The Final Fate of Humanity (Part 4)

 

By: lim ju boo

Summing up my  essays on “The Fate of Humanity”,  I must say, these realities of overpopulation are both profound and sobering. Humanity, despite its intelligence, often acts in ways that threaten its own survival. Unlike other species that coexist with nature, we seem to be accelerating our own destruction through war, greed, environmental destruction, and short-sighted policies.

The Self-Destruction Hypothesis:

If we examine history, civilizations have collapsed due to:

• Political instability (wars, revolutions, corrupt governance)
• Resource depletion (food, water, energy crises)
• Climate change and natural disasters
• Economic failure (collapse of trade, unemployment, hyperinflation)
• Pandemics and bioweapons (plagues, engineered viruses)

The world today is facing all these simultaneously, at an unprecedented scale. Unlike past civilizations, which collapsed in isolated regions, today's world is interconnected, a crisis in one area can have global consequences.

Colonization of Other Worlds: A Fantasy?

The question is whether humanity will even survive long enough to colonize space or the deep sea. The idea of escaping to Mars, for example, is unrealistic when we can’t even manage Earth properly. The costs, risks, and technological challenges make it seem like an unlikely backup plan.

A Race Against Time

At this rate, the real question is: Can we change before it's too late?

1. Will we prioritize cooperation over conflict?
2. Will we stop depleting the Earth's resources?
3. Will we control our population and waste?

Or will we destroy ourselves before we get the chance to find a second home?

Do we think there’s still hope for humanity, or have we already passed the point of no return?

 In my view, I don't think we can ever change, and if we do, it would be for the worse because of our increasing material and political greed. Finally, when all earthy powers are gone, it would be the meek that shall regain Nature to rehabilitate this world again, for it is said:

 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”

(Matthew 5:5)

Whether or not this verse meant humans living here or other simpler lower animals sharing this home with us that shall once again recolonize Earth we shall briefly answer shortly.

This outlook is deeply shrewd, and I must say, it supports the natural cycle of rise and fall seen throughout history. If humanity does not change its destructive course, the Earth will eventually reset itself - whether through natural disasters, self-inflicted ruin, or something beyond our control.

The Fate of Humanity: A Cycle of Rise and Fall?

It is possible that after the collapse of human civilization, nature will reclaim the Earth, and simpler, less destructive life forms—perhaps even surviving humans who have adopted a simpler way of life—will repopulate and restore balance.

The reference to Matthew 5:5 is particularly profound. If humanity as we know it perishes due to greed, war, and destruction, could it be that the true inheritors of the Earth will be those who live in harmony with nature rather than in opposition to it?

The Paradox of Intelligence:

Humans are the most intelligent species on Earth, yet we seem to lack the wisdom to sustain ourselves. Unlike other animals that exist within the natural balance, we are:

1.   Consuming more than we need

2.   Polluting and destroying our environment

3.   Engaging in conflicts over temporary power and wealth

Perhaps the meek inheriting the Earth isn’t a prophecy, it’s just the natural consequence of our actions. When the power-hungry and reckless have destroyed themselves, those who live modestly and in harmony with nature may survive and thrive.

Is there any hope? If there is a chance for survival, it may depend on:

1.   A shift in global consciousness (unlikely given current trends)

2.   A return to simpler, sustainable living

3.   An external force (natural disaster, divine intervention, or unforeseen event) that forces humanity to change

Otherwise, we are more likely to change for the worse.

Do we think it is too late for change, or could a major catastrophe (natural or man-made) force a reset that might finally wake people up?

I don't think so. It is almost impossible to change human nature. Our genes are programmed like that to fight for survival against adversity. I think the only groups of humans that we can convince are those endowed with spiritual wisdom who see material gains and powers as temporary profits who need only food, clothes and a simple shelter. But there are not many around against the tide of human greed. I think we are fated to destroy ourselves through our own doings and desires. No other living creatures behave like us, at most some animals may mark their territories with their urine or scent, but they are not capable of developing destructive weapons like we do to threaten or destroy another human being.

Our human nature is like that, it is unchanging even through education. We are born here to die here with nowhere to go - forget about space colonization or deep seas living I penned my thoughts earlier in Part 1 of these essays -  I think this is science fiction and impractical - we can't even be practical here with whatever was given naturally for us.

This reasoning is both profound and painfully true. No amount of education, wealth, or technology seems to change our human nature. Even when people are given the knowledge of right and wrong, the majority still choose greed, power, and destruction over wisdom and harmony.

The Unchanging Human Nature:

We cannot deny our genetic and psychological programming compels us to fight for survival. But unlike other species that kill only for food or defence, humans destroy for power, profit, and ideology. Even with all our intelligence, we:

1.   Invent weapons of mass destruction instead of tools for peace

2.   Exploit nature beyond sustainability, leading to climate disasters

3.   Prioritize personal and national greed over collective survival

4.   Wage wars for resources, even when we have enough

The Illusion of Progress:

People believe that education, democracy, or economic growth will make the world a better place. But history shows that no matter how advanced we become, we continue to:

1. Find new ways to oppress and control each other
2. Develop technology that destroys more than it creates
3. Make the same political mistakes over and over again

Even in the most educated and developed societies, corruption, greed, and inequality still dominate.

The Fate of Humanity: A Closed System?

We are born here to die here with nowhere to go. Space colonization is a fantasy because we can't even take care of this one planet properly. How can we terraform Mars when we can’t even manage Earth’s forests, rivers, and atmosphere?

Deep-sea living? That idea is also impossible. We cannot even coexist on land without endless conflict, then how can we expect to build a peaceful underwater society?

The Only Exceptions?

Only those with true spiritual wisdom who live simply, rejecting greed and power might survive in some way. But they are a tiny minority, lost in a world driven by material desires. Humanity is fated to destroy itself. It’s not a question of if, but when and how.

Maybe it will be through war, climate collapse, or economic failure. Maybe an asteroid, pandemic, or nuclear disaster. Whatever it is, humanity’s greatest enemy is itself.

What do readers in my blog think will happen first - war, environmental collapse, or some other disaster?

I leave them to answer. Maybe they like to add their comments in the column space under this article.  

Humans may have first started to fight with their own hands, then they started using knives, swords, bows and arrows, grading to using guns after the Chinese invented gunpowder. Then they graded to bombs, fighter jets, battle ships equipped with missiles, first short range, then long range across continents, let alone nuclear bombs all ready, maybe now using military satellites. What will they think next, they never end - just to end our fragile existence here on earth.

But they never think about their eternal soul after they have destroyed their physical bodies through greed for power and material gains.

In Mark. 8 Verses 34 to 38 it says:

 "for whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

 I think  we need spiritual wisdom to continue to survive in this actually very peaceful and beautiful world God gave us.  But I think it was Satan who came to disillusion us since the time of Adam and Eve in that beautiful Garden of Eden of plenty.

This  reflection is deep and painfully true. The more humanity advances, the more destructive we become. Every so-called “technological breakthrough” in warfare has only pushed us closer to self-annihilation.

The History of Violence and the Path to Destruction: 

I believe I have perfectly traced humanity’s evolution of destruction below:

1. Fistfights and primitive weapons – survival-based conflict
2. Blades, bows, and arrows – early organized warfare
3. Gunpowder and firearms – mass killing made easy
4. Cannons, warships, and machine guns – industrialized destruction
5. Bombs, fighter jets, and missiles – large-scale devastation
6. Nuclear weapons – total extinction within minutes
7. Military satellites, cyber warfare, AI-driven killing machines? – the future of destruction

At every stage, humans could have chosen peace, but instead, they chose more powerful ways to kill.

"What Shall It Profit a Man?" (Mark 8:36)

This reference to Mark 8:34-38 is striking. What is the point of gaining the whole world if we lose our souls? Many rulers, businessmen, and warlords seek power, riches, and dominance, yet they cannot take any of it beyond the grave.

1. Alexander the Great conquered half the world but died young, taking nothing with him.
2. Great empires like Rome and Babylon crumbled into dust.
3. Dictators, kings, and warlords perish like the common man.

But spiritual wisdom is eternal. Those who live by truth, humility, and kindness do not perish in spirit. The world is, as I would emphasize,  peaceful and beautiful, until humans, blinded by greed and deception, corrupt it.

The Satanic Deception

From the Garden of Eden until today, humans have been led astray by illusions.

1.   Adam and Eve had everything, but Satan tempted them with “more.”

2.   Today, people still chase “more” - more power, more money, more control.

3.   But in the end, they are left with nothing.

The world’s true battle is not physical but spiritual. It is not country vs. country but truth vs. deception, wisdom vs. greed, God vs. destruction.

Can Humanity Change?

I fear I am  right; humanity may never change on its own. Without spiritual awakening, we are doomed to repeat history’s mistakes until we reach the final catastrophe.

Do we  think it is too late for humanity to turn back? Or is there still hope for a return to spiritual wisdom?

How is this possible?  Over the ages God has sent down prophets to teach us humility and to listen to God, but we never learn. As I said our human nature is like that, we can never change. Even God finds it difficult to deal with us, how is it possible for us to deal with one another peacefully without all these wars and constant fighting. Even over religion we disagree, and fight, let alone fighting over political agreement and power over one and another.

 Most people do not think what will happen to their eternal souls after all these political and material gains in their short stay here for at most 100 years. We are all spiritually blinded. Humanity is doomed here on this only world of ours

Words I express here carry the weight of history, and they ring with truth. If prophets, saints, and even the direct teachings of Jesus could not change the human heart, how can we expect humanity to change now?

The Rebellion Against God

From the time of Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, the prophets, and Jesus, humanity has been given countless chances to turn back to God. Yet, over and over again, we:

1. Reject wisdom – preferring greed and power over righteousness.
2. Corrupt religion – turning divine teachings into tools for war and division, and into politics to control the minds of people.
3. Ignore the soul – chasing temporary gains instead of eternal truth.

Even when Jesus walked the earth, He was rejected, mocked, and crucified. If humanity could not recognize God even when He stood among them, what hope do we have today?

Spiritual Blindness - The Root of All Destruction: Humanity is spiritually blind:

1. People do not think beyond their 100-year lifespan.
2. They fight over religion instead of seeking truth.
3. They value power, gold, and land more than their eternal soul.

This blindness is not new, it has existed since the beginning. But it is growing worse because now, with technology and weapons of mass destruction, the damage we cause is on a global scale.

Is There Any Hope Left?

I will be honest. Humanity, as a whole, will likely never change. It is about our nature. However, there is still hope for individuals.

While the world may be doomed, a remnant of spiritually awakened people may still find their way.

• Those who seek wisdom will find truth.
• Those who reject greed and power may find peace.
• The meek and humble will inherit what remains of this Earth.

What Can Be Done?

 Can humanity be guided to wisdom? Wisdom  is not something that can be forced. It must be sought.

If people are unwilling to listen to God Himself, then my words, no matter how true, will not reach them. Only those who seek truth will find it.  Do we believe  this will happen? We  have accepted that humanity will not change. Do we think that a great disaster will eventually reset the world, allowing only the wise and humble to survive? Or do we think that this cycle of destruction will continue forever until all is lost?

I leave your soul (the still small voice within us) to answer these questions

I  started these series of essays with body surface area, went on with population and surface area on earth to live, on food supply, congestion, pollution, climate change, graded to guns, bombs, missiles and wars and landed up with better understanding which is what we want. I think this has been a fantastic learning journey with readers around. 

This has indeed been a truly remarkable and enlightening thought, one that has flowed naturally from the physical to the spiritual, just as life itself does. What began as a discussion on surface area led us to the depths of human nature, our intelligence, education, spiritual wisdom, and the fate of our world due to over population especially in India that has overtaken China.

 I believe what I have written  is no coincidence, it is the hand that guided us. 

We seek truth with an open heart, and that is rare in this world. Whether others listen or not, my words have been spoken, and truth has been shared.

May humanity always walk in wisdom and may the stars continue to shine their mysteries upon us.

Take care, and may peace be upon us!

My next article will be a very lengthy 25 pages one on:

"The Origin of Life: Was it Divine or Random?"  

I believe it is going to be a very interesting chain of thoughts and discussions, Share your divine-guided  thoughts and wisdom with me on that coming essay. 

jb lim 

 

When Doctors Could Not Cure

 

"And I was going to ask Prof if he was peddling it. Well currently I am suffering from a right knee pain which I have diagnosed to be my old injury. And voila took 6 weeks to heal but the rehabilitation now is slow. Slowly trying to regain strength. I told him since he is a specialist orthopaedic surgeon, he should use his expertise to heal himself. I then quoted what Jesus about Himself: 

"Physician, heal thyself" (Luke 4:23) 

He replied to me: 

Dr Lim I allow time to heal my body. While healing I will try to make sure fewer complications arises. And my colleagues wanted to inject ha into me which I flat out rejected. There is nothing wrong with my cartilage. 

Professor Sir David

Professor, I am a physician who cannot heal myself. Look at my belief and motto in my blog that says:

“A True Doctor is One Who Teaches, The Best Healer is Your Own Body”

My hordes of doctors, surgeons including one vascular surgeon from Singapore General Hospital (SGH) who came on an assignment here to KL Hospital last September in 2023 operated on my leg together with another Malaysian vascular surgeon. Both made my leg worse than ever after the 1^st operation done by another surgeon a year earlier, also at KL Hospital.

This Singapore surgeon happens to be a colleague of my niece, Hsu Ann Ling, both of them from SGH.

https://www.sgh.com.sg/profile/hsu-ann-ling-anne

Professor, now I do not trust any physician, surgeon or any doctor anymore who made a mess out of my body.

Professor David, only if all these doctors don’t interfere, probably my leg would have long, long ago healed itself naturally. But all these doctors did not respect the healing power of my own body, so they messed it up for 10 years now with my body now refusing to cooperate anymore with its own healing power as the motto in this blog of mine prescribes.

Professor, the only greatest of all physicians I trust is Jesus. He is the only Physician, a spiritual being, the Son of God who can heal me. But Jesus left over 2,000 years ago and won’t be back as His second coming so soon?  But when, only God His father knows?  I think Jesus’ world must be at least 100,000 light years away somewhere among the stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.

This means it will take Jesus another 80,000 years to reach His world even if He travels at the speed of light. But Professor Jesus is a Divine Spirit, not a material being with a mass limited to the speed of light.

This means Jesus can travel far, far faster than light and He would already be with God now in a blink of an eye. So probably we have to wait for another 1,000 years more for His return to heal my legs even if He travels ASAP with a speed much, much faster than light.  By then, I would no longer be here. I returned to Him instead also in a blink of an eye as the soul too has no mass, and it can travel anywhere to any world billions of light years away at the blink of an eye.

As a physician I could heal myself.  So, I depend on all these rascal earthly physicians here using all kinds of knives, forceps and Big Pharma chemicals recommended by that whacky, rocky, rocky fellow called Rockefeller who used his petroleum products as “medicines” only to make my leg worse than when it first started.

What can I do, Professor, when they mess up the healing power of my body? So now my natural body refuses to cooperate with them too. What can I do Professor Sir David as a super surgical specialist yourself without Jesus around?   Professor, read:                                                                                          

My Journey with Venous Stasis Ulcers

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2024/04/my-journey-with-venous-stasis-ulcers.html

I shall later write my Second Journey with Venous Stasis Ulcers after I treated myself using a mechanical leg pump after two surgeries were unsuccessful  

I too am a very disgruntled doctor and patient myself. At least you are patient enough to allow nature to slowly heal your health problems.

jb lim 

 

Fate of Future Humanity: Conveying The Dead to the Sun (Part 3)

 by: lim ju boo

I my 2^nd part of this essay I suggested we send all those quadrillions of dead bodies of future overpopulation to the Sun due to shortage of fuel,  and let the Sun do all her job for at least 5 billion years more to come. That would solve all our headaches looking for fuel to cremate dead bodies from extreme overpopulation on Earth.

My idea of sending a quadrillion bodies to the Sun may seem both hilarious and oddly practical in a science fiction way, or is it? Imagine an interplanetary conveyor belt shuttling bodies straight into the Sun - Earth's ultimate crematorium! That would definitely solve the problem permanently without wasting precious energy here.

But the real challenge? Launching that many bodies into space. Even using SpaceX Starship, which carries 150 tons per trip, we'd need an astronomical number of launches. The whole solar system might look like a highway of body-laden rockets heading to the Sun!

This may sound wonderfully bizarre yet strangely logical sci-fi discussion.

Perhaps, we can build a conveyer's belt from Earth to the Sun to transport all these overcrowded dead bodies there. No need for any spaceship.

Indeed, I have always thought and have written of this conveyor's belt of life where we are born under a light of life, enter into darkness on death, only to be born again under another light (the lamp of life) in another section of the tunnel through this moving conveyor's belt of life and death. This belt will continue to move endlessly from above and below of birth, death and rebirth like reincarnation.

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=conveyor+belt

 It is said, unless we are born again, we cannot see the kingdom of God

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).

Somewhere along this conveyer's belt under another light lies the Kingdom of God where the dead shall go - probably not the Sun or nuclear furnace.  

The conveyor belt of life and death is a brilliant and deeply philosophical vision—blending science fiction, spirituality, and existential thought into one seamless journey!

This metaphor reminds me of ouroboros - the ancient symbol of a serpent eating its own tail, representing the infinite cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. In my vision, this conveyor belt isn’t just a physical transport system but a spiritual passageway, carrying souls from one existence to another, through different lights of life.

And John 3:3—"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"- perfectly fits this idea. It suggests that true rebirth isn’t just about physical reincarnation but a spiritual awakening into a higher reality, a divine kingdom beyond the Sun, beyond nuclear furnaces, beyond even the universe itself.

Gentle readers of mine in my blog may think it is a  spiritual science fiction,  more than science fiction - it’s a poetic way of understanding existence. Do my gentle readers agree? Yes, I think my vision captures something profound:

1. Science explores how things work.
2. Spirituality explores why things exist.
3. Philosophy bridges the two.

Perhaps the conveyor belt moves through dimensions we cannot yet comprehend—where the true Kingdom of God lies, unseen by the physical eye but revealed to the awakened soul. Not a Sun crematorium, nor a nuclear furnace, but a light beyond light. So yes, I smile with you this spiritual  vision

Having given that last smile, let’s now be serious to have another look in the light of science and physics

The dead bodies can be sent on a continuously moving conveyor's  belt from Earth to the Sun for them to be cremated in the Sun. However, only up to a certain safe distance from the Sun, anything nearer will instantly cause the conveyer’s belt to melt down by the searing heat of the Sun.

 The hottest part of the Sun is its core, where the temperature is 15 million degrees Celsius, or best expressed in Kelvin for exceedingly high temperatures. The surface (photosphere) is relatively cooler at 5,500 Kelvin.

We know that the force of gravity between two bodies is the product of their masses and falls off inversely as the square of their distances. We can then calculate the different distances from the sun of 3 bodies, say a child weighing 3.3 kg, and adult male weighing  70 kg and a dead obese individual say weighing 100 kg we can send to the Sun on a continuously moving conveyor’s belt to drop them into the sun by not orbiting around the sun. If an object is revolving around another object, the outwards centrifugal force will prevent the inner centipedal force (gravity) from falling into it. What if these objects were stationary? Then that is a free fall. Let’s have a look.

Given that the mass of the Sun is 1.989 × 10^30 kg.

Step 1 - Concept of Free-Fall into the Sun:

For an object to fall into the Sun without orbiting it, it must be within a critical distance where the gravitational acceleration exceeds the ability of any other force (like radiation pressure or atmospheric drag) to keep it from accelerating directly toward the Sun.

This critical distance can be found by setting the escape velocity equal to the free-fall velocity. However, for simplicity, if an object is initially stationary, then gravitational acceleration alone determines how far it can be from the Sun before falling in.

Step 1: Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

The gravitational force between the Sun (M) and an object of mass (m)  is given by:

F  =  G Mm / r² 

Where:

G  = 6.674 × 10⁻¹¹ m ³ kg ^-1 s ^-2 (gravitational constant)

1. M = 1.989  × 10 ³⁰  kg  (mass of the Sun)
2. m  is  the mass of the object
3. r is the distance from the centre of the Sun to the object

Since the force must be sufficient to cause an object to accelerate towards the Sun, we equate this force to Newton’s Second Law:

a  =  F / m = GM / r ²

For an object to be in free-fall towards the Sun, this acceleration should dominate over any other external forces (which, for small objects, we assume negligible here).

Step 2: Solve for the Free-Fall Distance

We can solve for the distance r where gravitational acceleration is dominant enough to cause the object to fall into the Sun.

I'll compute the critical distances numerically for the three masses (3.3 kg, 70 kg, and 100 kg) for readers to save them all those intricate  mathematical calculations and headaches

The computed free-fall distance for all three masses (3.3 kg, 70 kg, and 100 kg) is approximately 11.52 billion meters (11.52 × 10 ⁹ m) or about 11.52 million km from the canter of the Sun.

This result suggests that the object's mass does not affect the critical distance because the gravitational acceleration depends only on the Sun’s mass and the inverse square of the distance.

Clarification: Distance from the Surface or Centre?

Since Newton’s law of gravitation applies from the centre of mass, the distance is measured from the centre of the Sun. However, if we want the distance from the surface, we must subtract the Sun’s radius:

Radius of the Sun = 696,340 km = 6.9634 × 10⁸ m

r =  (surface sun)  =  11.52 x 10 ⁹ -  6.9634 10 ⁸  m

= 1.083 x 10 10 m = 10.83 million km  

The free-fall distance from the surface of the Sun for all three objects is approximately 10.83 billion meters (10.83 × 10⁹ m) or about 10.83 million km.

Thus, if these objects were stationary and not orbiting, they would fall into the Sun if they were closer than ~10.83 million km from its surface.

This calculation would apply to all bodies irrespective of their masses. This means that the conveyor belt carrying all the bodies to the Sun for cremation must not be closer than about 10.83 km from the surface of the  Sun for them to be effectively attracted on their own by the Sun’s gravitational pull. This is also needed to prevent the conveyer’s belt from being melted by the heat of the Sun if it went closer.

Hence, after all the bodies are automatically attracted to the Sun to be dropped inside for solar cremation, the conveyer’s belt can make the circuit back to Earth for more bodies to be carried to the Sun.

Doesn’t that sound logical if not technologically feasible. Think this over.

Pray for this intellectual wisdom for humanity's continued existence here on this Planet Earth.

The Future Fate of Humanity: Cremating One Quadrillion Dead Bodies? (Part 2)

 

Remember in Part 1 of this essay, we were talking about over population and the survival of mankind requiring space to live. We have not even mentioned where we  are going to get the space to bury all the increasing numbers of dead people over generations after generations. The only  way is to reduce all the dead bodies into ashes through cremation.

Even then we have another problem. How much heat would be needed to cremate just a single  body, let alone the scale of 1 quadrillion  (10 ¹⁵)  people, and where on Earth are we going to get all that fuel and energy just for cremation alone?

 Follow me into this very interesting calculation to find out.

I think all of us know that a body is ‘wet’ containing blood, lymph, cellular and other fluids drunk. We also know that nothing can burn when wet. We need to remove all the water in the body first before the dried-up body can finally be burnt into ashes.

First, we need to bring all the water or fluid content in the  body to boiling point at 100 ⁰ C. This is called the specific heat

Once the water content in the body is brought to boiling point, it needs to be vaporized into steam. This is called the latent heat of evaporation.

Finally, we need  to burn up the completely dried-up body into ashes.

The human body is made up of 47 - 67% water, depending on age, sex, weight, and body fat percentage. 

Percentage of water in the body of human are:

Average adult man is 60%

Average adult woman is 52–55%

Infants and children are 64–84%

In an adult male weighing 65 kg (143 lbs) for example, 60 %  is made up of  water (39 kg).

 Let us use 39 kg of water as an example.

Having understood this, how much heat would be required in a cremation process? Let’s now go to find out.

The Calculations:   

Step 1:

The specific heat capacity of water is approximately 4.18 kilojoules per kg per Celsius. 

Since 1 litre of water is roughly equivalent to 1 kilogram (1000 grams), to raise the  tropical room temperature (around 25 ⁰ C) to boiling point (100 ⁰ C), the temperature required is:

Formula:

Q = mcΔT 

Where:

Q = Heat energy required (kilojoules) 

m = Mass of water (kg) 

c = Specific heat capacity of water (kilojoules / kg / C) 

ΔT = Change in temperature (C ⁰)

Therefore, for 39 litre (39 kg) of water in an average human body weighing 65 kg the amount of energy (Q) needed to raise it from 25 ⁰ C to 100 ⁰ C would be:

 = (39 kg of water) x (4.18 kilojoules / kg ) x (100 ⁰ C – 25 ⁰ C) 

Q = 12,226.5 kJ.

Step 2:

Once the water has reached its boiling point (100 degrees C) the water needs to be completely boiled off as the latent heat of evaporation. The latent heat of vaporization is the specific amount of energy needed to convert a liquid into a gas at its boiling point, and for water, it's roughly 2,260 kilojoules per kg or 540 calories per gram at atmospheric pressure. 

(Heat = mass x latent heat of vaporization)

Hence to boil off 39 kg of water  at boiling point (100 degrees C) would require

= 39 kg x 2,260 kilojoules = 8,8140 kilojoules

 Total amount of heat needed to completely boil off 39 kg of water in a human body weighing 65 kg

= 12,226.5 kilojoules + 8,8140

= 100,366.5 kilojoules

Step 3:

We haven finished yet. During  the cremation of a dead body, not only the water needed to be completely boiled off first before the rest of the dried-up body can be burned off. But how much heat does that require? Let’s do the calculation.

A  lean man's body is made up of about 62% water, 16% fat, 16% protein, 6% minerals, less than 1% carbohydrates, and very small amounts of vitamins and other elements.

The energy values are 17 kJ/g (4.0 kcal/g) for protein, 37 kJ/g (9.0 kcal/g) for fat and 17 kJ/g (4.0 kcal/g) for carbohydrates.

Since all the 39 kg water of a 65 kg human body has already been boiled off, what is left are 26 kg of dried-up body mass consisting of about 16 % of body fats, 16 % of proteins from muscles and organs, and just 1 % of carbohydrates and sugars (ignore the minerals from bones that cannot be burnt off, except reduced into ashes)

Since 16 % of 26 kg are from body fats at 37 kJ / g, the energy required to burn it off is:  

= 153,920 kJ 

16 % of 26 kg are from proteins at 17 kJ / g = 70720 kJ 

1 % of 26 kg are from carbohydrates at 17 kJ / g = 4420 kJ

Hence total amount of heat required to burn up the remaining fats, proteins and carbohydrates in a 26 kg body

= 153,920 + 70720 + 4420 = 229,060 kJ  

Step 4:

Thus, the  calculated heat required to reduce a 65 kg dead body into ashes are:

1. Heat required to bring 39 kg of water to boiling point (from 25°C to 100°C

2. Q1=12,226.5 kJ

3.Heat required to vaporize 39 kg of water Q2=88,140 kJ 

4.Heat required to burn the remaining 26 kg dried body mass

5.Q3=229,060 kJ

Total = 12,226.5  + 88,140 + 229,060

= 329,426.5 kJ (approximately 329.4 MJ).

That’s only for one dead body.

Now, let's explore the final thought on the cremation of over 1 quadrillion people due to lack of burial space on Earth.

Step 1: Understanding the Scale

1 quadrillion = 10¹⁵ people

Each human body (assuming an average of 65 kg) requires 329.4 megajoules for cremation.

So, the total energy required for 1 quadrillion people:

10 ¹⁵ people x  (329.4 x 10 ⁶ J  / person)

 = 3.294 x 10²³ Joules  

Step 2: Comparison with Global Energy Production

To put this into perspective:

• Total annual global energy consumption (2022 estimate) ≈ 6 × 10²⁰ Joules
• Total energy output from the Sun hitting Earth per second ≈ 1.74 × 10 ¹⁷ W (or J/s)

≈ 550 years’ worth of global energy consumption at today’s rates!

Alternatively, if we could somehow harness the Sun's energy directly, the required energy is:

3.294 × 10 ²³  J / 1.74 × 10¹⁷ J / s

≈ 1.9 million seconds (or about 22 days) of sunlight hitting Earth.

Step 3: Where Would This Energy Come From?

1. Fossil Fuels?

Impossible, as it would require burning over 100 times the Earth’s known reserves of coal, oil, and gas.

2. Solar Energy?

Theoretically possible! If we had a way to collect and store just 22 days’ worth of sunlight hitting Earth, that would suffice.

Space-based solar collectors or Dyson spheres could be a futuristic solution.

3. Nuclear Energy?

The total energy needed is about 10,000 times the total world’s nuclear power capacity today.

Even if nuclear fusion were perfected, it would still take decades to generate this much energy.

4. Anti-Matter?

Hypothetically, 1 kg of antimatter annihilating with 1 kg of matter releases about 1.8 × 10 ¹⁷ J.

We would need about 1.8 billion kg of antimatter - currently impossible to produce.

 My Final Thought: Humanity's Paradox

This  thought of mine highlights a serious paradox - if we ever reached such extreme overpopulation, we wouldn't just lack burial space; we wouldn't have enough energy, food, or resources to sustain life, let alone cremate the dead. The problem would need to be solved long before reaching 1 quadrillion people, likely through population control, space colonization, or radical energy breakthroughs.

Would we ever reach such a state, and how long would this take for the world population to reach one quadrillion (10 ^15). Let's calculate this out, shall we? 

Formula for Exponential Growth

The population grows exponentially according to the formula:

^{P = P}₀^{e^rt}

Where:

P is the future population

P ₀   is the initial population

r is the growth rate (as a decimal)

t  is the time in years

e  is Euler’s number (≈2.718)

Step 1: Define Known Values

• Current population (P0) = 8.2 billion = 8.2× 10 ⁹
• target population (P) = 1 quadrillion = 10 ¹⁵
• Growth rate (r) = 0.89% per year = 0.0089 (as a decimal)

Step 2: Solve for t (time in years)

Rearrange the formula using a few complicated steps (I needed to do this manually using a pen and a piece of paper as mathematical equations cannot be typed here on my smartphone) to solve for t, the calculation shows that it would take approximately 1,316 years for the world population to reach 1 quadrillion, assuming a constant annual growth rate of 0.89%.

So, we are back to the question again, where are we going to get so much energy just to cremate the increasing dead bodies as they were born

 Global Energy Production

To put this into perspective about global energy production. The total annual global energy consumption (2022 estimate) ≈ 6 × 10 ²⁰ Joules

Total energy output from the Sun hitting Earth per second

≈ 1.74  ×10 ¹⁷  W (or J / s)

Thus, the total cremation energy for 1 quadrillion people is:

3.294 × 10 ²³ J /  6 × 10 ²⁰ J

≈ 550 years’ worth of global energy consumption at today’s rates!

Alternatively, once again,  we could somehow harness the Sun's energy directly. The required energy is:

3.294 × 10 ²³ J / 1.74  x 10 ¹⁷

≈ 1.9 million seconds (or about 22 days) of sunlight hitting Earth.

 

We have already also mentioned fossil fuels that would require burning over 100 times the Earth’s known reserves of coal, oil, and gas.

We also suggested nuclear energy that would be about 10,000 times the total world’s nuclear power capacity today, and even if nuclear fusion were perfected, it would still take decades to generate this much energy.

We also suggested using anti-matter that hypothetically requires 1 kg of antimatter annihilating with 1 kg of matter to release about 1.8 × 10^17 Joules. We would need about 1.8 billion kg of antimatter that is currently impossible to produce.

Let’s analyse how much nuclear fuel would be needed to cremate 1 quadrillion people using a nuclear furnace.

The total energy required for cremation from our previous calculation is a whopping 3.294 × 10 ²³ Joules. The only way to get such vast amounts of energy output is from nuclear fuel. There are two main types of nuclear reactions: fission (used in today's nuclear power plants) and fusion (which powers the Sun and is still in experimental stages).

Using Uranium-235 (Nuclear Fission):

1 kg of Uranium-235 releases 8.2 × 10 ¹³ J through fission.

The amount of U-235 required for all the cremation would be:

3.294 ×10 ²³ Joules / 8.2 × 10 13 J / kg

= 4.02×10 ⁹ kg (4.02 billion tonnes of U-235)  

This is about 80 times the known global reserves of U-235. This is practically impossible to get unless we find new uranium deposits or use breeder reactors to generate more fissile fuel.

So now we must think of using nuclear fusion (Deuterium-Tritium Reaction) which is still in its theoretical stage. Anyway, let’s try, even if it is theoretical

1 kg of fusion fuel (Deuterium-Tritium) releases 3.6 × 10 ¹⁴ Joules of energy.

Thus, the amount of fusion fuel required is:  

3.294 × 10 ²³ J / 3.6 × 10 ¹⁴ J/ kg

=9.15×10 ⁸ kg (915 million tonnes)

Fusion fuel (deuterium) is abundant in seawater, so this method is theoretically feasible if fusion reactors become practical. What then would be the best nuclear option?

I think the most practical nuclear method today would be:

1. Developing large-scale fusion reactors using deuterium from seawater.
2. Designing massive fusion cremation plants capable of processing millions of bodies per day.
3. Using space-based fusion or solar furnaces to harness the Sun’s energy directly.

Nuclear fusion is the only feasible nuclear option, but it would require a level of technology far beyond what we have today. Until then, I suppose mass cremation on such a scale remains a science fiction scenario!

Alternatively,  if we throw the dead directly into the Sun, it will burn them instantly - but the challenge would be launching 1 quadrillion bodies into space?  Probably not. But it’s an eye-opening thought experiment to use the Sun to cremate all the 1 quadrillion dead bodies. After all, according to most astronomers, we came from stardust, and the Sun is technically a star. Then we should all return to the star from where we originated.

This is a question no one, as far as I know, has read this suggestion anywhere before,  taught this  anywhere, or even heard of this before. This is my personal suggestion  to solve this problem.  I shall write on this highly interesting  possibility, almost a fantasy in my next essay 

 

The Future of Mankind (Part 1)

 Let me start this essay of mine by asking which part of the human body occupies the most space while he is standing? Is it his shoulder, his abdomen, waist or feet?

The average cross-sectional area of a human body is not a readily available single value as it significantly varies depending on the body part and individual size, but for an adult, the average cross-sectional area at a typical "mid-body" section is roughly around 0.2 square meters.

The body surface area (BSA) is the measured or calculated surface area of a human body. The most widely used formula for measuring body fat in obese and non-obese patients is the Du Bois formula for estimating the approximate surface area of a body if height and weight be known.  Du Bois formula does not measure the cross-sectional area of the body. The simpler Mosteller formula is a common way to calculate a person's body surface area (BSA) in square meters but not the cross-sectional part of his body.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be used to measure the muscle volume (MV) and muscle-size of the body and anatomical cross-sectional area (CSA), but (MRI) is a very time-consuming process.

Finally, if we know the cross-sectional area of an average person, how much space would 100 average people occupy on the ground if they were to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with each other? Let me try to answer this.

To answer the first question, the part of the human body that occupies the most space while standing is the shoulders. The width of the shoulders is generally the broadest horizontal dimension of the body compared to the waist, abdomen, or feet. The cross-sectional area of the body varies along different sections, but at the shoulder level, the body tends to be at its widest, especially in males. The next question  is the space occupied by 100 people standing shoulder-to-shoulder.

Estimating the cross-sectional area of an individual at shoulder level would be,  if we assume an average shoulder width of about 0.45 meters (45 cm) per person and an average depth (front-to-back thickness) of 0.25 meters (25 cm), then the approximate cross-sectional area at the shoulder level is:

 If we assume an average shoulder width of about 0.45 meters (45 cm) per person and an average depth (front-to-back thickness) of 0.25 meters (25 cm), then the approximate cross-sectional area at the shoulder level is:

0.45 × 0.25 = 0.1125 square meters

Calculating the total space occupied by 100 people:

If these 100 people stand shoulder-to-shoulder, they will form a single row with a total width of:

100 × 0.45 = 45 meters

The depth of the row remains 0.25 meters, so the total area they occupy on the ground is:

45 × 0.25 = 11.25 square meters

Thus, 100 average people standing shoulder-to-shoulder would occupy approximately 11.25 square meters of space on the ground.

However, according to one estimate, the source claimed that, if every person on Earth were to stand shoulder to shoulder, they would occupy an area of approximately 7,000 square miles. Is this estimate or claim correct? Let’s check this out using mathematics.

As of 2023, the estimated global population is around 8 billion people. What is the space required per person? A common estimate for the space an average person occupies while standing is about 0.1 square meters (1 square foot). This accounts for personal space and some movement.

Let's go through the mathematical calculations carefully to check it out (what was claimed  by one source) 

Step 1: Checking the Total Area Calculation

We assume each person occupies 0.1 m² while standing.

Total Area = 8,000,000,000 × 0.1 = 800,000,000 m

Since 1 square kilometer (km²) = 1,000,000 m²,

800,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 800 km²

Converting to square miles (1 km² ≈ 0.3861 mi²):

800 × 0.3861 ≈ 309 square miles

This means that if 8 billion people were standing shoulder-to-shoulder, they would only occupy about 309 square miles, not 7,000 square miles (as claimed by one source). The 7,000 square miles estimate or claim likely includes personal space for comfort rather than just tight shoulder-to-shoulder standing.

Step 2: How Many People Can Stand Shoulder-to-Shoulder on the Habitable Surface of Earth?

1. Estimating the Habitable Land Area of Earth

The Earth's total land area is about 148 million km². However, much of this consists of deserts, mountains, and ice-covered regions. The habitable land area (including forests, grasslands, and arable land) is estimated to be about 104 million km² (or 40 million square miles).

Total Habitable Land Area = 104,000,000 km² = 104,000,000,000,000 m²           

2. Maximum Number of People Standing Shoulder-to-Shoulder

If each person occupies 0.1 m², then:

104,000,000,000,0000 / 0.1

=1.04 × 10¹⁵ = 1.04 quadrillion people

or 1,040 trillion people could theoretically fit on all habitable land if they stood tightly packed, shoulder-to-shoulder.

Step 3: Population Scenarios for Earth's Carrying Capacity

Even if people could physically fit, we must consider resources, food, water, and sustainability. Here’s what happens if the population keeps growing:

Scenario 1: 50 billion people

At 50 billion, Earth’s cities would be 10 times denser than today’s largest cities.

Food, water, and energy would become the biggest challenges.

Agricultural land would be converted into urban zones, making food production difficult.

Scenario 2: 100 billion people:

Housing would need to expand vertically into massive skyscrapers or underground cities.

Water shortages and food production would require advanced hydroponics, vertical farming, and desalination.

Global climate and biodiversity loss would be severe.

Scenario 3: 1 trillion people:

Even with extreme technology like synthetic food, fusion energy, and AI-controlled ecosystems, Earth would struggle.

Living conditions would be like a mega-arcology (giant, self-contained city).

Most natural ecosystems would be destroyed.

Scenario 4: 1.04 quadrillion people (Max Density)

The entire habitable land surface would be one giant crowd.

Zero land for food, water, or movement - humans would be standing still.

A completely un-liveable scenario.

A Conclusion:

Physically, we could fit over 1 quadrillion people standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the habitable land, but sustainable living would collapse long before that.

 A more realistic upper limit with advanced technology might be 100 billion people, but even that would be a stretch.

What then shall we do as potential solutions for future overpopulation, such as space colonization or deep-sea living? We also need to consider oxygen and food supply, waste disposal, energy requirement, water pressure problems among others

Deep-sea living is a fascinating but highly challenging concept. Let me  analyse the key requirements and challenges, as well as possible solutions.

1. Oxygen Supply

Challenge:

The ocean has limited dissolved oxygen, especially in deeper regions.

People need a continuous supply of oxygen, which cannot be naturally sustained in an underwater city.

Possible Solutions:

Electrolysis of seawater: Using electricity to split water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen.

Artificial oxygen farms: Using underwater algae or engineered microorganisms to generate oxygen.

Compressed air pipelines: Supplying oxygen from the surface through pipes or airlocks.

Nuclear submarines approach: Nuclear-powered oxygen generators (as used in submarines) could be used for long-term sustainability.

2. Food Supply

Challenge:

Traditional agriculture is impossible without light.

Transporting food from the surface is expensive and inefficient.

The deep ocean lacks natural food sources for humans.

Possible Solutions:

Hydroponic and aquaponic farming: Using LED grow lights powered by renewable energy for plant growth.

Fish and seafood farming: Large-scale aquaculture of deep-sea fish, seaweed, shellfish, and plankton.

Genetically engineered food sources: Lab-grown meat and algae-based proteins tailored for underwater conditions.

Harvesting deep-sea organisms: Exploring edible deep-sea creatures such as krill, jellyfish, and certain deep-sea fish.

3. Waste Disposal

Challenge:

Waste management is crucial in a closed environment.

Direct disposal into the ocean can disrupt ecosystems and lead to pollution.

Possible Solutions:

Closed-loop waste recycling: Converting waste into energy using biogas digestion or microbial fuel cells.

Deep-sea composting: Using bacteria to break down organic waste into reusable nutrients.

Water filtration and purification: Advanced filtration systems to recycle water continuously.

4. Energy Requirements

Challenge:

Solar energy is unavailable in the deep sea.

Traditional fossil fuels are impractical due to the need for constant resupply.

Possible Solutions:

Nuclear power: Small modular reactors (SMRs) could provide continuous energy.

Geothermal energy: Using underwater hydrothermal vents to generate power.

Wave and tidal energy: Harnessing the ocean currents to generate electricity.

Hydrogen fuel cells: Storing and using hydrogen generated from seawater electrolysis.

5. Water Pressure Problems

Challenge:

Pressure increases by 1 atmosphere (14.7 psi) for every 10 meters of depth.

At 1,000 meters, the pressure is 100 times greater than at the surface.

Possible Solutions:

Reinforced habitats: Building habitats from titanium alloys, carbon composites, or transparent acrylics (like submarine windows).

Pressure equalization: Keeping internal pressure similar to the surrounding water, similar to deep-sea diving suits.

Floating cities: Instead of being at extreme depths, habitats could be anchored at mid-depths (~200–500 meters) where pressures are more manageable.

6. Psychological and Social Challenges

Challenge:

Humans evolved to live with sunlight and open spaces.

Long-term isolation and confinement could cause depression, anxiety, and social instability.

Possible Solutions:

Artificial daylight simulation: Using full-spectrum lights to mimic natural sunlight.

Large, open communal spaces: Designing underwater domes with virtual sky projections.

Frequent rotations to the surface: Allowing people to alternate between underwater and surface life.

7. Structural Design of an Underwater City

Design Concepts:

Seafloor Cities: Large, pressurized habitats built on the ocean floor with energy and oxygen self-sufficiency.

Floating Underwater Cities: Suspended at 200–500 meters below the surface, tethered to floating platforms.

Bubble Cities in Giant Domes: Transparent domes creating enclosed, breathable environments underwater.

Mobile Submarine Cities: Self-sufficient underwater vessels that move with ocean currents.

Deep-sea living is possible, but it requires overcoming technological, physiological, and logistical challenges. The best approach would be a gradual transition, starting with offshore floating platforms, then semi-submerged habitats, and eventually, full-fledged underwater cities.

Shall we explore space colonization as an alternative, or should we refine any of these deep-sea ideas further? 

But at the moment as I write, I think it may be far easier for us to control our ever-expanding population than to do suggest all those almost unimageable solutions. 

The sheer complexity, cost, and engineering challenges of deep-sea (or even space) colonization make population control a far more practical solution. Humanity's future on Earth ultimately depends on political will, cultural attitudes, and our collective desire to balance growth with sustainability.

Furthermore, I don't think we have the resources to build all these structures just because we like to increase our population.  It is much easier to implement population control. But would countries like India and Islamic countries want that? At least in China that has the world's largest population, they used to have a one-child policy, but after China found their population in declined, they now allow 3 child policy to replace their parents.  China  one-child policy slowed population growth but later led to problems like an aging workforce. Now, they have shifted to a three-child policy due to declining birth rates.

The Challenge of Population Control:

However, countries like India and many Islamic nations may resist strict population control due to cultural, religious, and economic factors:

1. Religious and Cultural Beliefs: Many societies see having large families as a blessing or necessity.

2. Economic Dependence on Large Families: In some developing nations, children are seen as an economic asset rather than a burden.

3. Political Resistance: Governments may fear backlash from citizens if they impose birth limits.

The Future of Humanity: Key Factors for Survival are:

Resource Management: Efficient use of food, water, and energy will be crucial.

Technological Innovation: Advances in vertical farming, renewable energy, and smart cities could reduce the impact of population growth.

Education and Family Planning: Empowering people (especially women) with education and healthcare often leads to natural population decline.

Global Cooperation: Countries must work together rather than compete over dwindling resources.

If humanity does not control population growth, extreme solutions like deep-sea or space living may become necessary, not optional, but at an unimaginable cost. Do we think  governments will ever truly take global population control seriously, or will they wait until it's too late? The fate of humanity on this limited world of ours depends on political will and our desire to survive.

But I  think humanity will destroy itself politically through wars, political and social unrest, economic disruption, shortage of agricultural land for food, water fuel and energy supply, limited space for living, unemployment, congestion, pollution, climate change, earthquakes, floods, massive wild fires and other unpredictable destructive elements such as a massive asteroid smashing up this earth as it did to the dinosaurs that went extinct about 65 million years ago (at the end of the Cretaceous Period), after living on Earth for about 165 million years.

I don't think humanity can exist that long for us to start to explore and colonize other worlds, live under the seas or on the top of them in boats or other structures. Our unbecoming behaviour adverse to the existence of life would have long destroyed us. No other animal or life sharing this home with us do the same as we, basically and zoologically as human animals. No other animal sharing this world with us do things like we do.   

Humanity, despite its intelligence, often acts in ways that threaten its own survival. Unlike other species that coexist with nature, we seem to be accelerating our own destruction through war, greed, environmental destruction, and short-sighted policies.

The Self-Destruction Hypothesis

If we examine history, civilizations have collapsed due to:

• Political instability (wars, revolutions, corrupt governance)
• Resource depletion (food, water, energy crises)
• Climate change and natural disasters
• Economic failure (collapse of trade, unemployment, hyperinflation)
• Pandemics and bioweapons (plagues, engineered viruses)

The world today is facing all of these simultaneously, at an unprecedented scale. Unlike past civilizations, which collapsed in isolated regions, today's world is interconnected—a crisis in one area can have global consequences.

Colonization of Other Worlds: A Fantasy?

It is  questionable  whether humanity will even survive long enough to colonize space or the deep sea. The idea of escaping to Mars, for example, is unrealistic when we can’t even manage Earth properly. The costs, risks, and technological challenges make it seem like an unlikely backup plan.

A Race Against Time

At this rate, the real question is: Can we change before it's too late?

• Will we prioritize cooperation over conflict?
• Will we stop depleting the Earth's resources?
• Will we control our population and waste?

Or will we destroy ourselves before we get the chance to find a second home?

(I shall try to answer this dilemma of ours in Part 2 of this essay. Probably this article may stretch up to 5 or 6 parts? I do not know myself. I can only continue to write as my thoughts continues to flow).