continent that includes the vast majority of Earth's land area, which in addition to the effects listed above is likely to reduce the total area of continental shelf (the most species-rich part of the ocean) and produce a vast, arid continental interior that may have extreme seasonal variations.

Another theory is that the creation of the super-continent Pangaea contributed to the End-Permian mass extinction. Pangaea was almost fully formed at the transition from mid-Permian to late-Permian, and the "Marine genus diversity" diagram at the top of this article shows a level of extinction starting at that time, which might have qualified for inclusion in the "Big Five" if it were not overshadowed by the "Great Dying" at the end of the Permian.[128]
Other hypotheses
Many species of plants and animals are at high risk of extinction due to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest

Many other hypotheses have been proposed, such as the spread of a new disease, or simple out-competition following an especially successful biological innovation. But all have been rejected, usually for one of the following reasons: they require events or processes for which there is no evidence; they assume mechanisms that are contrary to the available evidence; they are based on other theories that have been rejected or superseded.

Scientists have been concerned that human activities could cause more plants and animals to become extinct than any point in the past. Along with human-made changes in climate (see above), some of these extinctions could be caused by overhunting, overfishing, invasive species, or habitat loss. A study published in May 2017 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argued that a “biological annihilation” akin to a sixth mass extinction event is underway as a result of anthropogenic causes, such as over-population and over-consumption. The study suggested that as much as 50% of the number of animal individuals that once lived on Earth were already extinct, threatening the basis for human existence too.[129][26]
Future biosphere extinction/sterilization
See also: Future of Earth and Medea hypothesis

The eventual warming and expanding of the Sun, combined with the eventual decline of atmospheric carbon dioxide, could actually cause an even greater mass extinction, having the potential to wipe out even microbes (in other words, the Earth would be completely sterilized): rising global temperatures caused by the expanding Sun would gradually increase the rate of weathering, which would in turn remove more and more CO2 from the atmosphere. When CO2 levels get too low (perhaps at 50 ppm), most plant life will die out, although simpler plants like grasses and mosses can survive much longer, until CO2 levels drop to 10 ppm.[130][131]

With all photosynthetic organisms gone, atmospheric oxygen can no longer be replenished, and it is eventually removed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere, perhaps from volcanic eruptions. Eventually the loss of oxygen will cause all remaining aerobic life to die out via asphyxiation, leaving behind only simple anaerobic prokaryotes. When the Sun becomes 10% brighter in about a billion years,[130] Earth will suffer a moist greenhouse effect resulting in its oceans boiling away, while the Earth's liquid outer core cools due to the inner core's expansion and causes the Earth's magnetic field to shut down. In the absence of a magnetic field, charged particles from the Sun will deplete the atmosphere and further increase the Earth's temperature to an average of around 420 K (147 °C, 296 °F) in 2.8 billion years, causing the last remaining life on Earth to die out. This is the most extreme instance of a climate-caused extinction event. Since this will only happen late in the Sun's life, it would represent the final mass extinction in Earth's history (albeit a very long extinction event).[130][131]

[Sanjarko]

Obicni senzacionalizam, daleko od stvarnog stanja.

Npr. Nuklearke ne bi eksplodirale same od sebe jer im eto doslo od muke zato sto nema ljudi. I da se desi navedeno, i da stradaju nuklearne elektrane, i dalje ce prezivjeti i planeta i ljudi. Ne svi, ali prezivjece dovoljno da vrsta ide dalje.

hajde opet pazljivo procitaj rad, 100% si upravu

[nivla]

[broj dva]

Nije bitno mozemo li preziviti nego koliku vrjednost mozemo napraviti dionicarima.

[Sanjarko]

Nije bitno mozemo li preziviti nego koliku vrjednost mozemo napraviti dionicarima.

doc ce nam profit glave

[aston_martin]

Mozemo ako kolonizujemo druge planete solarnog sistema i planete drugih zvjezdanih sistema.

[Crithagra]

Mozemo li preziviti kao vrsta na ovoj planeti?

Akobogda, nećemo.

[Sanjarko]

Mozemo li preziviti kao vrsta na ovoj planeti?

Akobogda, nećemo.

Jedan naucinik je rekao da bi kosmicka tragedija bila ako bi mi izumrli, a bili jedina intaligentnija vrsta u svemiru.

[toska]

nije baš odgovor koji tražiš mada... moto jednog kontraveznog sajta:

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

[tranquil]

Previše ste zaokupljeni pitanjem "da li možemo", umjesto da se zapitate "da li bi trebali"

[carobnjak_N]

*preživjeti

ispravi naslov teme

[Sanjarko]

Previše ste zaokupljeni pitanjem "da li možemo", umjesto da se zapitate "da li bi trebali"

Neznam bi li, ali bi bila to tragedija za ostatak zivih bica na Zemlji, ako ne bi rasirili ta ziva bica po svemiru. Vjerovatno sirom svemira ima zivi bica, ali su manje intaligentna bica i imaju manji potencijal da postanu intaligentnija bica.

Pod intaligentnija bica mislim na tehnoloski itd napredna bica. Kazem taj naucnik je rekao ako bi mi bili jedina bica u svemiru tehnoloski itd napredna i intaligentnija i kad bi izumrli da bi to bila kosmicka tragedija.

Govorili su tad tj govorio je on o izumiranju Dinosaursa i Fermijevom paradoksu. Tako nekako, nesjecam se bas dobro.

[tranquil]

Previše ste zaokupljeni pitanjem "da li možemo", umjesto da se zapitate "da li bi trebali"

Neznam bi li, ali bi bila to tragedija za ostatak zivih bica na Zemlji, ako ne bi rasirili ta ziva bica po svemiru. Vjerovatno sirom svemira ima zivi bica, ali su manje intaligentna bica i imaju manji potencijal da postanu intaligentnija bica.

Pod intaligentnija bica mislim na tehnoloski itd napredna bica. Kazem taj naucnik je rekao ako bi mi bili jedina bica u svemiru tehnoloski itd napredna i intaligentnija i kad bi izumrli da bi to bila kosmicka tragedija.

Govorili su tad tj govorio je on o izumiranju Dinosaursa i Fermijevom paradoksu. Tako nekako, nesjecam se bas dobro.

Ako samo mi izumremo, to nije tragedija. To je šteta, ali nije tragedija. Ako ostali živi svijet nastavi da živi bez ljudskog ometanja, opet će možda ponovo doći do inteligencije.

Život pronađe način.



"Kosmička tragedija" bi bila jedino kada bismo, zajedno sa vlastitom vrstom, uništili ostatak života na planeti.

[broj dva]

Neznam bi li, ali bi bila to tragedija za ostatak zivih bica na Zemlji, ako ne bi rasirili ta ziva bica po svemiru. Vjerovatno sirom svemira ima zivi bica, ali su manje intaligentna bica i imaju manji potencijal da postanu intaligentnija bica.

Pod intaligentnija bica mislim na tehnoloski itd napredna bica. Kazem taj naucnik je rekao ako bi mi bili jedina bica u svemiru tehnoloski itd napredna i intaligentnija i kad bi izumrli da bi to bila kosmicka tragedija.

Govorili su tad tj govorio je on o izumiranju Dinosaursa i Fermijevom paradoksu. Tako nekako, nesjecam se bas dobro.

Ako samo mi izumremo, to nije tragedija. To je šteta, ali nije tragedija. Ako ostali živi svijet nastavi da živi bez ljudskog ometanja, opet će možda ponovo doći do inteligencije.

Život pronađe način.



"Kosmička tragedija" bi bila jedino kada bismo, zajedno sa vlastitom vrstom, uništili ostatak života na planeti.

U beskrajnom kozmosu gubitak jedne planete nikako ne može biti tragedija kozmičkih proporcija bez obzira na planetu. Ako smo dovoljno glupi da se samouništimo onda smo dovoljno glupi da nestanemo. Kozmos nam niśta ne duguje.

[Sanjarko]

Neznam bi li, ali bi bila to tragedija za ostatak zivih bica na Zemlji, ako ne bi rasirili ta ziva bica po svemiru. Vjerovatno sirom svemira ima zivi bica, ali su manje intaligentna bica i imaju manji potencijal da postanu intaligentnija bica.

Pod intaligentnija bica mislim na tehnoloski itd napredna bica. Kazem taj naucnik je rekao ako bi mi bili jedina bica u svemiru tehnoloski itd napredna i intaligentnija i kad bi izumrli da bi to bila kosmicka tragedija.

Govorili su tad tj govorio je on o izumiranju Dinosaursa i Fermijevom paradoksu. Tako nekako, nesjecam se bas dobro.

Ako samo mi izumremo, to nije tragedija. To je šteta, ali nije tragedija. Ako ostali živi svijet nastavi da živi bez ljudskog ometanja, opet će možda ponovo doći do inteligencije.

Život pronađe način.



"Kosmička tragedija" bi bila jedino kada bismo, zajedno sa vlastitom vrstom, uništili ostatak života na planeti.

Izumiru mnoge vrste na planeti zbog nas nazalost, sad hoce li izumrijeti sav zivot na planeti, neznam. A na dobrom smo putu da unistimo ostatak zivota na planeti. Nek stane velika okeanska traka i ode sav zivot skoro na planeti. Ako se dobro sjecam oko 95%.

Nije samo velika okeanska traka ugrozena nasom aktivnoscu tj nemarom.

[Dope_Man]

Previše ste zaokupljeni pitanjem "da li možemo", umjesto da se zapitate "da li bi trebali"

Ja bi, za vas ostale ne znam

[Osmi Socrates]

Sa dobrom dozom "umjetničke slobode" rečeno, planetu boli neka stvar hoćemo li mi preživjeti ili ne, ili da li ćemo sa sobom u nestanak povući i sve ostale žive organizme na njoj. Zemlja je ravnodušna uglavnom, mada se tako nekad ne čini.

Planeta će opstati dok joj suđeno da opstane u široj kozmičkoj slici. Sa nama ili bez nas.

Što se naše potpuno nebitne sudbine tiče, najbolje rasporediti jedan narod po planeti. I tada bi nešto zajebali, sigurno, ali je pokušaj. Jedna planeta po političkoj stranci? Jedna planeta po porodici? Jedna planeta po, uslovno rečeno, Adamu i Evi? Ko će ih onda razvoditi kad dođe do bračnih problema?

Adam, Eva i dva advokata po planeti. I sudija, jer neko mora biti i neutralan u brakorazvodnoj parnici. Možda i jedan Mick Jagger da napiše Paint it Black na svakoj planeti. I bend da to može odsvirati, može i akustično. Ne mora biti struje.

[Hajvan]

seem dodje kraj, pa i vrsti

kad i zasto, manje je bitrno

[dr_Evil]

Sa dobrom dozom "umjetničke slobode" rečeno, planetu boli neka stvar hoćemo li mi preživjeti ili ne, ili da li ćemo sa sobom u nestanak povući i sve ostale žive organizme na njoj. Zemlja je ravnodušna uglavnom, mada se tako nekad ne čini.

Planeta će opstati dok joj suđeno da opstane u široj kozmičkoj slici. Sa nama ili bez nas.

Što se naše potpuno nebitne sudbine tiče, najbolje rasporediti jedan narod po planeti. I tada bi nešto zajebali, sigurno, ali je pokušaj. Jedna planeta po političkoj stranci? Jedna planeta po porodici? Jedna planeta po, uslovno rečeno, Adamu i Evi? Ko će ih onda razvoditi kad dođe do bračnih problema?

Adam, Eva i dva advokata po planeti. I sudija, jer neko mora biti i neutralan u brakorazvodnoj parnici. Možda i jedan Mick Jagger da napiše Paint it Black na svakoj planeti. I bend da to može odsvirati, može i akustično. Ne mora biti struje.

Hadzije su sebi podijelili planete, djecu evakuisu raketama, ja se osjecam nezgodno... I tako

[tranquil]

Sa dobrom dozom "umjetničke slobode" rečeno, planetu boli neka stvar hoćemo li mi preživjeti ili ne, ili da li ćemo sa sobom u nestanak povući i sve ostale žive organizme na njoj. Zemlja je ravnodušna uglavnom, mada se tako nekad ne čini.

Planeta će opstati dok joj suđeno da opstane u široj kozmičkoj slici. Sa nama ili bez nas.

Što se naše potpuno nebitne sudbine tiče, najbolje rasporediti jedan narod po planeti. I tada bi nešto zajebali, sigurno, ali je pokušaj. Jedna planeta po političkoj stranci? Jedna planeta po porodici? Jedna planeta po, uslovno rečeno, Adamu i Evi? Ko će ih onda razvoditi kad dođe do bračnih problema?

Adam, Eva i dva advokata po planeti. I sudija, jer neko mora biti i neutralan u brakorazvodnoj parnici. Možda i jedan Mick Jagger da napiše Paint it Black na svakoj planeti. I bend da to može odsvirati, može i akustično. Ne mora biti struje.

Hadzije su sebi podijelili planete, djecu evakuisu raketama, ja se osjecam nezgodno... I tako

k'o Ferengi u Zoni 51